US 10741071

US patent 10741071, titled "Systems and methods for proxy communication in a shared transport system," was issued to Carma Technology Ltd on August 11, 2020, from an application filed on November 27, 2019. The sole inventor listed is Sean O'Sullivan.

Abstract:
The patent describes a network system that registers the start of a transport journey when a transport user's device and a transport provider's device communicate with each other. It then performs continuous coordinated proximity monitoring to verify the identities of the user and the provider's vehicle. The system triggers the registration of the journey's end through continued communication between the user and provider devices.

Independent Claim Overview:

• Claim 1: This claim outlines a method for enabling message exchange between a transport user and a transport provider within a shared transport system. The system first identifies both parties by receiving a transport request from the user's device (including a pick-up location) and determining a nearby transport provider's device. Subsequently, a proxy messaging system, part of the shared transport system, receives a message from either the user or the provider (the sender). This proxy system then generates a second message, incorporating the original message's content and a unique identifier for the sender, and transmits it to the other party (the recipient).

Litigation Status (as of April 26, 2026):
The patent family has ongoing litigation. A US case has been filed in the Texas Eastern District Court (Unified Patents Litigation Data). Additionally, a PTAB case, IPR2026-00309, has been filed and is currently pending (Unified Patents PTAB Data).

As a patent attorney, I have identified the following known litigation involving US patent 10741071:

• Case: Unified Patents has filed a PTAB case IPR2026-00309, which is currently pending.
• Case: There is a litigation case filed in the Texas Eastern District Court.
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court.
  • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00029.
  • Status: The current status of this case is not detailed, but it is indicated as active in relation to the patent's legal status.

It's important to note that PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) is a national index for federal court records, including appellate, bankruptcy, and district courts, but requires a registered account and fees for detailed access to case information. While Unified Patents provides some litigation data directly, comprehensive details for all federal litigation would typically be found through PACER.

Proceedings overview

There is one active AIA trial proceeding on US patent 10741071. The Inter Partes Review (IPR) is currently pending, meaning no claims have been invalidated or sustained by the PTAB yet. This gives a defendant facing assertion of this patent an opportunity to monitor the ongoing challenge and potentially use its outcome in defense.

IPR2026-00309 — Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Carma Technology Ltd

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-03-12
• Status: Pending – The proceeding is ongoing, and no institution decision has been reached yet.
• Judge panel: Information not publicly available at this early stage of the proceeding.
• Petition grounds: Information regarding specific claims challenged, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) is not yet publicly detailed in the provided information or readily available from initial searches for a pending IPR.
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. The statutory deadline for the institution decision is typically six months from the filing date, which would be around September 12, 2026.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable; no decision has been issued as the proceeding is still pending.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; the proceeding is still pending.
• Appeal: Not applicable; no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: As this IPR is in its early stages, it represents a live challenge to the patent. A defendant should closely track this proceeding, as a decision to institute, especially on certain claims, could significantly impact the patent's strength and provide valuable art for a defense. Conversely, a denial of institution or an unfavorable outcome for the petitioner would harden the patent against future similar challenges.

Strategic summary

As of today, May 29, 2026, all claims of US patent 10741071 remain UNTESTED by a final PTAB decision. The single IPR, IPR2026-00309, is currently pending, meaning the PTAB has not yet decided whether to institute a trial. Therefore, no claims have been canceled or sustained by the PTAB.

The estoppel landscape under § 315(e)(2) is not yet relevant as no final written decision has been issued. If the IPR proceeds to a Final Written Decision, Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. (and their privies) would be estopped from asserting grounds raised or that reasonably could have been raised in that IPR. For other potential defendants, all prior-art grounds remain available until a Final Written Decision is issued.

The petitioner, Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., has filed one IPR on this patent. This indicates a targeted challenge by a potential implementer or competitor. The involvement of Unified Patents as a source in the Google Patents listing for this PTAB case (IPR2026-00309 filed (Pending) - Petitioner: Unified Patents PTAB Data) suggests a defensive aggregator is involved, which often signals a broader industry interest in challenging the patent.

Recommended next steps

Given that IPR2026-00309 is pending, a defendant should closely monitor its progress. The key near-term milestone to watch for is the institution decision, which is expected around September 12, 2026. This decision will indicate whether the PTAB believes there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable, based on the grounds presented by Uber. If the PTAB institutes the IPR, the defendant should analyze the institution decision to understand which claims and prior art grounds are proceeding to trial, as this will provide significant insights into the patent's vulnerability.

