sf-3758078 

Writer’s Direct Contact 

+1 (415) 268.7020 

AGonzalez@mofo.com 

425 MARKET STREET 

SAN FRANCISCO 

CALIFORNIA 94105-2482 

TELEPHONE: 415.268.7000 

FACSIMILE: 415.268.7522 

WWW.MOFO.COM 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

BEIJING , BERLIN , BRUSSELS , 

DENVER , HONG KONG , LONDON , 

LOS ANGELES , NEW YORK , 

NORTHERN VIRGINIA , PALO ALTO , 

SAN DIEGO , SAN FRANCISCO , SHANGHAI ,

SINGAPORE , TOKYO , WASHINGTON , D . C . 

April 11, 2017 

Honorable William Alsup 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

450 Golden Gate Avenue 

Courtroom 8 - 19th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Re: Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 

Dear Judge Alsup: 

This responds to Waymo’s April 10, 2017 letter brief regarding the LiDAR device inspection. (Dkt. No. 206.) 

Waymo is trying very hard to create an issue where none exists. Uber has one LiDAR prototype; it is called 

“Fuji.” That is the device that was inspected by Uber’s expert (see Dkt. No. 181 (McManamon Decl.) ¶ 14 (“I 

have inspected the Fuji system to confirm these differences”)) and that is the device that was inspected by 

Waymo today. In addition, we made a separate Fuji optical cavity available for Waymo’s inspection. At 

Waymo’s request, we disassembled that optical cavity in Waymo’s presence so that they could see for 

themselves that Uber’s product is different.1

Waymo has also requested to see the device that was “disclosed” to Nevada regulators. As we have explained, 

no Uber device has been disclosed to Nevada regulators. On March 15, 2017, Uber sent a letter to the Nevada 

Department of Motor Vehicles clarifying that any vehicles tested and certified by Nevada ATCF (an Otto 

subsidiary) that used LiDAR only used “commercially available” LiDAR. (See Dkt. 186-8; Chang Decl. 

Ex. 8.)2

The only other LiDAR prototype that might be responsive is a prior Tyto LiDAR prototype called “OWL” that 

is no longer in development.3

 Today, that device was also made available for Waymo’s inspection. In addition, 

we also made a separate OWL optical cavity available for Waymo’s inspection. 

Finally, yesterday, Waymo expanded its request to include any device mentioned by any declarant. (Dkt 206-1 

at 3-4.) This would include a customized “dual stack” system that Scott Boehmke mentioned in his declaration. 

That prototype is located in Pittsburgh. If Waymo wants to travel to Pittsburgh to inspect it, we will make it 

 

1

 Waymo separately requested inspection of LiDAR devices corresponding to a schematic previously produced 

by Uber [UBER00000727_AEO]. That schematic corresponds to Fuji.

2

 In preparing this response we noted that the Chang declaration incorrectly stated that this was a letter “from” 

the Nevada DMV. It is a letter “to” the Nevada DMV. A corrected declaration was filed today. 

3

 Waymo separately requested inspection of LiDAR devices corresponding to a schematic previously produced 

by Uber [UBER00005076_AEO]. That schematic corresponds to OWL. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 216 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 2
Honorable William Alsup 

April 11, 2017 

Page Two 

sf-3758078 

available. As we have told Waymo’s counsel, they will have an opportunity to confirm all of these facts in the 

upcoming depositions.4

Sincerely, 

Arturo J. González 

Counsel for Uber

 

4

 Waymo further requested inspection of the device that makes use of the transmit board depicted in the 

Grossman Declaration. While Waymo has designated Exhibit 1 to the Grossman Declaration as AEO, outside 

counsel for Uber has confirmed to outside counsel for Waymo that the corresponding prototype was one of the 

two made available for inspection. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 216 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 2