Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
TACTION TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-2349
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California in No. 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-
JLB, Judge Todd W. Robinson.
______________________
Decided: August 13, 2025
______________________
J OHN BASH , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
LLP, Austin, TX, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also rep-
resented by SEAN S. P AK, San Francisco, CA; G AVIN
SNYDER, Seattle, WA; SCOTT L AMAR COLE, Reichman
Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, Austin, TX.
MELANIE L. BOSTWICK, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also
represented by ABIGAIL COLELLA; SAMANTHA MICHELLE
L EFF , New York, NY; ELIZABETH MOULTON, San Francisco,
Case: 23-2349 Document: 62 Page: 1 Filed: 08/13/2025

-- 1 of 15 --

TACTION TECHNOLOGY , INC. v. APPLE INC. 2
CA; J EFFREY T. Q UILICI, Austin, TX; ROGER A. D ENNING,
CHRISTOPHER MARCHESE , SETH MC CARTHY SPROUL , J OHN
WINSTON T HORNBURGH , Fish & Richardson PC, San Diego,
CA.
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, CHEN, Circuit Judge, and
BARNETT , Judge.1
MOORE, Chief Judge.
Taction Technology, Inc. (Taction) appeals the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Califor-
nia’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of
claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,659,885 and claims 1–17
of U.S. Patent No. 10,820,117 (asserted claims). For the
following reasons, we vacate and remand for further pro-
ceedings.
BACKGROUND
Taction owns the related ’885 and ’117 patents, which
share a common specification and relate “to tactile trans-
ducers that produce bass frequency vibrations for percep-
tion by touch.” ’885 patent at 1:20–21. Each asserted claim
requires damping the moving portion. Claim 1 of the ’885
patent is representative.
1. An apparatus for imparting motion to the skin of
a user, the apparatus comprising:
a housing;
a plurality of coils capable of carrying electrical
current;
1 Honorable Mark A. Barnett, Chief Judge, United
States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
Case: 23-2349 Document: 62 Page: 2 Filed: 08/13/2025

-- 2 of 15 --

TACTION TECHNOLOGY , INC. v. APPLE INC. 3
a plurality of magnets arranged in operative prox-
imity to the plurality of coils;
a moving portion comprising an inertial mass and
the plurality of magnets;
a suspension comprising a plurality of flexures that
guides the moving portion in a planar motion with
respect to the housing and the plurality of conduc-
tive coils;
wherein movement of the moving portion is
damped by a ferrofluid in physical contact with at
least the moving portion; and
wherein the ferrofluid reduces at least a mechanical
resonance within the frequency range of 40-200 Hz
in response to electrical signals applied to the plu-
rality of conductive coils.
Taction sued Apple Inc. (Apple), alleging certain iPh-
one and Apple Watch products (accused products) with
haptics technology2 infringe the asserted claims. J.A. 361–
91. During claim construction, the district court concluded
the asserted claims are limited to “transducers with highly
damped output” and do not include “un-damped linear res-
onant actuators” based on disclaimers. J.A. 13.
Apple moved for summary judgment of noninfringe-
ment. J.A. 4023–52. The district court granted Apple’s
motion on two grounds. J.A. 40–81. First, the court struck
the infringement opinions of Taction’s expert, Dr. James
Oliver, for the “highly damped output” limitation because
his opinions contained a new theory in violation of local pa-
tent rules and improperly argued claim construction.
2 Haptics refers to the science of enabling interaction
with technology through the sense of touch, including, for
example, using vibrations. J.A. 2; Taction Br. 2; Apple
Br. 1.
Case: 23-2349 Document: 62 Page: 3 Filed: 08/13/2025

