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

No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A 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, 

v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING 

LLC, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S NOTICE OF 

MOTION AND MOTION FOR A 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT 

FILED UNDER SEAL

Hearing: 

Date: April 27, 2017 

Time: 8:00 a.m. 

Place: 8, 19th Floor 

Judge: The Honorable William H. Alsup 

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

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

TO DEFENDANTS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., OTTOMOTTO LLC, AND OTTO 

TRUCKING LLC, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 27, 2017 at 8:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the 

matter may be heard, in the courtroom of the Honorable William H. Alsup at the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, 

California, Plaintiff Waymo LLC (“Waymo”) shall and hereby does move the Court for a 

preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), Ottomotto LLC, 

and Otto Trucking LLC (together, “Otto”) (collectively, “Defendants”), from accessing, using, 

imitating, copying, disclosing, or making available to any person or entity Waymo’s Asserted 

Trade Secrets, including but not limited to the Asserted Trade Secrets as embodied in LiDAR 

systems that contain or are designed to operate with the printed circuit board depicted in the 

schematic attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of William Grossman or any colorable variation 

thereof. Waymo further requests that Defendants be enjoined from making, using, selling, or 

offering to sell devices that infringe claims 1 or 13 of United States Patent No. 8,836,922 and 

claims 1 or 14 of U.S. Patent 9,285,464. Further, Waymo requests that Defendants be compelled 

to return any and all Waymo confidential information in their possession or control, including the 

14,000+ documents unlawfully taken from Waymo by Mr. Anthony Levandowski and his 

colleagues. Alternatively, Waymo requests an expedited trial on all of the claims set out in its 

First Amended Complaint. 

This motion is based on this notice of motion and supporting memorandum of points and 

authorities, the supporting declarations of Pierre-Yves Droz, Michael Janosko, Gary Brown, Tim 

Willis, Gregory Kintz, Jordan Jaffe, and accompanying exhibits, reply briefing in further support 

of this motion and supporting declarations and accompanying exhibits, as well as other written or 

oral argument that Waymo may present to the Court. 

Should expedited discovery provide good cause, Waymo respectfully reserves the right to 

expand the scope of its preliminary injunction request. 

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

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

DATED: March 10, 2017 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 

 By /s/ Charles K. Verhoeven 

 Charles K. Verhoeven 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff Waymo LLC
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ........................................................................................................1

STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................................2

I. WAYMO IS A LEADER IN THE SELF-DRIVING CAR INDUSTRY ..............................2

II. WAYMO DEVELOPS ITS OWN LIDAR TECHNOLOGY FOR IMPROVED 

PERFORMANCE AND REDUCED COST ..........................................................................3

III. THE UNPATENTED INNOVATIONS UNDERLYING WAYMO’S LIDAR

TECHNOLOGY ARE HEAVILY GUARDED SECRETS ..................................................5

IV. UBER IS LATE TO ENTER THE SELF-DRIVING CAR MARKET .................................6

V. WHILE AT WAYMO, ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI AND OTHER WAYMO

EMPLOYEES SECRETLY DOWNLOAD THOUSANDS OF CONFIDENTIAL 

FILES BEFORE LEAVING FOR OTTO ..............................................................................7

VI. UBER ACQUIRES OTTO, AFTER ONLY SIX MONTHS OF OFFICIAL 

EXISTENCE, FOR OVER HALF A BILLION DOLLARS .................................................9

VII. WAYMO OBTAINS PROOF THAT DEFENDANTS ARE ACTUALLY USING 

ITS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ....................................................................................10

VIII. WAYMO OBTAINS EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANTS ARE USING 

WAYMO’S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY FOR AN IMMINENT PRODUCT 

LAUNCH .............................................................................................................................11

ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................12

I. WAYMO IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS OF ITS CLAIMS ....................12

A. Waymo Is Likely To Succeed On Its Trade Secret Claims ......................................12

B. Waymo Is Likely To Succeed On Its Patent Infringement Claims ..........................16

II. WAYMO WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM WITHOUT AN 

INJUNCTION ......................................................................................................................20

III. THE BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS STRONGLY FAVORS AN INJUNCTION ..............23

IV. THE PUBLIC INTEREST SUPPORTS AN INJUNCTION ...............................................24

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................25
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

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

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

This case is about Uber, Ottomoto, and Otto Trucking trying to gain a crucial edge in the 

self-driving car market by using trade secrets stolen from Waymo and by infringing Waymo’s 

patents. Today, dozens of established companies and startups are in a frenzied race, vying to 

commercialize self-driving technology. This technology will revolutionize the way people and 

goods move around, generating untold revenues for those companies that successfully master it 

early. In order to prevent Defendants from misappropriating Waymo’s own technology to cheat 

and distort competition in this nascent market, Waymo respectfully seeks a preliminary injunction. 

Waymo is the industry leader in self-driving hardware and software and has been since 

launching its self-driving car project in 2009. While Waymo’s self-driving cars are a common 

(and very public) phenomenon on the Bay Area’s roads, the underpinning technology is powered 

in large part by non-public, trade secret technologies developed over thousands of research and 

development hours by leading engineers, designers and researchers. As part of those efforts, 

Waymo has developed its own unique, proprietary LiDAR systems tailored to fully autonomous 

vehicles. LiDAR is a laser-based technology that uses the reflection of laser beams off objects to 

create a real-time 3D image of the world. Waymo designed its own LiDAR systems to enable a 

self-driving vehicle to “see” its surroundings and thus detect traffic, pedestrians, and other 

obstacles that a vehicle must be able to see in order to drive safely. This technology was pivotal in

Waymo achieving the world’s first — and only — truly driverless trip on public roads in 2015. 

Uber, on the other hand, is a late entrant to the self-driving car space. Desperate to catch 

up with Waymo — by any means necessary — Uber jump-started its self-driving car efforts by 

using Waymo trade secrets stolen by Anthony Levandowski, a former Waymo employee. In 

December 2015, just weeks before he resigned without notice, Mr. Levandowski systematically 

downloaded more than 14,000 confidential Waymo files and then attempted to wipe the forensic 

evidence. In January 2016, Mr. Levandowski met with senior Uber executives. Shortly thereafter, 

his new venture Ottomotto LLC was founded. Mr. Levandowski resigned on January 27, 2016, 
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

and his related venture Otto Trucking was officially formed four days later. Otto1 launched 

publicly in May 2016, and less than three months later Uber purchased the start-up — which had 

few assets and no marketable product — for over half a billion dollars. 

