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._________

COMPLAINT

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. _________________ 

COMPLAINT 

1. VIOLATION OF DEFENSE OF

TRADE SECRETS ACT 

2. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA

UNIFORM TRADE SECRET ACT 

3. PATENT INFRINGEMENT 

4. VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS & PROF. 

CODE SECTION 17200 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 1 of 28
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._________

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Waymo LLC (“Waymo”), by and through their attorneys, and for their Complaint 

against Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), Ottomotto LLC, and Otto Trucking LLC (together, 

“Otto”) (collectively, “Defendants”), hereby allege as follows: 

I. INTRODUCTION 

1. This is an action for trade secret misappropriation, patent infringement, and unfair 

competition relating to Waymo’s self-driving car technology. Waymo strongly believes in the 

benefits of fair competition, particularly in a nascent field such as self-driving vehicles. Selfdriving cars have the potential to transform mobility for millions of people as well as become a 

trillion dollar industry. Fair competition spurs new technical innovation, but what has happened 

here is not fair competition. Instead, Otto and Uber have taken Waymo’s intellectual property so 

that they could avoid incurring the risk, time, and expense of independently developing their own 

technology. Ultimately, this calculated theft reportedly netted Otto employees over half a billion 

dollars and allowed Uber to revive a stalled program, all at Waymo’s expense. 

2. Waymo developed its own combination of unique laser systems to provide critical 

information for the operation of fully self-driving vehicles. Waymo experimented with, and 

ultimately developed, a number of different cost-effective and high-performing laser sensors 

known as LiDAR. LiDAR is a laser-based scanning and mapping technology that uses the 

reflection of laser beams off objects to create a real-time 3D image of the world. When mounted 

on a vehicle and connected to appropriate software, Waymo’s LiDAR sensors enable a vehicle to 

“see” its surroundings and thereby allow a self-driving vehicle to detect traffic, pedestrians, 

bicyclists, and any other obstacles a vehicle must be able to see to drive safely. With a 360-degree 

field of vision, and the ability to see in pitch black, Waymo’s LiDAR sensors can actually detect 

potential hazards that human drivers would miss. With a goal of bringing self-driving cars to the 

mass market, Waymo has invested tens of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of hours of 

engineering time to custom-build the most advanced and cost-effective LiDAR sensors in the 

industry. Thanks in part to this highly advanced LiDAR technology, Waymo became the first 

company to complete a fully self-driving trip on public roads in a vehicle without a steering wheel 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 2 of 28
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._________

COMPLAINT

and foot pedals. Today, Waymo remains the industry’s leader in self-driving hardware and 

software. 

3. Waymo was recently – and apparently inadvertently – copied on an email from one 

of its LiDAR component vendors. The email attached machine drawings of what purports to be an 

Uber LiDAR circuit board. This circuit board bears a striking resemblance to Waymo’s own 

highly confidential and proprietary design and reflects Waymo trade secrets. As this email shows, 

Otto and Uber are currently building and deploying (or intending to deploy) LiDAR systems (or 

system components) using Waymo’s trade secret designs. This email also shows that Otto and 

Uber’s LiDAR systems infringe multiple LiDAR technology patents awarded to Waymo. 

4. Waymo has uncovered evidence that Anthony Levandowski, a former manager in 

Waymo’s self-driving car project – now leading the same effort for Uber – downloaded more than 

14,000 highly confidential and proprietary files shortly before his resignation. The 14,000 files 

included a wide range of highly confidential files, including Waymo’s LiDAR circuit board 

designs. Mr. Levandowski took extraordinary efforts to raid Waymo’s design server and then 

conceal his activities. In December 2015, Mr. Levandowski specifically searched for and then 

installed specialized software onto his company-issued laptop in order to access the server that 

stores these particular files. Once Mr. Levandowski accessed this server, he downloaded the 

14,000 files, representing approximately 9.7 GB of highly confidential data. Then he attached an 

external drive to the laptop for a period of eight hours. He installed a new operating system that 

would have the effect of reformatting his laptop, attempting to erase any forensic fingerprints that 

would show what he did with Waymo’s valuable LiDAR designs once they had been downloaded 

to his computer. After Mr. Levandowski wiped this laptop, he only used it for a few minutes, and 

then inexplicably never used it again. 

5. In the months leading to the mass download of files, Mr. Levandowski told 

colleagues that he had plans to set up a new, self-driving vehicle company. In fact, Mr. 

Levandowski appears to have taken multiple steps to maximize his profit and set up his own new 

venture – which eventually became Otto – before leaving Waymo in January 2016. In addition to 

downloading Waymo’s design files and proprietary information, Mr. Levandowski set up a 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 3 of 28
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._________

COMPLAINT

competing company named “280 Systems” (which later became Otto) before he left, under the 

pretense that 280 Systems would not compete with Waymo. 

6. A number of Waymo employees subsequently also left to join Anthony 

Levandowski’s new business, downloading additional Waymo trade secrets in the days and hours 

prior to their departure. These secrets included confidential supplier lists, manufacturing details 

and statements of work with highly technical information, all of which reflected the results of 

Waymo’s months-long, resource-intensive research into suppliers for highly specialized LiDAR 

sensor components. 

7. Otto launched publicly in May 2016, and was quickly acquired by Uber in August 

2016 for $680 million. (Notably, Otto announced the acquisition shortly after Mr. Levandowski 

received his final multi-million dollar compensation payment from Google.) As was widely 

reported at the time, “one of the keys to this acquisition[] could be the LIDAR system that was 

developed in-house at Otto.” 

8. Uber’s own attempts to develop self-driving cars started earlier in February 2015 

with the announcement of a strategic partnership with Carnegie Mellon University and the 

creation of the Uber Advanced Technologies Center in Pittsburgh. Reports attribute Uber CEO 

Travis Kalanick’s interest in this technology to a ride in a Google, now Waymo, self-driving car. 

Uber’s CEO has described self-driving cars as “existential” to the survival of his company.1

 He 

told reporters: “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.” However, by March 2016 reports 

surfaced that the partnership between CMU and Uber had “stalled.” 

