Six litigation signals from September 22–28: a record $5.7 billion haptic verdict, Anthropic's Pentagon loss, and a cleared Orange Book listing
A decision-ready briefing on six AI, technology and pharmaceutical disputes from September 22–28, 2026, covering a record $5.7 billion haptic patent verdict against Apple, the D.C. Circuit's 2–1 ruling on Anthropic's Pentagon blacklisting, New York's gambling action against Polymarket, a wake-word trade-secret complaint against Perplexity, and two pharmaceutical outcomes.
The September 22–28, 2026 window produced a record patent verdict, closed one branch of the Pentagon's fight with Anthropic, and ended three pharmaceutical disputes. A jury in San Diego ordered Apple to pay more than $5.7 billion over the tiny vibration motors inside iPhones and Apple Watches. 1 The D.C. Circuit upheld the Pentagon's designation of Anthropic as a national security supply chain risk on a 2–1 vote. 2 New York's attorney general sued Polymarket over unlicensed gambling, and Polymarket sued New York back the same afternoon. 3 In pharma, a Manhattan judge dismissed a purchaser class action over an Orange Book listing, and a California jury awarded Nektar $90 million from Eli Lilly over a collaboration that came apart. 45 A sixth matter opened the week's AI docket: a Swiss startup accused Perplexity AI of building its wake-word system on stolen trade secrets. 6
Docket at a glance
| Sector | Parties | Docket | Current stage | Recent development | Next milestone |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI trade secrets | SyteMLLabs Inc., doing business as DaVoice, v. Perplexity AI Inc. | 3:26-cv-10909 (N.D. Cal.) | Complaint filed September 24, 2026; at the pleading stage | DaVoice alleges Perplexity misappropriated wake-word trade secrets disclosed under a confidentiality and subscription agreement. 6 | Perplexity's response to the complaint; date not public |
| AI government contracting | Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth | 26-1049 (D.C. Cir.) | Petition for review decided September 25, 2026 | A 2–1 panel upheld the supply chain risk designation made under 41 U.S.C. § 4713. 2 | Any petition for panel or en banc rehearing, and the Ninth Circuit appeal of the parallel California ruling; dates not public |
| Tech patent | Taction Technology Inc. v. Apple Inc. | 3:21-cv-00812 (S.D. Cal.) | Jury verdict September 26, 2026; Apple has said it will appeal | The jury found Apple's Taptic Engine infringed two Taction patents and awarded more than $5.7 billion. 1 | Apple's post-trial motions and appeal; date not public |
| Tech platform regulation | People of the State of New York v. QCX LLC, doing business as Polymarket US | New York County Supreme Court; index number not public | Verified petition filed September 24, 2026; removal to federal court sought the same day | The state alleges an unlicensed gambling operation and asks for treble fines, forfeiture and restitution. 7 | A ruling on Polymarket's bid to move the case to the Southern District of New York; date not public 8 |
| Pharma patent listing | Iron Workers Local 580 Insurance Fund v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. | 1:25-cv-07230 (S.D.N.Y.) | Dismissed September 23, 2026 | Judge Lewis J. Liman found the Entresto patent was properly listed in the Orange Book. 4 | Any appeal by the purchasers; date not public |
| Pharma collaboration | Nektar Therapeutics v. Eli Lilly & Co. | 3:23-cv-03943 (N.D. Cal.) | Jury verdict September 24, 2026 | The jury found Lilly breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and awarded $90 million against a $1 billion demand. 5 | Post-trial motions and any appeal; dates not public |
AI
DaVoice v. Perplexity: a wake word becomes a trade secret case
Parties: SyteMLLabs Inc., a Swiss company doing business as DaVoice, v. Perplexity AI Inc., the San Francisco search and assistant company. 9
Docket number:
3:26-cv-10909, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. 6Claims: Misappropriation of trade secrets under federal and California law, breach of contract and fraudulent inducement. DaVoice seeks lost profits, reasonable royalty damages and exemplary damages for what it calls willful and malicious misappropriation. 9
Current stage: The complaint was filed under heavy redaction on September 24, 2026, and Perplexity's response is the next filing due. 6
Recent development: A wake word is the phrase that switches a device from passive listening into active processing, and DaVoice says its version recognizes the phrase with better than 90 per cent accuracy at below-market prices. 9 According to the complaint, DaVoice signed a mutual confidentiality and nondisclosure agreement and a master subscription agreement with Perplexity in 2025 and disclosed proprietary source code, inference logic, network architecture, training approaches and training data. DaVoice alleges Perplexity used the promise of a long-term partnership to obtain those disclosures and then relied on the same know-how to accelerate its own wake-word implementation. 910 Perplexity's chief communications officer, Jesse Dwyer, called the suit "a baseless attempt to claim ownership of standard wake-word technology" and said the signed agreement "expressly protects our right to develop our own 'similar, equal or competitive products or services.'" 9
Business impact: Assistant and device makers commonly run pilots with small component vendors before building a feature in house, and the confidentiality architecture around those pilots is what this case puts under a microscope. Two contract clauses decide the exposure: the definition of the licensed technology, and the carve-out that lets the larger party build competing products. Perplexity has faced copyright suits from the New York Times, Dow Jones, the New York Post, Encyclopaedia Britannica and Merriam-Webster, and in August it won a Ninth Circuit ruling that lifted a block on its shopping assistant reaching Amazon's site. 9
Precedent value: Trade secret law reaches training data and inference code through the same elements it applies to any other confidential material, so this case tests how far a vendor collaboration can go before the smaller party's disclosures become the larger party's product. The complaint is heavily redacted, and the sealed exhibits are where the exchanged material would show up, so the publicly visible case runs on the counts and the contract language. 6
Next milestone: Perplexity's response to the complaint; date not public.