-- 3 of 15 --

TACTION TECHNOLOGY , INC. v. APPLE INC. 4
J.A. 49–63. The court then concluded that without the
stricken testimony Taction had no viable claim of infringe-
ment. J.A. 62–63.
Second, the district court held, even if Dr. Oliver’s in-
fringement opinions were not struck, the accused products
do not meet the “highly damped output” limitation based
on its revised construction of “highly damped output.”
J.A. 63–81. In the summary judgment order, the court re-
vised its construction of “highly damped output” to mean
(1) “the output of the transducer is highly damped (i.e., the
output is substantially uniform or flat over the normal op-
erating frequency range of the device)”3; (2) “that highly
damped output is achieved by mechanical damping”; and
(3) “the transducer has a Q-factor4 of less than 1.5.”
J.A. 77–78; see also J.A. 63–78. The court held no reason-
able juror could find infringement because the accused
products have a Q-factor greater than 1.5 and “Dr. Oliver
fails to provide any specific opinion that the mechanical
damping in the accused products is itself sufficient to
achieve a highly damped output.” J.A. 78–81. Taction ap-
peals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
D ISCUSSION
Taction argues summary judgment was improper un-
der both grounds because the district court abused its dis-
cretion by striking Dr. Oliver’s infringement opinions, and
it erred in construing the asserted claims. Taction Br. 31–
73. We agree as to both.
3 Taction does not appeal this construction.
4 The parties agree a quality factor (Q-factor) is a
well-known parameter that describes how damped an os-
cillator is relative to its mass, where an oscillator with a Q-
factor greater than 0.5 is underdamped, less than 0.5 is
overdamped, and equal to 0.5 is critically damped. Taction
Br. 9, 60; Apple Br. 9.
Case: 23-2349 Document: 62 Page: 4 Filed: 08/13/2025

-- 4 of 15 --

TACTION TECHNOLOGY , INC. v. APPLE INC. 5
We review a grant of summary judgment under the law
of the regional circuit, here the Ninth Circuit. Adasa Inc.
v. Avery Dennison Corp., 55 F.4th 900, 907 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
The Ninth Circuit “review[s] the district court’s grant of
summary judgment de novo, determining whether, viewing
all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party, there are any genuine issues of material fact and
whether the district court correctly applied the relevant
substantive law.” Id. (quoting Kraus v. Presidio Tr. Facil-
ities Div./Residential Mgmt. Branch, 572 F.3d 1039, 1043–
44 (9th Cir. 2009)).
I. Dr. Oliver’s Infringement Opinions
We review a district court’s decision to strike an expert
report under the law of the regional circuit, here the Ninth
Circuit, which reviews for abuse of discretion. Treehouse
Avatar LLC v. Valve Corp., 54 F.4th 709, 713–14 (Fed. Cir.
2022). We review a district court’s interpretation and en-
forcement of local patent rules for abuse of discretion, de-
termining “whether (1) the decision was clearly
unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) the decision was
based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) the court’s
findings were clearly erroneous; or (4) the record contains
no evidence upon which the court rationally could have
based its decision.” SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods., Inc.,
415 F.3d 1278, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Genentech,
Inc. v. Amgen, Inc., 289 F.3d 761, 774 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
Taction’s infringement contentions identify the “Taptic
Engines” in the accused products as “transducers with
highly damped output,” explain that the frequency re-
sponse in the Taptic Engine is controlled by a “closed loop
software controller,” and map the Taptic Engine’s fer-
rofluid to the “damped by a ferrofluid” limitation.
J.A. 3751; J.A. 3777. Dr. Oliver opined a “highly damped
output” is one that is “generally uniform or flat” and the
Taptic Engine in the accused products satisfies the “highly
damped output” requirement because “the closed loop
Case: 23-2349 Document: 62 Page: 5 Filed: 08/13/2025

-- 5 of 15 --

TACTION TECHNOLOGY , INC. v. APPLE INC. 6
control system combined with the damping provided by fer-
rofluid produces a generally uniform frequency response.”
J.A. 4187 ¶ 608, 4198 ¶ 618 (Oliver Rpt.).
The district court struck Dr. Oliver’s opinions because
it found they were based on a new infringement theory Tac-
tion had not disclosed in its infringement contentions—the
combination of the Taptic Engine’s closed loop control sys-
tem and ferrofluid satisfies the “highly damped output”
limitation. J.A. 49–63. The court held this violated Local
Patent Rule 3.1(c), which requires a “chart identifying spe-
cifically where each element of each asserted claim is found
within each Accused Instrumentality.” J.A. 50 (emphasis
added). The court explained Rule 3.1(c) includes an un-
written “how” requirement that Taction’s infringement
contentions failed to satisfy because Taction did not suffi-
ciently explain how the accused products satisfy the
“highly damped output” requirement (i.e., via combination
of the Taptic Engine’s closed loop controller and ferrofluid).
J.A. 56–57.5 The court also struck Dr. Oliver’s infringe-
ment opinions regarding the “highly damped output” limi-
tation because they constituted an improper attempt to
5 Neither party disputes that Taction’s infringement
contentions meet the “where” requirement, and the district
court did not hold otherwise. Taction Br. 68–70; Apple
Br. 37–38; J.A. 49–57. Additionally, neither party disputes
that the district court found Dr. Oliver’s infringement the-
ories “new” for the same reason it found Taction’s conten-
tions failed to disclose “how” the accused products satisfy
the limitation. See J.A. 57 (“Taction failed to provide the
requisite ‘how’ in its final infringement contentions, which
is why the opinions at issue in Dr. Oliver’s expert report
constitute an improper new theory of infringement in vio-
lation of the Court’s Patent Local Rules.” (emphasis
added)).
Case: 23-2349 Document: 62 Page: 6 Filed: 08/13/2025

