Latest news with #ridesharing
TechCrunch
a day ago
- Business
- TechCrunch
How a decade-old patent dispute could upend Uber's business
A little-known patent infringement lawsuit could have big implications for Uber — and potentially dozens of other companies. Carma Technology, a company formed in 2007 by serial entrepreneur and SOSV Ventures founder Sean O'Sullivan, filed a lawsuit earlier this year against Uber alleging the company infringed on five of its patents that are related to the system of matching riders (or packages) with capacity in vehicles. In other words, ride-sharing — a business Carma operated in some form for a decade until it changed its business model and applied its tech to road-pricing services like GPS tolling and HOV verification. Carma has requested a jury trial and is seeking a permanent injunction against the company, mandatory future royalties on any Uber products that infringe on those patents as well as damages, and other costs related to the lawsuit. The lawsuit, which has been quietly winding its way through the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, is relatively new. The allegations have been swirling for nearly a decade. Carma lawyers first contacted Uber about its ride-sharing and ground transportation patents in 2016, according to the complaint. That was an auspicious time for Uber. The startup, which was founded just seven years before, had shot into the stratosphere — in terms of valuation, growth, and gravitas. Uber was valued at $66 billion at the time, and had a reputation for taking big, legally sticky swings into new markets that helped it grow to hundreds of cities in the U.S., Europe, Canada, and the Middle East. It had raised more than $12.5 billion in venture capital, and was using it to launch new products and even push into autonomous vehicles. Uber might have had the business model and the market share, but it didn't have the specific ride-sharing patents, O'Sullivan told TechCrunch in a recent interview. Carma does — plus a couple dozen others. Uber was allegedly aware of that fact as early as 2015 when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected one of its applications because it ran up against existing patents held by O'Sullivan and Carma, according to the lawsuit. Techcrunch event Save now through June 4 for TechCrunch Sessions: AI Save $300 on your ticket to TC Sessions: AI—and get 50% off a second. Hear from leaders at OpenAI, Anthropic, Khosla Ventures, and more during a full day of expert insights, hands-on workshops, and high-impact networking. These low-rate deals disappear when the doors open on June 5. Exhibit at TechCrunch Sessions: AI Secure your spot at TC Sessions: AI and show 1,200+ decision-makers what you've built — without the big spend. Available through May 9 or while tables last. Berkeley, CA | REGISTER NOW At least four of Uber's patent applications — and in some cases numerous revisions to those patents — were rejected between 2016 and 2019 for the same reason. The ride-share giant would eventually abandon some of those applications. Uber still holds hundreds of other patents covering a broad swath of technology and ideas that have been applied to its business. O'Sullivan argues the core service of what Carma's patents describes is exactly how the modern day ride-sharing experience operates. And he contends that Uber is infringing on those patents even if the company's business model operates more like a taxi business. The case is a complicated one, intellectual property attorney Larry Ashery told TechCrunch. (Ashery is not involved in the case.) 'What's important to understand here is Carma isn't just asserting five patents,' said Ashery, whose practice is based in Greater Philadelphia area. 'They have had a very sophisticated strategy of patent procurement that they've been working on for the past 18 years.' He noted the five patents are part of a 30-patent family that are all related and connected to the original filing date. That matters because each of the five asserted patents contains multiple patent claims, which define the legal boundaries of the invention. These individual claims — not just the patents as a whole — are what Carma is asserting against Uber. That means Uber will have to address and defend against each asserted claim, making the litigation more complex and difficult to defeat, he noted. Ashery said Uber's strategy will likely be to try an invalidate these patents, which will be a challenge. A nine-year gap Image Credits:Carma While Carma might have been armed with these specific patents, it took nine years for the company to actually sue Uber. Bunsow De Mory, a Redwood City-based law firm, is representing Carma in the case. 'When any business starts, it's all about just actually capturing the market and winning in the marketplace,' O'Sullivan said. 