ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

sf-3747177 

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) 

RudyKim@mofo.com 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: 415.268.7000 

Facsimile: 415.268.7522 

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, and OTTO TRUCKING 

LLC, 

Defendants. 

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

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND 

OTTOMOTTO LLC’S ANSWER TO 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

sf-3747177 

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 

Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) and Ottomotto LLC (“Ottomotto”) 

(collectively, “Defendants”), by their attorneys, hereby respond to the First Amended Complaint 

(“Complaint”) of Plaintiff Waymo LLC (“Plaintiff”) in the above-identified action as follows. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

1. Uber is a pioneer and recognized leader in urban transportation through its global 

ridesharing network that serves more than 550 cities every day. Founded in 2009, Uber 

introduced its groundbreaking smartphone app that provided an affordable ride with the push of a 

button. Uber has applied the data and intelligence from 1.2 billion miles on the road every month 

to transportation and delivery services across the globe. It serves more than 40 million monthly 

active riders worldwide. 

2. To further its mission of delivering reliable transportation to the world, Uber has 

built one of the strongest autonomous vehicle engineering groups in the industry. From the 

introduction of the world’s first self-driving Ubers in Pittsburgh to its recently announced 

partnership with Daimler, Uber is creating a future in which self-driving cars will make cities and 

roads safer, cleaner, and more accessible. 

A. Google Did Not Invent LiDAR Technology – LiDAR Was First Developed for 

Self-Driving Cars Before Google’s Entry to the Field 

3. LiDAR is a remote sensing technique that uses pulsed lasers to measure variable 

distances. Bursts of light are focused through a lens or lens assembly and emitted in rapid 

succession. A detector mounted near the emitter then measures the time it takes for the light to 

reflect off surrounding objects and return to the detector. From this measurement, the LiDAR 

system derives the distance of the surroundings. The distance measurements are then converted 

to pixels in a “point cloud,” which is rendered as a 2-D or 3-D image. Scientists and engineers 

have long used LiDAR systems for mapping both natural environments and man-made structures. 

By 2006, a number of commercial products used LiDAR systems comprising single laser 

emitter/detector pairs and a rotating mirror, mounted on a gimbal, to generate 3-D point clouds. 

4. Self-driving cars pose several challenges for LiDAR systems. A self-driving car 

needs to see 360 degrees around the vehicle in order to navigate streets safely. The field of view 
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

sf-3747177 

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 

needs to extend both above the horizon and as close to the ground as possible. The update rate 

per second has to be as high as possible, to minimize the lag between real-world events and 

imaging by the LiDAR system. 

5. In 2004, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (“DARPA”) used 

$1 million in Congressional funding to launch the Grand Challenge, the world’s first long 

distance competition for self-driving cars. No entrant completed the 150-mile course, and the 

prize was doubled to $2 million for the Second Grand Challenge in 2005. In DARPA’s 

2005 Grand Challenge, one of the entrants was David Hall and his company Velodyne 

Acoustics Inc., now Velodyne LIDAR Inc. (“Velodyne”). Velodyne applied the LiDAR 

technology it developed to create the HDL-64E sensor. Mr. Hall’s solution was to mount 

multiple laser emitters, paired with avalanche photodiode detectors, within a housing and use a 

rotary motor to rotate the housing about a base. The base could be mounted on a self-driving car. 

B. Uber Recruited Leading Pioneers and Engineers for Its Self-Driving Car 

Group 

6. In early 2015, Uber began building one of the strongest autonomous vehicle 

engineering groups in the field, to further its mission of creating safer, cleaner, and more 

accessible transportation. In January 2015, Uber acquired a company called Carnegie Robotics, 

which was co-founded by John Bares, a former director of the National Robotics Engineering 

Center at Carnegie Mellon University (“CMU”). 

7. CMU has an illustrious history in the world of self-driving cars. In the 1980s, for 

example, DARPA funded CMU’s NavLab to develop autonomous vehicles. In 1995, CMU’s 

NavLab 5 completed a trip from coast to coast in America, of which 98.2% of the driving was 

achieved by autonomous systems. CMU’s racing teams also won the 2007 Grand Challenge, the 

first enclosed race in an urban environment. 

