LEBBY DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

dc- 877138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)

MJacobs@mofo.com 

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ (CA SBN 121490) 

AGonzalez@mofo.com 

ERIC A. TATE (CA SBN 178719) 

ETate@mofo.com 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: 415.268.7000 

Facsimile: 415.268.7522 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

OTTOMOTTO LLC, and OTTO TRUCKING LLC 

KAREN L. DUNN (Pro Hac Vice) 

kdunn@bsfllp.com 

HAMISH P.M. HUME (Pro Hac Vice) 

hhume@bsfllp.com 

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 

1401 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington DC 20005 

Telephone: 202.237.2727 

Facsimile: 202.237.6131 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

and OTTOMOTTO LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING LLC, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL 

LEBBY IN SUPPORT OF 

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO 

PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION 

Date: May 3, 2017 

Time: 7:30 a.m. 

Ctrm: 8, 19th Floor 

Judge: The Honorable William Alsup 

Trial Date: October 2, 2017

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 182 Filed 04/07/17 Page 1 of 22
LEBBY DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 1

dc- 877138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

I, Michael Lebby, Ph.D., declare as follows: 

1. I have been asked by counsel for Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), 

and Ottomotto LLC (“Otto”) and Otto Trucking LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) to provide 

certain opinions in the above-captioned case in connection with Waymo LLC’s (“Waymo”)1

Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (“Motion”) and the declaration of Mr. Gregory Kintz in 

Support of Waymo’s Motion (“Kintz Declaration”), specifically concerning the alleged trade 

secrets identified in Paragraphs 36 to 55 of the Kintz Declaration. I submit this declaration in 

support of Defendants’ Opposition to Waymo’s Motion. I have personal knowledge of the facts 

set forth in this declaration and, if called to testify as a witness, could and would do so 

competently. 

I. QUALIFICATION AND EXPERIENCE 

2. I provide a brief summary of my qualifications below. A copy of my current 

curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1 to this declaration 

3. I am currently the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chief Technology Officer 

(CTO) of Oculi LLC, which has provided international board level advisory, consulting, 

technological, and business-based services in the optoelectronics, semiconductor, and 

telecommunications industries since 2003. This is my consulting company through which I 

undertake my litigation expert witness work. 

4. In 2015, I became a Director of Lightwave Logic to assist the company with 

developing polymer optical modulator products and associated packaging, manufacturing, and 

marketing. 

5. I am on the board and CEO of OneChip Photonics Corporation, a technology 

company that focused on communications-based photonic integrated circuits and now is in the 

process of selling the remaining assets. 

 

1

 As used in this declaration, the term “Waymo” includes Google. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 182 Filed 04/07/17 Page 2 of 22
LEBBY DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 2

dc- 877138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

6. From 2014-2016, I was a Director for Corporate and Foundation Relations with 

the University of Southern California. In this position, I helped the University foster relationships 

with semiconductor, photonics, and electronics companies in the San Francisco area. 

7. From 2013-2015, I was a Professor of Optoelectronics as well as the Chair of 

Optoelectronics at Glyndŵr University in Wales, United Kingdom. My areas of focus included 

the design, simulation, and testing of photonic integrated circuits and optoelectronics integrated 

circuits. 

8. I currently serve as a technical expert for the Photonics Unit of the European 

Commission, where I am currently an advisor on their funded photonics pilot lines as well as a 

photonics-based cardiovascular program. 

9. I have served in various positions at technology companies and organizations in 

the optics industry, including President and CEO of the Optoelectronics Industry Development 

Association (OIDA), a non-profit industry trade association for optoelectronics based in 

Washington, D.C. In that role, I spoke on behalf of the optoelectronics industry, including 

testimony on Capitol Hill for the industry, and represented the U.S. optoelectronics industry in 

many regions of the world. 

10. I am an expert in the fields of optoelectronics, electronics, semiconductors, fiber 

optics, and electrically and optically based designs. Optoelectronics is the study and application 

of devices that source, detect, control, and display light. I have design experience with optics, 

optical sources (such as lasers and LEDs), and receivers (such as photodetectors, solar cells, and 

image sensors). I also have significant experience with the testing and evaluation of 

semiconductors and optoelectronics, including LEDs, lasers, detectors, fiber optic 

communications, materials, packaging, and alignment. Notably, many of the optical and 

electrical designs I worked on were prototyped for manufacturing. 

