Unified Patents v. Carma Technology Ltd

Unified Patents has initiated an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2026-00305, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 7,840,427, which is assigned to Carma Technology Ltd. Unified Patents operates as a member-based organization dedicated to improving patent quality and deterring assertions of what it considers low-quality or invalid patents, particularly those held by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs). Carma Technology Ltd. is a real-time transportation technology company, headquartered in Ireland, known for pioneering smartphone-based ridesharing, carpooling, High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) verification, and road user charging services, with products like the GoCarma app. In this IPR, there is no "accused product" in the traditional sense of an infringement lawsuit; rather, Unified Patents is directly challenging the patentability of the claims within the '427 patent.

U.S. Patent No. 7,840,427, titled "Shared transport system and service network," broadly describes a system designed to match individuals' transportation demands with available transport capacity, such as unused seats in private vehicles, thereby facilitating shared transport and augmenting public mass transit. This system involves electronic registries for both transport capacity and demand, along with a central processing unit to facilitate these matches. The case is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an administrative body within the USPTO that specializes in reviewing the validity of issued patents, offering a streamlined alternative to district court litigation for challenging patent claims.

This IPR is notable due to its focus on a patent central to the ridesharing and shared transport industry, a sector with significant economic and social impact. Carma Technology Ltd. has actively developed and deployed technologies in this space, and the patent in question underpins foundational aspects of such services. Furthermore, this IPR is directly linked to an ongoing patent infringement lawsuit, Carma Technology Corp v. Uber Technologies Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00029, in the Eastern District of Texas, where Carma Technology Corp. is asserting the '427 patent against Uber. This suggests Unified Patents' IPR is a strategic defensive maneuver, likely initiated on behalf of its members, which may include major players in the ridesharing or logistics industries targeted by Carma's patent assertions, aligning with Unified Patents' mission to challenge potentially invalid patents being used in litigation.

The provided case information lists "Unified Patents v. Carma Technology Ltd" as an IPR with case number IPR2026-00305, challenging US patent 7840427. However, research indicates that IPR2026-00305 was filed by Uber Technologies, Inc. as the Petitioner against Carma Technology, Ltd. as the Patent Owner.

Furthermore, the details requested—such as complaints, answers, Markman outcomes, and trial events—are characteristic of a patent infringement litigation in a district court, not an Inter Partes Review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). A related patent infringement lawsuit has been identified.

Patent Infringement Litigation: Carma Technology Corp. et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc.

Carma Technology Limited and Carma Technology Corporation (collectively "Carma") filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Uber Technologies Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of five of Carma's patents related to ride-sharing and delivery services.

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Complaint Filed: On January 14, 2025, Carma Technology Corp. et al. filed a complaint against Uber Technologies Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, case number 2:25-cv-00029.
  • Asserted Patents: The lawsuit asserts infringement of five patents, including U.S. Patent No. 7,840,427, which describes a system for matching empty vehicle capacity with riders or freight along similar routes. Other asserted patents cover features like "proxy messaging" between riders and drivers, chaining multiple deliveries, and tracking vehicle location for safety monitoring.
  • Allegations: Carma alleges that Uber's ride-sharing services infringe these patents, which cover fundamental aspects of modern ride-sharing technology. Carma claims Uber was aware of the patents as early as 2015 when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected some of Uber's patent applications due to conflicts with Carma's existing patents.
  • Relief Sought: Carma seeks a jury trial, a permanent injunction against Uber, future royalties, and damages.
  • Assigned Judge: Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap has been assigned to preside over the case.
  • Counsel: Carma is represented by attorneys from McKool Smith PC and Bunsow De Mory LLP.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • As of the latest available information, Uber Technologies Inc. has filed a sealed opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to compel venue discovery, indicating active pre-trial proceedings.

• Current Posture: The district court case is progressing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding: Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Carma Technology, Ltd.

In parallel with the district court litigation, an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging the validity of one of the asserted patents has been initiated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • IPR Petition Filed: On March 12, 2026, Uber Technologies, Inc. filed an IPR petition, IPR2026-00305, challenging the validity of a patent owned by Carma Technology, Ltd. While the prompt specified Unified Patents as the petitioner, records indicate Uber Technologies, Inc. is the petitioner for this specific IPR. Based on the ongoing district court litigation involving the same parties and patent, it is understood that U.S. Patent No. 7,840,427 is the patent at issue in this IPR.
  • Status: The IPR is currently listed as "Pending." This means the PTAB has not yet issued a decision on whether to institute the inter partes review.

