The vibration that signals an incoming message or confirms a payment is a small part of our smartphone experience. Yet the technology responsible for that response was recently at the centre of a US$5.7 billion patent verdict against Apple, demonstrating the commercial significance of inventions embedded within a much larger product.

On 25 September 2026, a California jury found that Apple’s Taptic Engine infringed two patents held by Taction Technology, a company developing haptic technology for products including headphones and gaming headsets. Haptics enable users to experience physical feedback, such as the tapping sensation produced by an iPhone or Apple Watch. Apple disputes the verdict, maintains that its technology is fundamentally different and has announced that it will appeal.

For businesses developing and commercialising technology, the dispute raises questions about the scope of patent protection and the assessment of infringement risks within individual components.

Scope of the Invention

A patent’s claims define the protection afforded to an invention. Assessing infringement requires those claims to be interpreted and compared with the technology alleged to infringe them. Two products delivering a similar experience will not necessarily infringe the same patent; the enquiry concerns whether the accused technology falls within the scope of the claims.

The earlier proceedings between Taction and Apple illustrate the consequences of that interpretation. A district court initially granted judgment of non-infringement in Apple’s favour. In August 2025, however, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit set that judgment aside and returned the matter for further proceedings.

The appeal concerned, among other issues, the interpretation of “highly damped output”, a technical characteristic relevant to the patented haptic technology. The appellate court rejected restrictions that confined this characteristic to mechanical damping and imposed a particular numerical threshold. It also found fault with the exclusion of portions of Taction’s expert evidence.

The course of the litigation illustrates how technical language can influence the reach of patent protection. For an applicant, careful drafting helps ensure that the claims adequately capture the invention. For a business assessing a competing patent, understanding that language is essential to evaluating whether a proposed product falls within its scope.

The latest verdict remains subject to further proceedings. According to media reports, the jury did not find wilful infringement, and the award should not be characterised as a finding of deliberate copying. The amount ultimately recoverable also remains uncertain. Burford Capital, which has a financial interest in the litigation, has acknowledged that post-trial proceedings and appellate scrutiny could substantially alter the outcome.

Patent Protection and Commercial Freedom

For South African businesses, the territorial nature of patent rights is a necessary starting point. The US verdict does not establish infringement in South Africa. Any local claim would require enforceable South African patent rights and an assessment under South African law. Businesses exporting technology must similarly consider the rights in force in their intended markets.

Section 45 of the Patents Act 57 of 1978 grants a patentee the right to exclude others from specified activities involving the claimed invention, including making, using, exercising, disposing or offering to dispose of, or importing it. Exposure can therefore extend to importers and suppliers. Remedies under section 65 include an interdict, delivery up of infringing products and damages. In lieu of damages, a plaintiff may elect an amount calculated on the basis of a reasonable royalty.

Obtaining a patent does not, by itself, confer freedom to commercialise the patented invention. An improvement may qualify for patent protection while its implementation nevertheless falls within the scope of an earlier third-party patent. Patentability and freedom to operate therefore require separate consideration.

A freedom-to-operate assessment seeks to identify potentially relevant third-party rights and assess them against the proposed product, its intended use and the markets concerned. Undertaken during development, it can inform decisions about licensing, alternative designs and potential validity challenges before substantial investment makes changes more difficult.

The Apple dispute gives businesses reason to examine the inventions within their products as closely as the products themselves. Decisions about design, sourcing and expansion should be informed by the patent rights that could affect commercialisation, while inventors should consider how their protection will apply as their technology finds new uses.

KISCH IP Assists clients with patent searching, Freedom-to-operate assessments, patentability evaluations, portfolio management and strategic advice to help identify and manage intellectual property risks before commercialisation.