11. I have a Ph.D. in Compound Semiconductors / Optoelectronics from the 

University of Bradford, as well as a Masters of Business Administration degree and a Bachelor of 

Engineering degree from the University of Bradford. More recently, I was awarded a higher 

doctorate degree (D.Eng) for contributions to the optics and optoelectronics field through 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 182 Filed 04/07/17 Page 3 of 22
LEBBY DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 3

dc- 877138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

publications and patents. I have authored or co-authored more than sixty publications on optics 

and optoelectronics. 

12. I started my career at the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineer division of the 

Ministry of Defense in the United Kingdom, and then worked as a researcher at AT&T Bell Labs 

in the Photonics Research Department. From 1989 to 1998, I was an R&D Manager in 

optoelectronics at Motorola, where I was the most prolific inventor in Motorola’s history, with 

over 150 issued utility patents. In total, I have well over 200 issued utility patents from the U.S. 

Patent and Trademark Office, and, if derivatives are considered, that total rises to over 450 

patents. 

13. I have been recognized professionally as a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and 

Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) in 2005 and of the Optical Society (“OSA”) in 2007 for my 

technical contributions to the field of optoelectronics. I am a Chartered Engineer (C.Eng) from 

IEE in the UK, which is equivalent to the PE (professional engineer) in the U.S. I have also 

served on the IEEE Components, Packaging and Manufacturing Technology Society (“CPMT”) 

Board of Governors from 1998 to 2002; as the IEEE Phoenix Waves and Devices Junior Engineer 

of the Year in 1993; as a CPMT Distinguished lecturer in 2000; and on the CPMT technical 

committee (TC-10 & ECTC) from 1991 to present. 

14. I am being compensated at my standard consulting rate of $465 per hour for my 

work in connection with this action. I am also being reimbursed for any out-of-pocket expenses. 

My compensation is not based in any way on the outcome of the litigation or the nature of the 

opinions that I express. 

II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED 

15. In forming my opinions and views expressed in this report, I have reviewed and 

considered Waymo’s Motion, the Kintz Declaration, the Declaration of Pierre-Yves Droz (“Droz 

Declaration”), Plaintiff’s List of Asserted Trade Secrets Pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section 

2019.201 (“Waymo’s TS List”), attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Jordan Jaffe in 

Support of Waymo’s Motion (“Jaffe Declaration”), the Declaration of James Haslim (“Haslim 

Declaration”), the Declaration of Scott Boehmke (“Boehmke Declaration”), and the Declaration 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 182 Filed 04/07/17 Page 4 of 22
LEBBY DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 4

dc- 877138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

of Paul McManamon (“McManamon Declaration”), and other materials and information that are 

identified in Exhibit 2 and referenced in my Declaration. 

III. LEGAL STANDARDS 

16. I am not an attorney and I have not been asked to provide an opinion on the law. I 

have been advised by Defendants’ attorneys that I must apply the following legal principles 

regarding trade secret misappropriation to my analysis. 

17. I understand that a trade secret consists of information that derives independent 

economic value from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain 

economic value from its disclosure or use. I understand that information that can be discovered 

by fair and honest means, such as independent development or reverse engineering, will not 

receive trade secret protection. I also understand that publicly known information, such as 

information published in books or articles or design choices known to engineers in the field, will 

not receive trade secret protection. 

18. I understand that for a trade secret to be protectable, the owner of the trade secret 

must use efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. 

19. I understand that trade secret misappropriation means disclosure or use of a trade 

secret without consent by a person who used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade 

secret or, at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his or her knowledge 

of the trade secret derived from or through a person who had used improper means to acquire it. 

IV. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS 

20. In Paragraphs 36 to 55 of his Declaration, Mr. Kintz identifies certain alleged trade 

secrets of Waymo and claims that Uber’s Fuji LiDAR system incorporates these trade secrets. 

