BOEHMKE DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

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

pa-1780495 

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 

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

DECLARATION OF SCOTT 

BOEHMKE IN SUPPORT OF 

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO 

PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION 

Date: May 3, 2017 

Time: 7:30 a.m. 

Ctrm: 8, 19th Floor 

Judge: The Honorable William Alsup 

Trial Date: October 2, 2017 

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 185 Filed 04/07/17 Page 1 of 9
BOEHMKE DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

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

pa-1780495 

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 

I, Scott Boehmke, declare as follows: 

1. I am an engineering manager within the Advanced Technologies Group at Uber 

Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), where I am responsible for hardware development and application in 

Uber’s self-driving vehicle project. I understand that Waymo has filed a lawsuit against Uber, 

Ottomotto LLC (“Otto”) and Otto Trucking LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern 

District of California. I submit this declaration in support of Defendants’ Opposition to Waymo 

LLC’s (“Waymo”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction. I have personal knowledge of the facts set 

forth in this declaration and, if called to testify as a witness, could and would do so competently. 

2. I have never worked for Google or Waymo. I joined Uber in February 2015 as a 

senior engineer in Uber’s newly created Advanced Technologies Center (“ATC”) in Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania, to research and develop autonomous vehicle technologies. After Uber acquired 

Otto in August 2016, I, along with the rest of the ATC team, became a member of Uber’s newly 

formed Advanced Technologies Group. Since joining Uber in February 2015, I have been 

responsible for hardware development and application in Uber’s self-driving vehicle project. 

Prior to joining Uber, I worked for eight years as a project engineer at Carnegie Mellon 

University (CMU), where I specialized in robotics. I worked on control, power, and 

communications electronics, as well as design and configuration of light detecting and ranging 

(LiDAR) and RADAR sensors during my tenure at CMU. 

3. I have never knowingly taken or received any confidential Google or Waymo 

documents or information for use at Uber. I have never knowingly used any confidential Google 

or Waymo documents or information in my work for Uber. I was never directed by anyone at 

Uber to use any confidential Google or Waymo documents or information for the design or 

development of Uber’s LiDAR and self-driving vehicle technology. I have never seen any 

evidence of any confidential Google or Waymo files being used during my work at Uber. 

Development of LiDAR Technologies at Uber Prior to the Otto Acquisition 

4. I became involved in Uber’s application of LiDAR technology in early March 

2015. During that time, I traveled to California to meet with three leading companies in the 

LiDAR space—Velodyne Acoustics (“Velodyne”), Quanergy Systems (“Quanergy”), and Tyto 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 185 Filed 04/07/17 Page 2 of 9
BOEHMKE DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

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

pa-1780495 

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 

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 

LIDAR LLC (“Tyto”)—to evaluate what third-party options were available to Uber for LiDAR 

sensors. Shortly after this trip, I prepared a presentation dated April 17, 2015, entitled “AV 

Sensor Thoughts,” for the ATC team at Uber. This presentation includes my analysis of the field 

of view and beam spacing requirements needed for self-driving vehicles. Attached hereto as 

Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of excerpts of AV Sensor Thoughts.1

5. Throughout 2015, I continued to meet with other companies in the LiDAR and 

3-D sensing space, including , to 

evaluate the option of having an outside company produce a LiDAR sensor for Uber’s 

application. During that time, I was also working on developing requirements for a new LiDAR 

sensor. Attached hereto as Exhibits B and C are true and correct copies of excerpts of my 

LADAR Design Notebook from October and December 2015, respectively. The LADAR Design 

Notebook includes my evaluations of third-party LiDAR sensors, as well as my own work in 

developing LiDAR requirements for Uber’s intended applications. 

6. The October 15, 2015 version of my LADAR Design Notebook, Exhibit B, shows 

my efforts to structure the requirements for a new LiDAR sensor configuration according to 

various system performance and operating environments, such as how far a car would travel 

between sensor detection and the reaction time of the vehicle (“reaction distance”) for a car 

traveling at different speeds (e.g., 25 mph, 35 mph, etc.) and what beam angles would be 

necessary to detect objects of a certain size (e.g., 0.15 to 0.5 meter) at certain distances (e.g., at a 

range of 10 to 200 meters). Through this analysis, I recognized that the vertical field of view and 

resolution requirements are heavily dependent on the speed of the vehicle, and we considered 

adjusting the angular beam spacing (e.g., of laser diodes) in the vertical dimension based on the 

speed of the vehicle. See Exhibit B at pages 2-8. In fact, I had filed a provisional application on 

December 15, 2015 for 

. I also filed a non-provisional 

 1

 Excerpts are provided to avoid disclosing third-party confidential information. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 185 Filed 04/07/17 Page 3 of 9
BOEHMKE DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

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

pa-1780495 

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 

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 

application claiming priority to this provisional application. Attached hereto as Exhibits J-P are 

true and correct copies of my provisional application documents (Exhibits M-P) and nonprovisional application documents (Exhibits J-L). 

7. During that time, I was also considering a potential in-house LiDAR solution 

using a 1550nm fiber laser, with “[p]olygonal mirrors for fast horizontal scan” and 

. See Exhibit B at page 26. 

