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

Case No.3:17-cv-00939 

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING 

LLC,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY 

KINTZ 

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT 

SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 1 of 38
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

I, Gregory Kintz, hereby declare as follows. 

1. I have been asked by counsel for Waymo LLC (“Waymo”) to provide an opinion as to 

whether Defendant Ottomotto LLC (“OttoMotto”), Defendant Otto Trucking LLC (“Otto Trucking”),1

or Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”, and collectively, “Defendants”), through the accused 

LiDAR devices, infringe United States Patent Nos. 8,836,922 (“the ’922 Patent”) and 9,285,464 (“the 

’464 Patent) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”). I have also been asked to provide an opinion on 

Waymo’s trade secrets incorporated into the accused LiDAR devices. The analysis and opinions 

contained in this declaration are based on the information currently available to me. I reserve the right 

to supplement and amend my opinions after further discovery. 

2. In addition to the materials I considered in my Original Declaration, I have considered 

the following materials for this Reply Declaration: 

 Transcripts of depositions taken pursuant to the Court’s order regarding expedited 

discovery (Dkt No. 61); 

 Documents produced by the parties pursuant to the Court’s order regarding 

expedited discovery (Dkt No. 61); 

 Defendant’s opposition to Waymo’s preliminary injunction, including the 

supporting declarations and materials cited therein; 

 A physical inspection of Defendants’ Fuji LiDAR device and Owl LiDAR device; 

 Photographs taken from an inspection of Defendants’ LiDAR device.

I. TRADE SECRETS DISCUSSED IN MY ORIGINAL DECLARATION 

3. In this section I address trade secrets discussed in my Original Declaration. 

Specifically, I respond in relevant part to the declarations of Drs. Paul McManamon and Michael 

Lebby, and also discuss evidence that has become available since I submitted my Original 

Declaration. 

 

1

 OttoMotto and Otto Trucking are sometimes collectively referred to as “Otto.” 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 2 of 38
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 3 of 38
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

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

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

4. As I wrote in my Original Declaration (Kintz Decl. ¶¶ 29-35), Waymo’s GBr3 

features

. The results in a 

 in the field of view that and a 

 in the field of view that . In addition, each 

diode is . These design features improve the 

“vision” of the LiDAR system by 

. Further, the Fuji PCB incorporates the 

concept of GBr3. 

5. Use by Defendants. My visual inspection of the Fuji device on April 11, 2017 

confirmed that the Fuji device features 

. Like the GBr3 device, the 

 in the Fuji device results in a 

 that and a 

are used in the field of view that . Below are photographs from my 

physical inspection that illustrate this specific . 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 4 of 38
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

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

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

(Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 93, UBER00006245.) 

6. Neither Dr. McManamon nor Dr. Lebby denies that the Fuji system uses this 

design. Documentary evidence produced by Uber confirms that the Fuji device features 

. Exhibit B to Mr. Haslim’s declaration shows the 

in the Fuji device, referenced to 

. (Haslim Decl. Ex. B.) Using as an example, the 

between . (Id.) 

7. Qualification as Trade Secret. Dr. McManamon cites two references that he 

opines disclose that Waymo claims as a trade secret. 

However, as most clearly stated in Trade Secret No. 1, 

 (TS List No. 1.) Neither of Dr. 

McManamon’s two cited references discloses this feature. 

8. Dr. McManamon’s first cited reference is Mundhenk et al., “PanDAR: A widearea, frame-rate, and full color LIDAR with foveated region using backfilling interpolation 

upsampling.” Dr. McManamon claims that this is an application of the well-known optical 

concept called foveated vision. I agree that PanDAR implements the concept of foveated vision, 

i.e., the concept of “[h]aving greater resolution in the middle of the field of view.” (McManamon 

Decl. ¶ 51.) The PanDAR system, however, achieved this by stacking two Velodyne 32E LiDAR 

systems on top of each other, resulting in more beams in the middle of the field of view. This is 

distinct from an approach in which 

. Indeed, Dr. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 5 of 38
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

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

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

McManamon agreed at his deposition that the approach taught by the PanDAR system did not use 

Waymo’s approach:

 

 

 

(Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 83, 4/19/2017 McManamon Depo. Tr. 57:25-58:14.) Adding further 

support to my opinion that the “dual stacked” Velodyne approach used by the PanDAR system is 

distinct from Waymo’s is the fact that 

in favor of the 

approach misappropriated from Waymo. (See Boehmke Decl. ¶¶ 9-11, 14-16, Ex. H at 5.) 

9. Unlike the design taught by the PanDAR reference, Waymo’s 

, resulting in 

, not at the middle of the field of view as 

would be the case if Waymo had just been applying the principle of foveated vision. Accordingly, 

I disagree with Dr. McManamon that this trade secret is simply an implementation of foveated 

vision. Instead, it is one of Waymo’s particular solutions to the problem of sensing for selfdriving car applications.

10. Dr. McManamon also relies on U.S. Patent No. 8,767,190 to Velodyne. However, 

this patent discloses placing one laser diode per PCB and mounting 32 PCBs on a frame, with 

even angular spacing between each laser diode. It then teaches varying the overall beam density

of the system “by simply removing or not installing any desired number of emitter/detector pairs.” 