21. Based on my analysis of the alleged trade secrets identified in Paragraphs 36 to 55 

of the Kintz Declaration, I conclude that the following alleged trade secrets are not trade secrets 

because they are publicly known or practiced in the field of LiDAR or diode lasers: (1) 

 of Waymo’s system; (2) 

; and (3) the use of . I also conclude that Uber’s Fuji system does 

not incorporate or rely upon (1) of Waymo’s 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 182 Filed 04/07/17 Page 5 of 22
LEBBY DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 5

dc- 877138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 system; (2) the ; or (3) the 

 of the system. 

V. WAYMO AND UBER LIDAR SYSTEMS 

22. I understand from the Kintz and Droz Declarations that Waymo’s LiDAR 

has a single exterior aperture through which transmitted and received light will pass. (Kintz Decl. 

¶¶ 135-136.) As shown in the illustration below, the is comprised of a single optical cavity 

in which the transmit path ( ) and receive path ( ) will overlap. 

23. Waymo’s LiDAR system uses a 

. (Kintz Decl. ¶ 38.) According to 

Mr. Kintz, 

 

 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 182 Filed 04/07/17 Page 6 of 22
LEBBY DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 6

dc- 877138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

24. As recited in the Haslim Declaration and as shown in the simplified illustration 

below, Uber’s Fuji LiDAR comprises two separate cavities – a medium-range cavity and a longrange cavity. Each cavity has separate transmit and receive paths, with separate lenses for each 

path. The transmit and receive light paths do not overlap in the Fuji system, because each path is 

physically separated from the others by a non-reflective metal separation. The long-range cavity 

is positioned , while the medium-range cavity is 

. 

Uber’s Fuji LiDAR 

25. In the Fuji system, the medium-range cavity and the long-range cavity each utilize 

. I understand from the Haslim 

Declaration that the CAD drawing below illustrates a cross-sectional top view of the Fuji design. 

The cavities each contain a 

 in the medium-range cavity 

 in the long-range cavity 

. From left to right, across both the longrange and medium-range cavities, . 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 182 Filed 04/07/17 Page 7 of 22
LEBBY DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 7

dc- 877138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

26. I understand from the Haslim Declaration that the Fuji system was designed with 

two separate 32-channel cavities in part to enable two laser diodes to be fired simultaneously (one 

from each cavity) while minimizing interference between the laser diodes. I also understand that 

the distribution of the 32 laser diodes in each cavity across was Mr. Haslim’s idea, 

based on an iterative development process whereby he first tried to use 

, but found that those configurations did not provide 

 (Haslim Decl. ¶ 11.) 

27. It was determined that distributing the 32 laser diodes on allowed for a 

 

 

. 

VI. WAYMO’S TRADE SECRET ALLEGATIONS 

28. In his Declaration, Mr. Kintz opines that Defendants’ Fuji LiDAR devices 

incorporate a number of Waymo trade secrets. In the paragraphs below, I respond to Mr. Kintz’s 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 182 Filed 04/07/17 Page 8 of 22
LEBBY DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 8

dc- 877138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

opinions with respect to certain of Waymo’s alleged trade secrets specifically identified in his 

declaration. I reserve the right to supplement or amend this declaration if additional opinions 

from Mr. Kintz or other information that affects my opinions become available. 

29. Mr. Kintz states his opinion in paragraphs 36-43 of his Declaration that (1) 

 of the design (i.e., 

) is a 

Waymo trade secret; and (2) Uber’s Fuji system incorporates the . I 

disagree with Mr. Kintz on both points. 

30. Waymo’s claimed trade secrets Nos. 2 and 3 (which I will refer to as the 

) cover a 

. (Waymo’s TS List 

Nos. 2-3.) In my view, Waymo’s is not a trade secret, but one of a few 

workable configurations for the that an engineer 

designing a transmit block would evaluate in light of known design considerations, particularly 

the desire to reduce the size, cost, and complexity of the system. 

31. As Mr. Kintz acknowledges, Waymo’s first self-driving cars relied upon a 64-laser 

LiDAR system from third-party supplier Velodyne known as the HDL-64. (Kintz Decl. ¶ 22; 

Droz Decl. ¶ 17.) In developing its custom replacements for the Velodyne HDL-64 – the 

 – it is unsurprising that Waymo used a 

. As explained by Mr. Droz in his deposition, 

. (Droz Dep. at 28:11-30:6 (attached as Ex. 3).) 