-- 6 of 15 --

TACTION TECHNOLOGY , INC. v. APPLE INC. 7
argue claim construction to the jury based on a construc-
tion Taction had waived.6 J.A. 60–63.
Taction argues the district court abused its discretion
by striking Dr. Oliver’s infringement opinions. Taction
Br. 66–73. We agree. The court’s interpretation of Rule
3.1(c) as including an unwritten “how” requirement was ar-
bitrary and improperly reads in a requirement that has no
support in the plain language of the rule. The district court
also fails to show there is a common practice in the South-
ern District of California requiring plaintiffs to meet an un-
written “how” requirement such that Taction was on
notice. The district court relied on an unpublished order
from a magistrate judge to show Rule 3.1(c) requires a
plaintiff to satisfy both “where” and “how” requirements.
J.A. 50, 56, 57 n.4 (citing Ameranth, Inc. v. Pizza Hut, Inc.,
No. 12-cv-1627-JLS-NLS, 2013 WL 3894880, at *8 (S.D.
Cal. July 26, 2013)). Ameranth, however, is not binding in
the Southern District of California and relied on cases from
the Northern District of California to conclude Rule 3.1(c)
includes a “how” requirement. Ameranth, 2013 WL
3894880, at *8. But, unlike Rule 3.1(c), the corresponding
local rule in the Northern District of California requires the
plaintiff to identify “specifically where and how each limi-
tation of each asserted claim is found within each Accused
Instrumentality.” J.A. 57 n.4 (emphasis in original).
Ameranth, therefore, fails to show Taction was on notice
that Rule 3.1(c) includes an unwritten “how” requirement.
We therefore hold it was an abuse of discretion for the
6 The allegedly waived claim construction is that “a
person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would understand the
phrase ‘highly damped output’ ‘as an output that is gener-
ally uniform or flat over the normal operating frequency
range of the device in question.’” J.A. 61.
Case: 23-2349 Document: 62 Page: 7 Filed: 08/13/2025

-- 7 of 15 --

TACTION TECHNOLOGY , INC. v. APPLE INC. 8
district court to strike Dr. Oliver’s opinions based on an un-
written “how” requirement in Rule 3.1(c).7
The district court’s alternative reason for striking Dr.
Oliver’s opinions—that Dr. Oliver improperly argued claim
construction based on a construction Taction waived—was
also an abuse of discretion. The district court cites three
paragraphs in Dr. Oliver’s report when discussing the im-
proper claim construction. J.A. 60–63 (citing J.A. 3543–47
at ¶¶ 605–07). At most, this supports striking those offend-
ing paragraphs, not other portions of the report where Dr.
Oliver discusses the “highly damped output” limitation.
See, e.g., J.A. 4183–4207 (showing a portion of Dr. Oliver’s
opinions on “highly damped output,” which cover at least
¶¶ 602–27). Moreover, given Dr. Oliver opined that a
skilled artisan would have understood “highly damped out-
put” to mean “an output that is generally uniform or flat”
and the district court revised its construction of “highly
damped output” in the summary judgment order to mean
just that, it was unreasonable for the district court to strike
his opinions. Compare J.A. 61 (Dr. Oliver stating “highly
damped output” means “an output that is generally uni-
form or flat over the normal operating frequency range of
the device”), with J.A. 68–70 (district court construing
“highly damped output” to mean “the output of the trans-
ducer is highly damped (i.e., the output is substantially
uniform or flat over the normal operating frequency range
of the device)”). We hold it was an abuse of discretion to
strike Dr. Oliver’s opinions on the “highly damped output”
based on the district court’s alternative claim construction
argument.
7 We do not hold that a district court is precluded
from adding a requirement that is not in the local rules.
Here, however, the parties were not on notice of the re-
quirement and did not have an opportunity to comply.
Case: 23-2349 Document: 62 Page: 8 Filed: 08/13/2025