(’190 patent at 6:49-50.) The patent does not teach 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 6 of 38
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

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

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

; rather, it simply says that in some applications the designer may want 

to save costs by reducing the overall number of emitter/detector pairs that the system employs. It 

does not say that the density should be adjusted to and it does 

not teach any other specific pattern. The patent also recognizes that reducing the overall density

reduces the vertical resolution of the system, which the ’190 patent explains may be acceptable for 

some applications that do not require high resolution but require cheaper sensors. (’190 patent at 

6:50-52.) The ’190 patent therefore is best understood as teaching a tradeoff between overall 

system resolution and cost. By contrast, Waymo’s solution 

 At his deposition, Dr. McManamon 

admitted that he did not cite a specific disclosure from the ’190 patent describing 

. (Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 83, 4/19/2017 McManamon Depo. Tr. 61:9-12.)

11. Dr. McManamon’s annotated Figure 5 of the ’190 patent, at paragraph 57 of his 

declaration and reproduced below, does not appear in the patent itself and does not correspond to 

any specific embodiment disclosed by the patent. Rather, Dr. McManamon has simply attempted 

to use hindsight to annotate Figure 5 so that it superficially resembles the 

.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 7 of 38
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

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

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

12. Dr. McManamon’s annotated Figure 5 also does not accurately depict Waymo’s 

solution to the problem, apparently copied by the Fuji design. Removing certain diodes from 

certain boards results not only in decreased resolution as discussed above, but also results in zones 

of constant angular spacing. This is because the ’190 patent, one-diode per PCB design, is 

fundamentally based on the In other 

words, because to the extent another PCB is removed, the designer 

eventually reaches a point where the This is illustrated in 

Dr. McManamon’s annotated Figure 5 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 8 of 38
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- Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

 Even the ’190 patent’s passing suggestion (at 6:61-7:7) of placing several 

emitters per board does not remove the inherent limitation on the system that results from having 

the boards themselves as . 

13. Waymo’s designs, by contrast, are not so restricted, with 

. By using 

in accordance with the constraints imposed by the 

, as is the case in the Velodyne ’190 patent), Waymo 

(and Uber) are able to achieve . 

14. Dr. Lebby briefly opines (Lebby Decl. ¶¶ 38-39) that the of the 

GBr3 laser diodes is well-known and has previously been used in LiDAR systems. Dr. Lebby

cites the same references (the PanDAR reference and the ’190 patent) as Dr. McManamon, and I 

disagree with Dr. Lebby’s opinion for the same reasons I disagree with Dr. McManamon’s 

opinion regarding the same subject, as discussed above. In addition, I note that the two images 

provided in paragraph 61 of Dr. Lebby’s declaration depicting a GBr3 and a Fuji transmit board 

look very similar, suggesting direct or derivative use of Waymo’s 

trade secret in the Fuji design.

15. Other than Waymo and Uber’s LiDAR systems, I am not aware of any other 

LiDAR system that includes 

. My opinion therefore remains that Waymo’s unique 

is a trade secret and that Uber uses that trade secret. 

16. Uber did not independently develop . I understand 

that Dr. McManamon contends that Uber independently developed the of the Fuji

system based on work by Mr. Boehmke prior to Uber’s acquisition of Anthony Levandowski’s 

company Otto. (McManamon Decl. ¶¶ 41-48.) For the reasons set forth below, I believe these

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 9 of 38
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

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

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

conclusions are flawed, and I have seen no evidence that Mr. Boehmke independently developed 

the 

for the Fuji system.

17. Dr. McManamon opines that , Mr. 

Boehmke worked on developing for Uber’s self-driving 

cars.” (McManamon Decl. ¶ 43.) Dr. McManamon further opines that in 

, Mr. Boehmke “pulled together the design options he previously considered” and developed 

the “ ” and that the “positioning and orientation of the diodes on 

the transmit board of the Fuji design” were ultimately “based” on Mr. Boehmke’s work. (Id. ¶ 

48.) However, Dr. McManamon explained at his deposition that 

. (Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 83, 4/19/2017 McManamon Depo. Tr. at 

45:17-47:4.)

18. I also note that the neither Mr. Boehmke nor Mr. Haslim ever unequivocally state 

in their declarations that Mr. Boehmke’s work (at any time) was the basis for the current Fuji 

design. The most Mr. Boehmke is willing to say is that 

that he prepared on (Ex. I) was “provided to” James Haslim and 

that Mr. Boehmke “understand[s] that James [Haslim] and his team used the data in this summary 

to generate the initial optical cavity designs and transmit PCBs designs for the Fuji design.” 

(Boehmke Decl. ¶ 18.) Mr. Haslim also states that he “understands” Mr. Boehmke to have 

provided such information. (Haslim Decl. ¶ 6.) But, Mr. Haslim never explains how—or even 

whether—the information provided by Mr. Boehmke was used. Later, Mr. Haslim states that 

Exhibit B to his declaration “is a true and correct copy of the 

” of the Fuji system, but here he makes no connection between 

Exhibit B and any of the work that Mr. Boehmke allegedly provided in . (Id. ¶ 

15.) 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 10 of 38
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- Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

19. Based on my independent analysis of the evidence, I conclude that the 

of the Fuji design could not have been independently developed by Mr. 

Boehmke prior to his exposure to Otto, because the designs Mr. Boehmke was considering at this 

time were very different. For example, the depicted at paragraph 8 of the 

Boehmke Declaration and at paragraph 43 of the McManamon Declaration do not show a 

, but rather 

. While the 

, they are . 