'Patents are meant to protect against aggressors from stealing the idea, but it's not the main focus of your business to get patent revenue. It's more as a protective mechanism.' Carma, he said, has been 'very busy building a multi-million dollar business and getting to profitability.' But there are other reasons for that nine-year time gap, O'Sullivan explained. For one, the cost. 'It's incredibly expensive to sue a large company over IP and Carma is a relatively small organization,' he said in a recent interview. 'To come up with the $10 million-plus to take on a big patent suit, which is what it takes these days, is not a small task.' O'Sullivan said the company did reach out to Uber as far back as 2016 'in the hopes that they would do the right thing and license our patents.' 'It really took us a while to come to terms with the idea that we actually had to sue Uber in order for them to respond,' he added. Uber declined to comment on the lawsuit. Uber's attorneys did make two procedural motions this week, including a sealed motion to dismiss for improper venue or alternatively to transfer venue for convenience. This procedural motion signals Uber's desire for the case to be litigated in the Northern District of California, where it is based, rather than in Texas. Notably, the lawsuit is aimed at Uber, not Lyft or other companies using ride-sharing. O'Sullivan explained Carma is 'going after the biggest player first' and noted that about 60 other companies are likely infringing on its patents. The five-patent argument The primary argument in the lawsuit ties back to five patents that have been granted to O'Sullivan and Carma, which was originally named Avego. It all started with O'Sullivan's frustration with traffic congestion, which ultimately led to thoughts about car-pooling and how an automated system using smartphones could help people coordinate rides. That idea would turn into the startup Avego and become the basis of the first patent — No. 7,840,427. The first patent, which O'Sullivan applied for in 2007 and was granted in 2010, created a shared transport system that matches empty space in a vehicle with riders or goods. The system established a set of pick-up and drop-off points and then matched users and drivers traveling along a similar route. Before the patent was granted Avego's ride-sharing app debuted on Apple's App Store in 2008, the same year the iPhone launched. Avego showed off its so-called Shared Transport app at the DEMO conference in 2008, which showed how a driver with an iPhone 3G could use the app to accept or reject a ride request. Once accepted, the rider was notified as the driver approached and then was prompted to enter a pin code to prove their identity and authorize an electronic payment. Avego, which would later change its name to Carma, was focused on the promotion of ride-sharing (as in carpooling) and not taxis, according to O'Sullivan. The company operated the carpooling business until October 2016, when the app was withdrawn from the App store. However, it still had other forms of ride-sharing, like its partnership with Toyota, until phasing it out altogether in April 2018. 'If you look at the definition of ride-sharing in federal legislation, it is carpooling,' O'Sullivan said, noting that Carma built up a multi-million dollar ride-sharing business in its early days. When Uber and Lyft came in and tried to co-opt the term ride-sharing to mean taxi-hailing it caused confusion in the market, prompting Carma to change its business model and apply its tech in new ways. 'Uber and Lyft really took ride-sharing in the direction of taxi services, but our company Carma didn't want to,' O'Sullivan said. Carma is still focused on reducing traffic congestion, but its tech is applied to a different business model. Today, Carma uses its app to help transit authorities manage tolls and express lanes — a product line the company first rolled out in 2013. For instance, the app can be used by a driver on a toll road or even track vehicle occupancy for HOV lanes. The app is designed to get more riders into cars and reward those people by reducing tolls or giving drivers access to the HOV lane. The idea, O'Sullivan said, is to offer toll authorities a way to reduce capital expenditure by up to 20 times by not using large gantry-based infrastructure systems. And it has paid off. O'Sullivan says Carma is profitable, although pursuing this lawsuit will cut into its bottom line. Still, he said it's worth the cost. 'I think there's a danger in society where we can't rely on our patents to protect the rights of of the inventors, and the patent system exists specifically to protect the rights of investors, not to reward copycats that just have happen to have deeper pockets,' he said, pointing to Uber's attempts at its own patents and the rejection of them by the USPTO. 'We think it's something that's important to recognize that the rights of a relatively small inventor, are being trampled upon. But it's not just for Carma, really. We think of this as a problem for the entire system. It's a test of whether the rule of law still applies when a powerful tech giant is involved.'