-- 8 of 15 --

TACTION TECHNOLOGY , INC. v. APPLE INC. 9
II. Claim Construction
“We review a district court’s ultimate claim construc-
tion and its interpretations of intrinsic evidence de novo
and any subsidiary fact findings about extrinsic evidence
for clear error.” Forest Lab’ys, LLC v. Sigmapharm Lab’ys,
LLC, 918 F.3d 928, 932–33 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Absent lexi-
cography or disclaimer, claim terms are generally given
their plain and ordinary meanings to a skilled artisan
when read in the context of the specification and prosecu-
tion history. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Taction argues the district court legally erred in con-
struing the asserted claims as limited (1) to “transducers
with highly damped output”; (2) “that highly damped out-
put is achieved by mechanical damping”; and (3) “the trans-
ducer has a Q-factor of less than 1.5.” Taction Br. 31–66.
We agree with the district court that the asserted claims
are limited to “transducers with highly damped output” but
do not agree “highly damped” is limited to mechanical
damping or that it requires a Q-factor of less than 1.5.
A. “highly damped output”
The district court limited the asserted claims to “trans-
ducers with highly damped output” based on prosecution
history disclaimer. J.A. 12–13. Taction argues the district
court’s construction is erroneous. Taction Br. 31–50. We
do not agree.
Prosecution history disclaimer requires clear and un-
mistakable surrendering of claim scope. 3M Innovative
Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
2013). During prosecution of U.S. Patent Application No.
15/222,394, which is the parent to both the ’885 and ’117
patents, the patentee stated: “Applicant’s invention, in con-
trast, is directed to transducers with highly damped out-
put.” J.A. 1050. This is a clear and unmistakable
disclaimer.
Case: 23-2349 Document: 62 Page: 9 Filed: 08/13/2025

-- 9 of 15 --

TACTION TECHNOLOGY , INC. v. APPLE INC. 10
First, the statement makes clear the invention is lim-
ited to transducers with highly damped output. Hill-Rom
Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (explaining that disclaimer requires the prosecution
history make clear the invention is limited to a particular
form). Second, the statement mirrors language we have
previously held constitutes disclaimer. Luminara World-
wide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co., 814 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (“We have found disavowal or disclaimer based
on clear and unmistakable statements by the patentee that
limit the claims, such as ‘the present invention in-
cludes . . .’ or ‘the present invention is . . .’ or ‘all embodi-
ments of the present invention are . . . .’”). Third, the
disclaimer applies to the ’885 and ’117 patents. It is well-
settled that disclaimer applies to patents in the same fam-
ily when the disclaimer relates “to the same subject matter
as the claim language at issue.” Ormco Corp. v. Align
Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Here, the
disclaimer was made when the patentee was addressing
claim 15 in the parent ’394 application, which includes sim-
ilar claim language and addresses the same subject matter
as the asserted claims. Compare J.A. 1061–62 (claim 15),
with ’885 patent at claim 1.
Taction argues the disclaimer should not apply to the
’885 and ’117 patents because claim 15 of the ’394 applica-
tion is materially different from the asserted claims given
that claim 15 does not include damping by a ferrofluid.
Taction Br. 45–47. We do not agree. Identicality in claim
language is not required for disclaimer to flow through a
family. See, e.g., Ormco, 498 F.3d at 1314. Here, claim 15
of the ’394 application and the asserted claims relate to the
same subject matter—“tactile transducers that produce
bass frequency vibrations for perception by touch,” ’885 pa-
tent at 1:20–21; J.A. 2419 at 1:23–24—and have many
overlapping limitations, including that the “moveable
member” or “moving portion” is damped over a frequency
Case: 23-2349 Document: 62 Page: 10 Filed: 08/13/2025