8. In February 2015, Uber announced the creation of the Uber Advanced 

Technologies Center (“ATC”) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Within a year and a half of setting up 

the ATC, Uber launched its first self-driving Uber vehicles in Pittsburgh. They have been 
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

sf-3747177 

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 

operating on city streets since September 2015 and continue today to pick up passengers in 

Pittsburgh. 

9. In August 2016, Uber acquired Ottomotto, a startup with skilled engineers from 

Google, Apple, and Tesla, led by Anthony Levandowski. Mr. Levandowski had been a pioneer in 

the self-driving vehicle field since he led a Berkeley team in the 2004 and 2005 Grand Challenge 

races. His self-driving motorcycle, called the “Ghostrider,” beat out dozens of four-wheeled 

competitors to make it to the semifinals in the 2005 race. Today, the Ghostrider is in the 

Smithsonian. 

10. In partnership with Anheuser-Busch, Ottomotto completed the world’s first 

shipment by a self-driving truck in October 2016. The self-driving truck hauled 51,744 cans of 

Budweiser from Fort Collins to Colorado Springs, and Ottomotto’s system controlled the truck 

exit-to-exit over the 120-mile journey on I-25, without any human intervention. 

11. Uber brought in Mr. Levandowski to lead Uber and Ottomotto’s combined selfdriving efforts across transportation, delivery, and trucking. Uber conveyed to Mr. Levandowski 

that he should not bring any Google information into Uber and that Uber did not want any Google 

information. Mr. Levandowski’s employment with Uber has since been terminated. 

C. Waymo’s Claims Are Baseless

12. As publicly reported in the press, Google’s spun-off self-driving unit, Waymo, has 

introduced a pilot program in which consumers can hail self-driving cars. More recently, Waymo 

announced a deal with Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”), Uber’s competitor in the ride-sharing business. 

Waymo and Lyft began talks in the summer of 2016 and publicized their deal in May 2017. 

13. Rather than compete with Uber in the self-driving vehicle and ride-sharing 

industries, Waymo has resorted to asserting baseless claims in this litigation. 

14. Waymo’s Complaint alleges that Mr. Levandowski downloaded certain Waymo 

files prior to his resignation. However, Ottomotto and its employees have never received, had 

access to, or used any alleged confidential Waymo files from Mr. Levandowski or anyone else. 

Likewise, upon Uber’s acquisition of Ottomotto, Uber and its employees never received, had 

access to, or used any alleged confidential Waymo files. 
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

sf-3747177 

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 

15. Uber and Ottomotto independently developed their own LiDAR systems and did 

not use any confidential and proprietary Waymo information from Mr. Levandowski or any other 

former Waymo employees. 

16. Waymo’s patent infringement allegations are equally without merit. As explained 

above, LiDAR technology was first developed for self-driving cars long before Google’s entry to 

the field. Innovators such as CMU and Velodyne developed different solutions to the challenges 

of self-driving cars. Waymo’s asserted patents are directed to specific embodiments of LiDAR 

systems with very specific features. Uber and Ottomotto developed their own LiDAR systems 

featuring alternative solutions to the ones claimed in Waymo’s patents. In particular, Uber and 

Ottomotto developed LiDAR technology utilizing multiple lenses for the transmission and receipt 

of laser light, distinct from the single-lens approach in Google’s asserted patents. Uber and 

Ottomotto also developed their own firing circuit for the laser diodes in their LiDAR technology, 

distinct from the circuit in Google’s asserted patent. 

RESPONSES TO WAYMO’S ALLEGATIONS 

17. In response to Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that the Complaint 

alleges causes of action under the Defend Trade Secrets Act; California Uniform Trade Secret 

Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 3426 et seq.; infringement of Patent No. 8,836,922 (the “’922 patent”); 

infringement of Patent No. 9,368,936 (the “’936 patent”); infringement of Patent No. 9,086,273 

(the “’273 patent”); infringement of Patent No. 9,285,464 (the “’464 patent”); and California Bus. 

& Prof. Code § 17200. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about why Plaintiff brings this action, and on that basis deny those allegations in Paragraph 1. 

Defendants deny all remaining allegations of Paragraph 1. 

18. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 2, and on that basis deny them. 

19. In response to Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, Defendants lack knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about Plaintiff’s purported correspondence with its vendor, 

and on that basis deny those allegations. Uber denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 3. 
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

sf-3747177 

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 

20. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 4, and on that basis deny them. 

