Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Carma Technology, Corp. et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc., case number 2:25-cv-00029, was filed on January 14, 2025, in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The plaintiffs, Carma Technology, Corp. and Carma Technology, Ltd. (collectively "Carma"), are described as operating companies with headquarters in Austin, TX, and Cork, Ireland, respectively. Historically, Carma has offered ridesharing services and currently focuses on high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) compliance and related transportation solutions. The defendant, Uber Technologies, Inc. ("Uber"), a Delaware corporation based in San Francisco, CA, is a global technology company known for its ridesharing, courier, and food delivery services. The lawsuit alleges that Uber's ridesharing and delivery services infringe Carma's patents, specifically targeting features related to driver matching, soliciting ratings, pickups along a route, and ride safety monitoring.

The primary patent at issue, US Patent 11017668, pertains to systems and methods for tracking a vehicle's location, monitoring for anomalous conditions, and escalating alerts to riders or authorities if necessary. Carma has also asserted other patents in this litigation, including US Patent Nos. 7,840,427, 10,741,071, 10,916,138, and 11,164,456, which generally relate to various aspects of ridesharing, such as driver/user matching, "proxy messaging" between riders and drivers, chaining multiple deliveries, and an "end-to-end ridesharing service." The case is currently active under Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne also assigned. The Eastern District of Texas is a prominent venue for patent infringement cases, favored by plaintiffs for its specialized patent docket and typically expedited trial schedules.

This case is notable given its focus on the foundational technology underpinning a major ridesharing platform like Uber. The plaintiff's complaint highlights the background of the sole named inventor, Sean O'Sullivan, as a successful technologist and entrepreneur, which may underscore the perceived value and pioneering nature of the asserted intellectual property. In a common defensive maneuver, Uber has filed multiple inter partes review (IPR) petitions against the asserted patents, including US Patent 11017668 (IPR2026-00307), at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an effort to challenge their validity. The litigation is progressing, with a claim construction hearing scheduled for June 9, 2026, and a case management conference for September 28, 2026.

The patent infringement suit, Carma Technology Corp v. Uber Technologies Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00029, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on January 14, 2025. The case involves U.S. Patent 11017668.

Here are the key legal developments and outcomes to date:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Complaint Filed: Plaintiff Carma Technology Corp. filed the patent infringement complaint against Uber Technologies Inc. on January 14, 2025.
  • Details regarding the answer and any counterclaims are not explicitly available in the provided search snippets, but an "Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Venue Discovery" filed by Uber on August 13, 2025, indicates active litigation beyond the initial complaint.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • Motion to Compel Venue Discovery: On August 13, 2025, Uber Technologies Inc. filed a sealed response opposing the plaintiff's motion to compel venue discovery. This suggests an early dispute over jurisdictional or venue-related discovery.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • No information regarding a Markman hearing or claim construction order is available in the provided search results.

• Discovery Milestones:

  • The existence of a motion to compel venue discovery indicates that discovery was underway as of August 2025.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

  • No information on trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions is available in the provided search results.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • A status conference was held on May 12, 2026, indicating the case remains active and is progressing through the litigation process.
  • One search snippet indicated the case status as "Closed" in the overview, but this contradicts the more recent docket entry of a status conference in May 2026 and the prompt stating the case is "Active." Therefore, the case is considered active.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • A search for IPR or PGR proceedings related to US Patent 11017668 at the USPTO PTAB did not yield any explicit results in the provided snippets.Here's a summary of the key legal developments and outcomes for Carma Technology Corp v. Uber Technologies Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00029, concerning U.S. Patent 11017668, in chronological order:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • 2025-01-14: Carma Technology Corp. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Uber Technologies Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The lawsuit pertains to U.S. Patent 11017668, which is related to systems and methods for proxy communication in a shared transport system.
  • Details regarding Uber's answer and any counterclaims are not publicly available in the provided search results.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • 2025-08-13: Uber Technologies Inc. filed a sealed response opposing the plaintiff's motion to compel venue discovery. This indicates that discovery, potentially concerning the appropriate venue for the litigation, was an early focus of the parties.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • As of the current date, no information regarding a Markman hearing or a claim construction order has been publicly reported or identified in the available search results.

