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

Case No.3:17-cv-00939 

PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

 Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151)

 charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com

 David A. Perlson (Bar No. 209502)

 davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com

 Melissa Baily (Bar No. 237649)

 melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com

 John Neukom (Bar No. 275887)

 johnneukom@quinnemanuel.com

 Jordan Jaffe (Bar No. 254886)

 jordanjaffe@quinnemanuel.com

50 California Street, 22nd Floor

San Francisco, California 94111-4788

Telephone: (415) 875-6600

Facsimile: (415) 875-6700

Attorneys for WAYMO LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING 

LLC,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939

PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF 

IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

UNREDACTED VERSION OF 

DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 386 Filed 05/08/17 Page 1 of 15
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

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

PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff, Waymo LLC (“Waymo”), respectfully submits this authorized supplemental brief in 

support of its Motion of Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 25-4). Per the Court’s direction at the May 3, 

2017 hearing (P.M. Sealed Session Tr. at 71:17-23), this brief addresses the additional evidence 

gathered at the Court-ordered May 4, 2017 deposition of Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) engineer 

James Haslim.1 

INTRODUCTION

Uber faces an undisputed record showing that the head of its self-driving car program 

misappropriated more than 14,000 highly sensitive files from Waymo. The evidence gathered during 

the expedited discovery period demonstrates that Uber uses the trade secrets contained in those files—

including trade secrets where Uber does not even allege independent development—and Uber copied

Waymo’s design down to the micron.

In a bid to save its tainted LiDAR program, Uber has attempted to spin a one-sided story by

submitting carefully phrased pleadings and attorney-drafted declarations designed to conceal the true 

history of Uber’s LiDAR development. The story started with Uber’s Opposition brief, where it tried 

to limit the scope of the case to the Fuji device. According to Uber, the Fuji device was its only 

LiDAR system, and it was developed independently based on “beam spacing parameters” that Scott 

Boehmke came up with prior to the Otto acquisition. Those arguments quickly unraveled as soon as 

Waymo began taking discovery. Waymo uncovered the Spider device, which Uber hid from the Court 

and which indisputably infringes the asserted ’922 and ’464 Patents. Waymo also demonstrated 

significant holes in Uber’s independent development story, including a complete failure by Uber to 

produce evidence tying Mr. Boehmke’s early work to the Fuji design. And Waymo demonstrated that 

the Fuji and Spider devices use numerous Waymo trade secrets including Trade Secret No. 1 directed 

to , Trade Secret Nos. 2 and 3 directed to 

, Trade Secret No. 7 directed to 

 

1

 After examination by Waymo counsel, counsel for Uber conducted a substantial re-redirect—over 

an hour in length. And, contrary to this Court’s standing order, Mr. Haslim and his counsel had 

private conferences during the court-ordered deposition. (Jaffe Supp. Decl. Ex. 132, Haslim Tr. at 

143:25-147:2.) Uber’s counsel improperly instructed the witness not to reveal the substance of the 

private conference. (Id. at 147:3-148:11.)

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 386 Filed 05/08/17 Page 2 of 15
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

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

PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

, Trade Secret No. 14 directed to 

, and Trade Secret 

Nos. 48 and 90 directed to a . 

Faced with voluminous record evidence, Uber doubled down in its sur-reply and submitted 

brand new arguments and declarations. For the first time, Uber argued that the Fuji device does not 

use Trade Secret No. 1, based on arguments from its expert that 

. Uber also supplemented its independent development story by 

arguing that the Fuji device was based on a so-called “Plan B” that Mr. Boehmke developed in mid2016. And Uber attempted to explain away its prior concealment of the Spider device by arguing that 

it was never used, and that its features that indisputably use Waymo’s trade secrets were known in the 

public domain.