Inventors

Sean O'Sullivan. Employer at the time of filing: Carma Technology Ltd.

Original assignee

Carma Technology Ltd. It is unclear from the provided patent text whether Carma Technology Ltd. shipped a product embodying the claims. The primary line of business, as described in the patent, is focused on systems and methods for proxy communication in a shared transport system, which matches individuals with transport capacity. Its current status is "Active" according to Google Patents.

Assignment timeline

• The Google Patents legal events section indicates an assignment to CARMA TECHNOLOGY LTD on 2020-01-08. This appears to be a re-assignment to the original assignee, possibly from the inventor. However, without direct access to the USPTO Assignment Search portal, the reel/frame and correspondent details for this event cannot be fully confirmed.
• No other assignment records are explicitly listed in the provided Google Patents text. Without access to the USPTO Assignment Search portal, a complete chronological list of every recorded assignment, including reel/frame, conveyance type, assignor, assignee, correspondent, and context, cannot be generated with certainty beyond what's indicated.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10741071
    2007 : Priority date
    2019 : Application filed
    2020 : Assigned to Carma Technology Ltd
    2020 : Application granted & published

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. The provided information doesn't explicitly state transfers to entities with names like "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures," nor does it detail product lines or corporate addresses beyond the assignee's name.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. The current assignee, Carma Technology Ltd, is not identified as a known asserter in the provided text or common NPE lists.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. Without access to the USPTO Assignment Search portal, correspondent information cannot be determined.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only one assignment event is mentioned, which is a re-assignment to the original assignee.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While the patent is currently involved in litigation (a US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court and a PTAB case IPR2026-00309), the provided assignment timeline doesn't show any transfers specifically within 6 months prior to the stated litigation dates that would suggest a pre-litigation transfer. The most recent assignment listed is to Carma Technology Ltd on 2020-01-08, and the earliest litigation mentioned is a US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court, without a specific filing date provided in the immediate context, but the PTAB case IPR2026-00309 is pending in 2026.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No indication of bankruptcy proceedings for Carma Technology Ltd is provided.
7. Privateering — unclear. There is no information to suggest an operating company transferred the patent to an NPE for assertion against competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data. The primary source for assignment records (USPTO Patent Assignment Search) was not directly accessed. The provided Google Patents data indicates an "Assigned to CARMA TECHNOLOGY LTD" event on 2020-01-08, which appears to be a re-assignment to the original assignee. Without access to the full assignment records, including reel/frame numbers and correspondent information, it is not possible to conclusively identify any NPE or patent-troll patterns.

(Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/)

The provided "Full patent text (authoritative; prefer this over search results when they conflict)" for US10741071 does not contain a dedicated "Prior art citations" or "References Cited" section listing all patent citations. Therefore, I cannot provide an analysis of "each patent citation" as a comprehensive list.

However, the "Description" section of US10741071 explicitly mentions one prior art patent: U.S. Pat. No. 6,697,730. I will proceed to analyze this specific patent as the most relevant prior art indicated within the provided authoritative text.

Identified Prior Art Reference

1. U.S. Pat. No. 6,697,730

• Full citation: U.S. Pat. No. 6,697,730.
• Publication/Filing Date:
  • To determine this, I need to perform a search for this patent.
• Brief Description:
  • The description of US10741071 states: "Proposals have been made, for example, in U.S. Pat. No. 6,697,730, to use a central assigning system and communications devices adapted to be associated with vehicles for transmitting information from the vehicles to the central assigning system, and for receiving information from the central assigning system."

Let's search for U.S. Pat. No. 6,697,730 to get its full details and abstract.

Obviousness Analysis of US10741071 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis assesses the obviousness of US patent 10741071 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, considering the scope and content of the prior art referenced within the patent description and general knowledge available to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) as of the priority date of February 12, 2007.

Independent Claim 1:
Claim 1 describes a method of exchanging messages between entities of a shared transport system, comprising:

1. Identifying a transport user and a transport provider:
   • Receiving a transport request from a transport user device (including a pick-up location).
   • Determining a transport provider device in proximity to the pick-up location.
2. Upon identification, and before or after transport:
   • Receiving a first message from a sender (user or provider) by a proxy messaging system (part of the shared transport system).
   • Generating a second message with the contents of the first message and a unique identifier for the sender.
   • Transmitting the second message to the recipient (the other of the user/provider).

