US 11017668

Here's a concise summary of US patent 11017668:

US Patent 11017668: Systems and methods for managing anomalous conditions in a shared transport system

• Title: Systems and methods for managing anomalous conditions in a shared transport system
• Assignee: Carma Technology Ltd
• Inventor: Sean O'Sullivan
• Filing Date: August 3, 2020 (for application number US16/983,598, which led to this patent)
• Issue Date: May 25, 2021
• Abstract: The patent describes a network system that registers the start of a transport journey when a user device and a provider device communicate. It then continuously monitors their coordinated proximity to verify identities and triggers the registration of the journey's end when these devices communicate again.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1 (System Claim): This claim describes a computer-implemented system for managing unusual situations in a shared transportation network. The system includes a transport user device (e.g., a rider's phone) and a transport provider device (e.g., in a driver's vehicle) that can communicate with each other. A central shared transport marketplace (e.g., a server) registers the beginning of a trip based on this communication. The system continuously monitors the location of both devices to confirm they are traveling together. If an unusual condition (like the trip ending unexpectedly early or at a different location) occurs, the system logs this information. The system then takes action based on this logged information, which could include sending automated messages to verify intentions or adjusting trust ratings for the user or provider.
• Independent Claim 10 (Method Claim): This claim outlines a method for managing unusual conditions in a shared transport system. It involves triggering the registration of a journey's start based on communication between a transport user device and a transport provider device. The method includes continuously monitoring the coordinated proximity of these devices to verify identity and track the journey. It also involves triggering the registration of the journey's end through communication between the devices. The method further includes logging information if the journey terminates differently than planned and taking an action (such as sending a verification message or adjusting a trust level) based on this logged information.
• Independent Claim 17 (Computer Readable Storage Medium Claim): This claim describes a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (e.g., a hard drive or flash memory) that contains instructions. When a processor executes these instructions, it performs the operations of managing anomalous conditions in a shared transport system. These operations include triggering the start of a journey registration based on communication between a user device and a provider device, continuously monitoring their coordinated proximity for verification, and triggering the end of the journey registration through device communication. The operations also log information if the journey deviates from the established destination and perform an action based on this logged information.

Litigation / Dockets (as of April 26, 2026):

US patent 11017668 is currently involved in litigation:

• A PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) case, IPR2026-00308, has been filed and is pending.
• A US case has been filed in the Texas Eastern District Court.
• The first worldwide family litigation related to this patent has also been filed.

Here is a list of known litigation involving US Patent 11017668:

1. Inter Partes Review (IPR) Case

   • Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents (Petitioner)
   • Defendant(s): Carma Technology Ltd (Patent Owner)
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2026-00308
   • Filing Date: 2026 (year implied by case number IPR2026-00308)
   • Outcome or Current Status: Pending

2. District Court Case

   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided patent information, but generally, the patent owner (Carma Technology Ltd) would be the plaintiff in an infringement suit.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided patent information.
   • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
   • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00029
   • Filing Date: 2025 (year implied by case number 2:25-cv-00029)
   • Outcome or Current Status: The case is active, as indicated by its listing and recent filing date.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding is currently on file for US patent 11017668: IPR2026-00308. This proceeding is pending, meaning no claims have yet been invalidated or sustained. The patent's defensive posture remains untested by a final PTAB decision.

IPR2026-00308 — Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Carma Technology Ltd

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-03-12
• Status: Pending (The proceeding is in its initial stages, awaiting an institution decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.)
• Judge panel: Not yet publicly assigned or determined. Since October 2025, the Director of the USPTO, John Squires, is solely responsible for deciding whether to institute IPRs and PGRs, a significant departure from previous practice where APJ panels made these decisions.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims challenged, prior art references, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are not yet publicly detailed in the available information. However, IPRs typically challenge claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based on patents and printed publications.
• Institution decision: An institution decision has not yet been issued. Given the filing date of 2026-03-12, the decision on institution would typically be expected around December 2026 or January 2027, approximately six months after the Patent Owner's preliminary response (which would be due around June 2026). Recent policy changes, including a March 2026 memo from Director Squires, introduce a new discretionary factor for denial based on U.S. manufacturing footprint, and earlier proposed rules would limit challenges for patents that have already survived validity challenges or are in parallel litigation likely to conclude first. Early FY2026 data shows a 51% institution-denial rate.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable; the proceeding is pending.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; the proceeding is pending.
• Appeal: Not applicable; the proceeding is pending.
• Defensive value: This IPR is in its early stages, so it currently has no direct impact on the patent's validity. However, the outcome of the institution decision will be critical. If instituted, the patent owner will need to defend the challenged claims. If denied, it would strengthen the patent against similar future challenges.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US patent 11017668 are UNTESTED by any final PTAB decision. The patent is the subject of one pending Inter Partes Review, IPR2026-00308, filed by Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. The institution decision for this IPR is still pending.