8. The October 15, 2015 version of my LADAR Design Notebook also includes my 

analysis of LiDAR sensors that Velodyne and Quanergy could potentially provide to Uber. See 

Exhibit B at pages 9-11, 13-16, 19. For example, page 10, reproduced below, shows the laser 

distribution of the diodes in the 

. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 185 Filed 04/07/17 Page 4 of 9
BOEHMKE DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

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

pa-1780495 

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 

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 

9. In March 2016, Uber entered into a contract with 

. Uber would assemble into its custom designed mount, which stacked them to 

provide (hereinafter referred to as the “dual stack”). From November 2015 

through March 2016, I worked on developing the custom beam patterns and parameters necessary 

for Uber’s automotive use, taking into account the technical constraints of 

. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of a request for quotation (RFQ) 

that Uber provided to on December 7, 2015 for 

. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct 

copy of excerpts of the preliminary specifications that Uber provided to on December 

15, 2015. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the final specifications Uber 

provided to 

. 

10. In creating these documents (Exhibits D, E, and F), I calculated the custom beam 

patterns and parameters based on the requirements of the car (e.g., the beams must pass over the 

hood of the car), the standard specifications of public roads (e.g., the maximum grades for public 

roads), and the resolution needed for obstacle detection while self-driving at various speeds. 

These custom beam patterns create 

. As the beams of light travel farther distances, the 

angular difference between the beams of light translate into increased vertical gaps. 

. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 185 Filed 04/07/17 Page 5 of 9
BOEHMKE DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

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

pa-1780495 

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 

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 

11. The contract between Uber and 

. As of March 2017, 

. 

12. By late 2015, I was considering 

 to permit the use of a simple transmit lens. I was also 

considering the use of separate transmit and receive lenses for the optical transmit and receive 

paths, which I had understood to be the state-of-the-art at the time. This was memorialized in the 

December 7, 2015 version of my LADAR Design Notebook (Exhibit C), which has a last 

modified date of January 2016. Slide 51, reproduced below, illustrates this: 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 185 Filed 04/07/17 Page 6 of 9
BOEHMKE DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 6

pa-1780495 

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 

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 

13. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of my analysis of using 

multiple lasers on each transmit board, entitled “2016-02-17-OurVersion,” which was last 

modified on February 17, 2016. At the time, I was exploring how to position and orient the lasers 

behind one transmit lens on as few boards as possible to simplify alignment and calibration. I 

envisioned to enable the use of 

a simple lens design. 

Interactions with Otto 

14. In May 2016, Uber was considering several different LiDAR options. Attached 

hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of “LIDAR Thoughts,” which summarizes three 

options Uber was considering for LiDAR sensors, as of May 2016. Plan A was to use 

 to form the 

previously described dual stack. 

. See Exhibit H at pages 5-7. Plan B was to use a potential 

in-house diode-based LiDAR sensor that would be simpler to fabricate and would have improved 

specifications over . Slide 10 discloses improvements 

on 

. See Exhibit H at pages 8-12. These improvements 

incorporate concepts from my earlier work in late 2015 discussed above. Plan C was to use a 

fiber laser design based on Uber’s discussions with Otto in late April and May 2016, which 

included discussions about the possibility of . See 

Exhibit H at pages 13-17. For example, slides 14 and 15 show an early proposal of 

. These three options were not exhaustive, and Uber was considering other options as 

well. 

15. Before Uber acquired Otto in August 2016, I was working with 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 185 Filed 04/07/17 Page 7 of 9
BOEHMKE DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 7

pa-1780495 

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 

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 

, we remain 

constrained as to how much data we have collected using these LiDAR sensors. 

Involvement in the Fuji Design 

16. In October 2016, Eric Meyhofer and I met with James Haslim and concluded that 

the fiber laser LiDAR design that James and his team were working on (i.e., Plan C) was 

undesirable for use in Uber’s vehicles because of the complexity of that design, as well as its 

heavy weight and bulky size. We decided that James and his team should pivot and instead focus 

on developing what we dubbed the “Fuji” design, an in-house diode-based LiDAR sensor based 

on the design that I was previously considering in late 2015, well before the acquisition of Otto. 

The Fuji design was intended as an alternative to . By October 2016, 

. Because we would not be able to further 

our self-driving project without additional LiDAR sensors, , 

we proceeded with alternatives, including the aforementioned Fuji design. 

17. In early November 2016, I visited James Haslim and his team in Uber’s San 

Francisco office to review the work that they had undertaken since pivoting to the Fuji Design. 

This work included 

 for the Fuji design. It was during that review that I suggested to 

James’s team to 

. 

18. The position and orientation of the diodes on the transmit boards in Fuji is based 

on custom beam spacing and angles I developed using parameters and calculations 

. Exhibit I is a true and 

correct copy of the custom beam spacing and angles summary I developed and provided to James 

Haslim’s team on November 4, 2016. This summary calculates the beam spacing and angles for 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 185 Filed 04/07/17 Page 8 of 9