In December 2016, Waymo was inadvertently copied on an email from one of its LiDAR 

component vendors, which attached machine drawings of what purports to be an Uber LiDAR 

circuit board. However, the circuit board bears a striking resemblance to Waymo’s own highly 

confidential design and reflects Waymo trade secrets — including those contained in the more 

than 14,000 files downloaded by Mr. Levandowski. The Uber LiDAR circuit board also indicates 

that Otto and Uber’s LiDAR systems infringe Waymo’s LiDAR patents. 

On February 9, 2017 — through a public records request — Waymo learned that Otto told 

Nevada state regulators that it is no longer using a third-party LiDAR solution, but rather has 

“developed in house and/or currently deployed” an “[i]n-house custom built 64-laser” LiDAR 

system. As is clear from the evidence, the LiDAR technology that Uber and Otto have “developed 

in house and/or currently deployed” is in fact Waymo’s LiDAR technology. Defendants’ 

statement about “deploying” this technology create an imminent threat that Defendants will use 

Waymo’s technology to gain a potentially irreversible edge in the new self-driving car market. To 

prevent Defendants from gaining a crucial market edge through the misuse of Waymo’s 

technology, Waymo respectfully requests a preliminary injunction. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

I. WAYMO IS A LEADER IN THE SELF-DRIVING CAR INDUSTRY 

Google was the first major U.S. technology firm to dedicate significant resources to the 

development of self-driving car technology, which promises to make transportation safer, cleaner, 

more efficient, and more widely available. See Declaration of Jordan Jaffe (“Jaffe Decl.”) Exs. 

22-25. Google initiated its self-driving car project in 2009. Id. Before long, Google’s selfdriving cars had navigated from the Bay Area to Los Angeles, drove the Pacific Coast Highway, 

and circled Lake Tahoe, logging over 140,000 miles — a first in robotics research. Id. Ex. 22. In 

 

1

 Collectively, OttoMotto LLC and Otto Trucking LLC are referred to herein as “Otto.” 
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

2014, Google unveiled its own reference vehicle, a two-door fully autonomous car without pedals 

or a steering wheel. Id. Exs. 26-28. A year later, this prototype made the first ever fully selfdriving trip in normal traffic on public roads. Id. Exs. 29-30. 

In 2016, Google’s self-driving car program became Waymo.2 Id. Exs. 24-25, 31-32. To 

date, Waymo’s fleet of self-driving vehicles has logged over 2.5 million miles in autonomous 

mode on public roads (equating to over 300 years of human driving experience), and its systems 

have logged over a billion miles of simulated driving using Waymo’s in-house simulator and 

Google’s massive data centers. Id. Exs. 31-33. 

Waymo’s early, sustained investment in self-driving car technology has made it a leader 

not only in performance and safety but also in cost-reduction, a critical element for 

commercialization. As a result, Waymo is at the forefront of the effort to bring fully self-driving 

cars to market.

II. WAYMO DEVELOPS ITS OWN LiDAR TECHNOLOGY FOR IMPROVED 

PERFORMANCE AND REDUCED COST 

Laser systems known as LiDAR (“Light Detection and Ranging”) provide the “vision” for 

autonomous vehicles. Declaration of Gregory Kintz (“Kintz Decl.”) ¶ 21. LiDAR uses highfrequency, high-power pulsing lasers to measure distances between a car and external objects. Id. 

After a laser beam is fired, it reflects off the surface of surrounding objects, and data regarding the 

light that bounces back to designated receivers is recorded. Id. Software analyzes the data in 

order to create a three-dimensional view of the environment, which is used to identify objects, 

assess their motion and orientation, predict their behavior, and make driving decisions. Id. 

Waymo has invested millions of dollars and thousands of engineering hours to develop its own 

proprietary LiDAR systems that are high-performing and low-cost — i.e., tailored to advance the 

commercialization of autonomous vehicles. Declaration of Pierre-Yves Droz (“Droz Decl.”) ¶ 38. 

 

2

 Further references to “Waymo” refer to the self-driving car project from its inception in 

2009 to the present. 
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Waymo’s early efforts to develop its mid-range LiDAR systems3 were directed at selecting 

a fundamental architecture that could provide the right balance among a variety of priorities: high 

resolution, compact and durable design, simple software, easy manufacture, and overall 

robustness. Id. ¶¶ 10-12. The Waymo team spent years working on a variety of possibilities — 

, among others. Id. ¶¶ 10-11. Waymo’s experience with these “dead-end” designs helped 

lead Waymo to the architecture now at the heart of its current LiDAR systems. Id. ¶ 12. 

In contrast to other publicly available systems, Waymo’s custom and revolutionary new 

technology permits the use of a single lens to both transmit the laser beams used to scan the 

environment and receive the light reflected when those beams bounce off surrounding objects. Id.

¶¶ 13-16. This single-lens design was (and remains today) vastly different from commercially 

available LiDAR systems, including those produced by leading suppliers like Velodyne and 

Quanergy Systems, as well as Waymo’s own previous generations of LiDAR (as described 

above). Prior systems had used separate lens assemblies — often with multiple lens elements — 

for the “transmit path” and the “receive path.” Id. ¶¶ 14-15. Waymo’s common single lens design 

was a game-changer over these prior designs. Id. ¶ 15. It reduced the size of Waymo’s LiDAR by 

reducing the number of optical system components; it reduced the complexity of Waymo’s 

technology by eliminating the need to painstakingly align pairs of transmit and receive lenses 

(with even a slight mis-calibration of a lens pair affecting the accuracy of the system); and it 

helped reduce the cost of the system to less than one-tenth of the cost of benchmark LiDAR 

systems that were on the market just a few years prior — all this, while maintaining high 

resolution and performance. Id. Waymo’s custom LiDAR solutions are thus a significant 

 

3 Autonomous vehicles must be able to “see” objects at different distances (e.g., an oncoming 

emergency vehicle 100 meters away, a pedestrian at an intersection 10 meters away, and a curb 

immediately next to the car). Droz Decl. ¶ 9. Because a LiDAR system optimal for use in closer 

ranges will usually not be optimal for use in longer ranges, Waymo has developed mid-range and 

long-range LiDAR technology. Id. ¶¶ 9-11. 
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

differentiating factor over later entrants into the self-driving space, who typically rely on the priorart separate lens designs, with their attendant cost and manufacturing deficiencies. 