Also the in the sense that the 

. As discussed 

previously, this type of is distinct from the 

that Waymo claims as a trade secret and which Uber is currently using in its Fuji design. 

20. I also note that there is no corroborating evidence that between November 2015 to 

March 2016, Mr. Boehmke ever considered positioning . 

While the figure shown at paragraph 12 of Mr. Boehmke’s declaration shows lasers being emitted 

from a curved source, it is possible this figure merely corresponds to an approach similar to that 

described in the ‘190 patent, with an array of evenly spaced, one-diode PCBs, which themselves 

are positioned within a curved frame. Again, as previously discussed, this is distinct from 

Waymo’s concept and the current Fuji design of 

. 

21. The first document provided by Mr. Boehmke that shows any recognition of the 

ability to is Exhibit H which is dated . Here, 

Mr. Boehmke describes, that would involve 

 (Boehmke Decl. Ex. H at 10.) In this document, Mr. Boehmke describes 

 (Id.) 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 11 of 38
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

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

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

22. Importantly, at around this same time, I have reviewed documents produced by 

Uber that indicate Mr. Boehmke’s “ was developed 

at time that he and Uber were collaborating with Otto and Mr. Levandowski in particular. For 

example, on 

 (Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 72, 

UBER00008543.) Subsequent documents show that Mr. Boehmke, Mr. Levandowski, and others 

at Otto were working closely on designs . (Jaffe Reply Decl. 

Ex. 98, UBER00008553; Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 99, UBER00008557; Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 97, 

UBER00008494.) 

23. For all of these reasons, I disagree that the evidence shows that Uber independently 

developed the trade secret in the Fuji design. In my opinion, the 

available evidence does not directly indicate how or where Uber derived this concept, confirming 

my earlier opinion that it was derived from Uber’s exposure to Waymo’s confidential trade secrets 

through both Otto and Mr. Levandowski. 

24. As I wrote 

optimal spacing and, to preserve between the on the 

receive block and the on the transmit block, Waymo used in the 

transmit block. (Droz Decl. ¶ 22; TS List Nos. 2-3.) Waymo determined that the 

included on each of the and on each of 

the . (TS List No. 3.) is a trade secret. (TS List Nos. 

2-3.) 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 12 of 38
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- Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

25. Use by Defendants. Defendants have confirmed that, like GBr3, the Fuji LiDAR 

uses , and that contain and 

contain . (Haslim Decl. ¶ 13.)

26. Dr. Lebby opines that Defendants’ Fuji LiDAR system does not make use of 

Waymo’s Trade Secret Nos. 2 and 3. First, with respect to Trade Secret No. 2, Dr. Lebby takes a

very narrow view of what , arguing that the 

, and that because of this, the are really 

 (Lebby Decl. ¶¶ 29-45.) The Fuji system, as a whole, , and 

viewed as a there is 

. In that , as Dr. Lebby recognizes, there are distributed 

across , with . (Lebby Decl. ¶ 44.) 

Accordingly, it is my opinion that the Fuji system practices or at least is derived from Trade Secret 

No. 2, which requires a transmit block comprised of , with 

.

27. Even under Dr. Lebby’s narrow view, it is still my opinion that the Fuji device uses

Trade Secret List No. 2. The Fuji device simply takes the and 

while still maintaining the same number of and the same distribution of 

. At most, this is a minor modification derived from Waymo’s trade secret 

design that does not change the fundamental arrangement of components. 

28. Next. Dr. Lebby takes the view that Uber’s Fuji system does not use Trade Secret 

No. 3 because it arranges its in rather than in 

. However, this too is only a minor modification in the arrangement 

that does not change the fact that Defendants have derived their design from Waymo’s trade 

secret. It is my understanding that minor modifications, elaborations, or even improvements 

cannot absolve the Defendants from liability if the ultimate design is derived from Waymo’s trade 

secret information. Uber has not provided any explanation or analysis to show that simply 

changes the fundamental operation of the overall device, and I 

am not aware of any. Nor have Defendants provided any evidence to rebut my view that this 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 13 of 38
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

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

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

design is simply the result of starting with the configuration claimed in Trade Secret 3 and slightly 

.

29. Qualification as Trade Secret. Dr. Lebby further opines that a 

is just one of the few workable configurations for the transmit block of any . 

(Lebby Decl. ¶ 30.) 

30. In my opinion, Dr. Lebby’s analysis generally relies on hindsight, starting from his 

knowledge of Waymo’s trade secrets to reason that those trade secrets were “one of a few 

workable configurations.” (Lebby Decl. ¶ 30.) It is clear that Waymo’s specific solution to the 

problem of optimizing a LiDAR system for self-driving car applications is not generally known to 

the public or in the field, and Dr. Lebby has not cited evidence to show that any has or would 

arrive at Waymo’s specific designs. Dr. Lebby’s attempt to discount the relevance of alternative 

arrangements of as not ideal (Lebby Decl. ¶ 33) is not supported by the 

evidence. In fact, James Haslim explained in his declaration that 

) and 

. (Haslim Decl. ¶ 11.) Waymo’s GBr2 design used . 

The fact that Waymo’s solution placed and is a novel and 

unexpected design and therefore a valuable trade secret, as outlined in my Original Declaration. 

(Kintz Decl. ¶¶ 36-43.)

