1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

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

DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT RE: INTENT TO USE LYFT INFORMATION AT TRIAL 

MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664) 

MJacobs@mofo.com 

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ (CA SBN 121490) 

AGonzalez@mofo.com 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Tel: 415.268.7000 / Fax: 415.268.7522 

KAREN L. DUNN (Pro Hac Vice) 

kdunn@bsfllp.com 

HAMISH P.M. HUME (Pro Hac Vice) 

hhume@bsfllp.com 

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 

1401 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington DC 20005 

Tel: 202.237.2727 / Fax: 202.237.6131 

WILLIAM CARMODY (Pro Hac Vice) 

bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com 

SHAWN RABIN (Pro Hac Vice) 

srabin@SusmanGodfrey.com 

SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 

1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor 

New York, NY 10019-6023 

Tel: 212.336.8330 / Fax: 212.336.8340 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

and OTTOMOTTO LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING LLC, 

Defendants.

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

DEFENDANTS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, 

INC. AND OTTOMOTTO LLC’S 

STATEMENT RE: INTENT TO USE 

LYFT INFORMATION AT TRIAL 

 REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 2047 Filed 10/23/17 Page 1 of 6
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

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

DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT RE: INTENT TO USE LYFT INFORMATION AT TRIAL 

 This statement responds to the Court’s October 16, 2017 Order (ECF No. 2008) and 

explains with specificity how Defendants intend to use Lyft’s information at trial. 

Defendants may use the Lyft information at trial as it relates to the following topics: (1) Waymo’s 

motives in filing this lawsuit; (2) the measures taken to protect the asserted trade secrets; (3) 

damages; (4) the propriety of permanent injunctive relief; and (5) if necessary, in rebuttal to 

Waymo’s arguments or statements. That said, most of the testimony that may be elicited 

regarding the Waymo/Lyft partnership is already part of the public record. For example, the broad 

framework of the Waymo/Lyft agreement—

—has already been reported in the press. At trial, Defendants intend to refer only to the 

existence of the agreement and its general terms.1 Uber and Ottomotto do not intend to go into 

the specifics of the agreement beyond what is already publicly available unless necessary to rebut 

Waymo’s arguments or testimony. 

I. BACKGROUND

 In May 2017, Waymo and Lyft entered into a Collaboration Agreement (“Lyft 

Agreement”) and supporting integration plans in furtherance of a partnership intended to leverage 

Waymo’s development efforts in self-driving cars and Lyft’s ride-sharing network. When asked 

to describe the general nature of the partnership, Waymo’s CEO stated it has two avenues: “ 

” Ex. 1, Depo. of John Krafcik, at 

83:18-23. Thus, 

 

1

 Lyft’s motion to intervene characterizes the planned use of the Collaboration Agreement (Trial 

Exhibits 3550 and 4987) at trial as coming only from the Defendants. See ECF No. 2004 at 1 (“. . 

. Lyft understands has been disclosed as Defendants’ Trial Exhibits 3550 and 4987.”), 2 (“Lyft 

has not been informed how Defendants intend to use the Lyft-Waymo agreement at trial . . .”). 

That is not true. Exhibits 3550 and 4987 are duplicate copies of the Lyft-Waymo Collaboration 

Agreement. While Exhibit 3550 was added by the Defendants, the copy of the agreement listed 

as Exhibit 4987 was added to the exhibit list by Waymo. As a result, it appears that Waymo also 

intends to use the agreement at trial. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 2047 Filed 10/23/17 Page 2 of 6
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

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

DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT RE: INTENT TO USE LYFT INFORMATION AT TRIAL 

 

 Since the Lyft Agreement was signed, media outlets have reported on the partnership 

between Waymo and Lyft. And several aspects of the Lyft Agreement have been publiclyreported, including: 

 the deal is intended to bring self-driving vehicle technology “into the mainstream through 

pilot projects and product development efforts”;2

 the Agreement’s terms include being non-exclusive;3 

 Waymo vehicles will be available as part of a pilot program using Lyft’s ride-hailing 

platform;4

 Lyft may service rides for Waymo’s upcoming autonomous vehicle pilot program in 

Phoenix, Arizona for longer trips or those going to places Waymo has yet to map;5

During discovery, Uber sought documents from both Waymo and Lyft regarding their 

partnership. Magistrate Judge Corley quashed the subpoena to Lyft given its status as a third 

party to the litigation, but compelled Waymo to produce documents related to the Lyft 

Agreement. See ECF No. 832. In doing so, Judge Corley observed that the documents were 

relevant to, at a minimum, “Plaintiff’s claim of damages” and “Plaintiff’s request for permanent 

injunctive relief.” Id. at 3. 

II. INTENDED USE AT TRIAL

 Uber and Ottomotto may seek to discuss Waymo and Lyft’s partnership in a variety of 

contexts at trial. One potential use goes to showing that Waymo’s motive in bringing this 

 

2

 Mike Isaac, Lyft and Waymo Reach Deal to Collaborate on Self-Driving Cars, N.Y. Times 

(May 14, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/14/technology/lyft-waymo-self-drivingcars.html?_r=1. 3

 Jon Fingas, Lyft and Waymo Work Together on Self-Driving Cars, Engadget (May 14, 2017), 

https://www.engadget.com/2017/05/14/lyft-and-waymo-self-driving-car-partnership/. 4

 Alan Ohnsman, Alphabet’s Futuristic Urban Vision Includes Waymo ‘Taxibots’, Forbes (Oct. 