Waymo replaced the third-party LiDAR systems it had been using for its autonomous 

vehicle program with its in-house single-lens system Id. ¶ 19. 

Waymo now has over a dozen patents on various innovations implemented in including the 

fundamental single-lens architecture described in U.S. Patent Nos. 8,836,922 and 9,285,464. 

Kintz Decl. ¶¶ 94-96, 135-137. 

Waymo’s current-generation LiDAR technology, known internally as reflects 

additional improvements on the single-lens design that was at the heart of . Droz Decl. ¶¶ 

20-22. These innovations further optimize the balance among resolution, durability, size, 

simplicity, ease of manufacture, and cost. Id. ¶ 20. As just one example,

 Id. ¶¶ 20-21. Innovations like these are not patented, are not visible to passers-by as 

Waymo tests its vehicles,4 and derive their economic value from being kept secret from 

competitors. See, e.g., Kintz Decl. ¶¶ 28-31, 36-39, 44-45, 49-50, 54. Thus, these innovations 

qualify as trade secrets. Concurrently with this Motion, Waymo is submitting a List of Asserted 

Trade Secrets Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.210, detailing with particularity 121 of its 

trade secrets related to its LiDAR technology. Jaffe Decl., Ex. 1.

III. THE UNPATENTED INNOVATIONS UNDERLYING WAYMO’S LiDAR 

TECHNOLOGY ARE HEAVILY GUARDED SECRETS 

Unless and until it is patented, Waymo’s LiDAR technology is subject to robust measures 

to protect its secrecy. 

As a condition of employment, Waymo requires all employees to enter into written 

agreements to maintain the confidentiality of proprietary and trade secret information. Droz Decl. 

¶ 30. As a related ongoing measure, Waymo enforces an employee code of conduct that explains 

employees’ strict obligations to maintain the secrecy of confidential information. Id. 

 

4 Waymo’s LiDAR systems are generally contained within a housing unit that precludes an 

observer from viewing its internal architecture. See ‘922 Patent at 6:29-36; Jaffe Decl., Ex
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Waymo employs network security measures and access policies that restrict the access and 

dissemination of confidential and proprietary trade secret information to only teams that are 

working on projects related to that information. Droz Decl. ¶ 32. For example, Google employees 

working on projects with no relation to Waymo or self-driving cars have never had access to 

Waymo’s confidential and proprietary technical information stored on the secure SVN repository. 

Id.; Declaration of Michasel Janosko (“Janosko Decl.”) ¶¶ 23-25. 

Waymo also employs reasonable measures to monitor and secure the networks and devices 

that employees use to access confidential and proprietary information. Droz Decl. ¶ 33; Janosko 

Decl. ¶¶ 4-25. Networks hosting such information are encrypted and require passwords for access. 

Id. ¶¶ 13-16, 25. Devices (e.g. computers, tablets, and cell phones) provided to employees are also 

encrypted, password protected, and subject to other security measures. Id. ¶¶ 5-10. Certain 

Waymo databases storing confidential and proprietary information, such as the SVN database 

(Waymo’s confidential design server), are available on a need to know basis only and require 

special software to access. Id. ¶ 25; Droz Decl. ¶ 32. 

Waymo takes reasonable measures to mark confidential and proprietary information, such 

as documents and other materials, with visible legends designating them as such. Id. ¶ 34; 

Declaration of Tim Willis (“Willis Decl.”) ¶ 4. Waymo employs reasonable efforts to secure 

physical facilities by restricting access and employing locks, cameras, guards, and other security 

measures. Droz Decl. ¶ 35; Janosko Decl. ¶ 22. 

Waymo also strictly requires all consultants, vendors, and manufacturers to sign 

confidentiality agreements that require that they undertake reasonable efforts to maintain, and not 

to disclose, any confidential or trade secret information. Willis Decl. ¶¶ 4-5. Each outside vendor 

or manufacturer that has received Waymo’s LiDAR-related confidential and proprietary trade 

secret information has executed at least one written non-disclosure agreement. Id. 

IV. UBER IS LATE TO ENTER THE SELF-DRIVING CAR MARKET 

Uber came to view its entry into the self-driving car space as an “existential” imperative 

when it saw Waymo’s successful self-driving car efforts. Jaffe Decl. Ex. 35. But whereas Waymo 

began developing its self-driving cars in 2009, Uber’s first serious foray into automation was not 
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

until six years later when — in February 2015 — Uber announced a partnership with Carnegie 

Mellon University. Id. Exs. 36-37. According to public reports of the partnership, Uber hired at 

least 40 CMU faculty members, researchers, and technicians, including the former head of CMU’s 

National Robotics Engineering Center, to help jump-start an Uber vehicle automation program. 

Id.

By early 2016, Uber had invested significant sums in the team from Carnegie Mellon, but 

the research and development process was slow. Id. Ex. 37. And with respect to LiDAR 

technology, Uber’s program appeared to rely solely on a third-party, off-the-shelf LiDAR system 

manufactured by Velodyne Inc. (the HDL-64E). Compare id. Ex. 38 (product page for 

Velodyne’s HDL-64E with photo) with Ex. 39 (August 2016 article with photo of Uber LiDAR). 

Uber’s stalled program did not make any significant advances toward designing or 

manufacturing its own LiDAR technology for improved performance or lower cost. Id. Ex. 37. 

As of mid-2016, Uber remained years behind in the race to develop vehicle automation technology 

suitable for the mass market. 

V. WHILE AT WAYMO, ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI AND OTHER WAYMO

EMPLOYEES SECRETLY DOWNLOAD THOUSANDS OF CONFIDENTIAL 

FILES BEFORE LEAVING FOR OTTO 

Unbeknownst to Waymo at the time, by late 2015, Waymo manager Anthony 

Levandowski was secretly preparing to launch a competing vehicle automation venture — a 

company named “280 Systems,” which later would become Otto. In November 2015, an Internet 

domain name was registered for 280 Systems. Jaffe Decl. Ex. 40. On December 3, 2015, Mr. 

Levandowski searched for instructions on how to access the SVN database, Waymo’s highly 

confidential design server. Declaration of Gary Brown (“Brown Decl.”) ¶ 15. This server holds 

detailed technical information related to Waymo’s LiDAR systems, including the blueprints for its 

key hardware components, and is accessible only on a need-to-know basis. Janosko Decl. ¶¶ 23-

25; Droz Decl. ¶ 32. 

