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

01980-00104/9210217.1 No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 

 Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151) 

 charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 

 David A. Perlson (Bar No. 209502) 

 davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com 

 Melissa J. Baily (Bar No. 237649) 

 melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com 

 John Neukom (Bar No. 275887) 

 johnneukom@quinnemanuel.com 

 Jordan R. Jaffe (Bar No. 254886) 

 jordanjaffe@quinnemanuel.com 

50 California Street, 22nd Floor 

San Francisco, California 94111-4788 

Telephone: (415) 875-6600 

Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 

Attorneys for WAYMO LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING 

LLC, 

Defendants. 

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

PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S REPLY IN 

SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT 

SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Hearing: 

Date: May 3, 2017 

Time: 8:00 a.m. 

Place: 8, 19th Floor 

Judge: The Honorable William H. Alsup 

 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

01980-00104/9210217.1 -i- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................1

I. WAYMO WILL PREVAIL ON ITS CLAIMS .....................................................................3

A. Trade Secrets 1 and 4: ............3

B. Trade Secret 7: 

 .................................................................................................5

C. Trade Secrets 2 and 3: 

 .........................................................................................................................5

D. Trade Secret 14: 

 ....................................................................................7

E. Uber’s Use of Additional Waymo Trade Secrets .......................................................8

F. Uber Infringes the ’922 and ’464 Patents ...................................................................9

II. ADVERSE INFERENCES ARE APPROPRIATE AGAINST UBER ...............................10

III. THE OTHER FACTORS FAVOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ...............................................13

A. Waymo Timely Filed Its Complaint and Injunction Request After Learning 

of Defendants’ LiDAR Program in December 2016 ................................................13

B. Uber’s Attempted “Head Start” into the Nascent Self-Driving Car Market 

Using Waymo’s Own Technology Will Cause Irreparable Harm ...........................14

IV. THE COURT SHOULD ISSUE A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION .................................15
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

01980-00104/9210217.1 -i- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Page 

Cases 

Aptix Corp. v. Quickturn Design Sys., 98-762, 

 2000 WL 852813 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 14, 2000), vacated in part on other grounds by, 269 

F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................................................... 11 

Baxter v. Palmigiano, 

 425 U.S. 308 (1976) ................................................................................................................... 11 

Data Gen. Corp. v. Gruman Sys. Support Corp., 

 825 F. Supp. 340 (D. Mass. 1993) ............................................................................................. 11 

Doe ex rel. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 

 232 F.3d 1258 (9th Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................... 11 

GSI v. United Memories, 

C 13-1081 PSG, 2013 WL 12172990, 11 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2013) ........................................ 14 

Goldman v. Alhadeff, 

 131 F.R.D. 188 (W.D. Wash. 1990) ........................................................................................... 13 

i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 

 598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................... 15 

Kahala v. Kim, 

 No. CV 13-02933, 2013 WL 12086126 (C.D. Cal. July 10, 2013) ........................................... 14 

Lamb-Weston, Inc. v. McCain Foods, Ltd., 

 941 F.2d 970 (9th Cir. 1991) ...................................................................................................... 15 

Language Line Servs., Inc. v. Language Servs. Assocs., Inc., 

 944 F. Supp. 2d 775 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ....................................................................................... 14 

Netlist Inc. v. Diablo Techs. Inc., 

 No. 13-CV-05962, 2015 WL 153724 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2015) ............................................... 15

Odnil Music v. Katharsis, CIV S-05-0545, 

 2007 WL 3308857 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2007) ............................................................................. 13 

Precision Auto. v. Tech. Servs., 07-CV-707-AS, 

 2007 WL 4480739 (D. Or. Dec. 14, 2007) .......................................................................... 14, 15 

RAD Services v. Aetna Cas. & Sur., 

 808 F.2d 271 (3d Cir. 1986) ....................................................................................................... 11 

SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc., 

 869 F. Supp. 2d 1176 (S.D. Cal. 2012) ........................................................................................ 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

01980-00104/9210217.1 -ii- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Southeast X-Ray v. Spears, 

 929 F. Supp. 2d 867 (W.D. Ark. 2013) ...................................................................................... 15 

Tourmaline Partners v. Monaco, 

3:13-CV-00108, 2016 WL 614361 (D. Conn. Feb. 16, 2016) .................................................... 13

UIC Gov’t Servs., LLC v. Fleitz, 

 No. 3:15-CV-00212-SLG, 2015 WL 12516774 (D. Ariz. Nov. 24, 2015) ................................ 14 

V’Guara Inc. v. Dec, 

 925 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (D. Nev. 2013) ........................................................................................ 14 

Zodiac Pool Sys., Inc. v. Aquastar Pool, 13-cv-343-GPC, 

 2013 WL 690616 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2013) .............................................................................. 15 










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

01980-00104/9210217.1 -11- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

be obtained from other sources. Doe ex rel. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1265 (9th 

Cir. 2000). And adverse inferences are properly asserted against Uber because Levandowski’s 

“self-interest would counsel him to exculpate his employer, if possible,” especially with his stock 

grants on the line (Exs. 108-109). RAD Services v. Aetna Cas. & Sur., 808 F.2d 271, 275 (3d Cir. 

