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

WAYMO’S OPPOSITION TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

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. 3:17-cv-00939

PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO

SHORTEN TIME FOR HEARING ON

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

ARBITRATION

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 119 Filed 03/28/17 Page 1 of 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

-2-

WAYMO’S OPPOSITION TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

Defendants’ Administrative Motion To Shorten Time for Hearing on Defendants’ Motion

To Compel Arbitration (Dkt. 95) should be denied. Had Defendants filed their Motion To Compel

Arbitration in a timely manner, it would have been unnecessary to shorten time for that motion to

be briefed and heard to achieve Defendants’ purported goal—having their Motion To Compel

Arbitration heard before the May 4 preliminary injunction hearing. Defendants should not be able

to benefit from their own delay to Plaintiff Waymo’s prejudice by cutting Waymo’s response time

to Defendants’ motion in half. This is especially true since Defendants’ Motion To Compel

Arbitration, even if granted, would not moot the May 4 preliminary injunction hearing given that

Defendants concede that at least Waymo’s patent claims are not arbitrable.

ARGUMENT

Defendants argue they have brought their Motion To Shorten Time because, at the March

16, 2017 Case Management Conference, the Court stated: “I don’t want to go through the pain and

suffering of a preliminary injunction hearing if it has to be arbitrated, is the point. Think that

through.” (Dkt. 95, 1.) The Court’s statement, however, was preceded by Defendants’

representation that “Plaintiff’s claims” were subject to “a very broad arbitration provision,”

suggesting that all of Plaintiff’s claims would belong in arbitration. (Dkt. 63, 12:5-21.) But

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration does not address any of Plaintiff’s Waymo’s patent

claims upon which Plaintiff Waymo’s preliminary injunction is also based. Thus, even if the

Court were inclined to grant the motion to compel arbitration in its entirety, the preliminary

injunction hearing would still go forward.

Moreover, Defendants’ Motion To Shorten Time mentions the existence of patent claims

as “the basis” for Waymo’s Opposition. (Dkt. 95, 1 (“Plaintiff has advised us that it opposes this

request on the basis that even if this motion is granted, there will still be a hearing on its motion

for preliminary injunction pertaining to the four patent claims at issue. (González Decl. ¶ 3, Ex.

B.)”) As Waymo’s email that Defendants attach shows, however, Waymo opposes Defendants’

Motion To Shorten Time for the additional reason that it unnecessarily prejudices Waymo’s

response time to Defendants’ Motion To Compel Arbitration. (Dkt. 95-3.) Defendants do not

mention, much less try to rebut Waymo’s position. They cannot.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 119 Filed 03/28/17 Page 2 of 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

-3-

WAYMO’S OPPOSITION TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

At the March 16 hearing, counsel for Defendants indicated that Defendants would file the

motion “within two weeks” and that the motion would be “set for hearing on regular notice.” (Dkt.

63, 12:15-17; 14:23-24.) Defendants also indicated that the motion could be filed “sooner” in

order to obtain a hearing date before the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

Id. at 15:11. In fact, the Court’s “[t]hink that through” statement that Defendants quote in their

Motion to Shorten Time was in response to Defendants’ suggestion that the motion could be filed

sooner than two weeks. Id., 15:12-14. This is correct. Had Defendants filed their motion by

March 23, the motion could have been heard on April 27, one week before the May 4 preliminary

injunction hearing. Notably, on March 22, Defendants indicated they planned to file on March 23.

(McCauley Decl., Ex. A.) It seems the only reason Defendants did not file on that day is that

their desired hearing date of April 20 was not available, as Waymo pointed out. Id. Defendants

then waited until March 27 to file their Motion To Compel Arbitration.

But rather than accept the consequences of their own delay, Defendants have asked Waymo

to sacrifice half of its 14 days to respond to Defendants’ motion so that their motion could be

heard before May 4. As Waymo pointed out to Defendants, however, it is unreasonable for

Defendants to seek to have Waymo’s response time cut in half simply because Defendants delayed

filing their Motion To Compel Arbitration. Dkt. 95-3 Defendants provided no response to

Waymo on this point before they filed their Motion To Shorten Time and still do not.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff requests that the Court deny Defendants’ Motion To

Shorten Time for Hearing on Defendants’ Motion To Compel Arbitration.

DATED: March 28, 2017 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

By /s/ Charles K. Verhoeven

Charles K. Verhoeven

Attorneys for Plaintiff Waymo LLC

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 119 Filed 03/28/17 Page 3 of 3