Globe and Mail
2 days ago
- Business
- Globe and Mail
Uber Stock Ready to Ride Higher on Waymo Partnership
Companies that were once hot and known for their growth stages typically come to a plateau once their size starts getting too big to keep churning out double-digit growth rates across the board. When this happens, investors can start to reduce their positions in the once great run higher or wait for new catalysts or developments to come into the company and spark a new growth stage once again; that is as simple as it gets for professional money managers. In today's market, one name has become synonymous with transportation services, a name and brand that most consumers are familiar with in the technology sector. It delivers the sort of financial performance that every value investor wants to see on their balance sheets and portfolios. [content-module:CompanyOverview|NYSE:UBER] However, fears of this company falling out of its growth stage have placed new pressure on its management's shoulders, potentially leading the company into a new growth phase. The company in question is Uber Technologies Inc. (NYSE: UBER). This name has penetrated the ridesharing industry, with few competitors today. While the company's financials have all of the right components to keep it headed toward higher prices, concerns about upkeeping growth initiatives have led it to consider a partnership with Waymo, a similar platform hosted by Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOGL), and that could be the catapult forward for Uber. What a Partnership Could Look Like The term robotaxi has been coined by Tesla Inc. (NASDAQ: TLSA) for some time now. However, the true developments in the autonomous driving arena have to be granted to Alphabet's Waymo as a differentiating technology. True autonomous ridesharing has already been achieved. Up to 250,000 monthly rides have become the norm for Waymo, which operates in less than a handful of states. This speaks to the platform's adoption rate among its customers. Seeing that Uber and Waymo have so much in common, it makes all the sense in the world that the two would partner. Talks about making this happen are already taking place. Still, investors need to understand what this combination could look like in the future. The proposal is for consumers to have the option to book a Waymo or physical Uber driver, depending on time and pricing dynamics, where the combined platform offers the best available option right away. Of course, the two platforms will see mutual benefit in this joint operation. Waymo will find a new way to keep pushing its adoption rates further while Uber locks in on a new expansion path, solving the growth plateau dilemma for investors today. Now, the question becomes whether the market is already recognizing some of these developments in Uber stock and where the potential ceiling might be moving forward. Here's the Market's Take on Uber [content-module:Forecast|NYSE:UBER] Even after a one-year performance of up to 36.7 %, Uber stock has the potential to keep reaching higher highs in the coming months and quarters. Now trading at 94% of its 52-week high, Uber stock is a great candidate for momentum buyers and investors. Speaking of these momentum buyers, investors can already see that dynamic taking place over the most recent quarter, as $6.1 billion worth of institutional capital has justified its way into Uber stock already, signaling further confidence and optimism for the company's future under this new development with Waymo. This new positioning adds to the $11 billion of institutional buying that took place over the previous quarter, adding to the snowball effect of backing and momentum that can be seen in Uber stock's future. Understanding that Uber now has all of the right components to keep delivering attractive returns for investors, some on Wall Street have also decided to take action in favor of the name. Ivan Feinseth, an analyst at Tigress Financial, decided to reiterate his Buy rating on Uber stock as of mid-May 2025, with an added bonus on top. This analyst also boosted his valuation target from his previous view of $103 per share, whereas now a more fair assessment seems to lie closer to $110. This implies that Uber stock could rally by as much as 25.3% from where it trades today, not to mention make a new 52-week high while at it. A new high, along with continued bullish quarters for Uber, could attract another massive wave of institutional buying, creating a virtuous cycle of upside in the stock for the coming months and quarters, a theme investors who think Uber is past its growth stage could come to regret not being a part of. Where Should You Invest $1,000 Right Now? Before you make your next trade, you'll want to hear this. MarketBeat keeps track of Wall Street's top-rated and best performing research analysts and the stocks they recommend to their clients on a daily basis. Our team has identified the five stocks that top analysts are quietly whispering to their clients to buy now before the broader market catches on... and none of the big name stocks were on the list. They believe these five stocks are the five best companies for investors to buy now...
Globe and Mail
3 days ago
- Automotive
- Globe and Mail
Can Waymo Really Rule Self-Driving Cars in 2025?
Waymo is now offering 250,000 rides per week, but it's not stopping there. The company is going to more than a dozen cities on "road trips," a precursor to opening commercial operations. In this video, Travis Hoium shows just how quickly the company's operations are scaling. *Stock prices used were end-of-day prices of May 27, 2025. The video was published on May 28, 2025. Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Learn More » Should you invest $1,000 in Alphabet right now? Before you buy stock in Alphabet, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Alphabet wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $653,389!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $830,492!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor 's total average return is982% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to171%for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of May 19, 2025 Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Travis Hoium has positions in Alphabet, Lyft, Mobileye Global, and Uber Technologies. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Tesla, and Uber Technologies. The Motley Fool recommends Mobileye Global and Volkswagen Ag. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Travis Hoium is an affiliate of The Motley Fool and may be compensated for promoting its services. If you choose to subscribe through their link they will earn some extra money that supports their channel. Their opinions remain their own and are unaffected by The Motley Fool.