21. In response to Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that 

Mr. Levandowski left Waymo in January 2016 and started 280 Systems, Inc. (“280 Systems”) to 

focus on self-driving vehicles. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief about what Mr. Levandowski may have told colleagues regarding his plans to set up a new, 

self-driving vehicle company, and on that basis deny those allegations. Defendants deny all 

remaining allegations of Paragraph 5. 

22. In response to Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that a number of 

Waymo employees left Waymo to join 280 Systems. Defendants deny all remaining allegations 

of Paragraph 6. 

23. In response to Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that Ottomotto 

launched in May 2016 and was acquired by Uber in August 2016. Defendants deny that 

Ottomotto was acquired for $680 million. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief regarding the truth of the remaining allegations of this paragraph, and on that 

basis deny them. 

24. In response to Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that Uber in 2015 

announced a strategic partnership with Carnegie Mellon University and the creation of the Uber 

Advanced Technologies Center in Pittsburgh. Defendants admit that, in an interview with 

Business Insider published on August 18, 2016, former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick responded to 

a question about “call[ing] the development of autonomous vehicles existential to the company” 

and “call[ing] buying Otto another existential move,” stating “I think it starts with understanding 

that the world is going to go self-driving and autonomous.”1

 Defendants lack knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of the remaining allegations of this 

paragraph, and on that basis deny them. 

 

1

 http://www.businessinsider.com/travis-kalanick-interview-on-self-driving-cars-futuredriver-jobs-2016-8. 
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

sf-3747177 

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 

25. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 9, and on that basis deny them. 

26. In response to Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that by late 2016, 

Uber represented to regulatory authorities in Nevada that it was no longer using an 

off-the-shelf, or third-party, LiDAR technology, but using an “[i]n-house custom built” LiDAR 

system. Defendants deny all remaining allegations of Paragraph 10. 

27. In response to Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, Defendants lack knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief regarding Waymo’s reasons for bringing this suit, and on 

that basis deny them. The allegations of Paragraph 11 also state legal conclusions and argument 

to which no response is required. Defendants deny all remaining allegations of Paragraph 11. 

PARTIES 

28. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 12, and on that basis deny them. 

29. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 13. 

30. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 14. 

31. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 15. 

32. In response to Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that Uber 

completed the acquisition of Ottomotto in August 2016. Defendants deny all remaining 

allegations of Paragraph 16. 

33. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 17. 

JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 

34. Defendants admit this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case under the 

statutory sections stated in Paragraph 18. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of this 

paragraph. 

35. In response to Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that venue is 

proper in this district. Defendants admit that at least one Defendant resides in this judicial district, 

and that all Defendants are residents of the State of California. Defendants admit that a substantial 
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

sf-3747177 

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 

part of what is alleged in this Complaint occurred in this Judicial District. Defendants deny the 

remaining allegations of this paragraph. 

36. In response to Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that assignment 

of this action on a district-wide basis is proper. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of 

Paragraph 20. 

[WAYMO’S] FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

37. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 21. 

38. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 22, and on that basis deny them. 

39. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 23, and on that basis deny them. 

40. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 24, and on that basis deny them. 

41. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 25, and on that basis deny them. 

42. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 26, and on that basis deny them. 

43. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 27, and on that basis deny them. 

44. In response to Paragraph 28 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that self-driving 

cars must be able to detect objects in the surrounding environment and that LiDAR uses lasers to 

measure distances between one or more sensors and external objects. Defendants lack knowledge 

or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of the remaining allegations of 

Paragraph 28, and on that basis deny them. 

45. In response to Paragraph 29 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that LiDAR 

hardware built for autonomous vehicles is typically mounted on the exterior of a vehicle and 

scans the surrounding environment with an array of lasers, and software analyzes the data 

received from LiDAR sensors. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a 
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

sf-3747177 

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 

belief regarding the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 29, and on that basis deny 

them. 

46. In response to Paragraph 30 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that LiDAR 

systems contain many individual components, and many firms in the self-driving space purchase 

LiDAR systems from third-party providers. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief regarding the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 30, and on that basis 

deny them. 

47. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 31, and on that basis deny them. 

48. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 32, and on that basis deny them. 

49. In response to Paragraph 33 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that the ’922 and 

’464 patents are both entitled “Devices and Methods for a Rotating LiDAR Platform with a 

Shared Transmit/Receive Path”; were issued in 2014 and 2016, respectively; and are both 

directed to a single-lens design for LiDAR systems. Defendants lack knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 33, and on 

that basis deny them. 

50. In response to Paragraph 34 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that the 

’936 patent is entitled “Laser Diode Firing System,” was issued in 2016, and is directed to a 

laser diode firing circuit. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

regarding the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 34, and on that basis deny them. 

51. In response to Paragraph 35 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that the 

’273 patent is entitled “Microrod Compressions of Laser Beam in Combination with Transmit 

Lens” and was issued in 2015. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief regarding the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 35, and on that basis deny 

them. 

52. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 36, and on that basis deny them. 
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 9

sf-3747177 

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 

53. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 37, and on that basis deny them. 

54. In response to Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that in 

February 2015, Uber formed a partnership with Carnegie Mellon University (“CMU”) that 

resulted in Uber hiring certain faculty members, researchers, and technicians from CMU. 

Defendants deny the other allegations of Paragraph 38. 

55. In response to Paragraph 39 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that by 

early 2016, Uber had hired numerous engineers and robotics experts. Defendants deny the other 

allegations of Paragraph 39. 

56. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 40. 

57. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 41, and on that basis deny them. 

58. Defendants admit that by November 2015, an Internet domain name for 

280 Systems had been registered. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 42. 

59. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 43, and on that basis deny them. 

60. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 44, and on that basis deny them. 

61. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 45, and on that basis deny them. 

62. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 46, and on that basis deny them. 

63. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 47, and on that basis deny them. 

64. In response to Paragraph 48 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that 

Mr. Levandowski met with Uber executives on January 14, 2016. Defendants deny all remaining 

allegations of Paragraph 48. 
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

sf-3747177 

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 

65. In response to Paragraph 49 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that 280 Systems 

was formed in January 2016. On information and belief, Defendants understand that on 

January 25, 2016, Mr. Levandowski sent an email to Alphabet Inc.’s CEO Larry Page, stating that 

Mr. Levandowski was ready to leave Google. On information and belief, Defendants understand 

that Mr. Page forwarded the email to Waymo’s then-CTO Chris Urmson. On information and 

belief, Defendants understand that when Mr. Levandowski arrived for work on January 26, 2016, 

Mr. Urmson removed Mr. Levandowski’s badge. On information and belief, Defendants 

understand that Mr. Levandowski was taken to his desk to remove his personal belongings and 

was escorted out. Defendants deny all remaining allegations of Paragraph 49. 

66. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 50. 

67. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 51, and on that basis deny them. 

68. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 52, and on that basis deny them. 

69. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 53, and on that basis deny them. 

70. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 54, and on that basis deny them. 

71. In response to Paragraph 55 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that Uber 

completed the acquisition of Ottomotto in August 2016. Defendants deny that the purchase price 

was $680 million. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

regarding the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 55, and on that basis deny them. 

72. In response to Paragraph 56 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that 

Mr. Levandowski was named Vice President, in charge of Uber’s self-driving vehicle project. 

Defendants deny all remaining allegations of Paragraph 56. 

73. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 57, and on that basis deny them. 
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

sf-3747177 

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 

74. In response to Paragraph 58 of the Complaint, Defendants deny ever using 

Waymo’s trade secrets and patented LiDAR designs. Defendants lack knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of the remaining allegations of 

Paragraph 58, and on that basis deny them. 

75. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 59, and on that basis deny them. 

76. In response to Paragraph 60 of the Complaint, Defendants deny they have ever 

used Waymo’s intellectual property. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief regarding the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 60, and on that basis 

deny them. 

77. In response to Paragraph 61 of the Complaint, Defendants deny that they are using 

or have ever used a custom LiDAR system with the same characteristics as Waymo’s proprietary 

system. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth 

of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 61, and on that basis deny them. 

78. In response to Paragraph 62 of the Complaint, Defendants lack knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of the allegations of the first sentence of 

Paragraph 62, and on that basis deny them. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of this 

paragraph. 