The estoppel landscape remains largely open. Since there are no final written decisions, there are no claims that have been invalidated or confirmed as patentable by the PTAB. Therefore, no statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) has yet applied to the petitioner or its privies. This means that if the IPR is denied institution, the petitioner (and those in privity) could theoretically still raise the same prior art grounds in district court litigation. However, recent USPTO policy changes regarding discretionary denials, particularly those discouraging institution when parallel litigation is likely to conclude first, might influence future challenges.

A significant signal is the recent shift in PTAB policy. Since late 2025, the USPTO Director now makes institution decisions, not individual PTAB panels, and there has been a notable increase in institution denials (51% in early FY2026). Additionally, new discretionary factors, such as the U.S. manufacturing footprint of the parties, are being considered. The petitioner for IPR2026-00308 is listed as Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., while the patent is assigned to Carma Technology Ltd. The fact that the proceeding was initiated by a major company like Uber, possibly in conjunction with Unified Patents (as indicated by Google Patents data for the IPR), suggests a defensive challenge against a potentially asserted patent.

Recommended next steps

As IPR2026-00308 is pending, the most critical upcoming milestone is the institution decision. This decision is expected around December 2026 or January 2027. A defendant facing assertion of this patent should closely monitor this IPR for the institution decision, as it will determine whether the challenged claims proceed to trial. The recent changes in PTAB policy under Director Squires indicate a potentially higher hurdle for institution, which could be favorable to the patent owner.

Inventors

• Sean O'Sullivan (Carma Technology Ltd)

Original assignee

Carma Technology Ltd. The provided patent text describes the "Shared Transport System" as enabling private transport vehicles to augment public mass transit networks and match riders with unused transportation capacity, suggesting Carma Technology Ltd. was developing or operating such a system. The company's current status is "Active" as per Google Patents.

Assignment timeline

There are no recorded assignment records for US patent 11017668 on the USPTO Assignment Center. The Google Patents "Legal Events" section shows "Assigned to Carma Technology Limited" on 2020-08-03, but this appears to be the original assignment from the inventor to the company at the time of filing the application that led to this patent, rather than a subsequent transfer of ownership.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11017668
    2007 : Priority date
    2020 : Application filed by Carma Technology Ltd
    2021 : Patent granted

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. There is no evidence of a transfer from an operating assignee to a licensing-only LLC.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. No known NPEs are listed as assignees.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. With no assignment records, there is no correspondent information to analyze for recurrence.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. There are no recorded assignments.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While litigation is noted in Google Patents ("PTAB case IPR2026-00308 filed (Pending)" and "US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court 2:25-cv-00029"), the patent shows no recorded assignments to assess a pre-litigation transfer.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No indication of bankruptcy proceedings for Carma Technology Ltd.
7. Privateering — not present. No evidence in the public record suggests a privateering arrangement.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The patent is currently assigned to Carma Technology Ltd.

Verdict

Insufficient data. There are no post-issuance assignment records for US11017668 in the USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). The "Assigned to Carma Technology Limited" event listed in Google Patents on 2020-08-03 likely refers to the initial assignment from the inventor to the company upon application filing, not a subsequent transfer indicative of NPE activity.

To find the most relevant prior art for US patent 11017668, I would typically search the USPTO database for citations listed within the patent document itself. "Prior art" refers to any publicly available information that existed before the filing date of a patent application that might describe the claimed invention, either identically or similarly. Patent examiners use prior art to determine if an invention is novel and non-obvious.

Based on the provided patent text, US11017668 cites U.S. Pat. No. 6,697,730 in its detailed description. This is explicitly mentioned as a proposal for a central assigning system and communication devices for vehicles.

However, to provide a comprehensive list of all prior art cited by US11017668, I need to access the full patent document from the USPTO database directly, as the provided text is a summary and might not include all examiner-cited prior art. The USPTO's Patent Public Search tool allows searching for patents by publication number. Once the patent document is retrieved, I would then examine the "References Cited" section.

Without direct access to the USPTO database for the complete list of cited prior art, I can only detail the one explicitly mentioned in the description:

Prior Art Reference:

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 6,697,730
• Publication/Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but its issuance date is prior to the filing of US11017668, given it's cited as an existing proposal.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a central assigning system and communication devices associated with vehicles for transmitting and receiving information. The current patent (US11017668) states it makes advances over such systems by providing methods to reduce driver/rider workload, improve trust, offer visual communication to external riders, automatically determine and register transport capacity, and characterize ad-hoc transport capacity like traditional transit systems.
• Potentially Anticipates: Based on the description, U.S. Pat. No. 6,697,730 potentially anticipates general concepts related to a central system for managing vehicle information and communication for transportation services. US11017668 distinguishes itself by claiming specific innovations and methods that improve upon these existing concepts, making the system "more practical and useful." Therefore, it could potentially anticipate broad aspects of claims related to a networked transportation system, but the specific innovations of US11017668 would likely be found in claims detailing these improvements (e.g., specific methods for security, visual displays, stochastic modeling, or ad-hoc matching). To pinpoint exact claims, a detailed comparison of the claims of US 6,697,730 and US11017668 would be necessary.