Anthropic v. the Department of War: the D.C. Circuit upholds the blacklisting
Parties: Anthropic PBC, petitioner, v. the U.S. Department of War and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth in his official capacity. 11
Docket number:
26-1049, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, on a petition for judicial review of a determination made under 41 U.S.C. § 4713, part of the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act. 11 Anthropic's parallel challenge to the second designation, made under 10 U.S.C. § 3252, is a separate case, 3:26-cv-01996 in the Northern District of California, now on appeal in the Ninth Circuit as 26-2011. 11Claims: Anthropic asked the court to set aside the supply chain risk designation as arbitrary, unauthorized and unconstitutional, arguing that the Pentagon took action against the company over its public position on AI safety. 12
Current stage: The petition has been decided. The panel put its decision on hold so Anthropic can seek rehearing before the same panel or by the full court. 12
Recent development: On September 25, 2026, a three-judge panel divided 2–1. Judge Gregory Katsas wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Neomi Rao; Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented. 12 Katsas found that the department "had ample support for its conclusion that the continued integration of Claude into the Department's information systems, by the Department or its contractors, presented a statutorily covered national-security risk," and wrote that the Secretary raised "the deeply sobering prospect of overly constrained AI models shutting down unexpectedly and thus causing important military operations to fail." 12 The same opinion located the choice with the political branches: "In our Republic, it is the President and the Secretary of War who must determine how best to balance the competing risks." 12 The dispute began in February 2026, when Anthropic's chief executive, Dario Amodei, told Hegseth the company would not let the Pentagon use Claude for fully autonomous weapons or for domestic mass surveillance, and negotiations over deployment on the department's AI platform broke down. 12 The designation blocks the military from using Anthropic's models and blocks defense contractors from using them in their work for the department. 12 Anthropic said it disagrees with the decision, noted that another federal court has already held the parallel designation unlawful, and said it is considering further review. 12
Business impact: Anthropic has said the designation cost it billions in lost business and damaged its reputation ahead of an initial public offering it began preparing in June 2026. 2 For every contractor that writes use restrictions into its terms of service, the ruling shows that those restrictions can be treated as a procurement risk the Secretary may act on. Anthropic had signed a $200 million contract with the Pentagon in July 2025 before the relationship collapsed. 12
Precedent value: Read together, the D.C. Circuit ruling and the California ruling earlier in the summer point in opposite directions on the two designations. Judge Rita Lin in San Francisco found the government unlawfully retaliated against Anthropic for its views on AI safety when it acted under 10 U.S.C. § 3252; the D.C. Circuit found an adequate national security basis for the determination under 41 U.S.C. § 4713. 212 The business outcome turns on which statute survives review, and the two-court split makes a Supreme Court petition a live possibility for whichever side loses last.
Next milestone: The window for a petition for panel or en banc rehearing in the D.C. Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit's handling of the government's appeal of the California ruling; dates not public.
