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 

ACTIVE/92692617.1

DEFENDANT OTTO TRUCKING’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S 

STATEMENT REGARDING TRADE SECRETS (DKT # 1720) Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

Neel Chatterjee (SBN 173985)

nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com

James Lin (SBN 310440) 

jlin@goodwinlaw.com 

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

135 Commonwealth Drive 

Menlo Park, California 94025 

Tel.: +1 650 752 3100 

Fax.: +1 650 853 1038 

Brett Schuman (SBN 189247) 

bschuman@goodwinlaw.com

Shane Brun (SBN 179079) 

sbrun@goodwinlaw.com

Rachel M. Walsh (SBN 250568) 

rwalsh@goodwinlaw.com

Hayes P. Hyde (SBN 308031) 

hhyde@goodwinlaw.com

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

Three Embarcadero Center 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Tel.: +1 415 733 6000 

Fax.: +1 415 677 9041 

Hong-An Vu (SBN 266268) 

hvu@goodwinlaw.com

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

601 S. Figueroa Street, 41st Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90017 

Tel.: +1 213 426 2500 

Fax.: +1 213 623 1673 

Attorneys for Defendant: Otto Trucking 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

DEFENDANT OTTO TRUCKING LLC’S 

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO 

PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT REGARDING 

TRADE SECRETS (DKT # 1720) 

Courtroom: 8 - 19th Floor 

Judge: Hon. William Alsup 

Trial Date: October 10, 2017 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1738 Filed 09/21/17 Page 1 of 4
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 

ACTIVE/92692617.1 1

DEFENDANT OTTO TRUCKING’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S 

STATEMENT REGARDING TRADE SECRETS (DKT # 1720) Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

Defendant Otto Trucking LLC (“Otto Trucking”) hereby objects and responds to Plaintiff 

Waymo, LLC’s (“Waymo” or “Plaintiff”) Statement regarding trade secrets (Dkt 1720). 

The Court should not reverse its order requiring Waymo to narrow its trade secrets. The 

Court has the inherent power to narrow the claims in dispute. See In re Katz Interactive Call 

Processing Patent Litg, 639 F.3d 1303, 1311-12 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that district court’s 

requirement that plaintiff narrow its patent claims from 1,975 claims to 16 claims per defendant 

group was part of the Court’s inherent powers to manage complex cases and did not violate due 

process); see also Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elect. Co., Ltd., 67 F. Supp. 3d 1100 (N.D. Cal. 2014) 

(rejecting plaintiff’s argument that court-ordered procedure narrowing patent claims to five claims 

deprived it of its right to protect its patents because plaintiff could not show how other claims 

were not duplicative of the ones already tried). Here, like the plaintiffs in Katz and Apple, Waymo 

alleged claims based on 121 alleged trade secrets. In this type of complex intellectual property 

case, the Court properly exercised its inherent powers to manage the case and ordered that Waymo 

narrow its claims to eliminate largely duplicative claims. 

Nothing in the Stroz Report should affect the Court’s prior order or the current trial 

schedule as to Otto Trucking. Other than ten password protected files that Otto Trucking is 

working with Stroz to access, Otto Trucking’s production is complete. Waymo continues to have 

no evidence of any use of any alleged trade secrets by Otto Trucking. 

Dated: September 21, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

 By: /s/ Neel Chatterjee

Neel Chatterjee 

nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com

Brett Schuman 

bschuman@goodwinlaw.com

Shane Brun 

sbrun@goodwinlaw.com

Rachel M. Walsh 

rwalsh@goodwinlaw.com

Hong-An Vu 

hvu@goodwinlaw.com

Hayes P. Hyde 

hhyde@goodwinlaw.com

James Lin 

jlin@goodwinlaw.com 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1738 Filed 09/21/17 Page 2 of 4
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 

ACTIVE/92692617.1 2

DEFENDANT OTTO TRUCKING’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S 

STATEMENT REGARDING TRADE SECRETS (DKT # 1720) Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

Attorneys for Defendant: Otto Trucking LLC

 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1738 Filed 09/21/17 Page 3 of 4
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 

ACTIVE/92692617.1 3

DEFENDANT OTTO TRUCKING’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S 

STATEMENT REGARDING TRADE SECRETS (DKT # 1720) Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the 

Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by using the 

CM/ECF system on September 21, 2017. I further certify that all participants in the case are 

registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system. 

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on 

September 21, 2017. 

/s/ Neel Chatterjee 

NEEL CHATTERJEE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1738 Filed 09/21/17 Page 4 of 4