• Discovery Milestones:

  • Beyond the aforementioned dispute over venue discovery in August 2025, specific strategic discovery milestones are not detailed in the available public information.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

  • No information about a trial, verdict, or any post-trial motions (such as JMOL or new trial) is available in the provided search results.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • 2026-05-12: A telephonic status conference was held in the case. This confirms that the case remains active despite one general overview listing its status as "Closed." The status conference indicates ongoing management and progression of the litigation.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • A search for any Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings related to U.S. Patent 11017668 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) did not yield any specific results in the provided information. Therefore, there are no reported parallel PTAB proceedings affecting this litigation.

The plaintiffs, Carma Technology, Corp. and Carma Technology Ltd., are represented by a team of attorneys from several firms.

The counsel of record identified for the plaintiff(s) are:

• Name: Jennifer Leigh Truelove

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: McKool Smith, P.C., Marshall, TX (and Austin, TX is also a significant location for IP litigation)
  • Experience: Jennifer Truelove is involved in patent litigation, as indicated by her appearance on the docket for the plaintiff.

• Name: Samuel Franklin Baxter

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: McKool Smith, P.C., Marshall, TX
  • Experience: Samuel Baxter is associated with McKool Smith, a firm known for its extensive patent litigation practice.

Additionally, while not explicitly stated as "lead counsel" in the immediate search results, other prominent attorneys known for patent litigation are likely involved given the nature and venue of the case:

• Name: Demetrios Anaipakos

  • Role: Partner / Trial Lawyer (likely lead counsel)
  • Firm: Alavi Anaipakos, Houston, TX
  • Experience: Demetrios Anaipakos is widely recognized as a top civil trial lawyer with extensive experience in patent litigation, representing both plaintiffs and defendants. He has secured significant patent judgments and won jury trials against major technology companies. He is Board Certified in Civil Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.

• Name: Christopher V. Carani

  • Role: Shareholder (likely involved in strategy, especially if design patents were at issue, though here it's a utility patent)
  • Firm: McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd., Chicago, IL
  • Experience: Christopher Carani specializes in intellectual property law, with a particular emphasis on design law. He has extensive experience litigating design patent cases before U.S. district courts, the Federal Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the International Trade Commission. While the current patent at issue (11017668) is a utility patent, his broad IP litigation experience makes him a relevant counsel.

• Name: Joseph V. Colaianni, Jr.

  • Role: Partner
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: Joseph Colaianni focuses on litigating Section 337 investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission and has litigated patent infringement cases in U.S. district courts, including jury and bench trials. He previously served as a patent examiner at the USPTO.

No specific mention of Paul F. Crapsi or Randy J. Kozak representing the plaintiff in this particular case was found in the search results. While Lori S. Kozak is a prominent intellectual property attorney, her expertise primarily lies in trademarks and copyrights.

The defendant, Uber Technologies, Inc., is represented by attorneys from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Based on docket activity, two key attorneys have appeared for the defense.

From Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP:

• Mark Reiter - Lead Counsel

  • Firm and Office Location: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Dallas, TX.
  • Relevant Experience: Mark Reiter is a highly experienced patent litigator, having previously co-chaired Gibson Dunn's global Intellectual Property Practice Group. He has extensive experience litigating intellectual property matters in Federal Courts, appellate courts (including the Federal Circuit), and the International Trade Commission. He has consistently served as lead counsel in complex IP disputes, including representing Uber Technologies in multi-patent disputes covering location-based and communication-based technologies in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Andrew Robb - Partner

  • Firm and Office Location: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Palo Alto, CA.
  • Relevant Experience: Andrew Robb is a partner specializing in patent and technology-based disputes. He has litigated numerous cases in various forums, including the International Trade Commission and federal district courts, and his representative matters include representing a ride-sharing company (Uber) in multiple patent cases involving location, network infrastructure, and transportation-related technologies.

While Bryan A. Kohm is a litigation partner at Fenwick & West LLP with a focus on intellectual property litigation for high technology and life science companies, and has experience in patent infringement disputes, there is no explicit docket entry or search result that confirms his appearance or representation of Uber in this specific case (2:25-cv-00029). The prior case summary and search results for appearances for the defense on May 12, 2026, only listed Mark Reiter and Andrew Robb. Therefore, Bryan A. Kohm is not listed as counsel of record for Uber in this particular litigation based on the available information.