HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

DEFENDANTS’ SUR-REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

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

sf-3761976 

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 

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) 

RKim@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 UBER 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC., OTTOMOTTO 

LLC, AND OTTO TRUCKING LLC’S 

SUR-REPLY 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

UNREDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 295-3 Filed 04/28/17 Page 1 of 15
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

DEFENDANTS’ SUR-REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 5:16-cv-03882-BLF i

sf-3761976 

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 

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

I. THE FUJI AND TRANSMIT BOARDS ARE DIFFERENT, 

INDEPENDENTLY-DEVELOPED DESIGNS ................................................................. 2 

II. WAYMO’S BROADLY ALLEGED “TRADE SECRETS” ARE KNOWN 

FEATURES OF LIDAR AND DIODE LASER SYSTEMS ............................................. 4 

A. Alleged Trade Secret 1: of Diodes ............................................ 4 

B. Alleged Trade Secret 7: .............................................. 5 

C. Alleged Trade Secrets 2 and 3: ................................... 5 

D. Alleged Trade Secret 14: ......................................................................... 6 

III. SPIDER WAS AN ABANDONED DESIGN IDEA AND CANNOT INFRINGE ........... 6 

IV. WAYMO IS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE ................................ 7 

A. Waymo Is Not Entitled to the Fifth Amendment Adverse Inferences It 

Seeks ....................................................................................................................... 7

B. No Adverse Inference Based on Alleged Discovery Violations Is 

Warranted ................................................................................................................ 8 

C. There Were No Misrepresentations About Non-Use of a Single-Lens 

Design ..................................................................................................................... 9 

V. WAYMO CANNOT SHOW IT WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM...................... 9 

VI. WAYMO’S DELAY IS FATAL TO ITS PRELIMINARY INUNCTION 

REQUEST ......................................................................................................................... 10 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 295-3 Filed 04/28/17 Page 2 of 15
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

DEFENDANTS’ SUR-REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 5:16-cv-03882-BLF ii

sf-3761976 

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 

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 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

 Page(s) 

Cases 

Baxter v. Palmigiano, 

425 U.S. 308 (1976) ....................................................................................................................7 

DVD Copy Control Ass’n. v. Bunner, 

116 Cal. App. 4th 241 (2004) .....................................................................................................5 

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 

547 U.S. 388 (2006) ..................................................................................................................10 

In re Excel Innovations, Inc., 

502 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................................10 

Flexible Lifeline Sys., Inc. v. Precision Lift, Inc., 

654 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2011) .....................................................................................................10 

Gonzales v. City of San Jose, 

No. 13-CV-00695-BLF, 2015 WL 7878121 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2015) ......................................8 

Jimenez v. Menzies Aviation Inc., 

No. 15-CV-02392-WHO, 2016 WL 3232793 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2016) ..................................9 

Kwan Software Eng’g, Inc. v. Foray Techs., LLC, 

No. C 12-03762 SI, 2013 WL 244999 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2013), 

aff’d, 551 F. App’x 298 (9th Cir. 2013) ....................................................................................10 

Roper Corp. v. Litton Sys., 

757 F.2d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ...................................................................................................7 

Doe ex rel. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 

232 F.3d 1258 (9th Cir. 2000) .....................................................................................................7 

SalesBrain, Inc. v. AngelVision Techs., 

No. C 12-05026 LB, 2013 WL 2422762 (N.D. Cal. June 3, 2013) ............................................8 

Sun Microsystems, Inc. v Hynix Semiconductor, Inc, 

622 F. Supp. 2d 890 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ........................................................................................7 

Winston Research Corp. v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 

350 F.2d 134 (9th Cir. 1965) .......................................................................................................4 

V’Guara v. Dec, 

925 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (D. Nev. 2013) .......................................................................................10 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 295-3 Filed 04/28/17 Page 3 of 15
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 295-3 Filed 04/28/17 Page 4 of 15
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

DEFENDANTS’ SUR-REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

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

sf-3761976 

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 

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 

INTRODUCTION 

Since filing its motion, Waymo has deposed five Uber engineers, conducted detailed 

inspections of Uber’s LiDAR prototypes (Fuji and Owl), inspected the components of an Uber 

LiDAR concept that never became a prototype (Spider), and reviewed thousands of pages of 

technical documents. The upshot is Waymo’s wholesale retreat from its earlier claims. 