31. Dr. Lebby’s reliance on Xingsheng Liu’s “Packaging of High Power 

Semiconductor Lasers” is misplaced. Liu’s textbook is addressed to general principles of 

semiconductor laser packaging and does not specifically relate to LiDAR or other optical laser 

system design. Indeed, as a person of skill in the art of laser-based optical mapping systems, I 

would have referenced such semiconductor packaging literature for general principles but would 

not draw from such references any conclusions regarding what was possible or feasible in 

implementing the detailed design for a complex laser-based optical system such as a LiDAR 

system. 

32. As outlined by Liu, semiconductor packaging involves placing the thin patterned 

semiconductor material that makes up an integrated circuit (i.e., the chips), such as a laser diode 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 14 of 38
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- Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

chip, together with components in a package that can be used as part of a larger circuit, with 

cathodes and anodes for making connections from the chip to the larger circuit in which the chip 

will be used. For example, this is depicted in Figures 2.1 and 2.2 of Liu:

33. As Liu explains, a laser diode package could include laser bars (such as depicted in 

Figure 2.17) or laser stacks (such as depicted in Figure 2.27). 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 15 of 38
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

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

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

34. As Dr. Lebby noted in his deposition, laser bars are “a single piece of 

semiconductor.” (Jaffe Reply Decl., Ex. 84, Lebby Depo. Tr. at 52:21-22.) Moreover, packaged 

laser bars, and packaged laser stacks composed of multiple laser bars stacked on top of each other, 

are not “singulated” emitters, in that they do not produce a single output beam but instead produce 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 16 of 38
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

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

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

separate lines (Jaffe Reply Decl., Ex. 84, Lebby Depo. Tr. at 52:23-53:1), as depicted in Figures 

5.4(b) and 5.6 of Liu, reproduced below. 

, as Dr. Lebby recognized in his deposition. (Jaffe Reply Decl., Ex. 84, Lebby 

Depo. Tr. at 53:2-4.) 

35. Nowhere does Liu teach what I have seen in both Waymo’s GBr design and Uber’s 

Fuji system, namely the 

. In fact, nowhere does Liu use the word “PCB” or “board,” which was Dr. 

Lebby’s own word used to describe the laser stack in Liu Figure 5.5 noted in his deposition. (Jaffe 

Reply Decl. 84, Lebby Depo. Tr. at 52:15-17.) This is not surprising, as Liu is not directed to the 

use of laser diodes in optical systems such as a LiDAR system, but is directed merely to packaging 

laser diodes for potential subsequent use in larger circuits. Indeed, Waymo’s GBr3 Tx Board 

Engineering Requirements Specification document describes 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 17 of 38
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

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

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

 (P. 6.) Other than GBr and Fuji, I have 

not seen an optical system use .

36. Accordingly, Dr. Lebby’s reliance on Figure 5.5 of Liu, in which a laser stack is 

depicted, is misplaced. Figure 5.5 depicts laser bars stacked directly on top of each other, with the 

anode of the top-most stack serving as the cathode of the middle stack and the anode of the middle 

stack serving as the cathode o the bottom stack. Figure 5.5 does not teach anything about using 

, in which the stacking does not provide the 

electrical connections to the laser diodes and requires use of the proprietary 

developed by Waymo. 

37. As I stated in my Original Declaration (Kintz. Decl. ¶¶ 44-48), Waymo’s 

completed PCB design files for are proprietary design specifications from which 

Defendants most likely adapted the Fuji PCB designs. 

38. Use by Defendants. Dr. Lebby opines that it is not reasonable to infer that the Fuji 

PCB was adapted from Waymo’s PCB design files. (Lebby Decl. ¶¶ 59-62). I disagree. Dr. 

Lebby states that the , but makes no 

attempt to quantify this statement. Thus, he does not counter my opinion that the Fuji PCB 

appears to be of the GBr3 design files downloaded by Anthony Levandowski. 

As previously stated, I compared the against the Fuji PCB by 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 18 of 38
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

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

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

and measuring the by 

each PCB. The ratio of the 

 Stated a different way, for each PCB, the ratio between the 

distance to the 

. (Kintz Decl. ¶ 47.) This demonstrates that the Fuji PCB 

to mimic the of the Waymo board, 

.

39. Qualification as Trade Secret. Neither Dr. McManamon nor Dr. Lebby dispute 

that Waymo’s detailed design schematics are confidential Waymo trade secrets.

40. As I stated in my Original Declaration (Kintz Decl. ¶¶ 49-53), Waymo positions its 

, rather than . Known 

LiDAR systems strive to for heat 

dissipation, but Waymo to ensure that

, while at the same time allowing space to 

to both with respect to the plane of the PCB. 

(TS List Nos. 7, 9.) 

