Apple Faces $5.7 Billion Patent Infringement Verdict Over iPhone And Apple Watch Haptics (cnbc.com) 44
"A federal jury in San Diego awarded Taction Technology more than $5.7 billion in damages Friday after finding that Apple infringed claims from two haptics patents,"
reports CNBC:
Taction sued Apple in 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The company alleged that Apple was improperly "capitalizing on Taction's innovation and success" by selling devices that infringed on its vibration technology, according to the complaint. Apple initially won dismissal in 2023, and the Federal Circuit later revived the case....
Taction argued that Apple's "Taptic Engine," which is embedded in its Apple Watches and iPhones, uses its inventions without proper license or authority.
Taction's lead counsel told CNBC "Taction waited five and a half years for this case to get to trial, so it was a long time coming."
CNBC also reported that the jury "did not find Apple's infringement willful" — and that Apple said they'd appeal.
Taction argued that Apple's "Taptic Engine," which is embedded in its Apple Watches and iPhones, uses its inventions without proper license or authority.
Taction's lead counsel told CNBC "Taction waited five and a half years for this case to get to trial, so it was a long time coming."
CNBC also reported that the jury "did not find Apple's infringement willful" — and that Apple said they'd appeal.
haptics history (Score:5, Informative)
Taction Technology is a San Diego-based audio technology company that was founded and incorporated around 2014. The Patents Involved in the Apple LawsuitThe high-profile patent infringement lawsuit centers on tactile transducer technology (utilizing dampening systems, magnets, and ferrofluid to handle low-frequency audio and haptic feedback). The foundational patents were created, filed, and issued within the following timeframes: U.S. Patent No. 10,659,885 ("Systems and methods for generating damped electromagnetically actuated planar motion for audio-frequency vibrations"): Filed on October 3, 2019, and officially issued on May 19, 2020.U.S. Patent No. 10,820,117: A closely related continuation patent sharing the same core technical specification, issued later in 2020.*(Note: Taction originally filed the federal lawsuit against Apple in 2021, which recently went to trial resulting in a major jury verdict.)
Now wait, when did Apple add haptics to the Apple Watch?
Apple's First Device with Haptics
Apple Watch (2014): Apple first introduced its proprietary Taction Engine (branded as the Taptic Engine) in the original Apple Watch released in late 2014 to simulate physical taps on the wrist.
iPhone 6s (2015): The technology was brought to the iPhone lineup the following year with the iPhone 6s and 6s Plus.
So Taptics didn't start operating as a company until the time Apple built haptics into the Apple Watch. And they didn't file for a patent until 5 years later. That's sus.
Sony: Released the DualShock controller for the original PlayStation in 1997, which introduced built-in dual eccentric rotating mass (ERM) motors to deliver rumble feedback. (Note: While Nintendo introduced the plug-in Rumble Pak accessory earlier in 1997, Sony's DualShock was the first mainstream controller to build native haptic motors directly into the standard hardware).
Microsoft: Included dual rumble motors right from its entry into the console market with the launch of the original Xbox ("The Duke" controller) in 2001.
So haptic technology had been around in popular gaming products for 17 years prior to the Apple Watch and 22 years prior to Taptics filing their patent.
Taptics is a patent troll. They can Fuck Right Off.
Re: (Score:2)
Taction / Taptics typos, sorry. I just got carried away because patent trolls suck.
Re:haptics history (Score:5, Informative)
And let the ignorance of the rounded corners patent show.
The rounded corners patent was a design patent. The Taction patent is a utility patent. If you don't know the difference, well, a utility patent is on something the thing does. A design patent is on something it looks like.
They are patents in that everything is AND - you must have something AND something AND something AND something ... If you lack one of those things, you are much more likely to win a patent lawsuit.
With that in mind, the Apple patent is simple - rounded corners, a tray with icons and a app selector that scrolls left and right. Samsung had that to a T. They literally copied the UI. Why didn't Apple go after Google? Because Google didn't. They had rounded corners, an app drawer at the bottom, BUT, not an app selector - because Android had widgets you could put up.on the screen. They had a separate app drawer that showed all the apps. Those two differences meant "rounded corners" patent wasn't valid on Android in general.
It's just like how the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit was much more than hot coffee and once you understand that, the lawsuit made much more sense. (McDonald's purposely sold overly hot coffee to save money on coffee grounds as it let them extract more coffee from them. They were told time and time again it was too hot to serve but they persisted. When it happened, the victim asked for a mere $30,000 for medical bills. But that was rejected, despite the fact that McDonald's paid out medical expenses for previous occurrences. And while she won millions, it was reduced on appeal to under a million dollars).
It's much more than rounded corners. It's literally Samsung redesigning the UI to match the iPhone in functionality. When Samsung lost, they basically added widgets to the screen which was enough to work around the patent. Eventually they decided to make TouchWiz their own.
Re: (Score:1)
You buttress my case. All that shows the absurdity of all patents, including design patents, that such trivial features are considered worthy of patent protection. There are only so many ways you can design a slab phone. When the degree of roundness and all those other trivial features become worthy of patents, and all those lawyers and such lengthy and inconclusive and partisan trials (7 years! Supreme Court! Opposite results in the US and South Korea!) Nothing was gained except enrichment of lawyers
Re: (Score:2)
You're first statement is false, in theory and in practice. There are only a limited number of ways to differentiate shapes within the manufacturing tolerances available, for starters. In the real world, designs which differ by the minimum possible manufacturing tolerances are not visibly different to people. In the real world, most theoretically possible designs are impractical. No one's going to buy or make phones with the fingerprint sensor in corners, or with cameras on the side. No one's going to
Re: (Score:1)
Apple copied everything about the form of the iPhone from others including the rounded corners and the launcher with rows of icons. The rounded corners patent was bad both because rounded corners are obvious and because they didn't make the first smartphone with rounded corners.