On December 11, 2015, Mr. Levandowski – who had a total of three Waymo-issued 

computers – installed special software on a Waymo laptop to access the design server. Brown 

Decl. ¶ 16. Until shortly before installing the software, Mr. Levandowski had used this particular 
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

laptop only a handful of times in the previous eight months. Id. ¶ 13. On that same day, 

December 11, 2015, Mr. Levandowski then downloaded over 14,000 proprietary files from that 

server. Id. ¶ 17. Mr. Levandowski’s download included 9.7 GBs of sensitive, secret, and valuable 

internal Waymo information. Id.; Janosko Decl. ¶¶ 23-25. 2 GBs of the download related to 

Waymo’s LiDAR technology. Id. ¶ 24. Among the downloaded documents were confidential 

specifications for each version of every generation of Waymo’s LiDAR circuit boards. Droz Decl. 

¶ 24; Kintz Decl. ¶ 25. On December 14, Mr. Levandowski attached a removable media device 

(an SD Card) to the laptop containing the downloaded files for approximately eight hours. Brown 

Decl. ¶ 18. 

On December 18, seven days after Mr. Levandowski completed his download of 

confidential Waymo information and four days after he removed the SD Card, he reformatted the 

laptop, attempting to erase any evidence of what happened to the downloaded files. Id. ¶ 19. 

After wiping the laptop clean, Mr. Levandowski used the reformatted laptop for a few minutes and 

then never used it again. Id. ¶¶ 19-20. 

On January 4, 2016, Mr. Levandowski used his Waymo credentials and security clearances 

to download additional confidential Waymo documents to a personal device (as opposed to 

viewing documents online, as is typical for Waymo employees). Id. ¶ 22. These downloaded 

materials included at least five highly sensitive internal presentations containing proprietary 

technical details regarding the manufacture, assembly, calibration, and testing of Waymo’s LiDAR 

sensors. Id.; Droz Decl. ¶¶ 25-26 & Exs. A-B, D-F. At around the same time, Mr. Levandowski 

confided in some Waymo colleagues that he planned to “replicate” Waymo’s technology at a 

Waymo competitor. Id. ¶ 27. 

In mid-January, Mr. Levandowski was spotted at Uber’s headquarters in San Francisco, 

attending meetings with high-level Uber executives. Id. ¶ 29. On January 15, Mr. Levandowski’s 

venture 280 Systems — which became OttoMotto LLC — was officially formed (though it 

remained in stealth mode for several months). Jaffe Decl. Ex. 41. On January 27, Mr. 

Levandowski resigned from Waymo without notice. And on February 1, Mr. Levandowski’s 
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

venture Otto Trucking was officially formed (also remaining in stealth mode for several months). 

Id. Ex. 42. 

Other Waymo employees would later download additional confidential documents 

immediately prior to resigning from Waymo and joining Otto. Brown Decl. ¶¶ 24-29; Willis Decl. 

¶¶ 6-11. 

VI. UBER ACQUIRES OTTO, AFTER ONLY SIX MONTHS OF OFFICIAL 

EXISTENCE, FOR OVER HALF A BILLION DOLLARS 

In July 2016, after just six months of existence, Uber inked a deal to acquire Otto. Jaffe 

Decl. Exs. 43-45. As Forbes reported at the time, “one of the keys to this acquisition[] could be 

the LIDAR system that was developed in-house at Otto.” Id. Ex. 44. 

Otto’s purchase price was reported as $680 million, the payment of which is reportedly 

contingent on Otto meeting various technical milestones and — ultimately — getting self-driving 

Uber cars deployed. Id. Ex. 46. In recognition of the central role of Otto’s technology within 

Uber, Uber named Otto co-founder Mr. Levandowski as its vice president in charge of Uber’s selfdriving car project. Id. Ex. 47. Uber rechristened Otto’s existing San Francisco office as Uber’s 

new self-driving research and development center. Id. Ex. 43. 

The sudden resignations from Waymo, Otto’s quick path from formation to public launch 

with Mr. Levandowski at the helm, and Uber’s near-immediate acquisition of Otto for more than 

half a billion dollars all raised suspicions at Waymo regarding possible misuse of its intellectual 

property. Accordingly, in the summer of 2016, Waymo began to investigate the events 

surrounding the departure of Waymo employees for Otto and ultimately discovered Mr. 

Levandowski’s 14,000-document download, his efforts to hide the disposition of those documents, 

and the downloading of other Waymo confidential materials by Mr. Levandowski and other 

former Waymo employees. Brown Decl. ¶¶ 12-29. 

Though Waymo found evidence that Mr. Levandowski and others had downloaded 

Waymo’s confidential materials in a suspicious manner, Waymo did not yet have evidence that its 

secret intellectual property was actually being acquired for use by another party, much less used 
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

for any imminent product launch in the self-driving car market. Such evidence, however, would 

soon be forthcoming. 

VII. WAYMO OBTAINS PROOF THAT DEFENDANTS ARE ACTUALLY USING ITS 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 

One of Waymo’s LiDAR component vendors is On 

December 13, 2016, a Waymo employee received an email from a employee, entitled “RE: 

OTTO FILES.” Declaration of William Grossman (“Grossman Decl.”), Ex. 1. The email’s 

recipients included the email alias Uber@ com — seemingly indicating that the 

thread was a discussion among members of “Uber” team. Id. Attached to the email 

was a machine drawing of what purported to be an Otto printed circuit board (the “Replicated 

Board”) that bore a striking resemblance to — and shared several unique characteristics with — 

Waymo’s highly confidential current-generation circuit boards, the design of 

which had been among the more than 14,000 files downloaded by Mr. Levandowski before his 

resignation. Id., Kintz Decl. ¶¶ 25, 47. 

Indeed, in all key respects, the Replicated Board is indistinguishable from Board ” in 

Waymo’s current-generation LiDAR systems: 

Id. ¶¶ 26, 32-34, 40-42, 46-48, 51-52, 55. 
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

VIII. WAYMO OBTAINS EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANTS ARE USING WAYMO’S 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY FOR AN IMMINENT PRODUCT LAUNCH 

On February 3, 2017, aware that Defendants were pre-testing or testing self-driving cars in 

Nevada, Waymo filed a public records request with the Nevada Governor’s Office of Economic 

Development and Department of Motor Vehicles. Jaffe Decl. Ex. 51. Among the documents that 

Waymo received on February 9 in response to that request was a submission in which Otto 
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

represented that it had “developed in house and/or currently deployed” an “[i]n-house custom built 

64-laser” LiDAR system. Id. Ex. 52 at 59-60. In other words, Defendants were using Waymo’s 

intellectual property for an imminent product launch — an actual “deploy[ment]” of its stolen 

LiDAR technology in the self-driving market. 