9. Meanwhile, Waymo had devoted seven years to research and development. It had 

amassed nearly one and a half million miles of self-driving experience on public roads and billions 

of miles of test data via simulation. By May 2015, Waymo had also designed and built, from the 

ground up, the world’s first fully self-driving car without a steering wheel and foot pedals. These 

 

1

 Biz Carson, “Travis Kalanick on Uber’s bet on self-driving cars: ‘I can’t be wrong,’” Business 

Insider, Aug. 18, 2016, available at http://www.businessinsider.com/travis-kalanick-interview-onself-driving-cars-future-driver-jobs-2016-8. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 4 of 28
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._________

COMPLAINT

vehicles were equipped with Waymo’s own in-house hardware and sensors, including its 

uniquely-designed LiDAR. 

10. Instead of developing their own technology in this new space, Defendants stole 

Waymo’s long-term investments and property. While Waymo developed its custom LiDAR 

systems with sustained effort over many years, Defendants leveraged stolen information to 

shortcut the process and purportedly build a comparable LiDAR system in only nine months. As 

of August 2016, Uber had no in-house solution for LiDAR – despite 18 months with their faltering 

Carnegie Mellon University effort – and they acquired Otto to get it. By September 2016, Uber 

represented to regulatory authorities in Nevada that it was no longer using an off-the-shelf, or 

third-party, LiDAR technology, but rather using an “[i]n-house custom built” LiDAR system. The 

facts outlined above and elaborated further in this complaint show that Uber’s LiDAR technology 

is actually Waymo’s LiDAR technology. 

11. In light of Defendants’ misappropriation and infringement of Waymo’s LiDAR 

technology, Waymo brings this Complaint to prevent any further misuse of its proprietary 

information, to prevent Defendants from harming Waymo’s reputation by misusing its technology, 

to protect the public’s confidence in the safety and reliability of self-driving technology that 

Waymo has long sought to nurture, and to obtain compensation for its damages and for 

Defendants’ unjust enrichment resulting from their unlawful conduct. 

II. PARTIES 

12. Plaintiff Waymo LLC is a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. with its principal place of 

business located in Mountain View, California 94043. Waymo is a self-driving technology 

company with a mission to make it safe and easy for people and things to move around. Waymo 

LLC owns all of the patents, trade secrets, and confidential information infringed or 

misappropriated by Defendants. 

13. Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) is a Delaware company with its 

principal place of business at 1455 Market Street, San Francisco, California. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 5 of 28
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._________

COMPLAINT

14. Waymo is informed and believes that Defendant Ottomotto LLC (f/k/a 280 

Systems Inc.) is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business located 

at 737 Harrison Street, San Francisco, California. 

15. Waymo is informed and believes that Defendant Otto Trucking LLC (f/k/a 280 

Systems LLC) is a limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 737 

Harrison Street, San Francisco, California. 

16. Waymo is informed and believes that Uber acquired Defendants Ottomotto LLC 

and Otto Trucking LLC in approximately August 2016.

17. Waymo is informed and believes that each Defendant acted in all respects pertinent 

to this action as the agent of the other Defendant, carried out a joint scheme, business plan or 

policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and that the acts of each Defendant are legally attributable 

to each of the other Defendants. 

III. JURISDICTION, VENUE & INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 

18. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Waymo’s claims for patent 

infringement pursuant to the Federal Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 

and 1338(a). This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Waymo’s federal trade secret claim 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-39 et seq. and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. The Court has 

supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim alleged in this Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367. 

19. As set forth above, at least one Defendant resides in this judicial district, and all 

Defendants are residents of the State of California. In addition, a substantial part of the events or

omissions giving rise to the claims alleged in this Complaint occurred in this Judicial District. 

Venue therefore lies in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) and (2). 

20. A substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims alleged in this Complaint 

occurred in the City and County of San Francisco. For purposes of intradistrict assignment under 

Civil Local Rules 3-2(c) and 3-5(b), this Intellectual Property Action will be assigned on a districtwide basis. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 6 of 28
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._________

COMPLAINT

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

A. Google Pioneers The Self-Driving Car Space 

21. Google was the first major U.S. technology firm to recognize the transformative 

potential and commercial value of vehicle automation, which promises to make transportation 

safer, cleaner, more efficient, and more widely available. 

22. Google initiated its self-driving car project in 2009. Before long, Google’s selfdriving cars had navigated from the Bay Area to Los Angeles, crossed the Golden Gate Bridge, 

drove the Pacific Coast Highway, and circled Lake Tahoe, logging over 140,000 miles – a first in 

robotics research at the time. 

23. Google made its self-driving car project public in 2010, with the following 

announcement: “Larry and Sergey founded Google because they wanted to help solve really big 

problems using technology. And one of the big problems we’re working on today is car safety 

and efficiency. Our goal is to help prevent traffic accidents, free up people’s time and reduce 

carbon emissions by fundamentally changing car use. So we have developed technology for cars 

that can drive themselves.” 

24. In 2014, Google unveiled its own reference vehicle, a two-door fully autonomous 

car without pedals or a steering wheel. A year later, this prototype made the first ever fully selfdriving trip in normal traffic on public roads. 

25. In 2016, Google’s self-driving car program became Waymo, a stand-alone 

company operating alongside Google and other technology companies under the umbrella of 

Alphabet Inc.2

26. To date, Waymo’s fleet of self-driving vehicles has logged over 2.5 million miles 

in autonomous mode on public roads. Measured in time, that equates to over 300 years of human 

driving experience. And in 2016 alone, Waymo’s systems logged over a billion miles of 

simulated driving, a feat made possible by Waymo’s in-house simulator and the power of 

Google’s massive data centers. 

 

2

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

2009 to the present. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 7 of 28
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._________

COMPLAINT

27. Waymo uses the data collected from these real-world and simulated miles to 

(among other things) constantly improve the safety of its system, including its hardware and 

sensors. This focus on testing and safety has allowed Waymo’s self-driving cars to become 

increasingly capable and robust, with less need for human intervention. As just one illustration of 

this, the rate of Waymo’s safety-related disengagements has fallen from 0.8 disengagements per 

thousand miles in 2015 to 0.2 disengagements per thousand miles in 2016, representing a four-fold 

improvement in Waymo’s self-driving technology in just 12 months. Today, Waymo believes its 

self-driving cars are the safest on the road. 