Once again, these arguments have fallen apart, this time in light of the Court-ordered 

deposition testimony of James Haslim. As explained in detail below, Mr. Haslim’s testimony revealed 

numerous inconsistencies and outright contradictions in Uber’s litigation-driven narrative. For 

example, Mr. Haslim directly contradicted Uber’s sur-reply argument that Fuji does not use Trade 

Secret No. 1, and explained that the interpretation Uber used to argue “no use” incorrectly focused on 

the 

. As another example, Uber’s sur-reply declarations completely omitted the origin of the 

in Spider device, yet Mr. Haslim explained during his deposition that the design 

was based on a circuit drawing from Anthony Levandowski that maps directly to a presentation that 

Mr. Levandowski stole from Waymo on his way out the door. Mr. Haslim also revealed that Uber’s 

own responses to Court-ordered requests for information are inaccurate: Mr. Haslim identified four 

LiDAR suppliersthat Uber is working with; the list Uber’s lawyers provided to the Court omits three 

of them.

Mr. Haslim’s recent testimony confirms that Uber infringes Waymo’s patents and uses 

Waymo’s trade secrets, and that Uber did not independently develop its LiDAR technology. The 

testimony confirms that Waymo will prevail on its patent and trade secret claims, and that Waymo is 

entitled to preliminary relief in order to stop Uber’s ongoing misuse of Waymo’s technology.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 386 Filed 05/08/17 Page 3 of 15
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

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

PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

ARGUMENT

I. MR. HASLIM DEPOSITION TESTIMONY PROVIDES FURTHER PROOF THAT 

UBER’S LIDAR DEVICES USE WAYMO’S TRADE SECRETS

A. Mr. Haslim Confirmed that Fuji Uses Waymo’s Trade Secret No. 1

In its sur-reply, Uber disputed for the first time that it uses Trade Secret No. 1, directed to 

. (Sur-Reply (Dkt. 295-3) at 5:3.) The new argument 

relied on a fresh declaration from Uber’s expert Dr. Lebby, who previously had not even addressed 

Trade Secret No. 1. (Lebby Sur-Reply Decl. (Dkt. 309) ¶ 56.) Mr. Haslim’s recent deposition 

testimony directly contradicts this new argument, and shows that the Fuji device uses Trade Secret 

No. 1 exactly how it is phrased in Waymo’s Trade Secret disclosure: 

Waymo’s Trade Secret No. 1 Mr. Haslim’s May 4 Deposition

 (Jaffe 

Opening Decl. (Dkt. 25-6) Ex. 1 (Waymo’s 

trade secret disclosure).)

Q. So referring to this , you

would agree that 

?

MR. KIM: Objection; form. 

THE WITNESS: Yes.2 

(Jaffe Supp. Decl. Ex. 132, Haslim Tr. at 

125:19-126:1.)

Waymo identified Trade Secret No. 1 with particularity in accordance with this Court’s 

guidance in JobScience, Inc. v. CVPartners, Inc., No. C 12-04519-WHA, 2014 WL 852477 (N.D. Cal. 

Feb. 28, 2014). Each bullet under the numbered trade secretsin Waymo’s list corresponds to the four 

requirements set out by this Court in JobScience. What is quoted above for Trade Secret No. 1 

comprises “the precise claimed trade secret[], numbered, with a list of the specific elements for each, 

as claims would appear at the end of a patent.” Id. Importantly, Waymo identified Trade Secret No. 1 

(and all of its trade secrets) prior to taking any discovery. 

 

2

 Mr. Haslim agreed that the terms are synonyms in this regard. 

(Jaffe Supp. Decl. Ex. 132, Haslim Tr. at 227:3-18.)

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 386 Filed 05/08/17 Page 4 of 15
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

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

PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Contrary to Uber’s recent arguments, at no point has Waymo attempted to redefine Trade 

Secret No. 1 or stray from the express descriptions in the trade secret list. (Dkt. 363.) Instead, it is 

Uber that has repeatedly tried to mischaracterize the trade secret. First, Uber generalized the trade 

secret as directed to ”—in order to argue that it was generally 

known in the public domain. (Opp. (Dkt. 173-3) at 10:27-11:12.) When that failed, Uber pivoted and 

argued that the trade secret requires 

—in order to argue that the Fuji device does 

not meet this requirement. (Sur-Reply (Dkt. 295-3) at 5:3; Lebby Sur-Reply Decl. (Dkt. 309) ¶ 56 

(“

.”) (emphasis added)).

Mr. Haslim confirmed that values Uber relied on to allege “no use” are not 

the same thing as as recited in Waymo’s trade secret. First, he explained that Uber’s 

and Dr. Lebby’s values do not describe the . 