41. Use by Defendants. Dr. Lebby does not deny that the Fuji PCB 

. At Dr. Lebby’s deposition, he testified that based on his discussion with Uber engineer 

James Haslim, . (Jaffe 

Reply Decl. 84, Lebby Depo. Tr. at 58:16-23; see also Jaffe Reply Decl. 68, Haslim Depo. Tr. at 

64:49.) This (which is atypical in the field) is the same amount that the 

in Waymo’s system. Thus, Defendants are not simply using Waymo’s 

trade secret, they are

 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 19 of 38
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- Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

42. Qualification as Trade Secret. Dr. Lebby opines that 

“is a known design choice” and therefore cannot be a trade secret. (Lebby 

Decl. ¶¶ 46-51.) However, Dr. Lebby again relies on the Liu textbook, as well as a 2007 

dissertation (Christian Scholz, Thermal and Mechanical Optimization of Diode Laser Bar 

Packaging), in the field of semiconductor laser packaging. Again, as an optical engineer, I would 

consult semiconductor laser packaging literature for only general principles and would not draw 

from such references any conclusions regarding what was possible or feasible in implementing the 

detailed design for a complex laser-based optical system such as a LiDAR system. Also, I have 

seen no evidence that Uber or Otto relied on this or any other similar publications to design their 

LiDAR system. Indeed, Scholz shows that the laser bar packaging to which the dissertation is 

directed is three steps removed from the application, such as building a LiDAR system, and is 

closer to (and one step away from) semiconductor wafer chip technology.

43. Moreover, both Liu and the Scholz dissertation teach away from using significant 

. Indeed, as Dr. Lebby notes, Liu describes as undesirable 

features in semiconductor packaging. (Lebby Decl. ¶ 49.) However, Dr. Lebby omits Figure 

7.50, showing Liu’s from his 

declaration. I reproduce that Figure below. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 20 of 38
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

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

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

44. The Scholz dissertation also does not teach Waymo’s trade secret of 

. Scholz discusses laser bars (i.e., strips of 

semiconductor material containing rows of laser diode emitters) of the heat sink 

when packaging it all together. However, Scholz notes that the 

which again teaches away from the trade secret. As discussed above, however, both 

Waymo’s GBr3 LiDAR system and Uber’s Fuji LiDAR system 

on which they are mounted. This is 

45. I also note that Dr. Lebby ignores the additional very important benefit of 

described in my Original Declaration, which is that it enables 

, which is directly relevant to LiDAR applications. (Kintz Decl. 

¶ 50.)

46. As I stated in my Original Declaration (Kintz. Decl. ¶¶ 54-55), Waymo specifies 

that in each PCB. A through 

ensures that , and Waymo directs for its laser diodes to be 

positioned . (Id.) Thus, must be placed with maximum precision. 

47. Use by Defendants. Dr. Lebby does not deny that Defendants 

 In addition, Waymo engineer Asheem Linaval 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 21 of 38
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

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

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

testified that the Fuji PCB contains 

 (Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 65, Linaval Depo. Trans. at 59:4-12.) 

48. Dr. Lebby stated that the Fuji PCB uses 

 (Lebby Decl. ¶ 58.) However, Exhibit B to the 

Haslim Declaration discloses

 (Haslim Decl. Ex. B.) These points are referenced 

 (Id.) This tells me that Defendants use

—one of which is squarely within Waymo’s trade secret 

design.

49. Qualification as Trade Secret. Dr. Lebby opines that “the concept of 

and positioning laser 

diodes ” is not a trade secret because neither of these concepts are trade 

secrets. (Lebby Decl. ¶¶ 52-58.) In my opinion, Dr. Lebby mischaracterizes the nature of this 

trade secret. This trade secret is formulated as 

 (TS List No. 14.) This 

trade secret is an comprised of three elements: (1) 

; (2) using for placement of 

the laser diodes; and (3) . Dr. Lebby 

attempts to divide this trade secret into its component parts and claim that each component part 

was known, but the trade secret as practiced by Waymo is the combination of all elements in one 

technique for . 

50. None of the references cited by Dr. Lebby are in the field of LiDAR, and none of 

the references disclose the unique combination of elements into a technique for 

as claimed by Waymo so as to maintain the precise 

 relative to each other notwithstanding significant 

for PCBs. As Waymo engineer Pierre-Yves Droz 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 22 of 38
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

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

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

explained in his deposition, this trade secret is about 

. (Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 90, Droz 

Depo. Tr. at 129:10-131:16.) The references Dr. Lebby cites do not achieve this important result.

51. Specifically, U.S. Patent No. 4,244,109 discloses only holes for mounting a single 

PCB onto a frame. (’109 patent at 1:66-68.) Nowhere does it disclose more than one PCB, much 

less 

, as required by this trade secret. Indeed, Dr. Lebby testified that the 

’109 patent shows only one printed circuit board. (Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 84, Lebby Depo. Tr. at 

69:15-19.) 

52. The German patent application No. DE 3031103 does not disclose 

, nor is it in the field of LiDAR or even in 

the wider optics field. Instead, it discloses holes made under solder bosses or tracks on PCBs so 

that, “[w]hen the translucent multi-layer board is held up against a strong light source, the 

positions of the solder bosses relative to the bored holes can be clearly seen.” (DE 3031103 at 

Abstract.) This describes a visual alignment technique, which would be less than ideal in a 

LiDAR system requiring 

, as required by this trade secret. Dr. 

Lebby testified that the German patent application 

 (Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 84, Lebby Depo. Tr. 73:14.)

53. Finally, U.S. Patent No. 4,432,037, which is also not in the LiDAR or optics fields, 

discloses only the use of “location holes which fix a reference point” as well as “a reference line” 

to position conductive patterns on a single PCB. (’037 patent at 1:57-60.) Nowhere does it 

disclose 

54. Accordingly, the technique for 

is 

Waymo’s unique solution to the problem of to each 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 23 of 38
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

-24- Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

other while and is thus Waymo’s trade 

secret.

