Skip to main content

Judge Steps Down From Apple's Siri Patent Lawsuit

A judge who was presiding over a patent lawsuit that involved Apple's Siri has stepped down from the case as he has an "interest" in the technology giant.

New York District Court Judge Gary Sharpe has turned away from the case due to claiming "interest" in Apple. Consequently, he's legally prevented from being qualified to judge the Siri-related lawsuit. While it's unclear what exactly his interest may be related to, it's likely to involve stock/shares.

The lawsuit itself was filed by Dynamic Advances, who alleges that Apple's virtual assistant Siri infringes upon its licensed voice recognition patent titled '798. Dynamic Advances, however, didn't register the patent, but exclusively licensed it from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

"Apple has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '798 Patent by processing natural-language inputs in the United States. For example, Apple's Siri personal assistant includes technology claimed in the '798 Patent," read a court letter.

Replacing Sharpe will be district judge David Hurd over the Dynamic Advances lawsuit.

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

  • tramit
    How does that work out? They don't even own the patent and are just licensing it...
    Reply
  • rohitbaran
    Well, the judge did the right thing. On a side note, does the author of this article ever covers anything not related to apple?
    Reply
  • thefizzle656
    Shouldn't Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, the holder of the patent in question, be the one suing for patent infringement? I would think that the case would be thrown out just based on that. But maybe Dynamic Advances has brought the law suit forward on behalf of both.
    Reply
  • ko888
    tramitHow does that work out? They don't even own the patent and are just licensing it...Dynamic Advances owns an exclusive license gained from the inventor's place of work, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
    Reply
  • wannabepro
    rohitbaranWell, the judge did the right thing. On a side note, does the author of this article ever covers anything not related to apple?
    It's Zak Islam.
    It's all he covers.. And he seems to never read all the comments screaming "ENOUGH APPLE STUFF"
    (Check like 90% of the articles he's done and almost all of those comments have quite a few thumbs up.)
    Reply
  • DRosencraft
    tramitHow does that work out? They don't even own the patent and are just licensing it...
    Company A has a patent, but isn't entirely interested in using it itself anymore. It licenses it to Company B so that it can still make some profit off it. Company B happens to not have a huge name or brand so average people hardly know it exists. It wants to control the use of the products made using the patent it is licensing to ensure it makes the most of it. Company C comes along and starts using the principles in the patent. Company A doesn't necessarily care all that much, or is planning to come along later, because it's already getting its license fees. Company B however is is place to lose big because it is paying to license the patent, and now someone else is using the same principles of the patent, thereby undercutting the ability of Company B to control/make profit off the patent.

    That basically sums it up. Dynamic probably got first bite since Rensselaer didn't want to get into this too soon (better to fight it later if they have to rather than spending on it now). Could be that Rensselaer will just roll itself in as a co-party to the complaint. Or the judge could decide that Rensselaer has to be a co-party as the original patent owner. This is what makes patent cases so long and sometimes confusing.
    Reply
  • goodguy713
    just buy the stupid company out and get the patent.. and then disolve it.
    Reply
  • SAL-e
    @DRosencraft
    This 'innovative' litigation was tried (and lost) by Copyright Troll by the name "Righthaven". He (Righthaven) sued several bloggers on behave of Las Vegas Review Journal by obtaining only "license to sue".
    Nevada (and Colorado) Courts "Dismisses Righthaven's Lawsuit for Lack of Standing".
    So, unless Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute has sold the patent in question to Dynamic Advances, they (Dynamic Advances) should expect same faith as Righthaven. The lawyer behind Righthaven is bankrupted and defended in several counter-lawsuits.

    http://righthavenlawsuits.com/
    Reply
  • DRosencraft
    SAL-e@DRosencraftThis 'innovative' litigation was tried (and lost) by Copyright Troll by the name "Righthaven". He (Righthaven) sued several bloggers on behave of Las Vegas Review Journal by obtaining only "license to sue".Nevada (and Colorado) Courts "Dismisses Righthaven's Lawsuit for Lack of Standing". So, unless Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute has sold the patent in question to Dynamic Advances, they (Dynamic Advances) should expect same faith as Righthaven. The lawyer behind Righthaven is bankrupted and defended in several counter-lawsuits. http://righthavenlawsuits.com/
    To begin with, Righthaven got the patent rights after the fact. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Second, Righthaven was suing a bunch of people without actually contacting any of them first. In this case you basically have one company suing another company, which is a slightly different situation. Finally, you're talking with Righthaven about cases in Nevada and Colorado. I'm not saying New York courts are gonna ignore those cases, but you are dealing with a different court that very well could reach a different conclusion. I'm not gonna pick a side here because I don't know enough about the case, I'm simply explaining the legal theory behind it thus far.
    Reply
  • katfishgr
    Apple using someone else's tech?? Say it aint so ...
    Reply