(Jaffe Supp. Decl. Ex. 132, Haslim Tr. at 100:20-25 (“Q. So the , that’s 

here at the end of 17, that’s not referring to the 

in Fuji; right? A. That’s right.”). Second, he explained that the correct way to determine 

. (Id. 120:22-

121:7 (“

”). 

Comparing Mr. Haslim’s fact testimony side-by-side with language of Waymo’s trade secret 

list, there can be no dispute that Fuji uses Trade Secret No. 1.

B. Mr. Haslim Confirmed that Uber Has Failed to Produce Evidence Showing 

Independent Development of Trade Secret No. 1

Waymo demonstrated in its reply papers that Uber failed to produce any credible evidence to 

show that it independently developed the on the Fuji 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 386 Filed 05/08/17 Page 5 of 15
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- Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 

PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

circuit boards. (Reply at 3:23-4:9.) Specifically, Uber offered no evidence to support its theory that 

Mr. Boehmke’s work in 2015 and 2016 somehow led to the Fuji design that materialized less than two 

months after Uber pivoted to Fuji in October 2016.3 In an effort to fill the gap in its development 

timeline, Uber pointed the Court to a design called “Plan B” from Mr. Boehmke’s May 2016 design 

notebook, and argued that Plan B was a “Pre-cursor to Fuji”:

Uber’s PI Hearing Presentation For 

Independent Development

Mr. Haslim’s May 4 Deposition

Q. So to your knowledge, what’s described here

as Plan B isn't the basis for the Fuji design? 

MR. KIM: Objection; form. 

THE WITNESS: I am not aware of a link 

between this Plan B in this document and the Fuji 

design.”

(Jaffe Supp. Decl. Ex. 132, Haslim Tr. at 143:2-

6.)

Mr. Haslim further testified that based on his 

job, he “would expect to know” if it was the 

basis for the Fuji design. (Id. at 143:14-17.)

Mr. Haslim confirmed that there is no evidence tying Mr. Boehmke’s early work to 

in the Fuji device. First, he explained that the term “beam spacing” that 

Uber uses to characterize Mr. Boehmke’s early work relates to the 

—not to the as recited in Waymo’s Trade Secret 

 

3 The burden of producing evidence to show independent development indisputably lies with Uber. 

Sargent Fletcher, Inc. v. Able Corp., 3 Cal. Rptr. 3d 279, 289-90 (2003) (“The plaintiff can introduce 

a variety of evidence to raise an inference of improper use: it can demonstrate that defendant had 

access to its trade secret; that the defendant’s design mirrors the plaintiffs design; that the defendant 

could not have discovered the intricate details of the plaintiffs design independently or through reverse 

engineering from publicly available material; that the defendant’s design configuration is one of many 

that were possible and matches the plaintiffs design; or that the defendant designed the product in less 

time than typically required to complete the trial and error process of independent derivation or 

reverse engineering. . . . Once credible evidence is presented to establish improper use by the 

defendant, the burden of producing evidence shifts to the defendant.”).

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 386 Filed 05/08/17 Page 6 of 15
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

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

PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

No. 1. (Jaffe Supp. Decl. Ex. 132, Haslim Tr. at 99:1-11 (“Q. ‘Beam spacing,’ what do you mean? A. 

So beam spacing can be used to refer to the 

. Since it refers to 

. Q. ... [W]hen you're talking about 

; is that fair? A. That’s fair.”).) 

Second, Mr. Haslim admitted that, even as late as November 2016, Mr. Boehmke’s work did not show 

the position or distribution of Fuji’s laser diodes on printed circuit boards. (Id. 96:14-97:2 (“Q. And if 

we go to the November 2016 data that you were looking at that formed the basis of this, it did not 

include these letterings; right? A. Right. Q. So in November 2016, there was no – Mr. Boehmke did 

not provide the distribution of these beams onto particular boards; right? A. Right. Q. So the 

November 2016 data from Mr. Boehmke, that did not provide any information as to how these beams 

would be distributed , for that matter; right? A. It provided no 

prescription for that distribution.”).)

There remains no evidence in the record showing Uber’s development of the 

in the Fuji device. The design materialized sometime in December 

2016 (around the time that Uber’s vendor inadvertently emailed Waymo the Fuji design files), and 

Uber has produced no evidence to demonstrate that it resulted from Mr. Boehmke’s prior work or any 

other independent source. 