Since Waymo filed its Complaint in this action, Forbes published the following statement 

by Mr. Levandowski: “How did we get to where we are? We understand what not to do and 

where not to waste time because we have experience from having tried it before and it didn’t 

work. And we have experience in trying things that do work, so we are just doing the things 

that do work and focus on that.” Jaffe Decl. Ex. 53. Defendants are now deploying technology 

that replicates “the things that do work” — i.e., Waymo’s intellectual property. 

ARGUMENT 

To obtain a preliminary injunction, Waymo “must establish that it is likely to succeed on 

the merits, that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 

balance of equities tips in its favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” AstraZeneca 

LP v. Apotex Corp., 633 F.3d 1042, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (alterations omitted) (quoting Winter v. 

Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). As explained below and in the 

accompanying declarations, Defendants’ theft of Waymo’s trade secrets and infringement of 

Waymo’s patents easily meets this standard. Accordingly, Waymo is entitled to a preliminary 

injunction. 

I. WAYMO IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS OF ITS CLAIMS 

A. Waymo Is Likely To Succeed On Its Trade Secret Claims 

In order to prevail on its claims under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the 

Defend Trade Secrets Act, Waymo need only show that Defendants acquired Waymo’s trade 

secrets with reason to know that the trade secrets were acquired by improper means. Cal. Civ. 

Code § 3426; 18 U.S.C. § 1836. There can be no viable dispute on this point: Mr. Levandowski 

improperly downloaded thousands of Waymo’s confidential and proprietary LiDAR documents 

while he was setting up his competing venture and meeting with Uber executives. Statement of 

Facts § V, supra. 
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

But it is not just Defendants’ acquisition of Waymo’s trade secrets that makes a 

preliminary injunction particularly warranted here; it is also Defendants’ use of those trade secrets 

in a system that is apparently now fully developed and being deployed (or about to be deployed) in 

self-driving vehicles. 

 ‘922 Fig. 4 

 

5

 All of the trade secrets discussed in this Section are examples from Waymo’s List of 

Asserted Trade Secrets Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.210, filed herewith as Exhibit 1 to 

the Declaration of Jordan Jaffe. This List details, with particularity, 121 Waymo trade secrets. 
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
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

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

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

B. Waymo Is Likely To Succeed On Its Patent Infringement Claims 

While Defendants’ misappropriation of these trade secrets is apparent from the Replicated 

Board itself, the board is one part of a larger LiDAR device and thus interacts with a host of other 

components — including other boards, lenses, and transmit and receive components — in order to 

function properly. In this context, the Replicated Board as part of the entire LiDAR device 

“deployed” by Defendants reads on the fundamental common lens design patents granted to 

Waymo. 

Waymo developed the specifically to interface with components in the design 

covered by U.S. Patent Nos. 8,836,922 (“the ’922 Patent”) and 9,285,464 (“the ’464 Patent”), and 

Mr. Levandowski downloaded confidential documentation related to all aspects of that design. 

Mr. Levandowski and his team are well aware of these specific patents. He and some of his 

colleagues were named inventors on them when they developed the pioneering common lens 

design at Waymo. 

The ’922 Patent teaches an optical configuration that uses a common lens to both transmit 

and receive light beams, rather than using separate lenses for transmission and receipt. ’922 

Patent at 4:5-11; Kintz Decl. ¶ 56. One of innovations was this common-lens design to 

both transmit and receive the collection of laser beams used to scan the surrounding environment. 

Droz Decl. ¶ 13. 

Traditionally, a LiDAR system used lens assemblies with multiple elements, such as 3 lens 

elements (a triplet lens) for transmit side and another triplet lens for the receive side. Id. ¶ 14. But 

this approach was not practical in a LiDAR system meant for self-driving cars because the size 

and cost of the system would be very large due to the complexity of manufacturing numerous 

complex lens elements. Id. Thus, one of Waymo’s key insights was that using one lens for both 

transmitting and receiving is simpler and allows for a smaller and less expensive LiDAR unit. Id. 

¶ 15. Using one lens better ensures that focal lengths are equal for both sending laser beams out 
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

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

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(transmit side) and for receiving reflected light back (receive side) so that the transmit and receive 

arrays can match perfectly. Id.

While offering important savings in cost, performance, and complexity, a common-lens 

design poses problems that must be solved. Id. For example, using a single lens makes the focal 

plane curved like a bowl rather than flat like a pancake, but Waymo developed a curved transmit 

board to echo the curved focal plane. Id. Waymo’s ingenuity enabled it to get the small-size and 

low-cost benefits of a single-lens system. 

According to the ‘922 patent on Waymo’s single-lens design, the common lens is mounted 

to a housing. ’922 Patent at 1:50-51; Kintz Decl. ¶ Within the housing, a transmit block emits 

light to the lens via an exit aperture in a wall that includes a reflective surface. ’922 Patent at 

3:61-67, 4:37-39; Kintz Decl. ¶ The wall shields the light from the transmit block from 

blinding the detectors, but a narrow exit aperture is necessary to allow the light to exit the lens into 

the surrounding environment, as required for the LiDAR device to function. When that light 

returns after reflecting off an object in the surrounding environment, it returns into the housing in 

the same direction that it exited, i.e., it travels towards the wall containing the exit aperture. 