79. In response to Paragraph 63 of the Complaint, Defendants lack knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of the allegations of the first three 

sentences of Paragraph 63, and on that basis deny them. Defendants deny the remaining 

allegations of this paragraph. 

80. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 64. 

81. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 65. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

[Alleged] Violation of Defense of Trade Secret Act 

82. Defendants incorporate by reference all of their responses above as though fully 

repeated herein. 
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 12

sf-3747177 

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 

83. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 67, and on that basis deny them. 

84. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 68, and on that basis deny them. 

85. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 69, and on that basis deny them. 

86. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 70, and on that basis deny them. 

87. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 71, and on that basis deny them. 

88. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 72, and on that basis deny them. 

89. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 73, and on that basis deny them. 

90. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 74, and on that basis deny them. 

91. Defendants deny all allegations of Paragraph 75. 

92. Defendants deny all allegations of Paragraph 76. 

93. Defendants deny all allegations of Paragraph 77. 

94. Defendants deny all allegations of Paragraph 78. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

[Alleged] Violation of California Uniform Trade Secret Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 3426 et seq.

95. Defendants incorporate by reference all of their responses above as though fully 

repeated herein. 

96. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 80, and on that basis deny them. 

97. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 81, and on that basis deny them. 
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 13

sf-3747177 

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 

98. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 82, and on that basis deny them. 

99. Defendants deny that they have misappropriated Plaintiff’s trade secrets, and deny 

all remaining allegations of Paragraph 83. 

100. Defendants deny all allegations of Paragraph 84. 

101. Defendants deny all allegations of Paragraph 85. 

102. In response to Paragraph 86 of the Complaint, Defendants deny that they have 

misappropriated Plaintiff’s trade secrets. Defendants deny all remaining allegations of 

Paragraph 86. 

103. In response to Paragraph 87 of the Complaint, Defendants deny that they have 

misappropriated Plaintiff’s trade secrets. Defendants deny all remaining allegations of 

Paragraph 87. 

104. In response to Paragraph 88 of the Complaint, Defendants deny that they have 

misappropriated Plaintiff’s trade secrets. Defendants deny all remaining allegations of 

Paragraph 88. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

[Alleged] Infringement of Patent No. 8,836,922

105. Defendants incorporate by reference all of their responses above as though fully 

repeated herein. 

106. In response to Paragraph 90 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that the 

’922 patent is entitled “Devices and Methods for a Rotating LIDAR platform with a Shared 

Transmit/Receive Path,” and was issued on September 16, 2014. Defendants lack knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of the remaining allegations of 

Paragraph 90, and on that basis deny them. 

107. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 91, and on that basis deny them. 

108. The allegations of Paragraph 92 state legal conclusions and argument to which no 

response is required. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 92. 
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 14

sf-3747177 

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 

109. Defendants deny all allegations of Paragraph 93. 

110. In response to Paragraph 94 of the Complaint, Defendants deny that they have 

infringed any of the claims of the ’922 patent. Defendants deny all remaining allegations of 

Paragraph 94. 

111. In response to Paragraph 95 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that they have 

developed LiDAR devices, but deny that they have infringed any of the claims of the ’922 patent. 

112. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 96. 

113. In response to Paragraph 97 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that they have 

developed LiDAR devices, but deny that they have infringed any of the claims of the ’922 patent. 

114. In response to Paragraph 98 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that they have 

developed LiDAR devices, but deny that they have infringed any of the claims of the ’922 patent. 

115. In response to Paragraph 99 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that they have 

developed LiDAR devices, but deny that they have infringed any of the claims of the ’922 patent. 

116. The allegations of Paragraph 100 state legal conclusions and argument to which no 

response is required. Defendants deny all remaining allegations of Paragraph 100. 

117. The allegations of Paragraph 101 state legal conclusions and argument to which no 

response is required. Defendants deny all allegations of Paragraph 101. 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

[Alleged] Infringement of Patent No. 9,285,464

118. Defendants incorporate by reference all of their responses above as though fully 

repeated herein. 

119. In response to Paragraph 103 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that the 

’464 patent is entitled “Devices and Methods for a Rotating LIDAR platform with a Shared 

Transmit/Receive Path,” and was issued on March 15, 2016. Defendants lack knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of the remaining allegations of 

Paragraph 103, and on that basis deny them. 

120. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 104, and on that basis deny them. 
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 15

sf-3747177 

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 

121. The allegations of Paragraph 105 state legal conclusions and argument to which no 

response is required. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 105. 

122. Defendants deny all allegations of Paragraph 106. 

123. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 107. 

124. In response to Paragraph 108 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that they have 

developed LiDAR devices, but deny that they have infringed any of the claims of the ’464 patent. 

125. In response to Paragraph 109 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that they have 

developed LiDAR devices, but deny that they have infringed any of the claims of the ’464 patent. 

126. In response to Paragraph 110 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that they have 

developed LiDAR devices, but deny that they have infringed any of the claims of the ’464 patent. 

127. In response to Paragraph 111 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that they have 

developed LiDAR devices, but deny that they have infringed any of the claims of the ’464 patent. 

128. In response to Paragraph 112 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that they have 

developed LiDAR devices, but deny that they have infringed any of the claims of the ’464 patent. 

129. The allegations of Paragraph 113 state legal conclusions and argument to which no 

response is required. Defendants deny all remaining allegations of Paragraph 113. 

130. The allegations of Paragraph 114 state legal conclusions and argument to which no 

response is required. Defendants deny all allegations of Paragraph 114. 

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

[Alleged] Infringement of Patent No. 9,368,936

131. Defendants incorporate by reference all of their responses above as though fully 

repeated herein. 

132. In response to Paragraph 116 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that the 

’936 patent is entitled “Laser Diode Firing System,” and was issued on June 14, 2016. Defendants 

lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of the remaining 

allegations of Paragraph 116, and on that basis deny them. 

133. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 117, and on that basis deny them. 
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 16

sf-3747177 

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 

134. The allegations of Paragraph 118 state legal conclusions and argument to which no 

response is required. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 118. 

135. Defendants deny all allegations of Paragraph 119. 

136. In response to Paragraph 120 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that they have 

developed LiDAR devices, but deny that they have infringed any of the claims of the ’936 patent. 

137. In response to Paragraph 121 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that they have 

developed LiDAR devices, but deny that they have infringed any of the claims of the ’936 patent. 

138. In response to Paragraph 122 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that they have 

developed LiDAR devices, but deny that they have infringed any of the claims of the ’936 patent. 

139. In response to Paragraph 123 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that they have 

developed LiDAR devices, but deny that they have infringed any of the claims of the ’936 patent. 

140. In response to Paragraph 124 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that they have 

developed LiDAR devices, but deny that they have infringed any of the claims of the ’936 patent. 

141. In response to Paragraph 125 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that they have 

developed LiDAR devices, but deny that they have infringed any of the claims of the ’936 patent. 

142. In response to Paragraph 126 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that they have 

developed LiDAR devices, but deny that they have infringed any of the claims of the ’936 patent. 

143. In response to Paragraph 127 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that they have 

developed LiDAR devices, but deny that they have infringed any of the claims of the ’936 patent. 

144. In response to Paragraph 128 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that they have 

developed LiDAR devices, but deny that they have infringed any of the claims of the ’936 patent. 

145. The allegations of Paragraph 129 state legal conclusions and argument to which no 

response is required. Defendants deny all allegations of Paragraph 129. 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

[Alleged] Infringement of Patent No. 9,086,273

146. Defendants incorporate by reference all of their responses above as though fully 

repeated herein. 
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

sf-3747177 

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 

147. In response to Paragraph 131 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that the 

’273 patent is entitled “Microrod Compression of Laser Beam in Combination with Transmit 

Lens,” and was issued on July 21, 2015. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief regarding the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 131, and on that basis 

deny them. Plaintiff has indicated that it intends to withdraw its allegations of infringement of the 

’273 patent. 

148. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 132, and on that basis deny them. Plaintiff has indicated that 

it intends to withdraw its allegations of infringement of the ’273 patent.

149. The allegations of Paragraph 133 state legal conclusions and argument to which no 

response is required. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 133. Plaintiff has indicated 

that it intends to withdraw its allegations of infringement of the ’273 patent.

150. Defendants deny all allegations of Paragraph 134. Plaintiff has indicated that it 

intends to withdraw its allegations of infringement of the ’273 patent.