• Effect on Litigation:

  • IPRs are commonly filed by defendants in patent infringement lawsuits to challenge the validity of asserted patents at the USPTO. If the PTAB institutes review and ultimately finds the challenged claims unpatentable, it can significantly impact the district court litigation, potentially leading to a stay of the district court case, narrowing the claims at issue, or influencing settlement discussions. Given the recent filing date of the IPR (March 2026), the Board's decision on institution is likely still pending.

I'll research the petitioner/plaintiff-side counsel. Note the key wrinkle flagged earlier: metadata says Unified Patents is the petitioner, but prior research indicated Uber Technologies filed IPR2026-00305. Let me investigate both.

Now let me pin down petitioner-side counsel — the Power of Attorney for Uber and Uber Freight, and Gibson Dunn's representation.

Now let me confirm the IPR2026-00305-specific Power of Attorney, check whether Unified Patents has any separate role, and get the district-court defense team details.

Counsel of Record — Challenger/Petitioner Side (IPR2026-00305)

Critical framing note (contradiction flagged): The case metadata lists Unified Patents as the plaintiff/petitioner. Every primary source I could retrieve—PTAB docket aggregators, the Petitioner's Power of Attorney, the Board's notices, and Patent Owner's own service certificates—shows the petitioner in IPR2026-00305 is Uber Technologies, Inc. and Uber Freight US LLC, not Unified Patents. I found no filing, appearance, or Power of Attorney for Unified Patents in this proceeding or in the five-IPR Carma family. This corroborates the discrepancy flagged in the earlier "Key legal developments" and "Defendant representatives" sections. Treat the Unified Patents attribution as unsupported.

Because this is an IPR (Petitioner v. Patent Owner), the "plaintiff-side" role maps to the Petitioner. Prior section covered the Patent Owner's side (Carma / Bunsow De Mory + McKool Smith); below is the counterpart.

---

A. PTAB counsel of record for Petitioner — Paul Hastings LLP (Washington, DC)

These are the practitioners designated in the Petitioner's Power of Attorney filed March 12, 2026 (37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b)), and they are the counsel listed "FOR PETITIONER" in the Board's notices across the Uber v. Carma IPR family:

• Service address for Petitioner: PH-Uber-Carma-IPR@paulhastings.com; c/o Paul Hastings LLP, 2050 M St., N.W., Washington, DC 20036 (Tel. 202.551.1990).
• Source/confidence: The Power of Attorney I retrieved is the IPR2026-00309 version, which expressly covers "all inter partes review proceedings involving U.S. Patent No. 10,741,071," and its courtesy-service certificate references the same Carma/Uber litigation counsel. The IPR2026-00305-specific Power of Attorney (docket Papers 2 and 3, "Power of Attorney for Petitioner Uber Technologies, Inc." and "…for Petitioner Uber Freight US LLC") is reflected on the docket but I could not retrieve the 00305 document text directly. However, the identical Paul Hastings roster appears as Petitioner's counsel in the Board's notice for the companion IPR2026-00308 and in Patent Owner's service certificates, so the identification is well-grounded but should be verified against the 00305-specific papers.

B. Litigation counsel for the same party in the parallel district court case (EDTX 2:25-cv-00029)

Uber is the defendant in Carma Technology Corp. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00029-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.). Its district-court counsel (per the parties' Joint P.R. 4-3 Statement, Feb. 9, 2026, Dkt. 95) are:

• Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP — Dallas, TX (2001 Ross Ave.)
  • Mark N. Reiter — Lead counsel; former co-chair of Gibson Dunn's global IP Practice Group; firm bio lists him as lead counsel for Uber in multiple multi-patent E.D. Tex. cases.
  • Robert Vincent — counsel.
  • Nathan R. Curtis — counsel.
  • Ashbey N. Morgan — counsel.
  • Audrey Yang — counsel (Dallas).
  • (An additional Gibson Dunn attorney, first name "Andrew," also appears on the signature block; surname not captured in the source excerpt — not verified.)
• Caveat: These attorneys appeared in the district court case, not (so far as the retrieved record shows) in IPR2026-00305. Uber has staffed the PTAB challenge separately with Paul Hastings.