First, Waymo no longer accuses Uber’s current Fuji LiDAR of patent infringement—even 

though its expert was previously certain that Fuji infringed. Waymo now shifts its patent claims 

to the components of the defunct Spider—but Spider was only a design idea that was abandoned 

well before this litigation began, never became a completed prototype, exists only as a collection 

of component parts, and hence cannot infringe any Waymo patent.1

 

Second, Waymo points to no evidence of Uber’s use of 104 of Waymo’s 121 alleged “trade 

secrets,” even after weeks of discovery. Uber has conducted an exhaustive search, which has 

generated only false hits for common files. For the alleged trade secrets Waymo does assert, the 

evidence shows Uber’s LiDAR has an independent origin and the alleged trade secrets are not 

valid. Indeed, many of Waymo’s asserted secrets are common ideas known to LiDAR designers 

and disclosed in public literature. If those ideas are enforced as trade secrets, Waymo could 

monopolize LiDAR. Waymo would like that. But it would be unwarranted and anticompetitive. 

Lacking any actual evidence of misappropriation or infringement, Waymo hopes to 

leverage Mr. Levandowski’s assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege into adverse inferences 

against Uber for a fact Waymo cannot otherwise prove—that Uber’s LiDAR is based on 

Waymo’s trade secrets. The law does not allow this. An adverse inference requires independent, 

corroborating evidence. We are not aware of any case where adverse inferences provide the sole 

basis for a preliminary injunction—let alone a preliminary injunction against the use of over 100 

alleged trade secrets that reflect publicly disclosed techniques and methods. 

To be clear, Defendants understand the significance of Mr. Levandowski’s privilege 

 1

 The suggestion that Defendants were “hiding” Spider is nonsense. Defendants disclosed the 

Spider project three weeks ago in the declaration of Scott Boehmke. (Dkt 176-1 at 6, ¶ 14 (“Uber 

was considering several different LiDAR options. . . . Plan C was to use a fiber laser design . . . 

using eight fiber lasers.”) When Waymo asked about Spider, its unfinished components were 

immediately made available for inspection. (Chang ¶ 2.) 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 295-3 Filed 04/28/17 Page 5 of 15
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 295-3 Filed 04/28/17 Page 6 of 15
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 295-3 Filed 04/28/17 Page 7 of 15
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 295-3 Filed 04/28/17 Page 8 of 15
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 295-3 Filed 04/28/17 Page 9 of 15
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 295-3 Filed 04/28/17 Page 10 of 15
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 295-3 Filed 04/28/17 Page 11 of 15
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

DEFENDANTS’ SUR-REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 8

sf-3761976 

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 

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 

the four specific adverse inferences it seeks. (Repl. 13.)13 Waymo’s counsel’s bare deposition 

questions are of no moment without corroborating evidence of every single fact. 

Second, adverse inferences “cannot be limitless; rather, [they] must be tethered to the 

specific questions asked but not answered.”14 Waymo did not ask specific questions of 

Mr. Levandowski that would support the adverse inferences it seeks—especially on whether 

Defendants are using any of the 104 trade secrets that Waymo failed to brief. (See 4/12/17 Tr. at 

72 (admonishing Waymo “to do your job and ask the questions subject by subject”).) The Ninth 

Circuit forbids such sweeping inferences.15 

B. No Adverse Inference Based on Alleged Discovery Violations Is Warranted

Waymo asks for an adverse inference sanction for alleged discovery misconduct and 

privilege claims, even though there has been no determination that Defendants broke any rule. In 

doing so, Waymo has not complied with the local rules requiring that any “motion for sanctions” 

must be “separately filed,” accompanied by declarations, and not raised for the first time on reply 

to a different motion.16 Waymo’s request for a sanction should be denied on this basis alone. 

Waymo alleges that Defendants failed to search Mr. Levandowski’s files.17 (Repl. 11.) 

This is false. Defendants conducted an extensive search of Uber’s files, including a search of all 

Mr. Levandowski’s Uber data. (Orig. Faulkner ¶¶ 5-6; Faulkner ¶¶ 2-7; Rivera ¶ 2.) Defendants 

applied over 100 search terms, including all terms proposed by Waymo, plus file names and hashes 

in an effort to find information “derived from” Waymo’s files. (Orig. Faulkner ¶ 6; Rivera ¶ 6.)18 

 13 For the proposition that Mr. Levandowski accessed Defendants’ files while he was working 

from home “for Uber,” (Repl. 11, 13, Dkt. 248-7), Waymo cites a hearsay-within-hearsay 

Business Insider article that describes Mr. Levandowski working from home for Google while he 

was still employed by Google. 14 Gonzales v. City of San Jose, No. 13-CV-00695-BLF, 2015 WL 7878121, at *6 (N.D. Cal. 