B. Waymo Develops Its Own Proprietary LiDAR System Tailored For MassMarketed Self-Driving Cars 

28. Self-driving cars must be able to detect and understand the surrounding 

environment. With respect to this aspect of vehicle automation, LiDAR – or “Light Detection 

And Ranging” – uses high-frequency, high-power pulsing lasers to measure distances between one 

or more sensors and external objects. 

29. LiDAR hardware built for autonomous vehicles is typically mounted on the 

exterior of a vehicle and scans the surrounding environment (sometimes in 360 degrees) with an 

array of lasers. The laser beams reflect off surrounding objects, and data regarding the light that 

bounces back to designated receivers is recorded. 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. 

30. LiDAR systems are made up of thousands of individual hardware and software 

components that can be configured in virtually limitless combinations and designs. LiDAR 

systems adapted for use in self-driving cars became commercially available in approximately 

2007. Today, most firms in the self-driving space purchase LiDAR systems from third-party 

providers. 

31. Waymo, on the other hand, uses its own LiDAR systems that are carefully tailored 

– based on Waymo’s extensive research and testing – for use in fully autonomous vehicles in 

which there is no driver intervention required. Waymo’s proprietary LiDAR systems improve the 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 8 of 28
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._________

COMPLAINT

ability of self-driving cars to navigate safely in all environments, including city environments and 

highly unusual driving scenarios. 

32. Moreover, by designing its own LiDAR systems, Waymo has driven down costs, a 

well-known barrier to commercializing self-driving technology. Waymo’s improved LiDAR 

designs are now less than 10% of the cost that benchmark LiDAR systems were just a few years 

ago, and Waymo expects that mass production of their technology will make it even more 

affordable. 

33. One way that Waymo pioneered LiDAR systems with improved performance at 

lower cost was by innovating a design that, in part, uses a single lens – rather than multiple sets of

lenses – to both transmit and receive the collection of laser beams used to scan the surrounding 

environment. This design greatly simplifies the manufacturing process 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. Waymo was awarded a patent on its design in 2014: 

United States Patent No. 8,836,922 (“the ’922 patent”) entitled “Devices and Methods for a 

Rotating LiDAR Platform with a Shared Transmit/Receive Path.” 

34. Another way that Waymo improved the performance and lowered the cost of 

LiDAR systems for autonomous vehicles was by simplifying the design of the laser diode firing 

circuit that is at the heart of any LiDAR system. Waymo invented a design that elegantly 

simplified the circuit to control the charging and discharging paths of the lasers compared to the 

more complicated circuit designs otherwise used by the industry. Waymo obtained a patent on 

this aspect of its LiDAR design in 2016: United States Patent No. 9,368,936 (“the ’936 patent”) 

entitled “Laser Diode Firing System.” 

35. As one more example of how Waymo fundamentally advanced LiDAR systems for 

use in autonomous vehicles, Waymo developed a simplified design for “pre-collimating” (or 

making parallel) the light output of each laser diode separately before the beams are combined. 

The increased compactness of this design increases the resolution of the overall LiDAR system. 

Waymo was awarded a patent on this aspect of its design in 2015: United States Patent No. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 9 of 28
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._________

COMPLAINT

9,086,273 (“the ’273 patent”) entitled “Microrod Compressions of Laser Beam in Combination 

with Transmit Lens.” 

36. While patenting these fundamental advances in LiDAR technology, Waymo also 

accumulated confidential and proprietary intellectual property that it uses in the implementation 

and manufacture of its LiDAR designs to optimize performance, maximize safety, and minimize 

cost. Waymo also created a vast amount of confidential and proprietary intellectual property via 

its exploration of design concepts that ultimately proved too complex or too expensive for the 

mass market; Waymo’s extensive experience with “dead-end” designs continues to inform the 

ongoing development of Waymo’s LiDAR systems today. The details actually used in Waymo’s 

LiDAR designs as well as the lessons learned from Waymo’s years of research and development 

constitute trade secrets that are highly valuable to Waymo and would be highly valuable to any 

competitor in the autonomous vehicle space. 

37. Waymo’s substantial and sustained investment in LiDAR technology over nearly 

seven years – and the intellectual property that resulted – have made Waymo’s current LiDAR 

technology the most advanced in the industry. It is unparalleled in performance and safety in all 

driving environments, including in the most challenging city environments. Yet it is more than 

90% cheaper than prior benchmark systems, a key driver toward mass market adoption. For these 

reasons and others, Waymo’s LiDAR technology and the intellectual property associated with it 

are some of Waymo’s most valuable assets. 

C. Uber Is Late To Enter The Self-Driving Car Market 

38. Whereas Waymo began developing its self-driving cars in 2009, on information 

and belief, Uber’s first serious foray into automation was not until six years later when – in 

February 2015 – Uber announced a partnership with Carnegie Mellon University. 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. 

39. By early 2016, Uber had hired hundreds of engineers and robotics experts to 

support the original team from Carnegie Mellon. But the research and development process was 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 10 of 28
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._________

COMPLAINT

slow.3 And with respect to LiDAR technology, Uber’s program appeared to rely solely on a thirdparty, off-the-shelf LiDAR system manufactured by Velodyne Inc. (the HDL-64E). On 

information and belief, Uber’s program did not make any significant advances toward designing or 

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

40. Thus, although Uber came to view its entry into the self-driving car space as an 

“existential” imperative,4 as of mid-2016, Uber remained more than five years behind in the race 

to develop vehicle automation technology suitable for the mass market. 