II. TRADE SECRETS NOT DISCUSSED IN MY ORIGINAL DECLARATION 

55. In this section I address trade secrets that I did not discuss in my Original 

Declaration. I discuss them in my Reply Declaration because new evidence has become available 

since March 10, 2017. I note that this list of trade secrets is not exhaustive, and I reserve the right 

to analyze and offer opinions about additional trade secrets as further evidence is provided. 

 

56. Use by Defendants. My visual inspection of the Uber Fuji device confirmed that 

Uber is using 

. This is apparent from the fact that , and 

ensure that the diode is . 

57. Qualification as Trade Secret. Positioning the such that they are 

is not generally known in the relevant field. As discussed earlier, 

PCB diodes for LiDAR applications almost always are positioned such that the 

by some distance. A placement that is 

has independent economic value because it allows 

and thus avoid having a portion of their 

. 

58. Use by Defendants. Defendants do not deny that the Fuji LiDAR uses 

. Further, my visual inspection of the Fuji device confirmed 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 24 of 38
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- Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

that such on the Fuji board such that they are 

. As is evident from the photographs below, 

.

(Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 95, UBER00006248.) 

(Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 96, UBER00006251.) 

59. In order to accommodate the , the must be configured within 

a larger . Such a requires a 

to ensure that the 

. As shown below, the overall shape and configuration 

of the in Uber’s Fuji design is nearly identical to that of Waymo’s design, indicating 

that the same is being employed by Uber.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 25 of 38
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

-26- Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

Uber’s Waymo’s 

(Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 106, UBER00011612 (left); Jaffe Opening Decl. Ex. 2 at 15 (right)),. 

60. Indeed, based on documents produced in this case, it is now clear that as early as 

, Otto engineers, with the involvement of Mr. Levandowski, contacted —

Waymo’s confidential vendor for 

 (Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 104, UBER00011613.) In fact, 

 (Id.) By , engineers at 

Otto 

 (Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 105, UBER00011263.) This evidence confirms that Uber 

is using Waymo’s claimed trade secret 10. 

61. Qualification as Trade Secret. The for Waymo’s 

qualifies as a trade secret. Providing a for each 

requires a . Indeed, neither the 

Hamamatsu design, nor the Liu design cited by Dr. Lebby as characteristic of the prior art teach or 

suggest the required to accommodate the in Waymo’s unique 

PCB configuration. The public domain cited by Dr. Lebby are , that 

appear to be simply . 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 26 of 38
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

-27- Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

62. Waymo’s , on the other hand, requires a 

in order to ensure each is capable of precisely 

aligning the with its . The use of such a 

is atypical in the field, and would therefore not be generally known. It is 

therefore no surprise that the Otto engineers 

.

63. Waymo’s manufacturing process for a also derives independent 

economic value from not generally being known in the field. The results in 

. Moreover, 

the design allows for 

. 

64. Use by Defendants. My visual inspection of the Fuji device confirmed the high 

likelihood that Defendants use this trade secret. This trade secret involves a technique for 

. In order to ensure proper alignment of the 

optical components, the PCBs must generally 

. Thus, Waymo developed a 

of their corresponding PCB. These thus ensure that the PCBs are 

precisely spaced and positioned. 

65. During my physical inspection on April 11, 2017, I observed 

. The objects do not appear to be 

 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 27 of 38
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

-28- Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

(Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 94, UBER00006246.)

66. Qualification as Trade Secret. This trade secret is not generally known in the 

relevant field of technology. I am not aware of any other LiDAR system that uses such 

in order to ensure proper alignment of the optical equipment. Waymo’s trade secret also 

derives independent economic value because it simplifies the assembly of the LiDAR devices and 

avoids the painstaking process of having to precisely align individual optical components. This 

technique provides Waymo a competitive advantage over competitors having no knowledge of the 

technique. 

67. Use by Defendants. Evidence produced since the filing of my original declaration 

confirms that the Defendants use this trade secret. First, an email chain between Anthony 

Levandowski, , and others demonstrates that as early as 

 (Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 

100, UBER00011242.) In the first email of the chain, 

 (Id.) In a follow up email, 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 28 of 38
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

-29- Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

 

(Id.) 

 (Id.)

68. My inspection of Uber’s Fuji device confirmed that it is using Trade Secret No. 19. 

allows the device to

including the motherboard housed in 

the fixed portion of the device. (Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 110, UBER00006261.)

69. I note that Dr. McManamon addressed this trade secret, but did not dispute that 

Uber uses it. (McManamon Decl. ¶ 63.) 

70. Qualification as Trade Secret. This trade secret is not generally known in the 

relevant field of technology. I am not aware of any other LiDAR system that includes a 

. Dr. McManamon’s 

declaration states that this design is “commonplace,” but does not cite any evidence to support that 

argument. (McManamon Decl. ¶ 63.) I disagree with Dr. McManamon’s characterization.

71. Waymo’s trade secret also derives independent economic value because it allows 

Waymo’s LiDAR system to 

without interfering with the device’s ability to rotate and therefore take 360-degree 

measurements. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 29 of 38
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

-30- Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

72. Use by Defendants. My review of the relevant documentation in this case, 

including documents produced by Uber indicates a high likelihood that Uber has or is currently 

using Google’s trade secret concepts relating to 

73. As part of its next generation hybrid medium- and long- range LiDAR system, 

Waymo developed a specific design involving a 

is depicted in, for example, 

the schematic provided below:

(Jaffe Opening Decl. Ex. 18 at 7.) 

