Haptic, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:24-cv-02296
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Haptic v. Apple, Judge Corley denied Apple’s request to pause the patent case while the Patent Trial and Appeal Board reviews the patent.
Haptic and Apple. The order leaves the patent litigation proceeding rather than pausing it, while allowing Apple to renew its request if the Patent Trial and Appeal Board institutes inter partes review.
What happened
Haptic, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. concerns Haptic’s allegation that Apple’s Back Tap feature infringes four claims of Haptic’s patent. Apple asked the court to pause the case while the Patent Trial and Appeal Board considers Apple’s challenges to the patent.
The court found that the case had already progressed substantially: the parties had completed significant discovery, exchanged extensive documents, filed claim-construction briefs, and had a trial date. The court also found that a pause could delay resolution and harm Haptic, including by affecting its fundraising and business operations.
Judge Corley denied Apple’s motion to stay without prejudice to renewal if the Patent Trial and Appeal Board institutes review. The patent litigation therefore was not paused by this order.
The detailed version
- Haptic, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. · No. 3:24-cv-02296
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Nov. 20, 2024
Background
Haptic alleges that Apple infringes four claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,996,738, which concerns a tap-based control system. Haptic alleges that Apple’s Back Tap feature, available on every iPhone model since the iPhone 8, infringes the patent. The feature allows a user to tap the back of an iPhone to perform functions on the phone and control other external devices.
Apple filed two petitions for inter partes review, or IPR, challenging all asserted claims. IPR is a proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to review patent validity. Apple then moved to stay, meaning pause, the district-court case while the Board considered those petitions.
The Court’s Analysis
The court applied a balancing test that considers the stage of the litigation, possible prejudice or tactical disadvantage to the party opposing the stay, and whether the Board’s review would simplify the issues and reduce the burden of litigation.
The stage of the litigation weighed against a stay. By the time Apple filed its motion, the parties had exchanged infringement, invalidity, and damages contentions; exchanged expert reports and written discovery; produced more than 555,000 pages; negotiated a protective order; and submitted opening and responsive claim-construction briefs. The court had also set a trial date for September 29, 2025.
The possible simplification of the case weighed slightly against a stay or was neutral. The court recognized that an IPR could help resolve patent-validity issues, but explained that filing an IPR petition does not itself simplify a case. The court also noted that, unlike cases involving multiple patents, this case involved only one independent claim from one patent, according to the court’s discussion.
Potential prejudice to Haptic weighed against a stay. If the Board instituted review, its final written decision was expected after the scheduled trial date. The court concluded that a stay could delay discovery and trial. Haptic also presented evidence that the ongoing litigation affected its product roadmap and growth, required it to withhold sensitive information from potential investors, impeded fundraising, and led its chief executive officer to pause drawing a salary and reduce the engineering staff.
Ruling
Judge Corley denied Apple’s motion to stay. The denial was without prejudice to renewal if the Patent Trial and Appeal Board institutes IPR review. The order disposed of Docket No. 114.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.