32. Once Waymo had decided to develop a , its range of choices for 

how many transmit PCBs to use and how to distribute the laser diodes across the PCBs was 

limited by well-known design considerations for automotive LiDARs. 

33. As Mr. Kintz acknowledges, 

. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 182 Filed 04/07/17 Page 9 of 22
LEBBY DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 9

dc- 877138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

(Kintz Decl. ¶ 41.) Accordingly, 64-laser configurations with just a few large PCBs (e.g., 2 PCBs 

of 32 diodes each; 3 PCBs of 21 or 22 diodes each) would not be ideal for automotive LiDARs 

due to size considerations. 

34. On the other end of the spectrum, the use of numerous smaller PCBs with fewer 

laser diodes on each would raise the cost of the LiDAR system, also a significant disadvantage for 

automotive LiDARs. 

35. Additionally, as Mr. Kintz states, 

. 

Accordingly, configurations with widely differing numbers of diodes on each PCB would be 

disfavored. 

36. Based on these design considerations, an engineer designing a LiDAR transmit 

block would logically choose a configuration in a 

, to balance the size and cost concerns. The 

 is one of a few obvious configurations that strikes that balance. Use of a 

 does not give rise to an inference that the designer 

misappropriated an alleged Waymo trade secret, but may simply reflect independent development 

of a workable configuration from among limited choices based on well-known design 

considerations. 

37. The number of laser diodes mounted on each transmit board – 

 – is not a trade secret. In addition to the considerations above that would have 

allowed an engineer to design a system with , a 2015 textbook on 

semiconductor lasers discloses a laser stack with 3 boards of 10 laser diodes each. (Xingsheng 

Liu et al., Packaging of High Power Semiconductor Lasers 111-112 (2015) (“Liu Textbook”) 

(attached as Ex. 4).) The Liu Textbook discloses: “A semiconductor laser stack is composed of 

multiple semiconductor laser bars arranged vertically, as shown in Fig. 5.5.” (Id.) Figure 5.5 of 

the Liu Textbook (reproduced below) shows that each of the 3 boards in the stack has 10 laser 

emitters. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 182 Filed 04/07/17 Page 10 of 22
LEBBY DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 10

dc- 877138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Mr. Kintz explains that Waymo’s for the transmit block of the was 

also influenced by . (Kintz Decl. ¶¶ 37-38.) 

As shown in Paragraph 37 of Mr. Kintz’s declaration (and reproduced below), the

. 

I understand that 

. (Kintz Decl. ¶ 37; Droz Decl. ¶ 21.) 

38. This 

 is simply the well-known concept of foveated vision – a technique in light 

sensing systems (including the human eye) by which greater resolution is achieved in certain 

parts of the field of view through a denser concentration of sensors. That concept is generally 

known and used in the field of optical sensing systems and was used in LiDAR systems prior to 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 182 Filed 04/07/17 Page 11 of 22
LEBBY DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 11

dc- 877138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Waymo’s system. (See e.g., McManamon Decl. ¶¶ 51-59; id. Ex. 4, Mundhenk, et al., 

“PanDAR: A wide-area, frame-rate, and full color LIDAR with foveated region using backfilling 

interpolation upsampling”; id. Ex. 5, Velodyne’s U.S. Patent No. 8,767,190.) 

39. Once Waymo chose 

 (Kintz Decl. ¶ 37.) The 

did not work with the foveated vision model, because 

. This compelled Waymo to use a 

. (Id.) And because 

. Accordingly, 

 was driven by the desire to implement the well-known principle of foveated 

vision in the system. (See McManamon Decl. ¶¶ 51-59; id. Ex. 5, Velodyne’s U.S. Patent 

No. 8,767,190.) 