17, 2017), https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2017/10/17/alphabets-futuristic-urbanvision-includes-waymo-taxibots/#b8cb2b1dcee7. 5

 Roger Fingas, Waymo May Launch Autonomous Ridehailing Service as Soon as October, 

Apple Insider (Oct. 3, 2017), http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/10/03/waymo-may-launchautonomous-ridehailing-service-as-soon-as-october. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 2047 Filed 10/23/17 Page 3 of 6
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3

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

DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT RE: INTENT TO USE LYFT INFORMATION AT TRIAL 

litigation was to harm Uber as a competitor. As the Court recognized at the final pretrial 

conference and in denying Waymo’s MIL No. 15, Waymo’s efforts to harm competition through 

this lawsuit are undeniably relevant at trial. See Ex. 2, Tr. of Pretrial Conf., at 70:4-6 (“It’s same 

as the patent cases. They want to say, This is just one competitor trying to stymie the next 

competitor. That’s a fair argument.”) (italics in original). Indeed, the Court alluded to the 

Waymo-Lyft partnership in questioning the merits of Waymo’s MIL: “So why shouldn’t they get 

to make this very argument that, Hey, it isn’t about trade secrets. This is about trying to put Uber 

out of the business, so you and Lyft can take it over?” Id. at 64:13-16 (italics in original). 

Documents from Waymo 

. See Ex. 3 at 8, 10, 12, 16. Waymo’s partnership with Lyft, 

Uber’s largest competitor, is therefore an important part of establishing Waymo’s true motive for 

bringing this lawsuit. Uber and Ottomotto may, therefore, elicit testimony from fact witnesses 

regarding the existence and general nature of the Lyft Agreement. Such information is already 

known to the public and does not necessitate protection against public disclosure. 

 In addition, as Magistrate Judge Corley observed, the Waymo-Lyft partnership is relevant 

to damages and the propriety of permanent injunctive relief. Expert witnesses on both sides have 

provided opinions about the Lyft Agreement insofar as it relates to damages, especially with 

regard to its effect on determining a reasonable royalty. See, e.g., Ex. 4, Reply Report of Michael 

Wagner, at 37-47. Notably, Waymo’s damages expert—who is subject to a pending Daubert

motion due to his other unreliable opinions—notes that 

. But that is exactly what the Lyft Agreement does. See id. at 47. All of the parties may 

therefore seek to elicit expert testimony about the Lyft Agreement in furtherance of their damages 

theories. Such testimony again will likely focus on the existence of the Agreement and its general 

terms without getting into the specifics that are not already in the public domain. While this 

testimony may also discuss the compensation structure of the Lyft Agreement—in that “ 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 2047 Filed 10/23/17 Page 4 of 6
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4

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

DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT RE: INTENT TO USE LYFT INFORMATION AT TRIAL 

”—that 

structure is hardly surprising and knowledge of it is unlikely to provide a competitive advantage 

to an outsider. Id. at 46 (quoting transcript of deposition of Gerard Dwyer). 

 Next, the Agreement may also have implications regarding the measures taken to protect 

the asserted trade secrets. The extent to which Waymo’s LiDAR devices are accessible by Lyft 

personnel and others may implicate the secrecy of the asserted trade secrets. That is especially so 

given that most of the asserted trade secrets are easily ascertainable once a person has access to 

the LiDAR device. The parties may therefore elicit testimony regarding the security of Waymo’s 

LiDAR devices under the Lyft Agreement. 

 Given that Uber and Ottomotto seek only to refer to the Agreement at a high level, it may 

be unnecessary to present the Lyft Agreement in open court. However, Uber and Ottomotto 

reserve the right to present the Agreement if circumstances require. For example, the document 

may be needed to impeach a witness, refresh their recollection, or rebut Waymo’s arguments. 

 The bottom line is that, at present, Uber and Ottomotto intend to refer only to the 

existence of the Agreement, its general terms such as those that have already been reported 

publicly by the media, and potentially the compensation structure of the Agreement as it may 

relate to damages. Of course, Uber and Ottomotto cannot predict how Waymo may use the 

document and thus require some flexibility to use Lyft documents, as needed, to rebut Waymo’s 

testimony. 

Dated: October 23, 2017 SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 

By: /s/ William Christopher Carmody

 William Christopher Carmody

 

Attorney for Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. 

and Ottomotto LLC

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 2047 Filed 10/23/17 Page 5 of 6
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

5

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

DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT RE: INTENT TO USE LYFT INFORMATION AT TRIAL 

ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE

 I, Arturo J. Gonzalez, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this 

Response. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that William Christopher 

Carmody has concurred in this filing. 

Dated: October 23, 2017 By: /s/ Arturo J. Gonzalez 

 Arturo J. Gonzalez 

 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 2047 Filed 10/23/17 Page 6 of 6