74. Uber’s document production indicates that Odin Wave (a predecessor to Tyto 

LiDAR, which was subsequently acquired by Otto) was developing schematics involving a similar 

. For example, the schematic 

shown at UBER00005076 

 These documents therefore indicate that Odin 

Wave/Tyto LiDAR was developing the same as was being 

developed at Waymo. was then made available to Otto and Uber as its schematics 

were produced from Uber’s custodial files. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 30 of 38
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

-31- Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

(Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 92, UBER00005076 (left), UBER00005077 (right).)

75. A physical inspection of Uber’s “ LiDAR device provides further support 

for my conclusion that Uber acquired, and was seeking to leverage, Waymo’s 

 Although I have not yet had the opportunity to 

personally inspect the device, photographs from an April 19, 2017 inspection, such as those 

set forth below, indicate that this device is using 

(Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 101, UBER00011676 (left); Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 107, UBER00011678

(right).)

76. Additionally, to implement like that described in 

Waymo’s documents and embodied by Uber’s system, a person of skill in the art would 

understand that it would be desirable to 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 31 of 38
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

-32- Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

 Waymo 

Trade Secret No. 48 relates to Waymo’s time and effort to discover the appropriate 

 

77. The documents produced in this case show that Otto/Uber is seeking to leverage 

Waymo’s research into . For example, , in response to an 

email regarding , Anthony Levandowski responded 

 Otto engineer Sameer Khirshagar testified at his deposition that Mr. Levandowski was 

used in 

Uber’s “ ” LiDAR system. (Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 91, Khirshagar Dep. at 34:6-37:4.) 

78. Qualification as Trade Secret. Waymo’s 

implemented with an is unique, and not generally known 

in the relevant field. Waymo’s implementation requires a using 

and it is 

that allow the 

79. Waymo’s technique enabled by its 

derives independent economic value by virtue of the fact that it is not generally known in 

the field. Achieving this greatly simplifies the overall circuitry 

and makes the design less expensive. Moreover, the use of allows 

 The ability to design a LiDAR device leveraging this technology is a competitive 

advantage to the extent that others in the relevant field do not possess the knowledge of Google 

circuit design and approach. 

III. THE ’922 AND ’464 PATENTS 

80. Since my Original Declaration, I have inspected the Fuji system and reviewed the 

limited technical documentation made available by Defendants related to that system. While I 

believe my original opinions were reasonable based on the information then available, the newly 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 32 of 38
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

-33- Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

provided information requires me to withdraw my opinion that the Fuji system infringes the ’922 

and ’464 patents. I reserve the right to re-allege that this system infringes these patents at a later 

date if new evidence becomes available supporting such an opinion. 

81. Since my original declaration, Defendants have produced documents and testimony 

regarding another of their LiDAR designs, called . I have not yet had an opportunity to 

personally inspect the device, but I have reviewed available documentation, deposition 

testimony, and photographs of the system in forming my opinions herein. 

82. As discussed in my original declaration, Otto filed a submission with the Nevada 

Department of Motor Vehicles on September 19, 2016, indicating that is was developing and/or 

deploying an “In-house custom built 64-laser (Class 1) emitting 6.4 million beams a second at 10 

Hz.” It is my opinion that this device most likely corresponds to the device that the 

Defendants recently made available for inspection. Like the device described in the Nevada 

submission, the device is designed to include positions 

. The , and are 

considered . I understand Defendants have represent that the device was 

designed to rather than 6.4 million as disclosed in the Nevada 

submission; however, it would not be surprising if Otto changed this target over time, or increased 

the rotational frequency of the device in order to obtain a comparable amount of data. The 

development timeline for the and Fuji devices supports my conclusion that the Nevada 

submission was referring to the device. Otto filed the submission on September 19, 2016, 

and according to Mr. Haslim and Mr. Boehmke, Uber did not begin working on the Fuji device 

until late October 2016. Accordingly, is the only device that I am aware of Otto 

developing at the time of the Nevada submission. 

83. My opinion is that the available evidence suggests that there is a high likelihood 

system 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 33 of 38
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

-34- Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

 (Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 68, Haslim Dep. at 45:22-48:15; Jaffe 

Reply Decl. Ex. 67, Boehmke Dep. at 44:8-45:14.) 

(Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 88, UBER00011654.) 

84. Thus, it is my opinion that the system infringes at least one claim of each the 

’922 and ’464 patents, as shown in the exemplary claim charts set forth below. 

’922 Patent

Claim 1 Element Evidence

a lens mounted to a housing, wherein the 

housing is configured to rotate about an axis 

and has an interior space that includes a 

transmit block, a receive block, a transmit 

path, and a receive path, wherein the transmit 

block has an exit aperture in a wall that 

comprises a reflective surface, wherein the 

receive block has an entrance aperture, 

wherein the transmit path extends from the 

exit aperture to the lens, and wherein the 

receive path extends from the lens to the 

entrance aperture via the reflective surface;

(Boehmke Decl. Ex. H at 14 

(“Rotate assembly at 20Hz”) (Mr. Boehmke 

testified that 

.” (Jaffe 

Reply Decl. Ex. 67, Boehmke Depo. Tr. at 

58:21-22.)); (Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 87, 

UBER00011631.)

(Jaffe Reply Decl. 

