Source: https://es.scribd.com/document/341529948/Waymo-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:23:46+00:00

Document:
24 oral argument that Waymo may present to the Court.
26 expand the scope of its preliminary injunction request.
8 and distort competition in this nascent market, Waymo respectfully seeks a preliminary injunction.
19 Waymo achieving the worlds first and only truly driverless trip on public roads in 2015.
3 few assets and no marketable product for over half a billion dollars.
9 that Otto and Ubers LiDAR systems infringe Waymos LiDAR patents.
18 technology, Waymo respectfully requests a preliminary injunction.
23 more efficient, and more widely available. See Declaration of Jordan Jaffe (Jaffe Decl.) Exs.
Collectively, OttoMotto LLC and Otto Trucking LLC are referred to herein as Otto.
3 driving trip in normal traffic on public roads. Id. Exs. 29-30.
8 Googles massive data centers. Id. Exs. 31-33.
frequency, high-power pulsing lasers to measure distances between a car and external objects. Id.
assess their motion and orientation, predict their behavior, and make driving decisions. Id.
commercialization of autonomous vehicles. Declaration of Pierre-Yves Droz (Droz Decl.) 38.
28 2009 to the present.
9 lead Waymo to the architecture now at the heart of its current LiDAR systems. Id. 12.
12 environment and receive the light reflected when those beams bounce off surrounding objects. Id.
28 long-range LiDAR technology. Id. 9-11.
2 art separate lens designs, with their attendant cost and manufacturing deficiencies.
4 vehicle program with its in-house single-lens system Id. 19.
6 fundamental single-lens architecture described in U.S. Patent Nos. 8,836,922 and 9,285,464.
7 Kintz Decl. 94-96, 135-137.
9 additional improvements on the single-lens design that was at the heart of . Droz Decl.
18 trade secrets related to its LiDAR technology. Jaffe Decl., Ex. 1.
agreements to maintain the confidentiality of proprietary and trade secret information. Droz Decl.
employees strict obligations to maintain the secrecy of confidential information. Id.
5 Waymos confidential and proprietary technical information stored on the secure SVN repository.
6 Id.; Declaration of Michasel Janosko (Janosko Decl.) 23-25.
9 Decl. 4-25. Networks hosting such information are encrypted and require passwords for access.
14 special software to access. Id. 25; Droz Decl. 32.
19 measures. Droz Decl. 35; Janosko Decl. 22.
24 secret information has executed at least one written non-disclosure agreement. Id.
4 National Robotics Engineering Center, to help jump-start an Uber vehicle automation program.
10 Velodynes HDL-64E with photo) with Ex. 39 (August 2016 article with photo of Uber LiDAR).
12 manufacturing its own LiDAR technology for improved performance or lower cost. Id. Ex. 37.
14 suitable for the mass market.
20 domain name was registered for 280 Systems. Jaffe Decl. Ex. 40. On December 3, 2015, Mr.
25 25; Droz Decl. 32.
6 specifications for each version of every generation of Waymos LiDAR circuit boards. Droz Decl.
12 laptop, attempting to erase any evidence of what happened to the downloaded files. Id. 19.
14 then never used it again. Id. 19-20.
22 Waymo competitor. Id. 27.
26 remained in stealth mode for several months). Jaffe Decl. Ex. 41. On January 27, Mr.
1 venture Otto Trucking was officially formed (also remaining in stealth mode for several months).
4 immediately prior to resigning from Waymo and joining Otto. Brown Decl. 24-29; Willis Decl.
the LIDAR system that was developed in-house at Otto. Id. Ex. 44.
new self-driving research and development center. Id. Ex. 43.
surrounding the departure of Waymo employees for Otto and ultimately discovered Mr.
former Waymo employees. Brown Decl. 12-29.
resignation. Id., Kintz Decl. 25, 47.
25 Id. 26, 32-34, 40-42, 46-48, 51-52, 55.
4 LiDAR technology in the self-driving market.
10 that replicates the things that do work i.e., Waymos intellectual property.
15 LP v. Apotex Corp., 633 F.3d 1042, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (alterations omitted) (quoting Winter v.
24 secrets with reason to know that the trade secrets were acquired by improper means. Cal. Civ.
28 the Declaration of Jordan Jaffe. This List details, with particularity, 121 Waymo trade secrets.
12 Mr. Levandowski downloaded confidential documentation related to all aspects of that design.
19 both transmit and receive the collection of laser beams used to scan the surrounding environment.
26 transmitting and receiving is simpler and allows for a smaller and less expensive LiDAR unit. Id.
2 arrays can match perfectly. Id.
7 low-cost benefits of a single-lens system.
15 the same direction that it exited, i.e., it travels towards the wall containing the exit aperture.
18 laser beam to calculate object distance. 922 Patent at 4:26-39; Kintz Decl.
13 beams per second, as claimed by Defendants.
15 otherwise the LiDAR device could not function.
comprising light from one or more of the that has reflected off external objects.
21 these basic properties. Id.
25 laser systems for the U.S. Navy and Lockheed Martin. See id. at .
17 require that the exit aperture exist within a wall that doubles as a mirror on the receive path.
18 Rather, it requires that the transmit path overlap the receive path within the shared interior space.
22 valid. Id. at 131-34.
7 partys trade secrets generally creates irreparable harm. See, e.g., Gallagher Benefits Servs., Inc.
20 Inc. v. Empower Techs. Corp., No. 11-CV-1093-JM MDD, 2011 WL 3739529, at *6 (S.D. Cal.
5 allowed to use Waymos own trade secrets to gain a critical edge in this race. Lamb-Weston, Inc.
17 (Aug. 18, 2016). Jaffe Decl. Ex. 35.
27 of course, a classic irreparable injury because such disclosure destroys the trade secret altogether.
4 will inflict many of the same irreparable harms as Defendants trade secret misappropriation.
18 Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. GlobalSantaFe Corp., No. H-03-2910, 2006 WL 3813778, at *4 (S.D.
22 and infringer were direct competitors, and the relevant market had been recently created).
25 for [the infringing] products. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 809 F.3d 633, 642 (Fed. Cir.
5 to successfully launch a self-driving car without this patented technology. See, e.g., Kintz Decl.
9 the race to launch a commercially-viable self-driving car.
18 commercialize self-driving technology. Thus, the balance of hardships strongly favors Waymo.
25 defendants from misappropriating the trade secrets of the plaintiff.) (brackets deleted).
2 LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., 659 F.3d 1142, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Windsurfing Intl, Inc. v.
7 hardships weighs in favor of an injunction.) (quoting Windsurfing, 782 F.2d at 1003 n.12).
2 infringed.) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Andrx Pharm., Inc., 452 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
PetAware v. Dog's Play and Training Center Et. Al.
Lavagear v. Heatmax et. al.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.