PTAB challenges

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.