Tech
Taction v. Apple: a record $5.7 billion verdict over haptics
Parties: Taction Technology Inc., a San Diego haptics developer, v. Apple Inc. 1
Docket number:
3:21-cv-00812, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, before U.S. District Judge Todd W. Robinson and U.S. Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt. 13Claims: Infringement of two Taction patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,659,885 and 10,820,117, which the company describes as covering tactile transducers. 1314 Haptics is the engineering of touch feedback, in this instance the taps and buzzes produced by the engine Apple markets as the Taptic Engine. 1
Current stage: A jury returned its verdict on September 26, 2026. Apple has said it will appeal, and post-trial motions come before any judgment. 1
Recent development: The verdict follows a route that opened at summary judgment. Judge Robinson resolved Taction's infringement claims in Apple's favour in 2023, and the Federal Circuit reversed that ruling on August 13, 2025 in appeal No. 23-2349, holding that the district court had misread its own Patent Local Rules and acted unreasonably in striking the opinions of Taction's expert on what a skilled artisan would understand the claims to mean. 15 The case returned to San Diego, and the jury found that Apple's Taptic Engine infringed two Taction patents and that Apple owes more than $5.7 billion. 1 Apple responded that its engine "is fundamentally different from Taction's technology," that "Apple does not use Taction's technology, and we will appeal," and it had argued at trial that the patents are invalid. 1 Taction's attorney Lance Yang said the company was "happy the jury found for Taction and vindicated its patent rights." 1
Business impact: The sum attaches to a component inside the products Apple sells in the greatest volume. A damages model built on the accused iPhone and Apple Watch population produces figures on this scale, and that model is the part an appeal can attack while the infringement finding stands. Taction is a small company whose revenue comes from headphones and gaming headsets, so the award is worth many multiples of its operating business. 14
Precedent value: The Federal Circuit's 2025 decision is a warning about how a district court applies its own Patent Local Rules and disposes of expert testimony at summary judgment, which is where a large share of patent cases end. The verdict itself sets a new ceiling for patent damages in the United States, and it will shape the numbers both sides bring to settlement talks in similar component-level disputes. 1
Next milestone: Apple's post-trial motions and its appeal to the Federal Circuit; dates not public.
New York v. Polymarket: two lawsuits, two courts, one afternoon
Parties: The People of the State of New York, through Attorney General Letitia James, v. QCX LLC, doing business as Polymarket US. Polymarket's counter-suit names James and officials of the New York State Gaming Commission. 78
Docket number: The state's verified petition was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, under Executive Law § 63(12), and the index number is not public. 16 Polymarket's suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and it also moved to remove the state case to that court. 8
Claims: New York alleges that Polymarket runs an unlicensed gambling operation, that its event contracts are wagers on outcomes bettors do not control, and that the platform operated without a licence from the New York State Gaming Commission. The state asks the court to order forfeiture of illegal gains, restitution to affected customers, civil fines equal to three times Polymarket's gains, and $100,000 for each attempt or offer of sports wagering in New York. 78 Polymarket argues the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has exclusive authority over prediction markets, that its event contracts are federally regulated swaps, and that enforcement by New York would inflict irreparable harm by forcing a choice between state law and its federal right to operate nationwide. 3
Current stage: Both filings landed on September 24, 2026. The state case sits in a trial court in Manhattan, Polymarket's case sits in federal court, and the two sides dispute which forum decides the preemption question. 8
Recent development: Attorney General James described prediction markets as "quintessentially gambling" and built the petition on examples including a market on whether the Los Angeles Dodgers would beat the New York Mets on July 24, 2026 by more than 1.5 runs, which the Dodgers won 4–2. 3 The petition also objects to Polymarket admitting users aged 18 to 20 while state law sets a minimum age of 21 for mobile sports betting, and to the loss of state revenue. 37 Governor Kathy Hochul said Polymarket had "put New Yorkers at risk, especially those underage who are most vulnerable to problem gaming." 3 Polymarket's chief legal officer, Neal Kumar, said the state "preferred the media hit" over working out the differences. 3
Business impact: Per-offer penalties make the exposure a function of volume rather than a single fine, and a restitution order would reach individual users' losses. The action also extends a pattern: New York sued Kalshi in July 2026 and Coinbase Financial Markets and Gemini Titan earlier in the year on the same licence theory. 3 Polymarket was out of the United States for more than three years and relaunched in December 2025 after receiving a green light from the CFTC, and its business is reported to be worth more than $20 billion. 3
Precedent value: The removal fight decides which court reaches the merits first, and the merits question is the one dividing the federal appeals courts: whether a state may apply its gambling laws to event contracts that a federal agency has approved for trading. 3 Because the circuits disagree, an eventual Supreme Court ruling on the boundary between state gambling regulation and federal commodities regulation would settle the compliance model for every prediction-market operator at once.
Next milestone: A ruling on Polymarket's motion to move the state case to federal court, and the first scheduling order in its federal suit; dates not public.
Pharma and biotech
Iron Workers Local 580 v. Novartis: an Orange Book listing survives
Parties: Iron Workers Local 580 Insurance Fund, suing for itself and a proposed class of Entresto purchasers, v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. 4
Docket number:
1:25-cv-07230, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, before U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman. 17Claims: The fund alleged that Novartis misused a patent by listing it in the FDA's Orange Book, the register of patents the agency treats as covering an approved drug, in order to hold generics of the heart-failure treatment Entresto off the market. The complaint said the listing delayed generic competition by at least six months, a period in which Novartis earned more than $2 billion from United States sales of the drug, and that purchasers paid inflated prices as a result. 4
Current stage: Dismissed. Judge Liman ruled for Novartis on September 23, 2026. 4
Recent development: Judge Liman agreed with Novartis that the patent was properly listed. He rejected the fund's argument that the patent covered Entresto's component ingredients rather than the form in which they are combined in the finished drug. 4
Business impact: The ruling closes one theory of liability over a listing made years earlier, and it does so at the pleading stage, ahead of the document discovery that makes listing cases expensive. Entresto is Novartis's best-selling medicine and accounted for 14 per cent of the company's sales last year, but its United States sales fell 42 per cent to $1.31 billion in the first quarter of 2026 after its American patents expired and generics entered. 4 With the patent expired, what remained at stake was the price purchasers paid during the delay, and the purchasers now have to win on appeal to pursue it.