D. Unbeknownst To Waymo, Anthony Levandowski Lays The Foundation For 

Defendants To Steal Waymo’s Intellectual Property Rather Than Compete 

Fairly In The Autonomous Vehicle Space 

41. While Uber’s partnership with CMU was floundering, Waymo was continuing to 

develop its next-generation proprietary LiDAR technology. But, unbeknownst to Waymo at the 

time, Waymo manager Anthony Levandowski was also secretly preparing to launch a competing 

vehicle automation venture – a company named “280 Systems,” which later would become Otto. 

42. By November 2015, an internet domain name for the new venture had been 

registered. And by January 2016, Mr. Levandowski had confided in some Waymo colleagues that 

he planned to “replicate” Waymo’s technology at a Waymo competitor. As Waymo would later 

learn, Mr. Levandowski went to great lengths to take what he needed to “replicate” Waymo’s 

technology and then to meet with Uber executives, all while still a Waymo employee. 

43. On December 3, 2015, Mr. Levandowski searched for instructions on how to access 

Waymo’s highly confidential design server. 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. 

44. On December 11, 2015, Mr. Levandowski installed special software on his Waymo 

laptop to access the design server. Mr. Levandowski then download over 14,000 proprietary files 

 

3

 Heather Somerville, “After a year, Carnegie Mellon and Uber research initiative is stalled,” 

Reuters, Mar. 21, 2016, available at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-tech-researchidUSKCN0WN0WR. 

4

 Max Chafkin, “Uber’s First Self-Driving Fleet Arrives in Pittsburgh This Month,” 

Bloomsberg, Aug. 18, 2016, available at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-08-

18/uber-s-first-self-driving-fleet-arrives-in-pittsburgh-this-month-is06r7on. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 11 of 28
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._________

COMPLAINT

from that server. Mr. Levandowski’s download included 9.7 GBs of sensitive, secret, and 

valuable internal Waymo information. 2 GBs of the download related to Waymo’s LiDAR 

technology. Among the downloaded documents were confidential specifications for each version 

of every generation of Waymo’s LiDAR circuit boards. 

45. On December 14, 2015, Mr. Levandowski attached a removable media device (an 

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

46. On December 18, 2015, 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. After wiping the laptop clean, Mr. Levandowski used the reformatted laptop for a few 

minutes and then never used it again. 

47. Around the same time, Mr. Levandowski used his Waymo credentials and security 

clearances to download additional confidential Waymo documents to a personal device. These 

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. 

48. After downloading all of this confidential information regarding Waymo’s LiDAR 

systems and other technology and while still a Waymo employee, Waymo is informed and 

believes that Mr. Levandowski attended meetings with high-level executives at Uber’s 

headquarters in San Francisco on January 14, 2016. 

49. The next day, January 15, 2016, Mr. Levandowski’s venture 280 Systems - which 

became OttoMotto LLC - was officially formed (though it remained in stealth mode for several 

months). On January 27, 2016, Mr. Levandowski resigned from Waymo without notice. And on 

February 1, 2016, Mr. Levandowski’s venture Otto Trucking was officially formed (also 

remaining in stealth mode for several months). 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 12 of 28
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._________

COMPLAINT

E. Otto Continues To Misappropriate Waymo’s Intellectual Property After Its 

Public Launch With Mr. Levandowski At The Helm 

50. Otto publicly launched in May 2016 with the stated goal of developing hardware 

and software for autonomous vehicles. 

51. In July 2016, a Waymo supply chain manager resigned from Waymo and joined 

Otto. This supply chain manager was one of several Waymo employees who had spent many 

months vetting a particular vendor that Waymo ultimately engaged to provide manufacturing 

services for its self-driving car technology. The vendor’s identity and its work for Waymo was 

and is confidential: Waymo and the vendor entered into a confidentiality agreement that precludes 

either party from disclosing the existence of their business relationship. 

52. Approximately a month before the supply chain manager resigned and despite his 

confidentiality obligations to Waymo, he downloaded from Waymo’s secure network Waymo’s 

confidential supply chain information and other confidential manufacturing information, including 

Statements of Work (or SOWs) for particular components – all of which reflected the results of 

Waymo’s months-long, resource-intensive research into suppliers for highly specialized LiDAR 

sensor components. 

53. Also in July 2016, a certain Waymo hardware engineer resigned. On the same day 

that he resigned from Waymo, and despite his confidentiality obligations to Waymo, this engineer 

downloaded from Waymo’s secure network three files containing confidential research into 

various potential hardware vendors for highly specialized LiDAR components and manufacturing 

services. On information and belief, this hardware engineer left Waymo to join Otto. 

54. In the same time period that these former Waymo employees were downloading 

Waymo’s confidential information regarding its manufacturing and hardware vendors and 

resigned, Otto contacted the most-extensively vetted (and confidential) Waymo vendor and 

attempted to order manufacturing services for LiDAR components similar to those the vendor 

provides to Waymo. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 13 of 28
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._________

COMPLAINT

F. After Only Six Months Of Official Existence, Otto Is Acquired By Uber For 

More Than Half A Billion Dollars 

55. In August 2016, shortly after Mr. Levandowski received his final multi-million 

dollar payment from Google, Uber announced a deal to acquire Otto. Otto’s purchase price was 

reported as $680 million, a remarkable sum for a company with few assets and no marketable 

product. 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.”5 

56. 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 self-driving car project. 

Uber rechristened Otto’s existing San Francisco office as Uber’s new self-driving research and 

development center. 

G. Waymo Verifies Its Growing Suspicion That Otto And Uber Stole Its 

Intellectual Property 

57. The sudden resignations from Waymo, Otto’s quick public launch with Mr. 

Levandowski at the helm, and Uber’s near-immediate acquisition of Otto for more than half a 

billion dollars all caused Waymo grave concern regarding the possible misuse of its intellectual 

property. Accordingly, in the summer of 2016, Waymo investigated 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. 

58. Then, in December 2016, Waymo received evidence suggesting that Otto and Uber 

were actually using Waymo’s trade secrets and patented LiDAR designs. On December 13, 

Waymo received an email from one of its LiDAR-component vendors. The email, which a 

Waymo employee was copied on, was titled OTTO FILES and its recipients included an email 

alias indicating that the thread was a discussion among members of the vendor’s “Uber” team. 