To qualify for trade secret protection (as opposed to patent protection), a plaintiff must show 

that the information is not generally known, has independent economic value from not being generally 

known, and is subject to reasonable steps to maintain secrecy. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1839(3); Cal. Civ. Code 

§ 3426.1(d). Waymo has shown that its Trade Secret No. 1 meets all these criteria. There’s no 

reasonable dispute that Waymo’s is not generally known to the public, has 

economic value by virtue of not being known and is subject to reasonable steps to maintain its 

secrecy. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 386 Filed 05/08/17 Page 7 of 15
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

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

PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

C. Mr. Haslim Confirmed that Uber Has Produced No Evidence to Show that It 

Independently Developed Trade Secret Nos. 2 and 3

Mr. Haslim’s testimony also confirmed the significant gaps in Uber’s independent 

development story for Fuji’s 

In its opposition brief, Uber relied on a single paragraph from Mr. Haslim’s declaration to support its 

independent development theory. (Opp. at 13:3-12.) The paragraph cited a single document: an email

from Mr. Haslim to Mr. Boehmke that vaguely stated, 

 (Haslim Opening Decl. (Dkt. 180) ¶ 11, Ex. A.) Mr. 

Haslim’s recent deposition testimony plainly discredits Uber’s argument. Mr. Haslim explained that 

the email “is not indicative of the—or this is not evidential to the 

” (Jaffe Supp. Decl. Ex. 132, Haslim Tr. at 174:4-10.) 

Furthermore, in connection with its sur-reply, Uber submitted a new declaration from Mr. 

Haslim that included tables assigning Mr. Boehmke’s November 2016 beam angles assigned to 

—presumably to make the data look more like the current 

Fuji design. (Dkt. 297 ¶ 17.) Mr. Haslim admitted in his deposition that the tables in his declaration 

were drafted by Uber’s lawyers, and that Mr. Boehmke’s November 2016 data did not assign the 

, or any specific boards for that matter. (Jaffe Supp. Decl. Ex. 132, 

Haslim Tr. at 96:4-21 (“Q. So just for clarification here, the letters that are on there, those are letters

that you added for purposes of your declaration; right? A. Yes, those were added for this declaration. 

In the document as it was created in November did not have these letters on it; right? Q. Right. So this

is a modified version for your declaration. A. Yes.”); 98:1-8 (“Q. So no one should be confused as to 

whether this data is originally from November 2016 in terms of the ; right? A. Nobody 

should be confused that the from Scott, because it did not. Q. Right. You added it in here 

for purposes of your declaration. A. Yeah.”); 233:13-20 (“Q. And during your testimony by your 

counsel, you said—you referred to these , and you said whoever did these letters. A. UmCase 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 386 Filed 05/08/17 Page 8 of 15
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

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

PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

hum. Q. You didn’t prepare 8A and 8B, did you? A. No. Q. Who prepared 8A and 8B? A. 

Counsel.”).)4 

Mr. Boehmke himself had no involvement in the selecting the 

 (Id. 96:18-97:2 (“Q. So the November 2016 

data from Mr. Boehmke, that did not provide any information as to how these beams would be 

distributed , for that matter; right? A. It provided no prescription 

for that distribution.”).) Instead, Mr. Haslim explained that it was former Waymo engineer Gaetan 

Pennecot who primarily was responsible for the . (Id. at 

262:3-264:2.) And Mr. Haslim admitted that he did not know whether Mr. Pennecot discussed the 

design with Anthony Levandowski. (Id. at 74:1-10.) Mr. Haslim testified that Uber came up with the 

design within “something on the order of a week.” (Id. at 91:9-14.) But he admitted that there is no 

documentary evidence to corroborate such a short development timeline because, at some point in the 

November 2016 timeframe, “the documentation stopped.” (Id. at 77:14-79:15.) Significantly, Uber 

has never provided a declaration from Mr. Pennecot.

Again, Mr. Haslim’s testimony confirms that Uber has no produced no credible evidence to 

support its independent development story.