Because the surface of the wall that faces the lens is reflective, the wall is able to direct the 

returning object-reflected light towards the receive block, which measures the time-of-flight of the 

laser beam to calculate object distance. ‘922 Patent at 4:26-39; Kintz Decl. ¶ 

The architecture of the Replicated Board (including its curved edge and other design 

elements) shows that the Accused LiDAR Device is designed to interface with a common-lens 

design that would meet every element of at least claim 1 of the ‘922 Patent. Id. ¶¶ In brief, 

Waymo is likely to show infringement of at least ‘922 claim 1, which claims a LiDAR device 

comprising: 

a lens mounted to a housing, wherein the 

housing is configured to rotate about an axis 

and has an interior space that includes a 

transmit block, a receive block, a transmit path, 

and a receive path, wherein the transmit block 

has an exit aperture in a wall that comprises a 

reflective surface, wherein the receive block has 

an entrance aperture, wherein the transmit path 

This claim limitation describes the optical 

configuration claimed by the patent — a 

configuration by which a common lens handles 

transmitting and receiving, and by which the 

light travels through an exit aperture in a wall, 

which wall doubles as a reflector for returning 

object-reflected light. Given the layout of the 

Replicated Board
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

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

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

extends from the exit aperture to the lens, and 

wherein the receive path extends from the lens 

to the entrance aperture via the reflective 

surface; Further, other characteristics of the Replicated 

Board indicate that it is designed to project its 

laser beams towards the claimed exit aperture 

within a wall with a reflective surface. Kintz 

Decl. ¶¶ 

a plurality of light sources in the transmit block, 

wherein the plurality of light sources are 

configured to emit a plurality of light beams 

through the exit aperture in a plurality of 

different directions, the light beams comprising 

light having wavelengths in a wavelength 

range; 

The Accused LiDAR Device’s Replicated 

Board contains

Id. ¶¶ 

a plurality of detectors in the receive block, 

wherein the plurality of detectors are configured 

to detect light having wavelengths in the 

wavelength range; and 

The Replicated Board necessarily corresponds 

to a plurality of detectors in the receive block of 

the Accused LiDAR Device, because if there 

were only one detector, the Accused LiDAR 

Device would be unable to emit 6.4 million 

beams per second, as claimed by Defendants. 

The detectors will be configured to detect the 

light emitted by because 

otherwise the LiDAR device could not function. 

Id. ¶¶ 

wherein the lens is configured to receive the 

light beams via the transmit path, collimate the 

light beams for transmission into an 

environment of the LIDAR device, collect light 

comprising light from one or more of the 

collimated light beams reflected by one or more 

objects in the environment of the LIDAR 

device, and focus the collected light onto the 

detectors via the receive path. 

As described above, the Replicated Board is 

part of the Accused LiDAR Device, which uses 

a common lens to receive the outgoing light on 

the transmit path and to collect returning light 

that has reflected off external objects. 

Furthermore, all LiDAR transmit lenses 

collimate light for transmission, and all LiDAR 

receive lenses focus collected light onto 

detectors; the common lens necessarily follows 

these basic properties. Id. ¶ 

A more detailed infringement analysis for claim 1 and 13 is set forth in the attached 

Declaration of Gregory Kintz, an expert in optical designs who has designed LiDAR and other 

laser systems for the U.S. Navy and Lockheed Martin. See id. at ¶¶ . 

Mr. Kintz further explains how the ‘922 claims are valid, since their configuration of 

elements — including the single lens, housing with transmit/receive blocks, and transmit path — 

“was a departure from the LiDAR devices in existence at the time. The invention made advances 
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

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

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

in size, cost, and complexity, and would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the 

art. There are LiDAR systems in prior art, but none achieve the benefits enabled by the elegant 

configuration disclosed by the ’922 Patent.” Id. at ¶¶ 

The ’464 Patent is a continuation of the ’922 Patent and shares its specification and 

figures. Claim 1 of the ’464 Patent is identical to claim 1 of the ’922 Patent except that the first 

element is slightly worded differently: 

’922 Patent 

a lens mounted to a housing, wherein the 

housing is configured to rotate about an axis 

and has an interior space that includes a 

transmit block, a receive block, a transmit path, 

and a receive path, wherein the transmit block 

has an exit aperture in a wall that comprises a 

reflective surface, wherein the receive block 

has an entrance aperture, wherein the transmit 

path extends from the exit aperture to the lens, 

and wherein the receive path extends from the 

lens to the entrance aperture via the reflective 

surface; 

’464 Patent 

a lens mounted to a housing, wherein the 

housing is configured to rotate about an axis 

and has an interior space that includes a 

transmit block, a receive block, a transmit path, 

and a receive path, wherein the transmit block 

has an exit aperture, wherein the receive block 

has an entrance aperture, wherein the transmit 

path extends from the exit aperture to the lens, 

wherein the receive path extends from the lens 

to the entrance aperture, and wherein the 

transmit path at least partially overlaps the 

receive path in the interior space between the 

transmit block and the receive block; 

While both patents claim a common-lens system, the ’464 Patent does not specifically 

require that the exit aperture exist within a wall that doubles as a mirror on the receive path. 

Rather, it requires that the transmit path overlap the receive path within the shared interior space. 

Thus, while the ’464 Patent is slightly different than the ’922 Patent, the Accused LIDAR Device 

infringes claims 1 and 14 of the ’464 Patent for the same reasons it infringes claims 1 and 13 of 

the ’922 Patent. Kintz Decl. at ¶¶ 101-30. Mr. Kintz has also explained that the ’464 patent is 

valid. Id. at ¶ 131-34. 

 * * * 

While Defendants’ misappropriation of certain trade secretes and infringement of certain 

patents is apparent from Waymo’s inadvertent receipt of the Replicated Board and the limited 

public information that Waymo has been able to obtain, Waymo strongly suspects that this is only 

the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Expedited discovery is likely to show that Defendants have 

misappropriated additional trade secrets and infringed additional Waymo patents. Thus, as 
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

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

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

detailed in Waymo’s Motion for Expedited Discovery (filed herewith), Waymo respectfully 

requests that expedited discovery be granted, and Waymo reserves the right to amend this Motion 

should expedited discovery provide further details about additional trade secret misappropriation 

and patent infringement. 

II. WAYMO WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM WITHOUT AN INJUNCTION 

Numerous courts in this District have held that threatened or continued use of another 

party’s trade secrets generally creates irreparable harm. See, e.g., Gallagher Benefits Servs., Inc. 

v. De La Torre, No. C 07-5495 VRW, 2007 WL 4106821, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2007) (“In 

general, the imminent use of a trade secret constitutes irreparable harm.”); aff'd in relevant part, 

283 F. App’x 543 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Western Directories, Inc. v. Golden Guide Directories, 

Inc., No. C 09-1625 CW, 2009 WL 1625945, *6 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2009) (“The Court presumes 

that Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if its proprietary information is misappropriated.”); Vinyl 

Interactive, LLC v. Guarino, No. C 09-0987 CW, 2009 WL 1228695, at *8 (N.D. Cal. May 1, 

2009) (same); Teleflora, LLC v. Florists’ Transworld Delivery, Inc., No. C 03-05858 JW, 2004 

WL 1844847, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2004) (“Use or disclosure of trade secrets is an irreparable 

harm which will support the granting of a preliminary injunction.”) Courts in other districts have 

reached similar conclusions. See, e.g., Advanced Instructional Sys., Inc. v. Competentum USA, 

Ltd., No. 1:15CV858, 2015 WL 7575925, at *4 (M.D. N.C. Nov. 25, 2015) (“In most instances, 

courts presume irreparable harm when a trade secret has been misappropriated.”); Pixon Imaging, 

Inc. v. Empower Techs. Corp., No. 11-CV-1093-JM MDD, 2011 WL 3739529, at *6 (S.D. Cal. 

