DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WAYMO’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW CLAIM

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

dc-879931 

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 

MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)

MJacobs@mofo.com 

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ (CA SBN 121490) 

AGonzalez@mofo.com 

ERIC A. TATE (CA SBN 178719) 

ETate@mofo.com 

RUDY Y. KIM (CA SBN 199426) 

RudyKim@mofo.com 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: 415.268.7000 

Facsimile: 415.268.7522 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

OTTOMOTTO LLC, and OTTO TRUCKING LLC 

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 

Telephone: 202.237.2727 

Facsimile: 202.237.6131 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

and OTTOMOTTO 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

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

DISMISS WAYMO’S UNFAIR 

COMPETITION LAW CLAIM 

Date: June 1, 2017 

Time: 8:00 a.m. 

Ctrm: 8, 19th Floor 

Judge: The Honorable William Alsup 

Trial Date: October 2, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 312 Filed 04/28/17 Page 1 of 9
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WAYMO’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW CLAIM

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

dc-879931 

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 

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 1, 2017, at 8:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the 

matter may be heard, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 

San Francisco Courthouse, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA, in 

Courtroom 8 before the Honorable William Alsup, Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., 

Ottomotto LLC, and Otto Trucking LLC will, and hereby do, jointly move the Court, pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), for an order dismissing Plaintiff Waymo LLC’s Seventh Cause of Action 

for violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 (commonly known as California’s Unfair 

Competition Law (“UCL”)) on the ground that this claim is preempted by Plaintiff’s separate 

claim for violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 3426 et seq.

(“CUTSA”) (Second Cause of Action). 

Defendants’ motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the accompanying 

Memorandum of Points and Authorities, all documents in the Court’s file, any matters of which 

this Court may take judicial notice, and on such other written and oral argument as may be 

presented to the Court. 

Dated: April 28, 2017 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Arturo J. González 

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

OTTOMOTTO LLC, and OTTO TRUCKING LLC

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 312 Filed 04/28/17 Page 2 of 9
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WAYMO’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW CLAIM

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

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 

STATEMENT OF ISSUE TO BE DECIDED ................................................................................ 1 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ................................................................ 1 

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ........................................................ 1 

A. Waymo’s Complaint and Amended Complaint ...................................................... 1 

B. Waymo’s UCL Claim is Based on the Same Nucleus of Operative Facts as 

its Trade Secrets Claims .......................................................................................... 2 

III. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................................. 2 

IV. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 3 

V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 5 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 312 Filed 04/28/17 Page 3 of 9
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Page(s) 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WAYMO’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW CLAIM

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

Cases 

Atl. Inertial Sys., Inc. v. Condor Pac. Indus. of California, Inc., 

545 F. App’x 600 (9th Cir. 2013) ...............................................................................................3 

Avago Techs. U.S. Inc. v. Nanoprecision Prods., Inc., 

No. 16-cv-03737-JCS, 2017 WL 412524 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2017) ..........................................3 

Digital Envoy, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 

370 F. Supp. 2d 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2005) ..............................................................................3, 4, 5 

Gems v. Diamond Imports, Inc., 

No. 15-cv-03531-MMC, 2016 WL 6902804 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2016) ...................................4 

Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g., 

512 F.3d 522 (9th Cir. 2008) .......................................................................................................5 

Lilith Games (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. v. uCool, Inc., 

No. 15-CV-01267-SC, 2015 WL 4128484 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2015)......................................3, 4 

Qiang Wang v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., 

No. C 12-05579 WHA, 2013 WL 415615 (Jan. 31, 2013) (Alsup, J.) ...................................3, 4 

Silvaco Data Sys. v. Intel Corp., 

184 Cal. App. 4th 210 (2010) .....................................................................................................2 

Top Agent Network, Inc. v. Zillow, Inc., 

No. 14-cv-04769-RS, 2015 WL 10435931 (Aug. 6, 2015) ........................................................3 

Total Recall Techs. v. Luckey, 

No. C 15-02281 WHA, 2016 WL 199796 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2016) (Alsup, J.) ...................4, 5 

VasoNova Inc. v. Grunwald, 

No. C-12-02422 WHA, 2012 WL 4119970, (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012) 

(Alsup, J.) ....................................................................................................................................4 

Statutes 

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 .......................................................................................................2 

Cal. Civ. Code § 3426 et seq. ............................................................................................................2 

Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.7(b). ..............................................................................................................3 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 312 Filed 04/28/17 Page 4 of 9
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WAYMO’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW CLAIM

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

dc-879931 

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 

STATEMENT OF ISSUE TO BE DECIDED

This motion raises the following issue: Should Waymo’s UCL claim be dismissed with 

prejudice as preempted by the CUTSA? 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff Waymo asserts separate causes of action for alleged trade secret misappropriation 

under the CUTSA and for alleged violation of California’s UCL based on the same core factual 

allegations. California law is clear that the CUTSA provides the exclusive remedy for trade 

secret misappropriation and preempts other state law claims, including UCL claims, based on the 

same underlying facts. Accordingly, Waymo’s UCL claim is preempted by CUTSA and should 

be dismissed. 