Re: (Score:2)
There used to be that phrase, something like "not obvious to those skilled in the arts". I have worked with people who had electrical engineering patents, and they were just ordinary work results. Even I understood them, in their basic aspects. I have read that a lot of metallurgy is just routine experimentation with slightly different ratios of chromium and nickel and other materials, and when one pans out, they patent. Nothing groundbreaking, just routine work.
But that's a pretty small sample size. I
Re: (Score:2)
I did once work up an idea for radical patent reform. A fun project. This is from memory and may be wrong in details.
A patent application includes several things:
* A complete description of how to make the product.
* A deadline for reproduction; the patent is valid at least this long.
* The royalty schedule.
If no one can reproduce the product by the deadline, there is no patent. If someone does make a copy, the time it took is multiplied by some factor to set the patent duration.
So the patent holder's incen
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, we’re just going to ignore trademarks, trade dress, and trade secrets are we? Very good, carry on
As for there *not* being an infinite number of ways of designing a slab phone, you’re a muppet. You think you’ve come up with counter-examples by showing that some designs are impractical, but that’s not a counter-argument. There’s an infinite number of ways to write a post on Slashdot, but most of them will be rubbish. Doesn’t mean that there aren’t also a huge numb
Re: (Score:2)
Trademarks first: they are unnecessary. Trying to pass off your product as someone else's is fraud, theft, whatever you want to call it. Publish someone else's book under your name? Fraud. Publish your content under a famous author's name? Fraud.
Trademark is just typical statist control freakery overkill. It adds nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
As for being a muppet, you lose. I DID come up with counter arguments. Your refusal to acknowledge them shows the paucity of your imagination and your argument. Stick to your insults, you're better at that.
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung copied Apples whole design including the icons, no other Android phone did that, Just Samsung.
The "rounded corners" would be like copying someones book and then claim they are trying to copyright words.
Re:haptics history (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:haptics history (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And they've still been rewarded for it. Oh no, they have to pay these guys $5B! They're still up hundreds of billions, and now they have a nice tax writeoff.
Who won here? The outside counsel lawyers, as always.
Re: (Score:3)
The old rumble pads just spun motors to vibrate the entire device. By today's tech they were sledge hammers compared to today's haptic scalpel.
Modern haptics is more than just a rumble, it is very concise feedback that can (nearly) simulate the very physical click of a physical button along with the click sound. The method to do this can be patented, just like there is fuel in
Re: (Score:2)
Also remember our patent system is about 'first to patent' and not 'first develop' They could be a troll or they could not, which is up to the courts and not you or me.
Which makes me wonder: Is there more to this? Or are some of the world's best paid lawyers working for the world's wealthiest company simply incompetent? It's hard to think Apple just fucked up and didn't patent a key invention of theirs, and hard to think that they didn't follow all avenues to invalidate the plaintiff's patent.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. I tried to figure this out and hit a wall of new stories with no answers.
Re: (Score:2)
While you're right about the patent trolling, there's more to this than "Thing go brzzztt!". What happens in a watch has zero to do patent wise with what is going on in controllers. They are fundamentally different, covered under different patents, ... and had it's own patent lawsuit back 20 years ago (which Sony lost by the way).
That's nothing (Score:2)
My cousin, who is a prof at a rather well-known higher education institution in pensylvania, still hasn't filed his patent infringment lawsuit against tech giants, car manufacturers and pretty much everyone else for using his invention without permission for - wait for it - being too ashamed that it would bring undue attention and unwanted public spotlight burden on said higher education institution! The invention is used by pretty much everyone every day, be it at home, in a car or on foot. So apple, pay t
Re: (Score:2)
Considering he filed and obtained the patent, instead of file-and-abandon which secure it in prior art, I find it hard to believe they don't want to pursue commercial interest .. but OK.
I guess you can't tell us which patent because it would be like doxxing him.
Re: That's nothing (Score:2)
The institition is too loaded to care about proving a point. The patent in question was first used in space is all I'll say. No, not a microwave as Tyson puts it. Just sit in your car and you'll see at least 1 or 2.
Re: (Score:3)
Windows! He patented Windows!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, MY uncle was an MIT prof for decades, that make me smart. It's part of the sideways gene movement of IQ Theory.
Re: sam (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pathetic partisanship. Obama intentionally executed American citizens by drone without criminal charges or trials. Biden doubled down on Trump 1.0's tariffs, and no one knows who was actually running things for at least his last several years of senility. Bush Jr. started two wars for no reason. Clinton had his own little military adventures. It goes on as far back as you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice lies about raping a girl. Don't forget Trump snitched to the FBI about Epstein, Clinton did not. Biden showered with his daughter and delighted in sniffing girls' hair.
Re: That's nothing (Score:1)
hmm (Score:2)
On the one hand, patent troll. On the other, Apple has spent the past 50 years stealing ideas from everyone so hard to feel too bad.
5.7 billion when determiend to not be wilful? (Score:2)
It doesn't seem like companies should be hit that hard for an accidental infringement. I am sure Apple has the money but that shouldn't matter really.
Re: (Score:2)
This is another stupid patent; but even if they were not bad actors, the fine needs to be big enough to be a real deterrent. Apple is HUGE. I'd not be surprised if they don't get it reduced in court in a few years and obviously everybody tries because it costs nothing to send a law firm after a few billion $$$ in savings at the reduction. or save all of it, if they bribe the right judge in Texas.
Difficult. (Score:2)
I'm having a hard time understanding how "Haptics" can be worth 5.7 billion without imagining Dr. Evil biting his pinky.
Haptics (Score:2)
Technology a century old.