Aug. 24, 2011) ( “[A]n intention to make imminent or continued use of a trade secret or to 

disclose it to a competitor will almost always show irreparable harm.”) 

The usual rule applies forcefully in this case. Specifically, Defendants’ continued use of 

Waymo’s trade secrets to unfairly compete with Waymo in the nascent self-driving car industry 

would cause irreparable harm to Waymo. After all, this nascent industry includes several fierce 

competitors who are racing to become the first to offer a full suite of commercial self-driving 

services and thus gain a critical first-mover advantage. See, e.g., Adrienne LaFrance, “The HighStakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers,” The Atlantic (Dec. 1, 2015) (noting that (“[t]he 
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

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

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

race to bring driverless cars to the masses is only just beginning, but already it is a fight for the 

ages . . . . Aspects of this race evoke several pivotal moments in technological history: the 

construction of railroads, the dawn of electric light, the birth of the automobile, the beginning of 

aviation.”) It naturally follows that Waymo would be irreparably harmed if Defendants were 

allowed to use Waymo’s own trade secrets to gain a critical edge in this race. Lamb-Weston, Inc. 

v. McCain Foods, Ltd., 941 F.2d 970, 974 (9th Cir. 1991) (“An injunction in a trade secret case 

seeks to protect the secrecy of misappropriated information and to eliminate any unfair head start 

the defendant may have gained.”); Netlist Inc v. Diablo Techs. Inc., No. 13-CV-05962-YGR, 2015 

WL 153724, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2015) (“The Court finds that the showing of a head-start 

advantage to Diablo, based upon an improper use of Netlist’s technology, is sufficient to establish 

that any harm to Netlist would not be remedied by money damages alone.”). Uber’s own CEO 

Travis Kalanick recently explained the irreparable effects that will result from whichever company 

wins the race to first commercialize self-driving cars, stating: “If we are not tied for first, then the 

person who is in first, or the entity that’s in first, then rolls out a ride-sharing network that is far 

cheaper or far higher-quality than Uber’s, then Uber is no longer a thing.” Biz Carson, “Uber 

CEO Travis Kalanick on Uber’s Bet on Self-Driving Cars: ‘I Can’t Be Wrong’”, Business Insider

(Aug. 18, 2016). Jaffe Decl. Ex. 35. 

Waymo would also be irreparably harmed because Defendants’ continued use of Waymo’s 

trade secrets is likely to result in further disclosure of those trade secrets. As explained in 

Statement of Facts Section VIII, supra, Defendants have already begun making regulatory filings 

that reference Waymo’s trade secrets. If Defendants continue using Waymo’s trade secrets in 

their self-driving car endeavors, there would likely be additional filings disclosing other aspects of

Waymo’s trade secrets. Furthermore, Defendants’ disrespectful treatment of Waymo’s trade 

secrets — as shown by Defendants’ willingness to capitalize on their outright theft — leaves little 

doubt that Defendants would not hesitate to throw Waymo’s trade secrets open to the general 

public if Defendants decided that it suited their purposes. Improper disclosure of trade secrets is, 

of course, a classic irreparable injury because such disclosure destroys the trade secret altogether. 
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

-22- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Saini v. Int’l Game Tech., 434 F. Supp. 2d 913, 919 (D. Nev. 2006) (“Public disclosure of a trade 

secret destroys the information’s status as a trade secret.”) 

A similar analysis applies to Defendants’ patent infringement, which — if left unchecked 

— will inflict many of the same irreparable harms as Defendants’ trade secret misappropriation. 

For example, like Defendants’ continued trade secret misappropriation, Defendants’ continued 

patent infringement would give Defendants an unfair advantage in the high-stakes race to offer 

commercial self-driving services. Were Waymo to lose the race to successfully commercialize 

this nascent field, the harm would be irreparable. This Court reached a similar conclusion last Fall 

in the Illumina, Inc. v. Qiagen N.V. case, finding irreparable harm where “[t]he market for DNA 

sequencing in clinical laboratories is expected to grow substantially in the near future . . . . Now, 

as the doors to the market have swung open, Qiagen seeks to usurp Illumina’s position in that 

market with pirated technology.” Illumina, Inc. v. Qiagen, N.V., -- F.Supp. 3d --, 2016 WL 

4719269, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2016) (Alsup, J.) Other courts have likewise found irreparable 

harm when a defendant's patent infringement allows the defendant to gain a competitive edge in a 

nascent or fast-growing market. See Visto Corp. v. Sproqit Techs., Inc., 413 F. Supp. 2d 1073, 

1092 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (finding irreparable harm when patentee and infringer were direct 

competitors fighting for market share in a rapidly changing market); Transocean Offshore 

Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. GlobalSantaFe Corp., No. H-03-2910, 2006 WL 3813778, at *4 (S.D. 

Tex. Dec. 27, 2006) (finding irreparable harm because the infringer would steal sales and market 

share in a “developing market”); Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Tech., Inc., No. 2:05-CV-463, 2008 

WL 1746636, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2008) (finding irreparable harm where the patentee 

and infringer were direct competitors, and the relevant market had been “recently created”). 

To be sure, when a patentee claims irreparable harm from lost sales or market share in an 

existing market, it must show “‘some connection’ between the patented features and the demand 

for [the infringing] products.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 809 F.3d 633, 642 (Fed. Cir. 

2015) (“Apple IV”). This is often called the “causal nexus” requirement. Here, there is a clear 

causal nexus between Defendants’ patent infringement and the harm resulting from Defendants’ 

unfair head-start in the race to commercialize self-driving cars. This is because the Waymo 
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

-23- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

patents at issue in this motion — the ’922 Patent and the ’464 Patent — cover core technical 

features that enable a LiDAR system to meet the challenges of the self-driving environment. More 

specifically, these patents cover a single-lens configuration that offers great advantages in size, 

cost, and complexity compared with prior LiDAR configurations. It would be much more difficult 

to successfully launch a self-driving car without this patented technology. See, e.g., Kintz Decl. ¶¶ 

39, 44. Indeed, as explained above, the single-lens architecture reduces costs by an order of 

magnitude over prior art multi-lens architectures. Statement of Facts § II, supra. Thus, adopting 

this infringing architecture gives Defendants a huge unearned cost advantage in their efforts to win 

the race to launch a commercially-viable self-driving car. 