Dec. 4, 2015). 15 Moreover, adverse inferences are permissible only if there is “not another less burdensome 

way of obtaining that information.” Glanzer, 232 F.3d at 1265. Waymo is obtaining information 

relevant to its claims through discovery of other Defendants’ employees. 16 Civ. L.R.. 7-2, 7-8, 37-4; SalesBrain, Inc. v. AngelVision Techs., No. C 12-05026 LB, 2013 

WL 2422762, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 3, 2013). 17 While Waymo has made much of the files allegedly downloaded by Mr. Levandowski, 

Waymo’s expert has admitted that none of those files include any information on lenses or 

optics—a central part of this case. 18 Waymo’s assertion that “Uber does not track network and server activity by 

Mr. Levandowski” is likewise untrue. The document Waymo cites, Ex. 80 (“Network & Device 

Acceptable Use Policy”) states network activity can be “retained for as long as necessary.” 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 295-3 Filed 04/28/17 Page 12 of 15
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 295-3 Filed 04/28/17 Page 13 of 15
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

DEFENDANTS’ SUR-REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 10

sf-3761976 

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 

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 

(citing cases).)21 Nor does Waymo attempt to explain how the abandoned Spider project could 

result in any such harm now. Waymo has cited no cases in which fears about future 

commercialization in a market that does not yet exist supported a finding of irreparable harm.22 

This is the type of speculative harm that “cannot be the basis for a finding of irreparable harm.”23

Waymo continues to claim a “presumption” of irreparable harm. (Repl. 14.) But eBay

and Flexible Lifeline are fatal as applied to Waymo’s patent claims, and subsequent jurisprudence 

suggests that these cases apply equally in the trade secret context. 24 (Opp. 18 n.39.) Waymo 

disregards this binding authority, instead relying on district court cases that ignore or predate it, or 

including one case that expressly rejects the presumption that Waymo invokes. (Repl. at 14.)25

Waymo also fails to rebut Defendants’ evidence or arguments regarding the balance of 

hardships, the adequacy of money damages, or the public interest. (Opp. 17-25.) 

VI. WAYMO’S DELAY IS FATAL TO ITS PRELIMINARY INUNCTION REQUEST 

Waymo admits it knew in mid-2016 that Mr. Levandowski was leading Uber’s self-driving 

car project, and that in October it confirmed Mr. Levandowski allegedly downloaded Google files 

and filed arbitrations against Mr. Levandowski without mention of the supposedly critical 

downloads.26 That is, as of October 2016, the alleged download of 14,000 files by Uber’s self–

driving car leader was not troubling enough for Waymo to take action. Waymo said nothing about 

the downloads until it filed this case. The vendor email and DMV filing don’t change these facts.27 

Waymo cannot use the alleged download as its primary justification for the extraordinary relief it 

seeks on a supposed “emergency” basis, when it failed to take action on this knowledge earlier. 

 21 Waymo attempts to distinguish the Zodiac TRO, noting a longer injunction is at issue here. 

(Repl. 15 n.9.) But matters not, given the sworn testimony that . 22 Netlist and Lamb-Weston (Repl. 15) both involved established markets. 

23 In re Excel Innovations, Inc., 502 F.3d 1086, 1098 (9th Cir. 2007). 24 eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006) (presumptions of irreparable 

harm a “major departure from the long tradition of equity practice”); Flexible Lifeline Sys., Inc. v. 

Precision Lift, Inc., 654 F.3d 989, 999 (9th Cir. 2011) (rejecting presumption in other contexts). 25 In V’Guara v. Dec, the court “decline[d] to rely on such a presumption in determining ... 

irreparable harm” in light of Flexible Lifeline. 925 F. Supp. 2d 1120, 1126 (D. Nev. 2013). 26 Chang Ex. 13, Brown Dep. 48:5–49:8, 36:17-20; Mot. 9; Compl. ¶ 57; Dkt. 138 at 10. 27 Kwan Software Eng’g, Inc. v. Foray Techs., LLC, No. C 12-03762 SI, 2013 WL 244999, at 

*8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2013), aff’d, 551 F. App’x 298 (9th Cir. 2013) (delay from the time that 

plaintiff was “aware, or should have been aware” of wrongdoing). 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 295-3 Filed 04/28/17 Page 14 of 15
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

DEFENDANTS’ SUR-REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 11

sf-3761976 

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 

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 

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 295-3 Filed 04/28/17 Page 15 of 15