Precedent value: The decision turns on how a court reads what a listed patent must claim. Judge Liman accepted that a patent on the component ingredients can properly be listed for the combined product, which is the reading brand manufacturers rely on as the FTC presses its own view of improper listings. 418 Purchaser funds have brought the same theory against other manufacturers, and this ruling gives defendants a template for ending it early.
Next milestone: Any appeal by the purchasers; date not public.
Nektar v. Lilly: a $90 million verdict over a development covenant
Parties: Nektar Therapeutics, the San Francisco biotech that owns the drug candidate, v. Eli Lilly & Co. 5
Docket number:
3:23-cv-03943, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, before U.S. District Judge James Donato. 19Claims: Nektar alleged that Lilly breached a 2017 licence agreement obliging it to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop the drug, then called NKTR-358 and now known as rezpegaldesleukin or Rezpeg, and separately breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 19 Nektar said in its 2023 complaint that Lilly deliberately botched its analysis of the drug's trials to make Rezpeg look less effective and give itself a pretext to end the collaboration after buying the competing developer Dermira. 5
Current stage: Trial began on September 8, 2026, and the jury returned its verdict on September 24, 2026. 519
Recent development: The jury agreed with Nektar that Lilly breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by undermining Rezpeg's prospects, and awarded $90 million in damages plus interest to be set by the court. 5 Nektar had asked for $1 billion. 20 Lilly's position was that it "used commercially reasonable efforts to develop Rezpeg as required by the contract and awarded only a small fraction of the damages Nektar sought," and it had argued in a filing that Rezpeg failed to produce acceptable clinical trial results against the standards the two companies agreed on. 5 Nektar's lead attorney, Diane Doolittle of Quinn Emanuel, said the company was pleased with a verdict finding that the world's largest pharmaceutical company breached its obligation to act in good faith. 5
Business impact: The verdict puts a price on the implied covenant in a partnership that soured, and the gap between the $1 billion demand and the $90 million award is the useful number for anyone negotiating milestone economics. Lilly's purchase of a competing developer became the evidence that its partner litigated, so the case reads as a caution for acquirers that already owe a diligence obligation to a collaborator. 5
Precedent value: The verdict separates the express promise to use commercially reasonable efforts from the implied promise to deal fairly. Lilly has presented the outcome as a confirmation of its efforts and a rejection of most of the damages claimed, while the jury found a breach of the implied term, which means a licensee can satisfy its written diligence obligation and still face liability for how it ran the programme. 5 For licensors, the internal record of a development decision, including the analysis a partner runs after buying a rival product, is where a collaboration claim gets proved.
Next milestone: Post-trial motions and any appeal, with the court still to set the interest on the award; dates not public.
Cases to watch
- DaVoice v. Perplexity: how the Northern District of California reads the carve-out letting Perplexity build "similar, equal or competitive" products, since that clause decides whether the case reaches discovery.
- Anthropic v. the Department of War: whether Anthropic asks the D.C. Circuit for rehearing, and what the Ninth Circuit does with the government's appeal of the ruling that struck down the parallel designation under 10 U.S.C. § 3252.
- Taction v. Apple: the size of the judgment after post-trial motions, and whether the Federal Circuit revisits the damages model behind an award tied to the whole accused iPhone and Apple Watch population.
- New York v. Polymarket: whether the state case stays in state court, which would put the preemption question to a New York judge ahead of the federal appeals courts that are already divided on it.
- Iron Workers Local 580 v. Novartis: whether the purchasers appeal, and whether the reading of what a patent must claim to be listed travels to the other purchaser suits.
- Nektar v. Lilly: the interest the court adds to the award, and whether Lilly appeals the implied covenant finding.
References
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9Swiss startup accuses Perplexity AI of stealing passive listening tech
courthousenews.com
- 10
- 11Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War, D.C. Cir. No. 26-1049 (brief for amici)
storage.courtlistener.com
- 12
- 13
- 14Apple Owes $5.7 Billion for Infringement of Haptics Patents
news.bloomberglaw.com
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18US FTC warns drugmakers over patent listings
reuters.com
- 19
- 20
This story was produced automatically by a channel. One sentence is all it takes for Neodrop to keep producing for you.