III. THE BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS STRONGLY FAVORS AN INJUNCTION 

The balance of hardships strongly favors a preliminary injunction, on both the trade secret 

claim and the patent claims. On the trade secret claim, it should be noted that Waymo is not 

seeking to enjoin Defendants from pursuing self-driving car projects in toto. Waymo merely asks 

that Defendants not be allowed to use Wayno’s trade secrets in doing so. Given that Defendants 

have no right to use Waymo’s trade secrets at all, they would suffer no legally-cognizable hardship 

from being forced to abandon Waymo’s trade secrets in their self-driving endeavors. Conversely, 

Waymo would be greatly harmed if its own trade secrets were used against it in the race to 

commercialize self-driving technology. Thus, the balance of hardships strongly favors Waymo. 

See, e.g., TMX Funding, Inc. v. Impero Techs., Inc., No. C 10-00202 JF (PVT), 2010 WL 

1028254, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2010) (“The injunctive relief sought by TMX is specific to the 

use of proprietary information belonging to TMX . . . . Accordingly, the balance of hardships 

weighs in favor of TMX.”) Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Steele Ins. Agency, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-00784-

MCE, 2013 WL 2151553, at *14 (E.D. Cal. May 16, 2013) (“Courts have found that the balance 

of hardships tips in favor of a plaintiff seeking an injunction which would ‘merely prohibit the 

defendants from misappropriating the trade secrets of the plaintiff.’”) (brackets deleted). 

The balance of hardships also favors Waymo on the patent infringement claims. While 

Defendants may face some hardship in being enjoined from using the accused instrumentalities, 

“[o]ne who elects to build a business on a product found to infringe cannot be heard to complain if 
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

an injunction against continuing infringement destroys the business so elected.” Robert Bosch, 

LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., 659 F.3d 1142, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Windsurfing Int’l, Inc. v. 

AMF, Inc., 782 F.2d 995, 1003 n.12 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). This Court reached a similar conclusion in 

Illumina. -- F.Supp. 3d --, 2016 WL 4719269 at *11 (“Qiagen contends . . . . that it would be 

unable to recoup its investment in the development and marketing of the GeneReader. But that is 

the price of its election ‘to build a business on a product found to infringe....’ The balance of 

hardships weighs in favor of an injunction.”) (quoting Windsurfing, 782 F.2d at 1003 n.12). 

Moreover, Defendants would be free to use non-infringing alternative components in their 

business, such as the same third-party LiDAR systems that they had previously used before 

switching to Waymo’s patented technology. Merely reverting back to a non-infringing alternative 

is not a significant hardship under the law. Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Prod. Co., 717 

F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“If indeed Buyers had a non-infringing alternative which it 

could easily deliver to the market, then the balance of hardships would suggest that Buyers should 

halt infringement and pursue a lawful course of market conduct.”) 

On the other side of the ledger, Waymo would suffer severe hardship from being forced “to 

compete against its own patented invention.” Robert Bosch, 659 F.3d at 1156. This is particularly 

true given the new market that Waymo is racing to commercialize. Thus, the balance of hardships 

strongly favors Waymo. 

IV. THE PUBLIC INTEREST SUPPORTS AN INJUNCTION 

The public interest also weighs in favor of enjoining Defendants, on both the trade secret 

claim and the patent claims. First, there is a strong public interest in vindicating both trade secret 

and patent rights — a public interest that far outweighs any public interest in allowing products 

that infringe on trade secret or patent rights. See Vinyl Interactive, 2009 WL 1228695 at *8 (“the 

third prong of the requested injunction, which simply enjoins Eddy from using Vinyl’s proprietary 

information, would further the public’s interest in prohibiting unfair competition.”); Douglas 

Dynamics, 717 F.3d at 1346 (holding that the public has a “general interest in the judicial 

protection of property rights in inventive technology” that “outweighs any interest the public has 

in . . . . infringing products.”); Illumina, -- F.Supp. 3d. --, 2016 WL 4719269 at *11 (“[A]bsent 
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

-25- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

any other relevant concerns...the public is best served by enforcing patents that are likely valid and

infringed.”) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Andrx Pharm., Inc., 452 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). 

The public does have an interest in competition and consumer choice. But a preliminary 

injunction against Defendants would hardly stifle competition or create a monopoly in the nascent 

self-driving car market. Besides Waymo and Defendants, such corporate heavyweights as Apple, 

Tesla, Ford, General Motors, and Nvidia are all pursuing self-driving car technology. See Jaffe 

Decl. Exs. 54-56. And, of course, Defendants themselves would be free to continue pursuing this 

technology as well, as long as they do not use Waymo’s trade secrets or patents to do so. Thus, an 

injunction would be squarely in the public interest and would not disserve the goals of healthy and 

vigorous competition. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Waymo respectfully requests that the Court enjoin Defendants, 

together with their officers, agents, attorneys, and those persons who are in active concert or 

participation with Defendants, from accessing, using, imitating, copying, disclosing, or making 

available to any person or entity Waymo’s Asserted Trade Secrets, including but not limited to the 

Asserted Trade Secrets as embodied in LiDAR systems that contain or are designed to operate 

with the printed circuit board depicted in the schematic attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of 

William Grossman or any colorable variation thereof. Waymo further requests that Defendants be 

enjoined from making, using, selling, or offering to sell devices that infringe claims 1 or 13 of 

United States Patent No. 8,836,922 and claims 1 or 14 of U.S. Patent 9,285,464. Waymo also 

requests that Defendants be compelled to return any and all Waymo confidential information in 

their possession or control, including the 14,000+ documents unlawfully taken from Waymo by 

Mr. Anthony Levandowski and his colleagues. Alternatively, Waymo requests an expedited trial 

on all of the claims set out in its Amended Complaint. Should expedited discovery provide good 

cause, Waymo respectfully reserves the right to expand the scope of its preliminary injunction 

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

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

DATED: March 10, 2017 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, 

LLP 

By /s/Charles K. Verhoeven 

Charles K. Verhoeven 

Attorneys for WAYMO LLC