Waymo’s CUTSA and UCL claims are based on a common set of alleged facts – that 

Waymo’s former employee, Anthony Levandowski, “downloaded more than 14,000 highly 

confidential and proprietary files shortly before his resignation”; that Mr. Levandowski brought 

that information with him when he joined Uber; and that Uber used the information to develop its 

LiDAR technology. (ECF No. 23 Am. Compl. ¶¶ 4-5, 7, 10.) Much of Waymo’s Amended 

Complaint chronicles the alleged trade secret misappropriation by Mr. Levandowski and 

defendants. (See, e.g., Am. Compl. ¶¶41-54.) 

Waymo’s UCL claim is specifically premised on the alleged trade secret 

misappropriation: “Defendants have acquired and used Waymo’s confidential and proprietary 

information through material misrepresentations and omissions.” (Am. Compl. ¶146.) Waymo’s 

Amended Complaint provides no other factual allegations to support the UCL claim. Because the 

UCL claim is based on the same trade secret allegations as the CUTSA claim, the UCL claim is 

preempted under CUTSA and should be dismissed with prejudice. 

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

A. Waymo’s Complaint and Amended Complaint 

Waymo filed its original Complaint on February 23, 2017, asserting six causes of action, 

including: (1) violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act; (2) violation of CUTSA; (3) three 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 312 Filed 04/28/17 Page 5 of 9
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WAYMO’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW CLAIM

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

dc-879931 

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 

causes of action for patent infringement; and (4) violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, 

otherwise known as California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). (ECF No. 1.) Waymo filed 

its Amended Complaint on March 10, 2017, keeping the original six causes of action and adding 

one additional patent. The Amended Complaint asserted violation of the California UCL as the 

Seventh Cause of Action. (ECF No. 23.)

B. Waymo’s UCL Claim is Based on the Same Nucleus of Operative Facts as its 

Trade Secrets Claims 

Waymo asserts a claim for violation of the California UCL based on the same facts it 

alleges for its trade secret misappropriation claims. (See Am. Compl. ¶¶143-148.) Most of the 

Amended Complaint is devoted to describing the alleged trade secret misappropriation by 

Mr. Levandowski and defendants. As factual support for its UCL claim, Waymo references 

“business acts and practices . . . as described above” – or, in other words, the trade secret 

allegations that take up the bulk of the Amended Complaint. (Am. Compl. ¶145.) Without 

identifying any non-trade secret related conduct, Waymo alleges that “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.” (Am. 

Compl. ¶144.) Similarly, for the “fraudulent” prong of the UCL, Waymo again references only 

the alleged trade secret misappropriation: “Defendants have acquired and used Waymo’s 

confidential and proprietary trade secret information through material misrepresentations and 

omissions.” (Am. Compl. ¶146.) Thus, Waymo’s UCL claim is based on the same nucleus of 

operative facts as those supporting its trade secrets claims.

III. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS

The CUTSA preempts tort remedies arising from the misappropriation of trade secrets. 

See Cal. Civil Code § 3426 et seq. Courts have held that CUTSA “provides the exclusive civil 

remedy for conduct falling within its terms, so as to supersede other civil remedies based upon 

misappropriation of a trade secret.” Silvaco Data Sys. v. Intel Corp., 184 Cal. App. 4th 210, 236 

(2010) (citations omitted), disapproved on other grounds in Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 

Cal. 4th 310 (2011). The Act exempts from preemption (1) claims based on a breach of contract; 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 312 Filed 04/28/17 Page 6 of 9
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WAYMO’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW CLAIM

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

dc-879931 

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 

and (2) “other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.” Cal. 

Civ. Code § 3426.7(b) (emphasis added). Courts have observed that this provision “would appear 

to be rendered meaningless if, in fact, claims which are based on trade secret misappropriation are 

not preempted by the state’s statutory scheme.” Digital Envoy, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 370 F. Supp. 

2d 1025, 1035 (N.D. Cal. 2005).

The CUTSA preempts California UCL claims where both the CUTSA and UCL claims 

are “based on the same nucleus of facts.” Top Agent Network, Inc. v. Zillow, Inc., No. 14-cv04769-RS, 2015 WL 10435931, at *4 (Aug. 6, 2015) (quoting K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of 

America Tech. & Operations, Inc., 171 Cal.App. 4th 939, 962 (2009)).1 CUTSA preemption is 

properly decided “at the pleadings stage.” Qiang Wang v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., 

No. C 12-05579 WHA, 2013 WL 415615, at *4 (Jan. 31, 2013) (Alsup, J.).

On a motion to dismiss based on CUTSA preemption, “[t]he preemption inquiry . . . 

focuses on whether [the facts supporting the preempted claim] are no more than a restatement of 

the same operative facts supporting trade secret misappropriation.” Lilith Games (Shanghai) Co. 