C. Positions I could not verify

• Unified Patents counsel: No appearance, POA, or filing attributable to Unified Patents was found in IPR2026-00305. If metadata is correct, its counsel is not reflected in any retrieved PTAB record.
• Uber Freight US LLC's separate POA (Paper 3): docketed but text not retrieved; likely names the same Paul Hastings team.
• In-house counsel: The Petitioner's POA was signed by an Uber officer ("VP, Deputy General Counsel"); the individual's name was not legible in the retrieved text, so I decline to name one.
• Bookoff McAndrews, PLLC (2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC) appears in the POA only as Patent Owner Carma's prosecution correspondence address — it is not petitioner counsel.

Bottom line: The petitioner-side (plaintiff-analog) counsel of record in IPR2026-00305 are Paul Hastings LLP (Naveen Modi lead; Palys, Citroën, Mints, Lowman back-up), representing Uber Technologies, Inc. and Uber Freight US LLC — with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (Mark N. Reiter lead) handling the parallel E.D. Tex. litigation. The metadata's "Unified Patents" petitioner is contradicted by all available primary sources.

The counsel of record representing Carma Technology Ltd. as the Patent Owner in IPR2026-00305 before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) cannot be definitively identified from publicly available search results as of May 29, 2026. While the Patent Owner's preliminary response was due on this date, specific appearances for PTAB proceedings may not yet be widely indexed or publicly accessible.

It is important to note a discrepancy in the case information. The provided case metadata identifies "Unified Patents v. Carma Technology Ltd" as the caption for IPR2026-00305. However, multiple public search results, including those from PacerMonitor, consistently list "Uber Technologies Inc v. Carma Technology Ltd" as the caption for IPR2026-00305 and related IPRs challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,840,427, with Uber Technologies Inc. as the petitioner. This contradiction suggests either an error in the initial case metadata provided for the petitioner of IPR2026-00305 or that multiple IPRs exist involving Carma Technology Ltd. and this patent. For the purpose of identifying Carma's counsel, the focus remains on their representation as the Patent Owner.

Although specific counsel for IPR2026-00305 has not been explicitly identified, Carma Technology Ltd. is involved in a parallel patent infringement lawsuit against Uber Technologies Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00029), where U.S. Patent No. 7,840,427 is also asserted. It is highly probable that the same legal teams or attorneys representing Carma in that significant district court litigation would also handle the related IPR proceedings at the PTAB.

Based on the information available for the district court case (2:25-cv-00029), Carma Technology Ltd. is represented by:

• Firm: McKool Smith PC

  • Attorneys:
    • Jennifer Leigh Truelove (Lead Counsel)
      • Office Location: Marshall, Texas
      • Note: Known for her work in complex patent litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas.
    • Samuel Franklin Baxter (Counsel)
      • Office Location: Marshall, Texas
      • Note: A highly regarded trial lawyer with extensive experience in high-stakes patent disputes.

• Firm: Bunsow De Mory LLP

  • Attorneys:
    • Gareth Edward DeWalt (Lead Counsel)
      • Note: Represents Carma in the patent infringement lawsuit against Uber.
    • Robin K. Curtis (Counsel)
      • Note: Also represents Carma in the patent infringement lawsuit.
    • Michael E. Flynn-O'Brien (Counsel)
      • Office Location: Redwood, California
      • Note: Involved in Carma's patent infringement case.

Additionally, Eric Robert Carr filed a "Notice of Attorney Appearance" on behalf of CARMA TECHNOLOGY, CORP. and CARMA TECHNOLOGY, LTD. in the district court case. While his firm is not explicitly stated in this specific appearance notice, he is listed as appearing for Carma.

As counsel of record for IPR2026-00305 has not been explicitly identified from public sources for Carma Technology Ltd., the above attorneys and firms represent them in highly related patent litigation involving the same patent. Their appearance in the IPR would be a logical extension of their existing representation.