Attached to the email was a machine drawing of what purported to be an Otto circuit board (the 

 

5

 Sarwant Singh, “Uber Acquiring Otto Could Be the Lead Domino: Autonomous Vehicles to 

Spur M&A Activity,” Forbes, Aug. 24, 2016, available at 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sarwantsingh/2016/08/24/uber-acquiring-otto-could-be-the-leaddomino-autonomous-vehicles-to-spur-ma-activity/#337f0c0f65ae. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 14 of 28
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._________

COMPLAINT

“Replicated Board”) that bore a striking resemblance to – and shared several unique characteristics 

with – Waymo’s highly confidential current-generation LiDAR circuit board, the design of which 

had been downloaded by Mr. Levandowski before his resignation. 

59. The Replicated Board reflects Waymo’s highly confidential proprietary LiDAR 

technology and Waymo trade secrets. Moreover, the Replicated Board is specifically designed to 

be used in conjunction with many other Waymo trade secrets and in the context of overall LiDAR 

systems covered by Waymo patents. 

60. With greatly heightened suspicion that Otto and Uber were actually using Waymo’s 

intellectual property for their own purposes (and to Waymo’s detriment), Waymo endeavored to 

find a way to confirm whether Defendants were using Waymo’s patented and trade secret LiDAR 

designs. Ultimately, Waymo received such confirmation in response to a public records request it 

made to the Nevada Governor’s Office of Economic Development and Department of Motor 

Vehicles on February 3, 2016. 

61. Among the documents Waymo received on February 9, 2016 in response to that 

request were submissions made by Otto to Nevada regulatory authorities. In one such submission, 

dated less than one month after the Otto acquisition and while Uber was refusing to publicly 

identify the supplier of its LiDAR system,6

 Otto privately represented that it had “developed in 

house and/or currently deployed” an “[i]n-house custom built 64-laser” LiDAR system. This was 

the final piece of the puzzle: confirmation that Uber and Otto are in fact using a custom LiDAR 

system with the same characteristics as Waymo’s proprietary system. 

H. Waymo Has Been, And Will Be, Severely Harmed By Defendants’ 

Infringement Of Waymo’s Patents And Misappropriation Of Waymo’s 

Confidential And Proprietary Trade Secret Information 

62. Waymo developed its patented inventions and trade secrets at great expense, and 

through years of painstaking research, experimentation, and trial and error. If Defendants are not 

enjoined from their infringement and misappropriation, they will cause severe and irreparable 

harm to Waymo. 

 

6

 Mike Murphy, “This is the week self-driving cars became real,” Quartz, Sept. 17, 2016, 

available at https://qz.com/780606/this-is-the-week-self-driving-cars-became-real/. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 15 of 28
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- Case No._________

COMPLAINT

63. The markets for self-driving vehicles are nascent and on the cusp of rapid 

development. The impending period of drastic market growth, as autonomous car technology 

matures and is increasingly commercialized, will set the competitive landscape for the industry 

going forward. The growth, profitability, and even survival of individual firms will likely be 

determined by what happens in the next few years. Defendants’ exploitation of stolen intellectual 

property greatly harms Waymo during this embryonic market formation process and deforms the 

creation of a fair and competitive industry. Allowing the conduct to continue, and awarding 

monetary compensation after the fact, will not sufficiently unravel the harm caused to Waymo 

directly and indirectly by Defendants’ conduct. 

64. With respect to Waymo’s trade secrets, there is also the threat that Waymo’s 

confidential and proprietary information will be disclosed by Defendants, which will destroy the 

trade secret value of the technology. This may occur either voluntarily by Defendants for its own 

publicity purposes or because a regulatory agency requires disclosure for permitting purposes. 

65. With this action, Waymo seeks to vindicate its rights, prevent any further 

infringement of its patents, preclude any further misuse of its confidential, proprietary, and trade 

secret information, and obtain compensation for its damages and for Defendants’ unjust 

enrichment resulting from their unlawful conduct. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violation of Defense of Trade Secret Act 

(Against All Defendants) 

66. Waymo incorporates all of the above paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 

67. Waymo owns and possesses certain confidential, proprietary, and trade secret 

information, as alleged above. One example of the trade secret information is reflected in printed 

circuit board designs contained in certain design files that Anthony Levandowski downloaded 

from Waymo’s system. Various aspects of the printed circuit board designs for the current 

generation of Waymo’s LiDAR system are Waymo’s trade secrets, including the position and 

orientation of the laser diodes and photodetectors mounted on the printed circuit boards. 

Waymo’s trade secret information also includes the selection, materials, size, position, and 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 16 of 28
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- Case No._________

COMPLAINT

orientation of optical elements that are used to manipulate and modify laser beams that are 

transmitted and detected by Waymo’s current generation LiDAR system. Waymo’s trade secret 

information further includes the resolution profile that is achieved through its proprietary 

positioning and orientation of laser diodes and optical elements in its current generation LiDAR 

system, and the know-how associated with using the resolution profile to accurately detect objects 

in the environment. Another example of Waymo’s trade secrets is the rate at which the current 

generation LiDAR system pulses and fires the laser diodes into the environment, and the knowhow associated with using the pulse rate and fire rate to accurately detect objects in the 

environment. None of these trade secrets is disclosed in any published Waymo patents or patent 

applications. 

68. Waymo’s confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information relates to products 

and services used, sold, shipped and/or ordered in, or intended to be used, sold, shipped and/or 

ordered in, interstate or foreign commerce. 

69. Waymo has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret and 

confidential. 

70. Waymo has at all times maintained stringent security measures to preserve the 

secrecy of its LiDAR trade secrets. For example, Waymo restricts access to confidential and 

proprietary trade secret information to only those who “need to know.” That is, employees 

working on projects unrelated to self-driving cars have not had and do not have access to 

Waymo’s schematics, supply chain information, or other categories of confidential and proprietary 

information. All networks hosting Waymo’s confidential and proprietary information have been 

and continue to be encrypted and have at all times required passwords and dual-authentication for 

access. Computers, tablets, and cell phones provided to Waymo employees are encrypted, 

password protected, and subject to other security measures. And Waymo secures its physical 

facilities by restricting access and then monitoring actual access with security cameras and guards. 