CTV News
5 days ago
- Business
- CTV News
Review of Ottawa's rideshare bylaw would be delayed by work on ‘bubble zone' bylaw: memo
An Uber vehicle is seen in this file photo. City of Ottawa staff say an upcoming review of the 2016 bylaw that legalized ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft would need to be delayed to the next term of council if a 'bubble zone' bylaw plan is passed this week. City councillors will vote on a plan Wednesday directing staff to draft a 'vulnerable social infrastructure' bylaw that would prohibit protests within a certain distance of buildings such as places of worship, schools, hospitals, and long-term care homes. Councillors on the emergency preparedness and protective services committee and the public works and infrastructure committee voted 14-2 in favour of proceeding with the plan at a joint meeting earlier this month. Delaying work on the vehicle-for-hire bylaw was one of the directions in the motion that passed committee. A report prepared for Wednesday's city council meeting gives staff a nine-month timeline to draft the new bylaw. In a memo released Monday, Ryan Perrault, general manager of Emergency and Protective Services, said work on the vulnerable social infrastructure bylaw would inhibit staff from reviewing the vehicle-for-hire bylaw, which is up for review in 2026, but doing so should not pose any significant problems. A staff report in 2023 noted that the review would not be completed before the end of this term of council in 2026, but that preliminary work would begin in the spring of 2025. Perreault wrote that should council approve the vulnerable social infrastructure bylaw this week, the preliminary work on the vehicle-for-hire bylaw would also be delayed. 'The preliminary work was to include the identification of stakeholders as well as issues and areas for research and review, developing a consultation and engagement plan, and identifying the internal and external resources that may be required to carry out the full review,' he wrote. 'Subsequent to Council approving the review of a Vulnerable Social Infrastructure By-law - in 2025-2026, the preliminary work on the Vehicle-For-Hire By-law would be delayed.' Perrault said delaying a review of the vehicle-for-hire bylaw to the next term of council is not expected to have a significant impact on the review process. 'While the full scope of that work is not yet determined, staff anticipate that the review would take approximately 18 to 24 months. Preliminary work could begin as soon as Q3 2026 and could continue into the next Term on the assumption that Council will approve this review in next Term's work plan,' he said. City council approved a bylaw review framework in 2019 that requires municipal bylaws be regularly reviewed, at least once every 10 years. The 2016 vehicle-for-hire bylaw was enacted after Uber's arrival in the Ottawa market in 2014. The bylaw created rules that allowed for the operation of 'private transportation companies' in the city. In 2024, an Ontario Superior Court judge ruled that the City of Ottawa was negligent in its enforcement of the city's taxi bylaw when it allowed Uber to begin operating in 2014, prior to the creation of the vehicle-for-hire bylaw, which harmed the city's established taxi industry.
Forbes
21-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Is Lyft's Low Valuation An Investment Opportunity?
