Carma Technology Corp. et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al.

The patent infringement lawsuit Carma Technology Corp. et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al. involves plaintiffs Carma Technology Corp. and Carma Technology Ltd., both real-time transportation technology companies. Carma Technology Corporation is headquartered in Cork, Ireland, and is known for pioneering smartphone-based ridesharing, vehicle occupancy verification, and road user charging systems, with its flagship product being the Carma Carpooling app. Carma Technology Ltd. is an Irish private limited company that holds the patents-in-suit. The defendants are Uber Technologies Inc., a major American multinational transportation company offering ride-hailing, food delivery, and freight transport services, and its subsidiaries Uber Freight US LLC and Uber Freight Holding Corporation. Uber Freight specifically provides a digital platform to connect shippers with carriers for logistics management, including features like automated booking, real-time tracking, and load matching. The accused products, services, or technology generally relate to Uber's ridesharing and delivery services, with a focus on features such as driver matching, soliciting ratings, pickups along a route, and ride safety monitoring.

Carma alleges that Uber has infringed five of its patents related to ridesharing matching systems, which are part of a larger 30-patent family. The specific patents asserted in the litigation include US10916138, which broadly relates to chaining multiple deliveries in a sequence. Other patents mentioned in the complaint generally cover aspects like driver/user matching (US7840427), "proxy messaging" between riders and drivers (US10741071), tracking a vehicle's location and monitoring for "anomalous conditions" (US11017668), and an "end-to-end ridesharing service" with specific features (US11164456).

The case was filed on January 14, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (E.D. Tex.), with Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap assigned to preside and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne referred. The Eastern District of Texas is a well-known venue for patent litigation, often favored by plaintiffs due to its reputation for plaintiff-friendly procedural rules, accelerated trial schedules, and juries perceived as sympathetic to patent holders. This particular case is notable as it highlights a "decade-long patent battle" between Carma Technology and Uber, with Carma asserting that Uber had knowledge of its patents as early as 2015, citing rejections of Uber's own patent applications over Carma's patents and Carma's prior presence as a ridesharing competitor. The litigation's focus on core ridesharing technology and a substantial patent family suggests a complex dispute with potential industry impact.

Carma Technology Corp. v. Uber Technologies Inc.: Key Legal Developments

This patent infringement lawsuit, Carma Technology Corp. et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:25-cv-00029), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on January 14, 2025. Carma Technology Corp. and Carma Technology Ltd. (collectively, "Carma") allege that Uber Technologies Inc., Uber Freight US LLC, and Uber Freight Holding Corporation ("Uber") infringe five patents related to ridesharing matching systems, including U.S. Patent No. 10,916,138. The case is currently progressing.

Legal Developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Complaint Filed: Carma Technology Corp. and Carma Technology Ltd. filed their Complaint for Patent Infringement against Uber Technologies Inc. on January 14, 2025. The complaint alleges willful infringement and states that Uber has been on notice of Carma's patents since at least 2016.

• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

  • Uber has initiated inter partes review (IPR) proceedings against multiple patents asserted by Carma in this litigation, including U.S. Patent No. 10,916,138. Petitions for IPR were submitted, challenging claims of the patents. Specifically, Uber Technologies, Inc. and Uber Freight US LLC requested IPR of claims from several patents, including 10,916,138. Uber served the complaint in the district court case on March 20, 2025, which established the timeliness for these IPR petitions under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). The status and outcome of these IPRs are not yet finalized in the provided information.

As of May 29, 2026, details regarding Uber's answer, any counterclaims, substantive pre-trial motions (such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR outcomes), claim construction (Markman) hearings, discovery milestones, or trial events in the district court litigation are not publicly available within the provided search results. The case remains active and is progressing.

The plaintiff(s), Carma Technology Corp. and Carma Technology Ltd., are represented by counsel from three law firms: McKool Smith, P.C., Bunsow De Mory LLP, and Capshaw DeRieux, LLP.

Here is a breakdown of the identified attorneys:

• Jennifer Leigh Truelove

  • Role: Principal Counsel (appears to be a lead counsel based on firm structure and her experience).
  • Firm: McKool Smith, P.C., Marshall, Texas.
  • Experience: An accomplished trial lawyer with extensive experience in intellectual property litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas. She has secured significant patent infringement verdicts, including a $445 million verdict for Netlist against Micron Technology Inc. and a $142 million verdict for G+ Communications against Samsung. She was also awarded "Texas Attorney of the Year" by Texas Lawyer in 2024.