US Patent 11017668 (hereinafter '668 patent) pertains to systems and methods for managing anomalous conditions in a shared transport system. The invention, as described in its abstract and detailed description, involves triggering the registration of a transport journey's start and end via communication between user and provider devices, performing continuous coordinated proximity monitoring for verification, and matching transportation supply (unused capacity) with demand in real-time. It also emphasizes features like security verifying and rating systems, graphical information display using stochastic models, and external vehicle indicators for identification.

For the purpose of an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we refer to the prior art explicitly mentioned within the '668 patent itself. The patent acknowledges the existence of prior proposals and research in this field.

Identified Prior Art References:

1. U.S. Pat. No. 6,697,730: This patent describes a system utilizing a central assigning system and communication devices within vehicles for transmitting information to, and receiving information from, the central system.
2. US Department of Transportation's "Dynamic Ridesharing" under the designation ATIS8: This was identified as a specific area of research interest in the 1990s, proposing methods for transactions and interchange of billing data for dynamic ridesharing.

Obviousness Analysis and Motivation to Combine:

A person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) in the field of transportation management systems or telematics, around the priority date of February 12, 2007, would have been familiar with the general concepts presented in U.S. Pat. No. 6,697,730 and the objectives of the ATIS8 Dynamic Ridesharing initiative.

Combination of U.S. Pat. No. 6,697,730 and ATIS8:

The '668 patent states that its invention makes systems like those proposed by U.S. Pat. No. 6,697,730 and ATIS8 "more practical and useful" by addressing several limitations. This statement itself provides a strong motivation for a POSA to combine and enhance these known prior art concepts.

1. Centralized Management for Dynamic Ridesharing: U.S. Pat. No. 6,697,730 already teaches a "central assigning system" communicating with vehicles. The ATIS8 initiative explicitly focused on "Dynamic Ridesharing," which inherently involves ad-hoc, real-time matching of available transport capacity with demand. It would have been obvious for a POSA to apply the centralized vehicle management system of U.S. Pat. No. 6,697,730 to facilitate the dynamic ridesharing concepts envisioned by ATIS8. The motivation would be to provide a concrete, technical architecture for implementing dynamic ridesharing, which was a recognized problem area.

2. Integration of Location Tracking and Verification: The '668 patent highlights "continuous co-ordinated proximity monitoring" for verifying identity and journey progress, using technologies like GPS or near-field communications (e.g., Bluetooth, 802.11, RFID). By 2007, GPS technology in mobile phones and navigation devices was common, and its use for tracking vehicles and individuals was known. Given that U.S. Pat. No. 6,697,730 involved "communications devices adapted to be associated with vehicles for transmitting information," a POSA would have found it obvious to integrate GPS or similar location-determining capabilities into these devices. The motivation for this integration, as explicitly stated in the '668 patent, would be to "reduce the workload/steps necessary on the driver and the rider" and to ensure the reliable delivery and verification of transport services. The patent also explicitly notes that the problem of "fear of traveling with strangers" could be mitigated by improved security and rating systems.

3. Improved Information Services and Stochastic Modeling: The '668 patent emphasizes providing riders and drivers with better information, including "schematic and geographic maps" and "typical availability and travel times... based off a model of historic usage and travel times ('stochastic model')." The patent identifies a "current drawback to carpooling systems" as "lack of information about the availability of services and timing between locations." Displaying real-time and predicted transport information on maps was a known application in general navigation and traffic systems. Applying stochastic models (statistical methods using historical data) to predict future availability and travel times for an ad-hoc ridesharing network, to overcome the "lack of information," would have been a logical and obvious step for a POSA in operational research or computer science aiming to improve user confidence and practicality, especially in the context of dynamic ridesharing as described by ATIS8.

4. Trust and Rating Systems: The '668 patent describes a "security verifying and rating system" to ensure trustworthiness of participants, including rating drivers for risky behavior or no-shows, and riders for unusual behavior or missed rides. While not explicitly detailed in the cited prior art, the concept of user-generated ratings and feedback systems was well-established in various online marketplaces and service platforms by the priority date. The motivation for a POSA to incorporate such a system into a dynamic ridesharing platform would be to address the inherent trust issues associated with "traveling with strangers," a problem explicitly acknowledged by the '668 patent.

In conclusion, the core advancements claimed by the '668 patent—real-time matching, location-based verification, enhanced information display (including stochastic predictions), and trust mechanisms—represent a combination and refinement of elements already present or suggested in the prior art (U.S. Pat. No. 6,697,730 and ATIS8), coupled with generally known technological capabilities and problem-solving approaches (GPS, rating systems, statistical modeling). The '668 patent itself provides ample motivation for a POSA to combine these elements to create a more practical and useful dynamic ridesharing system, addressing identified drawbacks in the existing landscape.