40. With respect to Mr. Kintz’s opinion that Uber’s Fuji system incorporates the 

 arrangement, it is my view that he is mistaken. The Fuji system does not contain a 

. As described above at paragraphs 24-25, the Fuji system comprises two 

separate LiDAR cavities, each with its own transmit and receive paths. The cavities are situated 

 in order to facilitate better detection 

. Specifically, the 

. The transmit portion of each cavity contains a 

with a total of 32 diodes. The and are 

situated at 

. The illustration below shows the separate in the two cavities. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 182 Filed 04/07/17 Page 12 of 22
LEBBY DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 12

dc- 877138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

41. Fuji’s design is fundamentally different from the design. 

Fuji uses separate of the two separate LiDAR 

cavities. By contrast, the has a 

. 

42. Fuji’s 

 as the laser stack disclosed in the Liu Textbook. Figure 5.5 of the 

Liu Textbook (reproduced above) shows a laser stack with 3 boards of 10 diodes each. (Liu 

Textbook at 111-112, Fig. 5.5.) Fuji’s have 

. The Fuji system cannot be utilizing a Waymo trade secret

. 

43. Additionally, the positioning of PCBs is different in 

the Fuji system from that of I understand that the 

system are distributed in the following pattern: . Waymo claims that 

positioning the PCBs is a trade secret. (Waymo’s TS List 

No. 3.) 

44. As explained above, the separate of the Fuji system are 

 and do not constitute a PCBs. However, when the Fuji’s two 

cavities are mounted side-by-side, the distribution of diodes across both cavities’ transmit PCBs 

is: . 

45. Moreover, I understand from the Haslim Declaration that the Fuji 

 was independently developed by Mr. Haslim and his team without any 

access to or usage of allegedly misappropriated Waymo confidential documents or trade secret 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 182 Filed 04/07/17 Page 13 of 22
LEBBY DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 13

dc- 877138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

information. Mr. Haslim’s account of the independent development of the design is 

supported by the significant differences between that design and Waymo’s 

design. 

46. Mr. Kintz states his opinion in Paragraphs 49-50 of his Declaration that the 

concept of is a Waymo trade 

secret. I disagree with Mr. Kintz. The 

 is a known design choice in the fabrication of laser diode systems, especially 

those systems that deal with high power laser diodes and the associated thermal heat sinking from 

operation. This design has been discussed in the public technical literature, examples of which I 

provide below. 

47. As Mr. Kintz acknowledges, there are certain design considerations that drive how 

to 

. First, as Mr. Kintz notes, 

. (See Kintz Decl. ¶ 49.) 

. This consideration weighs in favor of 

. 

48. A second design consideration, as observed by Mr. Kintz, is to 

. (See Kintz Decl. ¶ 50.) 

. One way of avoiding this outcome is to have 

, thereby avoiding . 

49. The Liu Textbook (cited above) illustrates 

 and notes the technical concerns associated with each: “Overhang and underhang 

characterize the alignment between the diode laser die (could be a single emitter chip or a bar) 

and the mounting substrate. The consequence of overhang and underhang is ineffective heat 

conduction and blockage of light transmission, respectively.” (Liu Textbook at 224.) 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 182 Filed 04/07/17 Page 14 of 22
LEBBY DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 14

dc- 877138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

While this reference describes as an undesirable feature arising from inaccurate 

placement of the diodes, other references discuss as a design choice. 

50. A 2007 dissertation on laser diode systems describes a system in which 

. (Christian 

Scholz, Thermal and Mechanical Optimisation of Diode Laser Bar Packaging 28 (2007) (attached 

as Ex. 5).) The author explains that the laser diode (“laser bar”) is positioned 

: 

Because the laser bar is an edge emitting device, the emitting area 

cannot be obstructed. In order to achieve this, the front edge of the 

laser bar hangs over the edge of the heat sink. This overhang has to 

be as small as possible, otherwise the thermal load is too high and 

the facet can be damaged. If the edge of the laser bar is positioned 

behind the edge of the heat sink, the laser light shines onto the heat 

sink. This heats the heat sink and the reflection acts as a second 

light source for optical elements in front of the laser bar, in turn 

making the diode laser ineffective. 

51.

. The 

was described in Mr. Scholz’s dissertation years before Waymo even began developing its 

LiDAR systems. 