D. Mr. Haslim Confirmed that Did Not Use 

as Recited In Waymo’s Trade Secret No. 7

Waymo’s Trade Secret No. 7 recites 

 (Dkt. No. 25-6.) As Waymo explained in its reply papers, Uber failed to demonstrate that 

Trade Secret No. 7 was “generally known” because the literature Uber relied on was outside the field 

of LiDAR, did not disclose 

 

4

 Mr. Haslim admitted at his deposition that content in his Supplemental Declaration was 

prepared by counsel for Uber, and he reviewed this content in only a limited fashion before 

signing. (Id. at 233:13-235:16, 235:17-236:25, 237:1-20, 237:24-240:5, 240:7-242:15, 242:24-

243:21, 243:22-244:2, 245:3-245:21.)

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 386 Filed 05/08/17 Page 9 of 15
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

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

PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

. (Reply at 5:26; Kintz Reply Decl. ¶¶ 42-45.) 

Recognizing the weakness of its public domain evidence, Uber again tried to supplement the record on 

sur-reply with a brand new argument that allegedly used . (Surreply at 5:21-24.) This argument was based on nothing more than uncorroborated deposition 

testimony from current Uber engineer and former Waymo engineer Daniel Gruver. (Id.) 

Mr. Haslim—who previously worked at —discredited this argument in his recent 

deposition testimony. (Haslim Tr. 165:1-11 (“Q. 

”).) Mr. Haslim’s testimony confirms that Uber has provided zero evidence to show that was 

generally known in the public domain. 

E. Mr. Haslim Confirmed that Fuji Uses Trade Secret No. 14.

In its opposition and sur-reply, Uber argued that the Fuji device does not use Trade Secret No. 

14, directed to 

. (See, e.g., Opp. (Dkt. 173-3) at 14:22-15:6 (“Uber’s Fuji transmit board, 

however, does not use .”).) As Waymo explained in 

its Reply brief, Exhibit B to Mr. Haslim’s original declaration flatly contradictsthis argument because 

it shows . (Reply (Dkt. 245-

4) at 7:20-8:1.) Mr. Haslim confirmed this fact during his recent deposition. (Jaffe Supp. Decl. Ex. 

132, Haslim Tr. at 114:4-115:23 (“Q. So the X and Y data here shows—

; right? A. Yes.”).) Mr. Haslim further explained that it was 

former Waymo engineer Gaetan Pennecot—not Mr. Haslim or Mr. Boehmke—who incorporated the 

design into Fuji. (Id.) Mr. Haslim’s testimony confirms that Fuji uses Trade Secret 

No. 14, and contradicts Uber’s suggestion that former Waymo engineers did not influence the design 

of the device. (See, e.g., Opp. at 5:18-20 (“The Fuji design was largely the result of the collaboration 

between Mr. Boehmke and Mr. Haslim and their teams—neither of whom ever worked for 

Waymo.”).)

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 386 Filed 05/08/17 Page 10 of 15
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

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

PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

F. Mr. Haslim Revealed that Anthony Levandowski Personally Designed the 

in Uber’s Spider Device While Working at Waymo

Uber’s Sur-Reply Declaration Mr. Haslim’s May 4 Deposition

Mr. Haslim’s supplemental declaration 

suggested that the 

in the Spider device was based on a 

“well-known technique to amplify the output 

power of a fiber laser.” 

(Haslim Supp. Decl. (Dkt. 297) ¶ 7.) 

In his deposition, Mr. Haslim admitted that it was 

Mr. Levandowski who came up with Spider’s 

. 

(Jaffe Supp. Decl. Ex. 132, Haslim Tr. at 17:24-

24:24.) 

Waymo explained in its Reply brief how Uber’s Spider LiDAR system improperly 

incorporates Waymo’s trade secret , including as described in a presentation 

downloaded by Mr. Levandowski detailing “How Google Does It” for a 

(Dkt. 254 at 8.) Mr. Haslim’s declaration made no mention of the origins of Uber’s , 

instead pointing at undated documents to support that some aspects of the design were in the public 

domain, though admittedly Uber did not even allege independent development of the relevant trade 

secrets. 

