DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO SPECIAL MASTER’S MONITORING AND VERIFICATION PROTOCOL

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

sf-3770293 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)

MJacobs@mofo.com 

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ (CA SBN 121490) 

AGonzalez@mofo.com 

ERIC A. TATE (CA SBN 178719) 

ETate@mofo.com 

RUDY Y. KIM (CA SBN 199426) 

RKim@mofo.com 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: 415.268.7000 

Facsimile: 415.268.7522 

KAREN L. DUNN (Pro Hac Vice) 

kdunn@bsfllp.com 

HAMISH P.M. HUME (Pro Hac Vice) 

hhume@bsfllp.com 

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 

1401 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington DC 20005 

Telephone: 202.237.2727 

Facsimile: 202.237.6131 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

and OTTOMOTTO LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING LLC, 

Defendants. 

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

DEFENDANTS UBER 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND 

OTTOMOTTO LLC’S OBJECTION 

TO SPECIAL MASTER’S 

MONITORING AND VERICATION 

PROTOCOL (DKT. 462) 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 467 Filed 05/19/17 Page 1 of 2
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO SPECIAL MASTER’S MONITORING AND VERIFICATION PROTOCOL

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

sf-3770293 

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 

Uber and Ottomotto (“Uber”) appreciate the Special Master’s effort to craft the 

monitoring and verification protocol. Uber agrees with the protocol, with one exception. Uber 

objects to the Special Master’s proposal in Section III that notification extend to “any people or 

entities who supply any products or services related in any way to the development, research, or 

use of LiDAR or self-driving vehicles”

1

 and “any people or entities who purchase or otherwise 

obtain from Defendants products or services related in any way to the development, research, or 

use of LiDAR or self-driving vehicles.” (Dkt. 462 at 4:22-26 (emphasis added).) The Court’s 

Order relates only to LiDAR and paragraph 3 of the Order requires notification only insofar as to 

prevent “communication on the subject of LiDAR.” (Order at 23.) A requirement for notification 

of suppliers of self-driving vehicles and users of self-driving vehicles is overbroad and 

unnecessary. Such a requirement would encompass suppliers of unrelated technologies and 

products such as cameras, sensors, and even cars. Because Waymo’s asserted trade secrets and 

the Court’s Order are limited to LiDAR, Uber respectfully requests that the Special Master’s 

proposal be amended to omit “self-driving vehicles.” 

After discussing this issue with the Special Master this morning, Waymo confirmed they 

have no objection to deleting the language referring to “self-driving vehicles.” (See Ex. 1.) 

Dated: May 19, 2017 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Arturo J. González 

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

and OTTOMOTTO LLC 

 1

 The Special Master’s proposed order uses “self-driving automobiles,” but he 

subsequently clarified that he means vehicles, including trucks. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 467 Filed 05/19/17 Page 2 of 2