151. In response to Paragraph 135 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that they have 

developed LiDAR devices, but deny that they have infringed any of the claims of the ’273 patent. 

Plaintiff has indicated that it intends to withdraw its allegations of infringement of the ’273 patent.

152. In response to Paragraph 136 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that they have 

developed LiDAR devices, but deny that they have infringed any of the claims of the ’273 patent. 

Plaintiff has indicated that it intends to withdraw its allegations of infringement of the ’273 patent.

153. In response to Paragraph 137 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that they have 

developed LiDAR devices, but deny that they have infringed any of the claims of the ’273 patent. 

Plaintiff has indicated that it intends to withdraw its allegations of infringement of the ’273 patent.

154. In response to Paragraph 138 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that they have 

developed LiDAR devices, but deny that they have infringed any of the claims of the ’273 patent. 

Plaintiff has indicated that it intends to withdraw its allegations of infringement of the ’273 patent.
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 18

sf-3747177 

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 

155. In response to Paragraph 139 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that they have 

developed LiDAR devices, but deny that they have infringed any of the claims of the ’273 patent. 

Plaintiff has indicated that it intends to withdraw its allegations of infringement of the ’273 patent.

156. In response to Paragraph 140 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that they have 

developed LiDAR devices, but deny that they have infringed any of the claims of the ’273 patent. 

Plaintiff has indicated that it intends to withdraw its allegations of infringement of the ’273 patent.

157. The allegations of Paragraph 141 state legal conclusions and argument to which no 

response is required. Defendants deny all remaining allegations of Paragraph 141. Plaintiff has 

indicated that it intends to withdraw its allegations of infringement of the ’273 patent.

158. The allegations of Paragraph 142 state legal conclusions and argument to which no 

response is required. Defendants deny all allegations of Paragraph 142. Plaintiff has indicated 

that it intends to withdraw its allegations of infringement of the ’273 patent.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

[Alleged] Violation of California Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200

159. Defendants incorporate by reference all of their responses above as though fully 

repeated herein. 

160. The allegations of Paragraph 144 state legal conclusions and argument to which no 

response is required. Defendants deny all allegations of Paragraph 144. On June 8, 2017, the 

Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Seventh Cause of Action. 

161. The allegations of Paragraph 145 state legal conclusions and argument to which no 

response is required. Defendants deny all allegations of Paragraph 145. On June 8, 2017, the 

Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Seventh Cause of Action. 

162. The allegations of Paragraph 146 state legal conclusions and argument to which no 

response is required. Defendants deny all allegations of Paragraph 146. On June 8, 2017, the 

Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Seventh Cause of Action. 

163. The allegations of Paragraph 147 state legal conclusions and argument to which no 

response is required. Defendants deny all allegations of Paragraph 147. On June 8, 2017, the 

Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Seventh Cause of Action. 
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 19

sf-3747177 

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 

164. The allegations of Paragraph 148 state legal conclusions and argument to which no 

response is required. Defendants deny all allegations of Paragraph 148. On June 8, 2017, the 

Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Seventh Cause of Action. 

PLAINTIFF’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

165. Paragraphs 149 to 158 of the Complaint set forth a prayer for relief requested by 

the Plaintiff to which no response is required. For avoidance of doubt, Defendants deny that 

Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought, or to any other relief, against Defendants. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

166. Defendants demand a trial by jury of all issues in this action so triable. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

167. Defendants allege the following as separate and affirmative defenses to the 

Complaint. By virtue of having listed the following defenses, Defendants do not assume any 

legal or factual burden not otherwise assigned to them under law. 

First Affirmative Defense 

(Arbitration Agreement) 

168. Plaintiff’s trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition claims are barred 

by a valid and binding arbitration agreement. 

Second Affirmative Defense 

(Failure to State a Claim) 

169. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Third Affirmative Defense 

(No Trade Secret Misappropriation) 

170. Defendants did not misappropriate any alleged trade secrets from Plaintiff.

171. Waymo has not asserted any protectable trade secret information. 

Fourth Affirmative Defense 

(Non-Infringement of the Asserted Patent ’922) 

172. Defendants have not infringed any valid and enforceable claim of the ’922 patent, 

either directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 20

sf-3747177 

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 

Fifth Affirmative Defense 

(Non-Infringement of the Asserted Patent ’936) 

173. Defendants have not infringed any valid and enforceable claim of the ’936 patent, 

either directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 

Sixth Affirmative Defense 

(Non-infringement of the Asserted Patent ’273) 

174. Defendants have not infringed any valid and enforceable claim of the ’273 patent, 

directly, indirectly, contributorily, or by inducement. 