-- 10 of 15 --

TACTION TECHNOLOGY , INC. v. APPLE INC. 11
range of 40-200 Hz.8 This is sufficient for the disclaimer to
apply to the asserted claims. Ormco, 498 F.3d at 1314.
Moreover, the disclaimer was not made as to a particular
form of damping; rather, it was made as to damping in the
context of the invention being claimed generally.
J.A. 1050. This supports the conclusion that it applies to
the ’885 and ’117 patents, which include similar damping
limitations as claim 15 of the ’394 application.
B. “mechanical damping”
The district court revised its construction of “transduc-
ers with highly damped output” to require “that the highly
damped output be achieved by mechanical damping,”
thereby limiting the asserted claims to mechanical damp-
ing. J.A. 70–73. Taction argues the district court’s con-
struction is erroneous. Taction Br. 50–57. We agree.
8 Claim 15 of the ’394 application claims a system for
imparting vibrations that comprises “at least one conduc-
tive coil,” “at least one magnet arranged in operative prox-
imity to the coil,” “a movable member,” and “a suspension
consisting of a plurality of flexures that guide the movable
member . . . wherein the movable member is
damped . . . over the frequency range of 40-200 Hz.”
J.A. 1061–62. Like claim 15, the asserted claims claim an
apparatus for imparting motion to a user that comprises “a
plurality of coils capable of carrying electrical current,” “a
plurality of magnets arranged in operative proximity to the
plurality of coils,” “a moving portion,” and “a suspension
comprising a plurality of flexures that guides the moving
portion . . . wherein the movement of the moving portion is
damped . . . within the frequency range of 40-200 Hz.” See,
e.g., ’885 patent at claim 1.
Case: 23-2349 Document: 62 Page: 11 Filed: 08/13/2025

-- 11 of 15 --

TACTION TECHNOLOGY , INC. v. APPLE INC. 12
“We depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of
claim terms based on the specification in only two in-
stances: lexicography and disavowal.” Hill-Rom, 755 F.3d
at 1371 (citing Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365). Here, the dis-
trict court did not construe the term according to its plain
and ordinary meaning, nor did it rely on lexicography or
disavowal. J.A. 70–73. Rather, it held the claims are lim-
ited to mechanical damping because the specification does
not disclose any type of non-mechanical damping. This was
erroneous because it improperly reads a limitation from
the specification into the claims absent lexicography or dis-
avowal. Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d
1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“‘It is not enough that the only
embodiments, or all of the embodiments, contain a partic-
ular limitation’ to limit a claim term beyond its ordinary
meaning.” (cleaned up) (quoting Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N.
Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002))).
The district court’s construction also contradicts the in-
trinsic record. The “transducers with highly damped out-
put” limitation is silent as to how damping is achieved and
is based on a disclaimer made during prosecution of claim
15 of the ’394 application. Supra § II.A. Claim 15, like the
disclaimer itself, does not require any particular type of
damping. J.A. 1062 (“wherein the motion of the movable
member is damped to reduce the Q-factor of the vibration
module”). The specification discloses types of mechanical
damping but is broad enough to encompass non-mechani-
cal damping. ’885 patent at 4:6–9 (“vibration of the moving
portion may be damped using a suitable approach” (empha-
sis added)). The specification also repeatedly refers to
damping without indicating a specific type of damping. Id.
at Title, Abstract, 3:53–58, 7:4–6. Because there is no lex-
icography or disavowal, and the intrinsic record does not
support a construction limiting the type of damping for the
“highly damped output” limitation, we conclude the district
court’s construction is erroneous.
Case: 23-2349 Document: 62 Page: 12 Filed: 08/13/2025

-- 12 of 15 --

TACTION TECHNOLOGY , INC. v. APPLE INC. 13
C. “Q-factor of less than 1.5”
The district court revised its claim constructions by
limiting the asserted claims to transducers having a “Q-
factor of less than 1.5” based on disavowal in the specifica-
tion. J.A. 73–77. Taction argues the district court’s con-
struction is erroneous. Taction Br. 57–66. We agree.
The standard for disavowal is exacting and requires
the specification to clearly and unmistakably show the in-
vention does not include a particular feature. Openwave
Sys., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 808 F.3d 509, 513 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
“To find disavowal of claim scope through disparagement
of a particular feature, we ask whether ‘the specification
goes well beyond expressing the patentee’s preference such
that its repeated derogatory statements about a particular
embodiment reasonably may be viewed as a disavowal.’”
Id. (cleaned up) (quoting Chicago Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v.
Int’l Sec. Exch., LLC, 677 F.3d 1361, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
The district court concluded there is disavowal because
the specification disparages prior art transducers by de-
scribing (1) a Q-factor of 1.5 to 3 as a “drawback” and (2) a
“high Q-factor” as “useless.” J.A. 74–75 (citing ’885 patent
at 2:31–34, 2:63–67). The relevant disclosures in the spec-
ification relied on by the district court state:
Such a high Q-factor renders this sort of device use-
less for high fidelity reproduction of low frequency
tactile effects in the 15-120 Hz range. . . . Another
drawback of this approach was that no provision
was made for critically damping those transducers.
Accordingly, the tactile acceleration frequency re-
sponse was underdamped, with a claimed Q-factor
of 1.5 to 3.
’885 patent at 2:31–34, 2:63–67 (emphases added).
The first disclosure does not clearly and unmistakably
disparage a transducer with a Q-factor of 1.5 to 3 because
it does not identify a numerical range for a “high” and/or a
Case: 23-2349 Document: 62 Page: 13 Filed: 08/13/2025

