On September 25, A San Diego jury told Apple that it owes more than $5.7 billion for infringing two patents covering the vibration engine used in iPhone and Apple Watch models. It is the largest patent verdict in U.S. history, more than double any prior award in a patent case, and it went to Taction Technology, Inc., a small gaming headset company that few had heard of before this case.
The patents cover devices that produce bass-frequency vibrations for haptic feedback. The feature is only one component of a much larger device, which is what makes the figure notable: a modest per-unit royalty applied across hundreds of millions of units produces a very large number. Post-trial motions and an appeal are certain, and verdicts of this magnitude are often reduced. But it is still an eye-opening number that promises to embolden patent owners.
Two background trends help explain how a small company got here.
Validity challenges are harder to get heard at the USPTO
Apple filed four petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against the asserted patents, but the USPTO refused to review the patents. The USPTO now bifurcates institution of IPRs: discretionary considerations are addressed first, and only petitions that clear that stage are evaluated on the merits. Institution fell from roughly 65 percent in October 2024 to roughly 37 percent in February 2026, with most denials coming at the discretionary stage. A memorandum issued by the USPTO in March 2026, clarified several considerations that favor patent owners and domestic manufacturing.
Challenges to the USPTO discretionary denial framework have so far not succeeded. In Apple Inc. v. Squires, decided February 13, 2026 (a case unrelated to today’s verdict), the Federal Circuit held that the USPTO’s NHK-Fintiv rule is a general statement of policy exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking, observing that the statute creates no entitlement to institution. Thus, for now invalidity defenses are more likely to be tried to a jury, under a clear-and-convincing standard, in the same proceeding that decides damages. But the USPTO’s policy is up for review and might not survive unchanged for long: as of September 2026, Tesla, Inc. v. Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC and Intel Corp. v. Squires are pending before the Supreme Court, both asking whether the USPTO's discretionary denial framework, including Fintiv's time-to-trial factor, is subject to judicial review. A grant of certiorari could reopen the question of how much deference the USPTO’s framework deserves.
Litigation funding can sustain a long campaign
Taction litigated for five years, through an adverse summary judgment ruling and a reversal at the Federal Circuit, with financing from Kenosha Investments LP and Gronostaj Investments LLC — funds affiliated with Burford Capital. Arrangements of this kind reduce the resource asymmetry that once made attrition an effective defense for large companies. That kind of financing is also drawing new scrutiny: the U.S. International Trade Commission proposed a rule in April 2026 that would require disclosure of third-party litigation funding in Section 337 investigations, and similar disclosure mandates are being pushed in Congress and considered in the federal courts' own rulemaking process. It remains to be seen whether any such changes will have much effect on infringement litigation.
Together, a validity gauntlet that is harder to clear and financing that can sustain a multi-year campaign help explain how a small company secured the largest patent verdict in U.S. history. It will be interesting to see how patent litigation evolves in the wake of this decision.
This article is provided for informational purposes only—it does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the firm and the reader. Readers should consult legal counsel before taking action relating to the subject matter of this article.