Seventh Affirmative Defense 

(Non-infringement of the Asserted Patent ’464) 

175. Defendants have not infringed any valid and enforceable claim of the ’464 patent, 

directly, indirectly, contributorily, or by inducement. 

Eighth Affirmative Defense 

(Invalidity of the Asserted Patent ’922) 

176. One or more claims of the ’922 patent are invalid and/or unenforceable for failure 

to meet the requirements of Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation 

Sections 102, 103, and/or 112. 

Ninth Affirmative Defense 

(Invalidity of the Asserted Patent ’936) 

177. One or more claims of the ’936 patent are invalid and/or unenforceable for failure 

to meet the requirements of Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation 

Sections 102, 103, and/or 112. 

Tenth Affirmative Defense 

(Invalidity of the Asserted Patent ’273) 

178. One or more claims of the ’273 patent are invalid and/or unenforceable for failure 

to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C., including without limitation §§ 102, 103, and/or 112. 
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 21

sf-3747177 

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 

Eleventh Affirmative Defense 

(Invalidity of the Asserted Patent ’464) 

179. One or more claims of the ’464 patent are invalid and/or unenforceable for failure 

to meet the requirements of Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation 

Sections 102, 103, and/or 112. 

Twelfth Affirmative Defense 

(No Unfair Competition) 

180. Plaintiff’s claim under California Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 is preempted by 

Plaintiff’s claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and California Uniform Trade Secret Act, 

Cal. Civ. Code § 3426 et seq. On June 8, 2017, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss 

the Seventh Cause of Action for alleged violation of California Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. 

Thirteenth Affirmative Defense 

(Estoppel) 

181. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by its own conduct, actions, and 

inactions, which give rise to estoppel as to all claims and relief sought. 

Fourteenth Affirmative Defense 

(Acquiescence) 

182. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of acquiescence. 

Fifteenth Affirmative Defense 

(Waiver) 

183. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of waiver. 

Sixteenth Affirmative Defense 

(License) 

184. On information and belief, some or all of Plaintiff’s products are licensed under 

the ’922, ’936, ’273, and ’464 patents, and/or are subject to the doctrines of patent exhaustion and 

expressed and/or implied license. 
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 22

sf-3747177 

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 

Seventeenth Affirmative Defense 

(Unavailability of Injunctive Relief) 

185. Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief because any injury to Plaintiff is not 

immediate and irreparable, Plaintiff would have an adequate remedy at law to the extent if proves 

any injury, the balance of hardships favors no injunction, and the public interest is best served by 

no injunction. 

Eighteenth Affirmative Defense 

(No Damages) 

186. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because has not suffered any damages as a result of 

Defendants’ conduct. 

Nineteenth Affirmative Defense 

(Speculative Damages) 

187. Plaintiff’s alleged damages, if any, are speculative and are not recoverable. 

Twenteenth Affirmative Defense 

(Failure to Mitigate)

188. Plaintiff’s alleged damages, if any, are not recoverable to the extent Plaintiff failed 

to mitigate them. 

Twenty-first Affirmative Defense 

(Mootness) 

189. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of mootness. 

Twenty-second Affirmative Defense 

(Lack of Standing) 

190. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff’s lack of standing. 

Twenty-third Affirmative Defense 

(Reservation of Rights) 

191. Defendants do not yet have knowledge of all facts and evidence surrounding this 

matter and, as a result, reserve their rights to amend their Answer to raise additional affirmative 

defenses as they are discovered. 
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 23

sf-3747177 

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 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment as follows: 

1. That Plaintiff takes nothing by this action; 

2. That judgment be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff; 

3. That Defendants be awarded their costs of suit; 

4. That Defendants be awarded their attorney’s fees incurred herein; and 

5. That the Court award Defendants such other and further relief as the Court may 

deem proper. 

Dated: June 22, 2017 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Arturo J. González

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

and OTTOMOTTO LLC