[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"branding":3,"analytics":7,"article-taction-wants-more-than-apples-57b-haptics-verdict":10,"sections":45},{"siteName":4,"siteTagline":5,"publisherName":4,"contactEmail":6},"The Revision","Tech news, decoded.","editor@therevision.news",{"gaMeasurementId":8,"adsenseClientId":9},"G-ZW2MV82GYR","ca-pub-8533917693782264",{"article":11},{"id":12,"slug":13,"title":14,"dek":15,"body_md":16,"tags_json":17,"published_at":18,"created_at":19,"updated_at":20,"status":21,"review_note":22,"review_notes":23,"image_url":22,"persona_id":22,"persona_name":22,"section":34,"tags":35,"sources":40,"feedback":44,"feedback_at":22,"cost_usd":44,"total_tokens":44},11981,"taction-wants-more-than-apples-57b-haptics-verdict","Taction Wants More Than Apple's $5.7B Haptics Verdict","Taction asked a federal judge to add interest, six more months of sales and royalties through 2035 to the $5.7 billion award over Apple's Taptic Engine.","Apple's $5.7 billion patent bill could grow. Taction Technology has asked a federal judge for additional damages, interest and royalties on future iPhone and Apple Watch sales.\n\nThe request follows a September jury verdict that Apple's Taptic Engine, the component behind the taps and vibrations in its devices, infringed two Taction haptic-feedback patents. Apple disputes the verdict and is asking the court to overturn it or order a new trial. It argues the evidence did not support the $5.7 billion calculation and has said it will appeal.\n\nAccording to Reuters reporting on Taction's filing, the award covers sales from 2021 through late March 2026. Taction wants compensation for roughly six more months of sales the jury did not calculate. It also wants interest at 7% a year, citing California law, which Reuters reported could add hundreds of millions of dollars. For scale, one year of 7% on $5.7 billion is about $399 million, though the filing's interest period was not specified. Taction also wants interest to keep accruing after final judgment until Apple pays.\n\nThe larger ask is forward-looking. Taction wants royalties on devices using the technology until the patents expire on September 24, 2035. Apple would report U.S. sales each quarter and pay within 30 days of quarter-end. Taction says the iPhone 18 Pro and Apple Watch Series 12 should be covered because their relevant technology has not changed enough to escape the patents.\n\nTo back that up, Taction points to Apple's earlier case against Samsung, where Apple argued that royalties should reach newer products with essentially the same infringing technology. Using a litigant's own argument against it is a familiar tactic. Whether this judge finds it persuasive, and whether any of it survives Apple's challenge to the verdict, is still undecided.","[\"apple\",\"patents\",\"haptics\",\"litigation\"]","2026-10-21T03:24:11.000Z","2026-10-21T04:07:56.814Z","2026-10-21T04:07:57.019Z","published",null,[24,30],{"id":25,"reviewer":26,"round":27,"reason":28,"status":29},"editor-r1","editor",1,"The timeline doesn't hold together: a 'September' verdict covering sales 'through late March 2026' is undated, and the draft never says which year or how the jury could award damages through a date that seems to postdate the verdict, so state the verdict year and reconcile it with the sales period or drop the unsupported framing; also attribute the filing details to the underlying reporting (Reuters via MacRumors) rather than presenting them as independently verified, and don't present the 'hund","resolved",{"id":31,"reviewer":26,"round":32,"reason":33,"status":29},"editor-r2",2,"Still fails editor-r1: the source says only 'a September jury verdict,' so 'September 2026' is an inferred year, and the claim that the gap exists 'because the jury priced a sales period that ended months before' the verdict is the writer's speculation. Drop or properly support both, and attribute the filing details and the 'hundreds of millions' interest estimate explicitly to Reuters reporting via MacRumors instead of the vague 'as reported from Taction's filing' and 'the reporting says'.","policy",[36,37,38,39],"apple","patents","haptics","litigation",[41],{"name":42,"url":43},"MacRumors","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.macrumors.com\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F20\u002Fapple-could-owe-more-after-patent-verdict\u002F",0,{"sections":46},[47,52,57,61,66,71,76,81,86,91,96,101,106,111],{"name":48,"slug":49,"count":50,"latest_published_at":51},"AI","ai",7045,"2026-10-20T21:25:22.000Z",{"name":53,"slug":54,"count":55,"latest_published_at":56},"Security","security",1022,"2026-10-20T20:25:00.000Z",{"name":58,"slug":34,"count":59,"latest_published_at":60},"Policy",555,"2026-10-21T04:57:09.000Z",{"name":62,"slug":63,"count":64,"latest_published_at":65},"Deals","deals",538,"2026-10-20T20:17:07.000Z",{"name":67,"slug":68,"count":69,"latest_published_at":70},"Hardware","hardware",272,"2026-10-20T22:38:24.000Z",{"name":72,"slug":73,"count":74,"latest_published_at":75},"Consumer Tech","consumer-tech",257,"2026-10-20T22:30:00.000Z",{"name":77,"slug":78,"count":79,"latest_published_at":80},"Science","science",209,"2026-10-20T21:02:53.000Z",{"name":82,"slug":83,"count":84,"latest_published_at":85},"Startups","startups",137,"2026-10-20T22:24:15.000Z",{"name":87,"slug":88,"count":89,"latest_published_at":90},"Software","software",134,"2026-10-20T14:57:15.000Z",{"name":92,"slug":93,"count":94,"latest_published_at":95},"Dev Tools","dev-tools",119,"2026-10-20T13:00:00.000Z",{"name":97,"slug":98,"count":99,"latest_published_at":100},"General","general",91,"2026-10-20T23:04:19.000Z",{"name":102,"slug":103,"count":104,"latest_published_at":105},"Gaming","gaming",84,"2026-10-21T02:56:30.000Z",{"name":107,"slug":108,"count":109,"latest_published_at":110},"Reviews","reviews",38,"2026-10-20T12:00:00.000Z",{"name":112,"slug":113,"count":114,"latest_published_at":115},"How-To","how-to",8,"2026-10-05T09:00:00.000Z"]