71. Waymo also requires all employees, contractors, consultants, vendors, and 

manufacturers to sign confidentiality agreements before any confidential or proprietary trade 

secret information is disclosed to them. Every outside vendor and manufacturer that has received 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 17 of 28
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- Case No._________

COMPLAINT

confidential and proprietary trade secret information related to Waymo’s LiDAR technology has 

executed at least one written non-disclosure agreement. As a further precaution, Waymo 

purchases the components for its LiDAR systems from numerous, different vendors and conducts 

the final assembly in-house at Waymo. As a result, no single Waymo vendor has full knowledge 

of Waymo’s proprietary LiDAR systems. 

72. Due to these security measures, Waymo’s confidential and proprietary trade secret 

information is not available for others in the automated vehicle industry – or any other industry – 

to use through any legitimate means. 

73. Waymo’s confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information derives 

independent economic value from not being generally known to, and not being readily 

ascertainable through proper means by, another person who could obtain economic value from the 

disclosure or use of the information. 

74. In violation of Waymo’s rights, Defendants misappropriated Waymo’s 

confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the improper and unlawful manner as 

alleged herein. Defendants’ misappropriation of Waymo’s confidential, proprietary, and trade 

secret information was intentional, knowing, willful, malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive. 

Defendants have attempted and continue to attempt to conceal their misappropriation. 

75. On information and belief, if Defendants are not enjoined, Defendants will continue 

to misappropriate and use Waymo’s trade secret information for their own benefit and to Waymo’s 

detriment. 

76. As the direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Waymo has suffered 

and, if Defendants’ conduct is not stopped, will continue to suffer, severe competitive harm, 

irreparable injury, and significant damages, in an amount to be proven at trial. Because Waymo’s 

remedy at law is inadequate, Waymo seeks, in addition to damages, temporary, preliminary, and 

permanent injunctive relief to recover and protect its confidential, proprietary, and trade secret 

information and to protect other legitimate business interests. Waymo’s business operates in a 

competitive market and will continue suffering irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 18 of 28
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- Case No._________

COMPLAINT

77. Waymo has been damaged by all of the foregoing and is entitled to an award of 

exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violation of California Uniform Trade Secret Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 3426 et seq. 

(Against All Defendants) 

78. Waymo incorporates all of the above paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 

79. Waymo’s technical information, designs, and other “know how” related to its 

LiDAR constitute trade secrets as defined by California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Waymo 

owns and possesses certain confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information, as alleged 

above. One example of the trade secret information is reflected in printed circuit board designs 

contained in certain design files that Anthony Levandowski downloaded from Waymo’s system. 

Various aspects of the printed circuit board designs for the current generation of Waymo’s LiDAR 

system are Waymo’s trade secrets, including the position and orientation of the laser diodes and 

photodetectors mounted on the printed circuit boards. Waymo’s trade secret information also 

includes the selection, materials, size, position, and orientation of optical elements that are used to 

manipulate and modify laser beams that are transmitted and detected by Waymo’s current 

generation LiDAR system. Waymo’s trade secret information further includes the resolution 

profile that is achieved through its proprietary positioning and orientation of laser diodes and 

optical elements in its current generation LiDAR system, and the know-how associated with using 

the resolution profile to accurately detect objects in the environment. Another example of 

Waymo’s trade secrets is the rate at which the current generation LiDAR system pulses and fires 

the laser diodes into the environment, and the know-how associated with using the pulse rate and 

fire rate to accurately detect objects in the environment. None of this information is disclosed in 

any published Waymo patents or patent applications, and the information has actual or potential 

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

could obtain economic value from their disclosure or use. 

80. Waymo’s asserted trade secrets are different than Waymo’s asserted patent rights. 

By way of example, only: (i) Waymo’s asserted patents relate to a prior generation of Waymo’s 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 19 of 28
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- Case No._________

COMPLAINT

proprietary LiDAR designs, whereas Waymo’s trade secrets include elements for subsequent and 

as of today un-patented and confidential LiDAR designs; and (ii) Waymo’s trade secrets include 

specific parameters and measurements for Waymo’s LiDAR designs that are not disclosed in any 

asserted Waymo patents. Examples of trade secret information that is not covered or disclosed by 

any asserted Waymo patents include the specific parameters or measurements for vertical beam 

spacing, distribution of beam elevations and orientations, the beams’ field of view measurements, 

the pitch or orientations between diodes, pitch measurements for optical cavities, pulse rates, and 

fire rates for beam returns. 

81. Waymo has undertaken efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to 

maintain the secrecy of the trade secrets at issue. These efforts include, but are not limited to, the 

use of passwords and encryption to protect data on its computers, servers, and source code 

repositories, the maintenance of a Code of Conduct that emphasizes all employees’ duties to 

maintain the secrecy of Waymo’s confidential information, and the use of confidentiality 

agreements and non-disclosure agreements to require vendors, partners, contractors, and 

employees to maintain the secrecy of Waymo’s confidential information. 

82. Defendants knew or should have known under the circumstances that the 

information misappropriated by Defendants were trade secrets. 

83. Defendants misappropriated and threaten to further misappropriate trade secrets at 

least by acquiring trade secrets with knowledge of or reason to know that the trade secrets were 

acquired by improper means, and Defendants are using and threatening to use the trade secrets 

acquired by improper means without Waymo’s knowledge or consent. 

84. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Waymo is threatened with 

injury and has been injured in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court and 

that will be proven at trial. Waymo has also incurred, and will continue to incur, additional 

damages, costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, as a result of Defendants’ 

misappropriation. As a further proximate result of the misappropriation and use of Waymo’s trade 

secrets, Defendants were unjustly enriched. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 20 of 28
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- Case No._________

COMPLAINT

85. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were willful, malicious and fraudulent. 

Waymo is therefore entitled to exemplary damages under California Civil Code § 3426.3(c). 