52. Mr. Kintz states in Paragraphs 54-55 of his Declaration that the concept of 

 is a Waymo trade secret. I disagree with 

Mr. Kintz that either of these concepts are trade secrets. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 182 Filed 04/07/17 Page 15 of 22
LEBBY DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 15

dc- 877138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

53. The concept of has been known to the 

public since at least the 1970s. For example, a patent filed in 1976 describes a “means suitable 

for aligning and mounting a printed circuit board (PCB)” that involves mounting a “PCB [that] is 

provided with holes spaced apart to receive the supporting member pins” on top of a supporting 

member in which the “pins are spaced apart along a datum line or center line to which the PCB is 

to be aligned.” (U.S. Patent No. 4,244,109 at 1:8-9, 1:63-67 (attached as Ex. 6).) 

54. Similarly, a German patent application filed in 1980 described how “[p]rinted 

circuit boards that are stacked and compacted into multi-layer circuit boards require[d] to be 

accurately aligned,” and the use of “bored holes” that “all . . . have an exact relative position to 

one another.” (DE 3031103 patent application, Abstract (attached as Ex. 7).) Mr. Kintz is 

incorrect – the has been a common practice for 

decades. 

55. Mr. Kintz is also incorrect about whether 

 is a trade secret. This concept is also well-known in the field. 

56. For example, U.S. Patent No. 4,432,037 (attached as Ex. 8), with a priority date of 

December 2, 1980, is entitled “Multi-layer printed circuit board and method for determining the 

actual position of internally located terminal areas.” Discussing known prior art solutions “[u]p 

to the present time,” the ’037 patent describes a “fitting or alignment system” that consists of 

“location holes which fix a reference point and a reference line from which the position 

determination of the conductive patterns on the individual sheets [of printed circuit board layer] 

takes place.” (’037 patent at 1:52-60.) In this known solution, the “conductive patterns of the 

individual inner layers” are “disposed on a nominally known position relative to the location 

system.” (Id. at 1:60-64.) As illustrated in Figure 1, the ’037 patent also applies this concept and 

describes how, “[i]n order to mount or set the later laminate during boring, location holes 7, 8 are 

provided.” (Id. at 3:52-54.) 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 182 Filed 04/07/17 Page 16 of 22
LEBBY DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 16

dc- 877138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

57. In other words, the use of 

 was wellknown to the public long before Waymo’s LiDAR systems existed. 

58. Mr. Kintz is also mistaken in his opinion that the Fuji transmit PCBs incorporate 

 on the PCB. Based on my 

conversation with Mr. Haslim and review of his Declaration, the Fuji transmit PCB uses a 

. Unlike the the Fuji system does not use 

. 

59. Mr. Kintz states his opinion in Paragraphs 44-48 of his Declaration that Uber 

adapted its Fuji transmit PCB from Waymo’s PCB Design Files, based on (1) the presence of 

 on the Fuji PCB; (2) of the Fuji PCB; and 

(3) Mr. Kintz’s opinion that the Fuji PCB appears to be Waymo’s PCB 

Design Files because of the 

60. I disagree with Mr. Kintz that any reasonable inference can be drawn that the Fuji 

transmit PCB was adapted from Waymo’s PCB Design Files. First, as explained above, Fuji’s 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 182 Filed 04/07/17 Page 17 of 22
LEBBY DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 17

dc- 877138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

transmit PCBs and its for the transmit block 

 were independently developed by Uber engineers who had no 

connection with the allegedly misappropriated Waymo confidential documents. 

61. Second, it is clear that the Fuji transmit PCB uses a different design from 

Waymo’s . Mr. Kintz compares an image of the to a 

machine drawing of what is purportedly an Otto PCB that Waymo received by email from the 

vendor . (Kintz Decl. ¶¶ 32-34; Waymo’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction at 

10.) Mr. Kintz concludes that Uber 

” (Id. ¶ 46.) A more careful comparison of the to the Fuji 

transmit PCB for the medium-range cavity reveals numerous differences in the component layout, 

shape, size, and structure of the two PCBs. Below are images of the two PCBs side-by-side, 

revealing numerous design differences, including: (1) 

 (2) (3) 