Mr. Haslim’s recent testimony now reveals, however, that Mr. Levandowski drew 

for Mr. Haslim personally—while he was employed at Waymo. Mr. Haslim testified that 

while he was still at Tyto LiDAR, Mr. Levandowski described to him “a schematic, a layout, an 

approach for .” (Jaffe Supp. Decl. Ex. 132, Haslim Tr. at 17:24-

19:11.) Mr. Levandowski also steered Mr. Haslim towards Waymo’s key 

suppliers.5 (Id. at 18:20-25.) When Mr. Haslim was asked to draw the specific circuitry proposed to 

him by Mr. Levandowski (id.at 20:16-24:24), he produced a schematic (left drawing below) that bears 

a striking resemblance to Waymo’s trade secret :

 

5

 One of these suppliers, is Waymo’s confidential vendor for providing the 

. Mr. Haslim relies on information from 

 Tellingly, however, Mr. Haslim omits the fact that he actually relied on Mr. 

Levandowski’s guidance in order to develop this approach. (See Jaffe Reply Decl. (Dkt. 248) Ex. 86 

(email showing Levandowski directing Otto employees to get “

).)

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 386 Filed 05/08/17 Page 11 of 15
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

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

PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Schematic from Levandowski Waymo’s Trade Secret Schematic

.

Mr. Haslim admitted that he never asked Mr. Levandowski whether he was permitted to reveal 

this information, and that it was “not impossible” that the schematic provided had been derived from 

Waymo’s confidential information. (Jaffe Supp. Decl. Ex. 132, Haslim Tr. at 23:13-24:6.). Mr. 

Haslim also could not provide any information as to whether the alleged public domain evidence cited 

in his declaration was available before Mr. Levandowski revealed the designs to him. (Id. at 244:14-

245:2.)

II. ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI HAS HAD SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE OVER 

UBER’S LIDAR PROGRAM 

A. Levandowski Has Been Involved In Uber’s LiDAR Program from the 

Beginning

When Mr. Haslim joined Otto as part of the LiDAR team, he reported directly to Mr. 

Levandowski. (Jaffe Supp. Decl. Ex. 132, Haslim Tr. at 31:25-32:2). He had regular staff meetings 

with Mr. Levandowski where “LiDAR would definitely come up in conversations with him, at that 

point, on a probably fairly routine basis, like weekly basis.” (Id. at 32:3-13). Mr. Levandowski was 

similarly a member of the email list, which Mr. Haslim explained is the list of 

“Otto LiDAR development employees.” (Id. at 151:21-152:2). 

Beyond weekly staff meetings with Mr. Levandowski, Mr. Haslim further testified that he 

received feedback on LiDAR development from Anthony Levandowski by telephone while Mr. 

Levandowski was at Uber’s ATC headquarters in Pittsburgh prior to Otto being acquired by Uber. 

(Id. at 33:12-35:25.) According to Mr. Haslim, Mr. Levandowski was discussing design approaches 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 386 Filed 05/08/17 Page 12 of 15
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

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

PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

described in a document titled “LiDAR Thoughts.” (Id. at 34:21-35:22.) Importantly, a May 16, 2016 

document bearing this exact title serves as alleged link in the “independent development” story that 

Uber attempts to tell through the Declaration of Scott Boehmke. (Boehmke Opening Decl. (Dkt. 176) 

¶ 14 & Ex. H.) Mr. Boehmke is silent on the authorship of this document, and Mr. Haslim was also 

unable to testify regarding its origin. (Jaffe Supp. Decl. Ex. 132, Haslim Tr. at 35:3-14.) The fact that 

Mr. Levandowski was contemporaneously describing the contents of this key, early Uber development 

document from Uber’s ATC headquarters severely undermines Uber’s attempt to construct an 

independent development narrative apart from Mr. Levandowski's involvement.

Mr. Haslim confirmed that the statement in his original declaration about Mr. Levandowski's 

lack of involvement in the Fuji device is not credible. When asked what he would do to determine 

what development input Mr. Levandowski had into Otto and Uber’s LiDAR designs, he explained that 

he would (1) “talk to the various engineers that had LiDAR responsibilities”; (2) “look at Anthony’s 

email”; and; (3) “look for Google docs with his authorship.” (Id. at 175:15-177:4). 

