PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There is currently one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 10916138, which is an Inter Partes Review (IPR). This proceeding is in a pending status, meaning no final decision on the patentability of the challenged claims has been reached. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, this indicates that the validity of several key claims is actively being challenged, creating a period of uncertainty regarding the patent's robustness.

IPR2026-00306 — Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Carma Technology, Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-03-12
• Status: Pending. The petition has been filed, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has not yet issued a decision on whether to institute the trial.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available in search results at this early stage.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenges claims 1-4, 9-13, and 18 of US10916138. Uber Technologies, Inc. and Uber Freight US LLC assert that these claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). For example, Ground 1 argues that claims 1-3, 10-12, and 18 are obvious over Olmi (UK Patent Application No. GB2397683A) in view of Gaspard (Patent 6,411,897). A core argument for this ground is that Olmi taught a shared transportation system for matching passengers with carpool drivers, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine this with Gaspard's explicit disclosure of freight and passenger transportation to enhance utility and revenue. Claim 9, which focuses on determining good delivery, is challenged as obvious over Olmi in view of Gaspard and Wolfe (Application # 2002/0123917), and also in combination with Thomas's polling method (US Patent 7,492,279) for power efficiency.
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. The statutory deadline for the PTAB to decide whether to institute the IPR is six months from the filing date, which would be around 2026-09-12.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable at this pending stage.
• Appeal: Not applicable at this pending stage.
• Defensive value: This IPR means that claims 1-4, 9-13, and 18 are under review for patentability. If a defendant is being asserted against using these claims, the outcome of this IPR could significantly impact the strength of the patent owner's case. Until an institution decision or Final Written Decision is issued, the validity of these claims remains uncertain.

Strategic summary

Currently, claims 1-4, 9-13, and 18 of US10916138 are UNTESTED by a Final Written Decision but are UNDER CHALLENGE in the pending IPR2026-00306. The remaining claims (5-8, 14-17, 19-20) are UNTESTED by any PTAB proceeding. This means that no claims have been canceled or definitively sustained by the PTAB yet. The patent's validity, particularly for the challenged claims, is in an active state of dispute.

The estoppel landscape has not yet formed for this patent regarding PTAB proceedings. If IPR2026-00306 is instituted and proceeds to a Final Written Decision, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) would bar Uber Technologies, Inc. and Uber Freight US LLC (and their privies) from raising any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR in future district court or ITC proceedings. For other potential defendants, however, these prior art grounds, along with others, would still be available for challenges if they are not privy to Uber.

There is a clear pattern signal here: Uber Technologies, Inc. is actively challenging Carma Technology Ltd.'s patents, as evidenced by IPR2026-00306 on US10916138 and IPR2026-00307 on US11164456B2. This PTAB activity aligns with a broader "decade-long patent battle" between Carma Technology and Uber, including a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Carma against Uber in the Eastern District of Texas (2:25-cv-00029). This indicates a high-stakes dispute where Uber is leveraging PTAB proceedings as a defense strategy against Carma's patent assertions.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US10916138:

• Monitor IPR2026-00306 closely: The institution decision is the next critical milestone, expected around 2026-09-12. A decision to institute would confirm the PTAB's belief that there's a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for at least one challenged claim, which could significantly weaken the patent owner's position for claims 1-4, 9-13, and 18.
• Analyze the petition grounds: Thoroughly review the prior art cited in IPR2026-00306 (Olmi, Gaspard, Wolfe, Thomas) and the arguments presented by Uber. This provides insight into potential weaknesses of the patent and may inform your own invalidity contentions or defensive strategies.
• Consider the new PTAB discretionary institution policy: Be aware that the USPTO Director's March 2026 memo introduces U.S. manufacturing activity as a discretionary factor for institution. This could play a role in the institution decision for IPR2026-00306, depending on the manufacturing footprint of the parties involved.
• Assess untested claims: While claims 1-4, 9-13, and 18 are under challenge, claims 5-8, 14-17, 19-20 remain untested by PTAB. If these claims are central to your potential infringement, you may need to develop your own invalidity arguments.
• No PTAB final decisions yet: No claims have been invalidated or sustained by the PTAB for this patent at this time. This means there is no FWD to link to or quote for disposition. The patent's validity is currently subject to an ongoing challenge.