Photo via Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images Lyft (NASDAQ: LYFT) reported robust Q1 2025 results, showing ongoing operational and financial momentum. Gross bookings grew by 13% year-over-year (y-o-y) to $4.2 billion, while revenue increased 14% to $1.5 billion. The company achieved a net income of $2.57 million, marking a substantial improvement from the $31.54 million net loss in Q1 2024, marking its third consecutive quarter of being profitable. Operationally, Lyft completed 218 million rides (up 16% y-o-y) and expanded its active rider base by 11% y-o-y to 24.2 million. Strategically, Lyft is broadening its presence in smaller, car-dependent cities like Indianapolis, where rides surged by 37% in Q1. The company is also investing in autonomous vehicle technology through collaborations with Mobileye, May Mobility, and Nexar, intending to incorporate self-driving vehicles into its platform by 2025. The company's stock has risen 30% year-to-date, compared to a modest 1.3% increase in the S&P 500 (as of May 16). LYFT stock offers a balanced combination of strengths and weaknesses, representing its moderate operating performance and financial state. However, when combined with its notably low valuation, the overall investment thesis seems appealing. See Buy or Sell Lyft? We reach our conclusion by assessing the current valuation of LYFT stock in relation to its operational performance in recent years, along with its current and historical financial status. Our evaluation of LYFT according to key metrics of Growth, Profitability, Financial Stability, and Downturn Resilience indicates that the company has a moderate operating performance and financial standing, as elaborated below. Nevertheless, if you are looking for upside potential with reduced volatility compared to individual stocks, the Trefis High Quality portfolio provides an alternative - having outperformed the S&P 500 and delivered returns exceeding 91% since its inception. Based on the amount you pay per dollar of sales or profit, LYFT stock appears undervalued in comparison to the wider market. • Lyft has a price-to-sales (P/S) ratio of 0.9 compared to a value of 2.8 for the S&P 500 • Moreover, the company's price-to-free cash flow (P/FCF) ratio is 6.2 versus 17.6 for the S&P 500 Lyft's Revenues have seen significant growth over the last few years. • Lyft has experienced its top line grow at an average rate of 22.2% over the past 3 years (compared to an increase of 6.2% for the S&P 500) • Its revenues have increased by 31.4% from $4.4 Bil to $5.8 Bil in the last 12 months (against a growth of 5.3% for the S&P 500) • Additionally, its quarterly revenues grew 13% to $1.45 Bil in the most recent quarter from $1.28 Bil a year earlier (versus a 4.9% improvement for the S&P 500) Lyft's profit margins are significantly lower than most companies covered in the Trefis analysis. • Lyft's Operating Income over the last four quarters was $-119 Mil, translating to a very poor Operating Margin of -2.1% (compared to 13.1% for the S&P 500) • LYFT Operating Cash Flow (OCF) over this period was $850 Mil, indicating a poor OCF Margin of 14.7% (versus 15.7% for the S&P 500) • For the last four-quarter timeframe, LYFT Net Income was $23 Mil – reflecting a very poor Net Income Margin of 0.4% (versus 11.3% for the S&P 500) Lyft's balance sheet presents a solid picture. • Lyft's Debt stood at $1.2 Bil at the close of the most recent quarter, while its market capitalization is $6.8 Bil (as of 5/14/2025). This suggests a moderate Debt-to-Equity Ratio of 22.2% (in contrast to 21.5% for S&P 500). [Note: A low Debt-to-Equity Ratio is advantageous] • Cash (inclusive of cash equivalents) constitutes $2.0 Bil of the $5.7 Bil in Total Assets for Lyft. This provides a very strong Cash-to-Assets Ratio of 35.1% (compared to 15.0% for the S&P 500) LYFT stock has underperformed significantly compared to the benchmark S&P 500 index during several recent downturns. While investors are hopeful for a soft landing for the U.S. economy, how severe might it be if another recession strikes? Our dashboard How Low Can Stocks Go During A Market Crash captures the performance of key stocks during and after the last six market crashes. • LYFT stock declined 88.1% from a peak of $67.42 on 15 March 2021 to $7.99 on 24 May 2023, against a peak-to-trough drop of 25.4% for the S&P 500 • The stock is still yet to rebound to its pre-Crisis high • The highest the stock has attained since then is $20.28 on 21 March 2024 and it currently trades at approximately $17 • LYFT stock plummeted 70.2% from a peak of $53.94 on 11 February 2020 to $16.05 on 18 March 2020, compared to a peak-to-trough decline of 33.9% for the S&P 500 • The stock completely recovered to its pre-Crisis peak by 10 February 2021 In conclusion, Lyft's performance across the outlined parameters above is summarized as follows: • Growth: Extremely Strong • Profitability: Extremely Weak • Financial Stability: Very Strong • Downturn Resilience: Extremely Weak • Overall: Neutral With its very low valuation taken into account, this makes the stock appear attractive, supporting our assertion that LYFT is a wise stock to purchase. While LYFT stock appears promising, investing in a single stock can carry risks. You might consider exploring the Trefis Reinforced Value (RV) Portfolio, which has exceeded its all-cap stocks benchmark (a mix of the S&P 500, S&P mid-cap, and Russell 2000 benchmark indices) to yield strong returns for investors. Why is that? The quarterly rebalanced mix of large-, mid-, and small-cap RV Portfolio stocks has provided a responsive approach to maximize favorable market conditions while minimizing losses in downturns, as detailed in RV Portfolio performance metrics.