• Samuel Franklin Baxter

  • Role: Principal Counsel (appears to have been a lead counsel at the time of filing, though recently retired).
  • Firm: McKool Smith, P.C., Marshall, Texas and Dallas, Texas.
  • Experience: A renowned patent litigator in the Eastern District of Texas, known for securing numerous eight- and nine-figure jury verdicts. He was recognized as an "Icon of IP" by Law360 and has handled cases against major technology companies like Apple, Amazon, and Samsung. He retired in May 2026, after the case was filed.

• Gareth Edward DeWalt

  • Role: Of Counsel.
  • Firm: Bunsow De Mory LLP, Redwood City, California.
  • Experience: A seasoned IP litigator with experience taking complex patent and trade secret cases through trial in federal district courts and before the International Trade Commission. His expertise spans technologies including computer hardware, software, and telecommunications.

• Robin K. Curtis

  • Role: Partner.
  • Firm: Bunsow De Mory LLP, San Francisco, California.
  • Experience: Focuses on complex technology litigation, including patent infringement, trademark, and trade secret cases. She has experience with technologies such as cellular phone user interfaces, CMOS image sensors, biometrics, and wireless communication.

• Michael E. Flynn-O'Brien

  • Role: Partner.
  • Firm: Bunsow De Mory LLP, Redwood City, California.
  • Experience: A trial lawyer specializing in complex commercial and intellectual property disputes, including patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation. He has litigated cases involving robotics, drones, mobile devices, and internet technologies.

• Sidney Calvin Capshaw

  • Role: Partner, likely serving as local counsel given the Eastern District of Texas venue and his firm's location.
  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux, LLP, Longview, Texas.
  • Experience: His practice primarily involves commercial litigation, patent litigation, and federal court litigation, with significant experience in the Eastern District of Texas.

Additional Notes:
While J. Michael McKool Jr. (a co-founder and chairman of McKool Smith with extensive IP litigation experience), John B. Campbell (a principal at McKool Smith with patent litigation experience), and David J. Sochia (also with McKool Smith) are prominent attorneys in patent litigation, the provided search results from PACER Monitor and other sources did not explicitly list them as appearing as counsel of record for the plaintiffs in this specific case (2:25-cv-00029). Similarly, Elizabeth J. Brandon was not identified as counsel for the plaintiffs in this case.

The defendants, Uber Technologies Inc., Uber Freight US LLC, and Uber Freight Holding Corporation, are represented by counsel from several law firms, most notably Steptoe LLP and Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C., along with in-house counsel from Uber.

The counsel of record for the defendant(s) include:

• Naveen Modi

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Lead counsel for Uber in the IPR proceedings related to the asserted patents and a well-known patent litigator.

• Joseph E. Palys

  • Role: Backup Counsel
  • Firm: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Listed as backup counsel for Uber in the IPR petitions.

• Phillip W. Citroën

  • Role: Backup Counsel
  • Firm: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Box P.L.L.C.
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Listed as backup counsel for Uber in the IPR petitions.

• Alexa Lowman

  • Role: Backup Counsel (pro hac vice to be filed)
  • Firm: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Listed as backup counsel for Uber in the IPR petitions, with pro hac vice status pending.

• Maksim Mints

  • Role: Backup Counsel
  • Firm: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Box P.L.L.C.
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Listed as backup counsel for Uber in the IPR petitions.

• Chris Storm

  • Role: IP Legal Director, In-house Counsel
  • Firm: Uber Technologies, Inc.
  • Office Location: San Francisco, CA (Uber Headquarters)
  • Experience Note: Leads Uber's IP policy initiatives and serves as head of IP for self-driving and other emerging transportation technologies.

• Tony West

  • Role: Senior Vice President, Chief Legal Officer, and Corporate Secretary, In-house Counsel
  • Firm: Uber Technologies, Inc.
  • Office Location: San Francisco, CA (Uber Headquarters)
  • Experience Note: Leads Uber's global Legal, Compliance and Ethics, and Security functions; previously served as Associate Attorney General of the United States.

While the PacerMonitor listing for the district court case does not explicitly detail all counsel for Uber, firms such as Cooley LLP and Kasowitz LLP have represented Uber in other patent litigation matters, securing dismissals in cases involving geolocation and automated dispatch patents respectively. However, the IPR petitions directly name Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. as counsel for Uber in relation to the patents asserted in this specific litigation, including US10916138.