1986); see also Aptix Corp. v. Quickturn Design Sys., 98-762, 2000 WL 852813, at *21 (N.D. Cal. 

Jun. 14, 2000) (Alsup, J.), vacated in part on other grounds by 269 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

Indeed, Uber has repeatedly relied on a purported unity of interest with Levandowski to shield 

relevant evidence from discovery under a purported common interest privilege and has otherwise 

now ratified Levandowski’s conduct. Data Gen. Corp. v. Gruman Sys. Support Corp., 825 F. 

Supp. 340, 353 (D. Mass. 1993) (holding adverse inference against former employee’s new 

employer appropriate where new employer “learned that [former employee] brought the tape from 

[plaintiff], turned a blind-eye to [his] potential continued wrongful use of [confidential 

information], and probably shared in the rewards of [his] apparent wrongdoing . . . .”). 

Obfuscation, discovery misconduct, and spurious privilege claims. Uber has willfully 

violated this Court’s Orders requiring it to find and return Waymo’s confidential information. 

(Dkt. 135.) Although Uber contends that “none of Waymo’s documents crossed over to Uber” 

(Opp. 8), Uber has no basis for that statement. Uber has not submitted a declaration or other 

evidence indicating that it has done anything at all to investigate whether Levandowski has 

Waymo’s confidential documents in his possession or whether Levandowski has referenced those 

materials – on Uber devices, by “working from home” (Ex. 79), or otherwise – to guide the 

development of LiDAR at Otto/Uber. In other words, Uber has specifically excluded 

Levandowski, the head of Uber’s self-driving car project, from its purported investigation into 

whether that project has benefited from Waymo’s confidential information; indeed, Waymo just 

learned yesterday that Uber did not search Levandowski’s Otto/Uber email for information 

responsive to any of Waymo’s document requests. (E.g., Ex. 112 (RFP 6), 113.) To this day, 

Uber does not prohibit Levandowski from bringing personal laptops and electronic devices into 

Uber offices, Uber does not track network and server activity by Levandowski, and Levandowski 


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

01980-00104/9210217.1 -14- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

days after that, which included a detailed list of its misappropriated trade secrets. Waymo filed its

claims against Uber in a timely fashion. 

In response, Uber notes that Waymo looked at Levandowski’s Waymo-issued laptops and 

Google Drive activity logs in mid-2016 and was suspicious of certain downloads in October 2016, 

a time line that Waymo acknowledged up front in its papers (Dkt. 25-4, at 13). But Uber 

overlooks that Levandowski covered his tracks and fails to explain how Waymo’s concerns and 

suspicions at this time were sufficient to bring a lawsuit alleging specific legal violations by Uber. 

Indeed, Waymo’s efforts to investigate show that it acted assiduously and in good faith to 

determine whether there was any violation before bringing suit. And as this Court found in 

Illumina, it was perfectly timely for Waymo to seek a preliminary injunction after it had concrete 

evidence of Uber’s malfeasance but before Uber could irrevocably distort competition in the selfdriving car market. 207 F. Supp. 3d 1081, 1093-94 (N.D. Cal. 2016). 

B. Uber’s Attempted “Head Start” into the Nascent Self-Driving Car Market 

Using Waymo’s Own Technology Will Cause Irreparable Harm 

Courts routinely recognize that misappropriation of trade secrets creates irreparable harm 

to a competitor. See V’Guara Inc. v. Dec, 925 F. Supp. 2d 1120, 1126 (D. Nev. 2013). In fact, 

numerous recent cases have recognized that a presumption is warranted in trade secret cases. 

Language Line Servs., Inc. v. Language Servs. Assocs., Inc., 944 F. Supp. 2d 775, 782 (N.D. Cal. 

2013) ; UIC Gov’t Servs., LLC v. Fleitz, No. 3:15-CV-00212-SLG, 2015 WL 12516774, at *3 (D. 

Ariz. Nov. 24, 2015). As for the few cases Uber cites finding no irreparable harm in the tradesecrets context (Opp. at 18 n.39), Uber does not discuss any of their facts — and for good reason, 

as all are wildly inapposite.8

 And money damages are inadequate where, as here, it would be 

difficult to quantify the loss of sales. i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 862 (Fed. 

 

8

 In one, the irreparable harm reasoning was based on its holding that the trade secrets claim was 

likely to fail on the merits. GSI v. United Memories, C 13-1081 PSG, 2013 WL 12172990, at *9, 

11 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2013). In another, the plaintiff essentially abandoned its trade secrets 

claim. Precision Auto. v. Tech. Servs., 07-CV-707-AS, 2007 WL 4480739, at *3 (D. Or. Dec. 14, 

2007). Another was merely “a debt collection action dressed up in federal trademark infringement 

clothes.” Kahala v. Kim, No. CV 13-02933, 2013 WL 12086126, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 10, 2013). 

The last dealt with information about customers (not technology), and the plaintiffs provided no 

evidence of harm. Southeast X-Ray v. Spears, 929 F. Supp. 2d 867, 875-76 (W.D. Ark. 2013). 

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

01980-00104/9210217.1 -16- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

DATED: April 21, 2017 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, 

LLP 

By /s/Charles K. Verhoeven 

Charles K. Verhoeven 

Attorneys for WAYMO LLC