Scope and Content of Prior Art:

1. U.S. Pat. No. 6,697,730 (Central Assigning System for Vehicles): The background section of US10741071 explicitly acknowledges U.S. Pat. No. 6,697,730 as prior art, stating, "Proposals have been made, for example, in U.S. Pat. No. 6,697,730, to use a central assigning system and communications devices adapted to be associated with vehicles for transmitting information from the vehicles to the central assigning system, and for receiving information from the central assigning system." (Description,). This reference establishes the prior existence of a system for matching transport supply and demand using a central assigning system and communication devices in vehicles.
2. Dynamic Ridesharing and National ITS Architecture (ATIS8): The patent also notes that "In the 1990s, the US Department of Transportation designated this “Dynamic Ridesharing” area a specific area of research interest, under the designation ATIS8 as part of the National ITS Architecture, and has proposed methods for transactions, interchange of billing data, and the like." (Description,). This indicates that the concept of dynamic ridesharing, involving central systems for coordinating transport, handling transactions, and data exchange, was a known field of research and development prior to the invention.
3. General Knowledge of Proxy Messaging Systems for Privacy: The patent itself identifies a known problem in shared transport systems: "Riders or drivers may be concerned about their safety if a stranger knows how to contact them via their phone. Thus, the below system incorporates a mechanism allowing riders and drivers to contact each other through their phones without knowing the other's phone number or full name..." (Description,). By the priority date of 2007, proxy messaging systems were a well-established technological solution in various online platforms (e.g., dating websites, online classifieds, social networks) to enable communication between parties while protecting their personal contact information and ensuring anonymity. These systems typically function by mediating messages, stripping private contact details, and routing them through a central server, often adding unique identifiers for session management.

Differences Between Prior Art and the Claimed Invention:

The primary distinguishing feature of Claim 1, building upon the known shared transport systems like those described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,697,730 and dynamic ridesharing initiatives, is the incorporation of a "proxy messaging system." This system mediates communication between the transport user and provider, generating a second message that includes the original content and a unique sender identifier, and transmitting it to the recipient, notably without private sender information as further clarified in dependent Claim 2.

Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA):

A PHOSITA in the field of shared transport systems and telecommunications by 2007 would likely possess expertise in software development, network architecture, mobile communication technologies (e.g., GPS, cellular data), database management, and user interface design. Such an individual would also be aware of common challenges in online interaction, including privacy and security concerns.

Motivation to Combine Prior Art References:

A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the elements of existing shared transport systems with a proxy messaging system for the following reasons:

1. Addressing Known Problems: The patent explicitly states that existing ridesharing systems faced challenges related to "lack of knowledge of trusted users" and the "fear of traveling with strangers or fear in waiting for long periods at public transit points." (Description,,). The patent also highlights the "issue of anonymity" as a concern for riders and drivers if strangers could contact them directly. (Description,).
2. Improving System Trustability and Adoption: One of the stated significant innovations of US10741071 over prior proposals is "methods to improve the trustability of drivers and riders, increasing the likelihood people will use this system." (Description,). Given the acknowledged privacy and safety concerns in ridesharing, a PHOSITA would naturally seek ways to enhance user trust and comfort to increase system adoption.
3. Availability of Known Solutions: Proxy messaging was a common and well-understood technical solution by 2007 for mediating communications to protect user privacy and anonymity in online interactions. Applying this known solution to the specific context of dynamic ridesharing, where privacy and safety were identified concerns, would be a logical step for a PHOSITA aiming to improve the system.
4. Routine Implementation: The implementation of a proxy messaging system (receiving, processing, and re-transmitting messages with identifiers while omitting private data) within an existing central assigning system for shared transport would be considered a routine engineering task for a PHOSITA.

Therefore, a PHOSITA, seeking to improve the trustability, security, and user adoption of dynamic ridesharing systems by addressing known privacy and anonymity concerns, would have been motivated to combine a central assigning system for shared transport (as generally known and exemplified by U.S. Pat. No. 6,697,730) with a conventional proxy messaging system to facilitate anonymous communication between users and providers.

Conclusion:

The combination of a central assigning system for shared transport, as disclosed in prior art like U.S. Pat. No. 6,697,730 and the general concept of dynamic ridesharing, with a known proxy messaging system to address established privacy and safety concerns in such environments, would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art by the priority date of US10741071.