 (4) 

 and (5) . I note 

that the on the Fuji transmit PCBs is 

. (See Haslim Decl. ¶ 15.) The laser diodes on the transmit PCBs in the 

long-range cavity have a 

. (Id.) 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 182 Filed 04/07/17 Page 18 of 22
LEBBY DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 18

dc- 877138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

62. Additionally, the Fuji is designed for 

 I have spoken with Mr. Haslim at Uber and reviewed his Declaration, including the 

position and orientation information for each diode in Exhibit B to the Haslim Declaration. I 

have also reviewed Exhibits 1-2 to the Jaffe Declaration, which includes the 

 document attached as Exhibit 2. The Fuji’s mediumrange cavity has 

and the long-range cavity has 

. In contrast, the design has a 

. (See Jaffe Decl. Ex. 1 at 25.) Because the Fuji and are designed for 

. This can be 

shown by a comparison of the in Exhibit B to the Haslim 

Declaration (Fuji) and on page 17 of Exhibit 2 to the Jaffe Declaration ( 

E. Comments on Other Alleged Waymo Trade Secrets 

63. I have reviewed Waymo’s TS List (Jaffe Decl. Ex. 1). Waymo’s Motion and the 

Kintz Declaration purport to address only certain alleged trade secrets from Waymo’s TS List, 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 182 Filed 04/07/17 Page 19 of 22
LEBBY DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 19

dc- 877138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

including . The other alleged trade secrets from 

the TS List are not addressed in Waymo’s Motion or the Kintz Declaration. I reserve the right to 

submit a supplemental declaration addressing any other alleged trade secrets that Waymo raises in 

its further briefing or declarations. 

64. I offer the following comments regarding one of the other alleged trade secrets 

from the TS List. 

65. claims as a trade secret a 

 The use of

 is a well-known technique in laser 

systems and not a trade secret belonging to Waymo. 

66. are commonplace 

in the design of laser systems. is known as a 

fast-axis collimating (FAC) lens, available from vendors such as Hamamatsu. (Hamamatsu 

product specification sheet for FAC Lens (J10919 series) (attached as Ex. 8).) As explained in 

the specification sheet: “The J10919 series FAC lens is an optical lens that collimates light 

spreading from a semiconductor laser in the fast-axis direction. Semiconductor lasers have a 

large divergence angle in the fast-axis direction, so the output light cannot be efficiently used 

unless collimated. The FAC lens collimates light spreading from a semi-conductor laser into a 

narrow beam . . . .” As shown in the figures of the specification sheet (reproduced below), the 

 FAC lens is (i.e., 

). 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 182 Filed 04/07/17 Page 20 of 22
LEBBY DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 20

dc- 877138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

67. The 

 is disclosed in the Liu Textbook. The Liu Textbook states: “A laser stack is composed of 

collimated laser bars with fast axis collimators (FACs).” (Liu Textbook at 112.) As seen in 

Figure 5.18 of the Liu Textbook (reproduced in part below), the FAC lenses can be 

: 

The are mounted in the laser stack to 

 the laser light. Figure 5.10 of the Liu Textbook (reproduced below) illustrates the 

positioning of the FAC lenses in front of the diodes: 

68. Cylindrical FAC lenses are in widespread use in various types of laser systems, for 

example, optical storage. Accordingly, there are a large number of suppliers that design 

cylindrical FAC lenses to collimate laser light and the use of such lenses is well-known in the 

industry. 

VII. CONCLUSION 

69. Based on my analysis above, I conclude that Waymo’s alleged trade secrets of 

(1) of Waymo’s system; (2) the 

; and (3) the are not trade secret information, 

because they publicly known or practiced in the field of LiDAR or diode lasers. I also conclude 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 182 Filed 04/07/17 Page 21 of 22
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY 

LEBBY DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 21

dc- 877138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

that Uber’s Fuji system does not incorporate or rely upon (1) 

 of Waymo’s system; (2) the 

system; or (3) . 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is 

true and correct. Executed this 7th day of April, 2017, in Lech, Austria. 

 

Michael Lebby, Ph.D. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 182 Filed 04/07/17 Page 22 of 22