Ltd. v. uCool, Inc., No. 15-CV-01267-SC, 2015 WL 4128484, at *6 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2015) 

(citation omitted). Furthermore, “CUTSA preemption extends to claims based on the 

misappropriation of confidential and proprietary information, regardless of whether it qualifies as 

a ‘trade secret.’” Avago Techs. U.S. Inc. v. Nanoprecision Prods., Inc., No. 16-cv-03737-JCS, 

2017 WL 412524, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2017) (citing SunPower Corp. v. SolarCity Corp., 

No. 12-CV-00694-LHK, 2012 WL 6160472, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2012)).

IV. ARGUMENT 

The Court should dismiss Waymo’s UCL claim as preempted by CUTSA. Waymo’s 

UCL claim is nothing more than a restatement of the same operative facts supporting its claims 

for trade secret misappropriation under CUTSA. (See Am. Compl. ¶144 (“Defendants engaged in 

unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts and practices . . . [by] misappropriating Waymo’s 

 

1 The Ninth Circuit has confirmed the preemptive effect of the CUTSA on statutory and common law unfair 

competition claims. See Atl. Inertial Sys., Inc. v. Condor Pac. Indus. of California, Inc., 545 F. App’x 600, 602 (9th 

Cir. 2013).

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 312 Filed 04/28/17 Page 7 of 9
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WAYMO’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW CLAIM

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

dc-879931 

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 

confidential and proprietary information.”); Am. Compl. ¶146 (“Defendants have acquired and 

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

misrepresentations and omissions.”).) Waymo’s Seventh Cause of Action is otherwise devoid of 

non-trade secret factual support. (See Am. Compl. ¶143-148.) If the trade secret factual 

allegations were omitted from Waymo’s Seventh Cause of Action, there would be nothing 

remaining to support the claim, let alone meet the requirement of pleading with the particularity. 

See Qiang Wang, 2013 WL 415615 at *4.

Courts have repeatedly held that where UCL claims are based on the same nucleus of 

operative facts as CUTSA claims, the UCL claims are preempted by CUTSA and should be 

dismissed. See, e.g., Lilith Games, 2015 WL 4128484, at *6 (“Because Lilith alleges the same 

factual allegations in its UCL and CUTSA claims, the UCL claims are preempted by the 

CUTSA. . .”); Gems v. Diamond Imports, Inc., No. 15-cv-03531-MMC, 2016 WL 6902804, at *4 

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2016) (“[T]he ‘gravamen’ of Diamond Imports’ unfair competition claim 

being the misappropriation of trade secrets, said claim is displaced under CUTSA”); VasoNova 

Inc. v. Grunwald, No. C-12-02422 WHA, 2012 WL 4119970, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012) 

(Alsup, J.) (dismissing UCL claim because of CUTSA preemption). As this Court has noted, the 

“preemptive sweep” of CUTSA preemption “must be respected and applied.” Total Recall Techs. 

v. Luckey, No. C 15-02281 WHA, 2016 WL 199796, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2016) (Alsup, J.).

Google itself has previously argued for CUTSA preemption when an unfair competition 

claim arose “from the identical nucleus of facts and are based on the claim that Google 

improperly utilized Digital’s proprietary information.” See Digital Envoy, Inc., 370 F. Supp. 2d 

at 1033. In the Digital Envoy case, Google emphasized that “Digital Envoy expressly 

incorporates its trade secret allegations into its follow-on claims without adding any independent 

factual allegations.” (Google Inc.’s Reply Brief in Support of its Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment at 2, Case No. 5:04-cv-01497 RS (Mar. 2, 2005) (ECF No. 106).) Furthermore, Google 

contended that it would make little sense for California to enact “the UTSA’s comprehensive 

statutory scheme if a party could circumvent it by dressing up the same claim in alternative 

pleading language.” Id. at 2-3. The court agreed with Google, and held that the plaintiff’s unfair 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 312 Filed 04/28/17 Page 8 of 9
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WAYMO’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW CLAIM

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

dc-879931 

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 

competition claim was preempted because it was “based on the same nucleus of facts as the 

misappropriation of trade secrets claim for relief.” Digital Envoy, Inc., 370 F. Supp. 2d at 1035.

Dismissal with prejudice of Waymo’s UCL claim is appropriate, because there are no 

facts that would support an independent UCL claim. Waymo’s case is premised on a core 

nucleus of operative facts regarding the alleged theft of trade secrets, and any attempt at 

amendment would be futile. See Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g., 512 F.3d 522, 532-533 

(9th Cir. 2008).

V. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Uber respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion to 

dismiss Waymo’s Seventh Cause of Action with prejudice and enter the proposed order submitted 

herewith. 

Dated: April 28, 2017 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Arturo J. González 

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

OTTOMOTTO LLC, and OTTO TRUCKING LLC

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 312 Filed 04/28/17 Page 9 of 9