86. Defendants’ conduct constitutes transgressions of a continuing nature for which 

Waymo has no adequate remedy at law. Unless and until enjoined and restrained by order of this 

Court, Defendants will continue to retain and use Waymo’s trade secret information to enrich 

themselves and divert business from Waymo. Pursuant to California Civil Code § 3426.2, Waymo 

is entitled to an injunction against the misappropriation and continued threatened misappropriation 

of trade secrets as alleged herein and further asks the Court to restrain Defendants from using all 

trade secret information misappropriated from Waymo and to return all trade secret information to 

Waymo. 

87. Pursuant to California Civil Code § 3426.4 and related law, Waymo is entitled to 

an award of attorneys’ fees for Defendants’ misappropriation of trade secrets. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

Infringement of Patent No. 8,836,922 

(Against All Defendants) 

88. Waymo incorporates all of the above paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 

89. The ’922 patent, entitled “Devices and Methods for a Rotating LIDAR platform 

with a Shared Transmit/Receive Path,” was duly and lawfully issued on September 16, 2014. A 

true and correct copy of the ’922 patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A. 

90. Waymo is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in the ’922 patent, including the 

right to bring this suit for injunctive relief and damages. 

91. The ’922 patent is valid and enforceable. 

92. Defendants have infringed, and continue to infringe, literally and/or through the 

doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’922 patent, including but not limited to claim 

1, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing 

within the United States, without authority, certain LiDAR devices (“Accused LiDAR Devices”). 

93. On information and belief, the Accused LiDAR Devices, such as those using the 

Replicated Board, comprise a LiDAR device with a single lens that transmits light pulses 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 21 of 28
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- Case No._________

COMPLAINT

originating from one or more light sources and receiving light pulses that are then detected by one 

or more detectors. Defendants infringe at least claim 1 of the ’922 patent for at least the following

reasons: 

94. Defendants’ Accused LiDAR Devices are LiDAR devices. 

95. On information and belief, Defendants’ Accused LiDAR Devices have 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. 

96. On information and belief, Defendants’ Accused LiDAR Devices have 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. 

97. On information and belief, Defendants’ Accused LiDAR Devices have a plurality 

of detectors in the receive block, wherein the plurality of detectors are configured to detect light 

having wavelengths in the wavelength range. 

98. On information and belief, Defendants’ Accused LiDAR Devices have a lens that 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 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. 

99. Defendants’ infringement of the ’922 patent has been willful and deliberate because 

Defendants knew or should have known about the ’922 patent and their infringement of that patent 

but acted despite an objectively high likelihood that such acts would infringe the patent. On 

information and belief, at least three of the individuals who developed the Accused LiDAR 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 22 of 28
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- Case No._________

COMPLAINT

Devices are named inventors of the ’922 patent who – while Waymo employees, and on behalf of 

Waymo, which owns the ’922 patent – were involved in the conception and/or reduction to 

practice of the ’922 patent and have had knowledge of the patent since it issued in September 

2014. 

100. As the direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Waymo has suffered 

and, if Defendants’ conduct is not stopped, will continue to suffer, severe competitive harm, 

irreparable injury, and significant damages, in an amount to be proven at trial. Because Waymo’s 

remedy at law is inadequate, Waymo seeks, in addition to damages, temporary, preliminary, and 

permanent injunctive relief. Waymo’s business operates in a competitive market and will continue 

suffering irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Infringement of Patent No. 9,368,936 

(Against All Defendants) 

101. Waymo incorporates all of the above paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 

102. The ’936 patent, entitled “Laser Diode Firing System,” was duly and lawfully 

issued on June 14, 2016. A true and correct copy of the ’936 patent is attached to this Complaint 

as Exhibit B. 

103. Waymo is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in the ’936 patent, including the 

right to bring this suit for injunctive relief and damages. 

104. The ’936 patent is valid and enforceable. 

105. Defendants have infringed, and continue to infringe, literally and/or through the 

doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’936 patent, including but not limited to claim 

1, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing 

within the United States, without authority, the Accused LiDAR devices. 

106. On information and belief, Defendants’ Accused LiDAR Devices, such as those 

using the Replicated Board, comprise a laser diode firing circuit for a LiDAR device, which 

utilizes an inductor and a charging capacitor, where both the charging and discharge path are 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 23 of 28
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- Case No._________

COMPLAINT

controllable via a single transistor and gate signal. Defendants infringe at least claim 1 of the ’936 

patent for at least the following reasons: 

107. On information and belief, Defendants’ Accused LiDAR Devices have a voltage 

source. 

108. On information and belief, Defendants’ Accused LiDAR Devices have an inductor 

coupled to the voltage source, wherein the inductor is configured to store energy in a magnetic 

field. 

109. On information and belief, Defendants’ Accused LiDAR Devices have a diode or 

equivalent coupled to the voltage source via the inductor. 

110. On information and belief, Defendants’ Accused LiDAR Devices have a transistor 

configured to be turned on and turned off by a control signal. 

111. On information and belief, Defendants’ Accused LiDAR Devices have a light 

emitting element coupled to the transistor. 

112. On information and belief, Defendants’ Accused LiDAR Devices Circuit Boards 

have a capacitor coupled to a charging path and a discharge path, wherein the charging path 

includes the inductor and the diode, and wherein the discharge path includes the transistor and the 

light emitting element. 

113. On information and belief, Defendants’ Accused LiDAR Devices have, responsive 

to the transistor being turned off, a capacitor configured to charge via the charging path such that a

voltage across the capacitor increases from a lower voltage level to a higher voltage level and an 

inductor configured to release energy stored in the magnetic field such that a current through the 

inductor decreases from a higher current level to a lower current level. 