When asked about the first sentence of paragraph 19 of his declaration, which specifically 

states that Mr. Levandowski was not involved in the Fuji, Mr. Haslim states he did “no investigation” 

to confirm the statement is accurate. (Id. at 253:1-13, 288:6-23.) He did not talk to anyone, including 

anyone on the LiDAR team. (Id. at 288:25-289:2, 289:6-8.) He did not look any documents. (Id.at 

289:3-5.) He did nothing at all other than “refer to [his] recollection.” (Id. at 288:20-23.) In short, 

Mr. Haslim did not even do the items he testified he would do to learn Mr. Levandowsi’s LiDAR

involvement. The statement is not credible and the evidence indicates otherwise: Mr. Levandowski 

was personally involved in Uber’s LiDAR development, including the Fuji

B. Levandowski Regularly Used His Personal Laptop During the Course of His

Work on Uber’s LiDAR Program

Prior to Otto’s announced acquisition by Uber, Mr. Haslim recalled regularly seeing Mr. 

Levandowski with his Macintosh laptop computer into Otto’s offices. (Id. at 40:9-45:16.) Because 

this was months before Uber acquired Otto, it cannot be Mr. Levandowski’s “Uber laptop.” At the 

same time, Mr. Levandowski was collaborating with Uber on its LiDAR designs. (Id. at 33:12-35:22.) 

Mr. Haslim testified he saw Mr. Levandowski with this laptop approximately a few times each week 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 386 Filed 05/08/17 Page 13 of 15
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

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

PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Mr. Levandowski was in Otto’s San Francisco offices. (Id. at 44:8-45:16.) Mr. Haslim also testified 

that he received work related emails from Mr. Levandowski on a “regular basis” while Mr. 

Levandowski was not physically present in Otto’s offices. (Id. at 46:19-22.)

C. Uber’s Sequestration of Anthony Levandowski is Ineffective

Defendants assert in their sur-reply, with no evidence, that they have “recused Mr. 

Levandowski from all LiDAR development” at Uber. (Dkt. 295-3 at 2.) Mr. Haslim, however, 

testified that 

. (Jaffe Supp. Decl. Ex. 132, Haslim Tr. at 54:24-55:12.) 

Further, Mr. Haslim confirmed that 

 (Id. at 56:18-60:25.) Mr. Haslim also confirmed that the new head of Uber’s LiDAR 

development team, Eric Meyhofer, continues to work closely with Mr. Levandowski on a day-to-day 

basis. (Id. at 14:1-6.)

Mr. Haslim confirmed 

(Id. at 63:9-15.) 

III. UBER STILL HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE FULL BREADTH OF ITS LIDAR 

PROGRAM 

Throughout this case, Uber has tried to convince the Waymo and the Court that Fuji is its only 

LiDAR project—even after Waymo discovered the Spider device. (Opp. at 1:15-23; Sur-reply at 

6:27-7:7.) Mr. Haslim’s deposition testimony reveals even more evidence that Uber has concealed the 

nature of it LiDAR program. Mr. Haslim identified four LiDAR suppliers that Uber is currently 

working with—three of which were not listed on Uber’s disclosure to the Court. (Id. at 108:17-

110:1.) And in some cases, Mr. Levandowski is emailing with these suppliers, while Uber is 

withholding the entire communication under claims of privilege. (Id. at 112:7-14 & Depo. Ex. 154.) 

Mr. Haslim also explained that employees on Uber’s list of LiDAR employees provided to the 

Court were not working on Fuji—Mr. Haslim could not say which other LiDAR projects these 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 386 Filed 05/08/17 Page 14 of 15
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

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

PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

employees might be working on. (Id. at 105:5-108:16.) Uber’s tack with its court-ordered disclosure 

regarding its LiDAR employees and suppliers is endemic to its approach to the injunction 

proceedings. 

CONCLUSION

Waymo maintains its objection to Uber’s improper arguments and new declarations submitted 

on its sur-reply. Even if the Court considers these arguments, however, the litigation-driven narrative 

falls apart under the cross examination of Uber’s key technical witness, Mr. Haslim. The arguments 

fail to overcome Waymo’s strong evidence showing that Uber misappropriated Waymo’strade secrets 

and used them to develop its LiDAR program. 

DATED: May 8, 2017 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, 

LLP

By /s/David A. Perlson

David A. Perlson

Attorneys for WAYMO LLC

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 386 Filed 05/08/17 Page 15 of 15