-- 13 of 15 --

TACTION TECHNOLOGY , INC. v. APPLE INC. 14
“useless” Q-factor. ’885 patent at 2:31–34. It is also unre-
lated to the asserted claims because it discusses un-
damped linear resonant actuators (LRAs). Id. at 2:11–34
(“Another approach in the prior art, also problematic, is the
use of . . . undamped linear resonant actuators . . . . Such
a high Q-factor renders this sort of device useless . . . .”).
The asserted claims, however, require damping, and the
district court construed the asserted claims as precluding
un-damped LRAs. J.A. 13.9
The second disclosure also does not clearly and unmis-
takably disparage a transducer with a Q-factor of 1.5 to 3.
It teaches a “drawback” of a vibrating module that moves
a mass in-plane is that no provision is made for critically
damping such a transducer and, as such, the frequency re-
sponse is underdamped with a Q-factor of 1.5 to 3. ’885
patent at 2:47–67. It appears the district court interpreted
“critically damp[ed]” to refer to an ideal level of damping
and “underdamped” to be used disparagingly. J.A. 74–75.
But “critically damp[ed]” refers to a system that does not
vibrate and corresponds to a Q-factor of 0.5, whereas “un-
derdamped” refers to a system that vibrates and corre-
sponds to a Q-factor greater than 0.5. Taction Br. 60; Apple
Br. 9. These terms, therefore, can reasonably be inter-
preted as factual observations rather than disparaging
statements. Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. v. Shire Pharms.,
Inc., 839 F.3d 1111, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Where the al-
leged disavowal is ambiguous, or even ‘amenable to multi-
ple reasonable interpretations,’ we have declined to find
prosecution disclaimer.” (quoting Avid Tech., Inc. v. Har-
monic, Inc., 812 F.3d 1040, 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2016))); Open-
wave, 808 F.3d at 513; Epistar Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
566 F.3d 1321, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Disavowal requires
‘expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction,
9 Taction does not appeal the district court’s conclu-
sion the patentee disavowed un-damped LRAs.
Case: 23-2349 Document: 62 Page: 14 Filed: 08/13/2025

-- 14 of 15 --

TACTION TECHNOLOGY , INC. v. APPLE INC. 15
representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.’” (quoting Te-
leflex, 299 F.3d at 1325)).
General claim construction principles also do not sup-
port disavowal. U.S. Patent No. 9,430,921 is related to the
’885 and ’117 patents and includes the same allegedly dis-
paraging statements in its specification. J.A. 2515–16 at
2:34–37, 2:66–3:3. The ’921 patent, however, includes
claims with limitations requiring “a Q-factor of less than
1.5.” J.A. 2521–23 at claims 1, 14, 18, 20, and 33. Disa-
vowal would render these claim limitations superfluous
and meaningless. Intell. Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA,
Inc., 902 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding a con-
struction that renders claim language “meaningless” is
“disfavored”); Power Mosfet Techs., L.L.C. v. Siemens AG,
378 F.3d 1396, 1410 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“interpretations that
render some portion of the claim language superfluous are
disfavored”). Because there is no clear and unmistakable
disavowal, and general claim construction principles do not
support limiting the asserted claims to transducers having
a “Q-factor of less than 1.5,” we conclude the district court’s
construction is erroneous.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate and remand the
district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringe-
ment for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED
COSTS
Costs to Taction.
Case: 23-2349 Document: 62 Page: 15 Filed: 08/13/2025

-- 15 of 15 --