114. On information and belief, Defendants’ Accused LiDAR Devices have, responsive 

to the transistor being turned on, a capacitor configured to discharge through the discharge path 

such that the light emitting element emits a pulse of light and the voltage across the capacitor 

decreases from the higher voltage level to the lower voltage level and the inductor is configured to 

store energy in the magnetic field such that the current through the inductor increases from the 

lower current level to the higher current level. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 24 of 28
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- Case No._________

COMPLAINT

115. As the direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Waymo has suffered 

and, if Defendants’ conduct is not stopped, will continue to suffer, severe competitive harm, 

irreparable injury, and significant damages, in an amount to be proven at trial. Because Waymo’s 

remedy at law is inadequate, Waymo seeks, in addition to damages, temporary, preliminary, and 

permanent injunctive relief. Waymo’s business operates in a competitive market and will continue 

suffering irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. 

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Infringement of Patent No. 9,086,273 

(Against All Defendants) 

116. Waymo incorporates all of the above paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 

117. The ’273 patent, entitled “Microrod Compression of Laser Beam in Combination 

with Transmit Lens,” was duly and lawfully issued on July 21, 2015. A true and correct copy of 

the ’273 patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit C. 

118. Waymo is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in the ’273 patent, including the 

right to bring this suit for injunctive relief and damages. 

119. The ’273 patent is valid and enforceable. 

120. Defendants have infringed, and continue to infringe, literally and/or through the 

doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’273 patent, including but not limited to claim 

1, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing 

within the United States, without authority, the Accused LiDAR Devices. 

121. On information and belief, Defendants’ Accused Lidar Devices, such as those using 

the Replicated Board and the Uber Custom LiDAR described in Uber’s Nevada regulatory filing, 

comprise a LiDAR device with a single lens that both (i) collimates the light from one or more 

light sources to provide collimated light for transmission into an environment of the LiDAR 

device, and (ii) focuses the reflected light onto one or more photodetectors, and with cylindrical 

lenses associated with each laser diode that pre-collimate the uncollimated laser beam. 

Defendants infringe at least claim 1 of the ’273 patent for at least the following reasons: 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 25 of 28
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- Case No._________

COMPLAINT

122. On information and belief, Defendants’ Accused LiDAR Devices are LiDAR 

devices. 

123. On information and belief, Defendants’ Accused LiDAR Devices have at least one 

laser diode, wherein the at least one laser diode is configured to emit an uncollimated laser beam 

comprising light in a narrow wavelength range, wherein the uncollimated laser beam has a first 

divergence in a first direction and a second divergence in a second direction, and wherein the first 

divergence is greater than the second divergence. 

124. On information and belief, Defendants’ Accused LiDAR Devices have at least one 

cylindrical lens, wherein the at least one cylindrical lens is configured to pre-collimate the 

uncollimated laser beam that has a third divergence in the first direction and a fourth divergence in 

the second direction, wherein the third divergence is less than the fourth divergence and the fourth 

divergence is substantially equal to the second divergence. 

125. On information and belief, Defendants’ Accused LiDAR Devices have at least one 

detector, wherein the at least one detector is configured to detect light having wavelengths in the 

narrow wavelength range. 

126. On information and belief, Defendants’ Accused LiDAR Devices have an objective 

lens, wherein the objective lens is configured to (i) collimate the partially collimated laser beam 

for transmission into an environment of the LiDAR device and (ii) focus object reflected light onto 

the at least one detector, wherein the object-reflected light comprises light from the collimated 

laser beam in the environment of the LiDAR device. 

127. Defendants’ infringement of the ’273 patent has been willful and deliberate because 

Defendants knew or should have known about the ’273 patent and their infringement of that patent 

but acted despite an objectively high likelihood that such acts would infringe the patent. At least 

one individual who developed the Accused LiDAR Devices is a named inventor on the ’273 patent 

who – while a Waymo employee, and on behalf of Waymo, which owns the ’273 patent – was 

involved in the conception and/or reduction to practice of the ’273 patent and therefore has had 

knowledge of the patent since it issued in July 21, 2015. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 26 of 28
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

-27- Case No._________

COMPLAINT

128. As the direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Waymo has suffered 

and, if Defendants’ conduct is not stopped, will continue to suffer, severe competitive harm, 

irreparable injury, and significant damages, in an amount to be proven at trial. Because Waymo’s 

remedy at law is inadequate, Waymo seeks, in addition to damages, temporary, preliminary, and 

permanent injunctive relief. Waymo’s business operates in a competitive market and will continue 

suffering irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violation of California Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 

(Against All Defendants) 

129. Waymo incorporates all of the above paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 

130. Defendants engaged in unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts and practices. 

Such acts and practices include, but are not limited to, misappropriating Waymo’s confidential and 

proprietary information. 

131. Defendants’ business acts and practices were unlawful as described above. 

132. Defendants’ business acts and practices were fraudulent in that a reasonable person 

would likely be deceived by their material misrepresentations and omissions. Defendants have 

acquired and used Waymo’s confidential and proprietary trade secret information through material 

misrepresentations and omissions. 

133. Defendants’ business acts and practices were unfair in that the substantial harm 

suffered by Waymo outweighs any justification that Defendants may have for engaging in those 

acts and practices. 

134. Waymo has been harmed as a result of Defendants’ unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent 

business acts and practices. Waymo is entitled to (a) recover restitution, including without 

limitation, all benefits that Defendants received as a result of their unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent 

business acts and practices and (b) an injunction restraining Defendants from engaging in further 

acts of unfair competition. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Waymo respectfully requests the following relief: 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 27 of 28
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

-28- Case No._________

COMPLAINT

135. Judgment in Waymo’s favor and against Defendants on all causes of action alleged 

herein; 

136. For damages in an amount to be further proven at trial, including trebling of all 

damages awarded with respect to infringement of the ’922 and ’273 patents; 

137. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief; 

138. For judgment that this is an exceptional case; 

139. For punitive damages; 

140. For restitution; 

141. For costs of suit incurred herein; 

142. For prejudgment interest; 

143. For attorneys’ fees and costs; and 

144. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem to be just and proper. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Waymo hereby demands trial by jury for all causes of action, claims, or issues in this 

action that are triable as a matter of right to a jury 

DATED: February 23, 2017 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, 

LLP 

By /s/ Charles K. Verhoeven 

Charles K. Verhoeven 

Attorneys for WAYMO LLC 

Case 3:17-cv-00939 Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 28 of 28