Ex. 64, Pennecot Depo. Tr. at 36:16-25.) 

(Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 

68, Haslim Depo. Tr. at 47:9-19; Jaffe Reply 

Decl. Ex. 67, Boehmke Depo. Tr. at 44:8-

45:14; Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 82, Gruver Depo. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 34 of 38
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

-35- Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

Tr. at 67:15-22; Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 64, 

Pennecot Depo. Tr. at 37:1-13.)

a plurality of light sources in the transmit 

block, wherein the plurality of light sources 

are configured to emit a plurality of light 

beams through the exit aperture in a plurality 

of different directions, the light beams 

comprising light having wavelengths in a 

wavelength range;

(Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 

68, Haslim Depo. Tr. at 46:18-20.)

 (Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 82, Gruver 

Depo. Tr. at 68:5-15); (Boehmke Decl. Ex. H 

at 13-14.)

a plurality of detectors in the receive block, 

wherein the plurality of detectors are 

configured to detect light having wavelengths 

in the wavelength range; and

(Jaffe 

Reply Decl. Ex. 68, Haslim Depo. Tr. at

45:25-46:1; Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 82, Gruver 

Depo. Tr. at 68:5-15); (Boehmke Decl. Ex. H 

at 13.)

wherein the lens is configured to receive the 

light beams via the transmit path, collimate 

the light beams for transmission into an 

environment of the LIDAR device, collect 

light comprising light from one or more of 

the collimated light beams reflected by one or 

more objects in the environment of the 

LIDAR device, and focus the collected light 

onto the detectors via the receive path.

(Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 68, Haslim 

Depo. Tr. at 47:9-19; Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 

67, Boehmke Depo. Tr. at 44:8-45:14; Jaffe 

Reply Decl. Ex. 82, Gruver Depo. Tr. at 

67:23-68:4.)

: (Jaffe 

Reply Decl. Ex. 88, UBER00011654.) 

’464 Patent

Claim 1 Element Evidence

a lens mounted to a housing, wherein the 

housing is configured to rotate about an axis 

and has an interior space that includes a 

transmit block, a receive block, a transmit

path, and a receive path, wherein the transmit 

block has an exit aperture, wherein the 

receive block has an entrance aperture, 

wherein the transmit path extends from the 

exit aperture to the lens, wherein the receive

path extends from the lens to the entrance 

(Boehmke Decl. Ex. H at 14 

(“Rotate assembly at 20Hz”) (Mr. Boehmke 

testified that 

(Jaffe 

Reply Decl. Ex. 67, Boehmke Depo. Tr. at 

58:21-22.)); (Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 87, 

UBER00011631.)

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 35 of 38
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

-36- Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

aperture, and wherein the transmit path at 

least partially overlaps the receive path in the 

interior space between the transmit block and 

the receive block;

(Jaffe Reply Decl. 

Ex. 64, Pennecot Depo. Tr. at 36:16-25.) 

 

(Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 64, Pennecot Depo. Tr. 

at 37:1-16.) 

(Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 68, 

Haslim 47:9-19; Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 67, 

Boehmke 44:8-45:14; Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 

64, Pennecot Depo. Tr. at 37:1-16.) 

 (Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 68, Haslim 

47:20-48:8; Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 67, 

Boehmke 45:8-14; Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 82, 

Gruver 67:15-18; Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 64, 

Pennecot Depo. Tr. at 37:14-38:8.)

a plurality of light sources in the transmit 

block, wherein the plurality of light sources 

are configured to emit a plurality of light 

beams through the exit aperture in a plurality 

of different directions, the light beams 

comprising light having wavelengths in a 

wavelength range;

(Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 

68, Haslim Depo. Tr. at 46:18-20.)

 (Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 82, Gruver 

Depo. Tr. at 68:5-15); (Boehmke Decl. Ex. H 

at 13-14.)

a plurality of detectors in the receive block, 

wherein the plurality of detectors are 

configured to detect light having wavelengths 

in the wavelength range; and

(Jaffe 

Reply Decl. Ex. 68, Haslim Depo. Tr. at

45:25-46:1; Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 82, Gruver 

Depo. Tr. at 68:5-15); (Boehmke Decl. Ex. H 

at 13.)

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 36 of 38
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

-37- Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

wherein the lens is configured to receive the 

light beams via the transmit path, collimate 

the light beams for transmission into an 

environment of the LIDAR device, collect

light comprising light from one or more of 

the collimated light beams reflected by one or 

more objects in the environment of the 

LIDAR device, and focus the collected light 

onto the detectors via the receive path.

(Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 68, Haslim 

Depo. Tr. at 47:9-19; Jaffe Reply Decl. Ex. 

67, Boehmke Depo. Tr. at 44:8-45:14; Jaffe 

Reply Decl. Ex. 82, Gruver Depo. Tr. at 

67:23-68:4.)

: (Jaffe 

Reply Decl. Ex. 88, UBER00011654.) 

85. I reserve the right to provide more detailed opinions about infringement of the ’922 

and ’464 patents by the system after further discovery on that system. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

DATED: April 21, 2017 /s/ Gregory Kintz

Gregory Kintz

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 37 of 38
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

-38- Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 

REPLY DECLARATION OF GREGORY KINTZ

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

 Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the 

filing of this document has been obtained from Gregory Kintz. 

 /s/ Charles K. Verhoeven 

Charles K. Verhoeven

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245-6 Filed 04/21/17 Page 38 of 38