How can a decade -old patent dispute increase Uber’s business

The case of violating unknown patents can have significant impacts on Uber-and possibly dozens of other companies.

Karma TechnologyA company formed in 2007 by the serial businessman and SosV Founder Sean Osoulivan filed a lawsuit earlier this year against Uber, claiming that the company violates five patents that are linked to the matching contestants (or beams) with the capacity of vehicles. In other words, Rideshars- Carma has been operated in a period of time for a decade until it changed its business model and applying its technology to road pricing services such as GPS Tolling and checking HOV.

Carma has requested a jury and seeks to obtain a permanent judicial order against the company, and the mandatory future pioneers on any Uber products that violate these patents as well as damage, and other costs related to the case.

The lawsuit, which calmly calmed down through the American District Court of the Eastern Region in Texas, is relatively new. The allegations have been hovering for nearly a decade.

Carma’s lawyers called for the first time on his patents and land transport patents in 2016, according to the complaint. That was a meter of aus. The startup company, which was established just seven years ago, was launched on the strategy – in terms of evaluation, growth and lean.

Uber At a value of 66 billion dollars At that time, he had a good reputation to take it Large fluctuations legally sticky In new markets, she helped her grow hundreds of cities in the United States, Europe, Canada and the Middle East. It raised more than $ 12.5 billion in investment capital, and it was using it to launch new products and even Click on independent vehicles.

“Uber might have a business model and market share, but had no specified patents. Karma no – in addition to a Dozens of others. Uber was allegedly aware of this fact early in 2015 when the US Patent and brands office rejected one of her requests because she was subjected to the current patents kept by Osoulivan and Karma, according to the lawsuit.

At least four patent requests were rejected in Uber – and in some cases many reviews of those patents – between 2016 and 2019 for the same reason were rejected. The Rideshare giant will eventually give up some of these applications.

Uber still holds hundreds of other patents that cover a wide range of technology and ideas that have been applied to its work.

O’sllivan argues that the basic service of CARMA patents describes exactly how the experience of sharing modern era works. He claims that Uber violates these patents even if the company’s business model is similar to taxi business.

“The case is complicated. (Asherery does not participate in the case.)

“The important thing is that we understand here is that Karma does not confirm only five patents,” said Ashri, who is practicing in the Greater Philadelphia region. “They had a very advanced patent purchases that they had been working on for 18 years.”

He pointed out that the five patents are part of a family of 30 designers, all of which are linked and connected to the date of the original deposit. This is important because each of the five patents that have been confirmed contain multiple patent claims, which define the legal limits of the invention. These individual allegations – not only patents as a whole – are what Karma confirmed against Uber.

This means that Uber must address and defense against every confirmed claim, which makes litigation more complicated and difficult to defeat. Ashry said that Uber’s strategy will likely try to nullify these patents, which will be a challenge.

Nine years’ gap

Although Karma may be armed with these specified patents, it took nine years for the company to really sue Uber. Bunsow De Mory, a Redwood City law firm, represents Karma in the case.

“When any business begins, it is all all about seizing the market and winning the market.” “Patents aim to protect from aggressors from stealing the idea, but it is not the main focus of your business to obtain patent revenue. It’s a more preventive mechanism.”

He said that Karma was “very busy building millions of dollars and reaching profitability.” Osolivan explained that there are other reasons for this nine -year time gap. For one, the cost.

He said in an interview with him recently: “It is incredibly useful to prosecute a large company on IP and Carma is a relatively small organization.” “The amount of $ 10 million to take a big suit for patents, which it takes these days, is not a small task.”

Osolivan said that the company had contacted Uber until 2016 “hoping to do the right thing and our patent licensing.”

He added: “It took us some time to reconcile with the idea that we had already sued Uber to respond.”

Uber refused to comment on the lawsuit. Uber lawyers submitted two procedural suggestions this week, including a sealed proposal to dismiss an inappropriate place or instead to transfer a place to rest. This procedural movement refers to Uber’s desire to litigate the case in the northern region of California, where its headquarters are located, not in Texas.

It is worth noting that the lawsuit aims to Uber, not Lyft or other companies using Ridesharing. Osolivan explained that Karma “follows the largest player first” and noticed that about 60 other companies are likely to violate patents.

the An argument of five alignment

The basic argument in the five patents has given patents granted to O’Sallivan and Carma, originally called AVEGO.

Everything began to frustrate O’Sallivan from traffic congestion, ultimately led to ideas about car transporting and how the automated system that uses smartphones can help people coordinate. This idea will turn into Avego starting and becomes the basis for the first patent – No. 7,840,427.

The first patent, which was submitted by O carellivan in 2007 and was granted in 2010, created a joint transport system that matches an empty space in a car with cyclists or goods. The system created a set of capture and declining points, then compatible with users and drivers traveling along a similar road.

Before the patent was awarded, the Avego’s Ridesharing app appeared on the Apple App Store in 2008, in the same year in which IPhone was launched. Avego showed what is called Common Transport application At the 2008 experimental conference, which made it clear how the driver with the iPhone 3G can use the application to accept or reject the ride request. Once it was accepted, the contestant was notified as the driver approached and was then asked to enter a pin code to prove his identity and authorize electronic payment.

Avego, whose name will be changed later to Carma, focused on promoting the participation of participation (As in car escorts) And not taxis, according to ASLIFAN. The company has operated car business until October 2016, when the application was withdrawn from the application store. However, it still has other forms of participation, such as its partnership with Toyota, until it is completely rotated in April 2018.

“If you look at the definition of participation in federal legislation, this is the pursuit of cars,” Osolivan said, noting that Karma built millions of dollars in his early days.

When Uber and Lyft came and tried to participate in the term participation in its concern, causing confusion in the market, prompting Carma to change its business model and apply its technology in new ways. “Uber and Lyft are really taken in the direction of taxi services, but our company Karma did not want it,” said Obsolvan.

Karma is still focusing on reducing traffic congestion, but its technology is applied to a different business model.

Today, Carma uses its application to help the transit authorities to manage the Tolls and Express Lanes – a production line that the company launched for the first time in 2013. The application was designed to get more cyclists in cars and reward these people by reducing fees or giving drivers access to HOV neighborhood.

Osolivan said that the idea is to give the losses of losses a way to reduce capital expenditures by 20 times by not using large channel infrastructure systems. It resulted.

Osolivan says Karma is profitable, although following this lawsuit will reduce this. However, he said it is worth the cost.

He said: “I think there is a danger in society where we cannot rely on our patents to protect the rights of inventors, and there is a patent system specifically to protect the rights of investors, and not the reward for the copies that are just carefully encountered.”

“We believe it is important to realize that the rights of the relatively small inventor are blocked. But it’s not only for Karma, really. We think about this as a problem with the entire system. It is a test of what the rule of law still still applies when involving a strong technical giant.”