United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 with Waymo inconnectionwithhismove toUber.Significantly, theevidenceindicatesthat, Moreover, defendantsand Levandowskianticipatedandtookstepstodefend againstlitigation and OttoTruckingLLC,tohireLevandowski astheheadofitsself-drivingcarefforts. Inc., plannedforUbertoacquireLevandowski’s newcompanies, defendantsOttomotto LLC shows that,bothbeforeandafterhisdepartur confidential filesfrom Waymo immediately beforeleavinghisemployment there.Theevidence evidence thatitsformer starengineer,AnthonyLevandowski,downloadedover14,000 D competition, plaintiffmoves forprovisionalrelief.Themotion is UBER TECHNOLOGIES,INC., v. WAYMO LLC, Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument433Filed05/15/17Page1of26 ENIED INPART By wayof summary, thisorderfinds plaintiff Waymo LLChasshowncompelling In thisactionfortradesecretmisappropriation, patentinfringement, andunfair Defendants. Plaintiff, . FOR THENORTHERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA IN THEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT et al. INTRODUCTION , STATEMENT / e, LevandowskianddefendantUberTechnologies, PROVISIONAL RELIEF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONFOR AND DENYINGINPART ORDER GRANTINGINPART No. C17-00939WHA G RANTED INPART and United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 This orderreferstobothChauffeur andWaymo assimply “Waymo.” before spinningoutintoaseparate subsidiaryunder in acompanion order. employment agreements withWaymo. Defendants’motion tocompel arbitrationisaddressed misappropriation claims intoarbitrationbyi infringed itspatentspertainingtoLiDAR.For against defendantsbasedonclaims thatdefenda team. Waymo nowseekstoleveragethatevidenceintoapreliminary injunctionandotherrelief over 14,000confidentialWaymo filesintowtobecome theheadofUber’sself-drivingcar without priornoticefrom hispositionatWaymo underhighlysuspiciouscircumstances with currently usedinself-drivingcars. as atremendous advantageoverthecommercially-available, off-the-shelfLiDARsystems technology thathelpsself-drivingcars“see”theirsurroundings.Bothsidesseesuch have settheirsightsondevelopingcustom, balance theparties’competing needsatthisstage.Nowfollow thedetails. this ordergrantsimportant butnarrowly-tailoredprovisionalreliefnecessarytoequitably Waymo’s patentinfringement accusationsonthismotion alsoprovedmeritless. Accordingly, trade secretsactuallyqualifyassuch,andfewhavebeentracedintotheaccusedtechnology. several countervailingfactors.Asnonexhaustiveexamples, notallofWaymo’s 121asserted progresses towardtrial.Thescopeofreliefwarrantedatthisstage,however,islimited by contain atleast shown, forpurposesoftheinstantmotion only,thatthe14,000-pluspurloinedfileslikely taken andretainedpossessionofWaymo’s confidentialfiles.Waymo hasalsosufficiently during theacquisition,Uberlikelykneworat Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument433Filed05/15/17Page2of26 1 Waymo originatedandexistedasGoogle Inc.’s Waymo hassuppliedacompelling evidentiaryrecordthatLevandowskiresigned Waymo andUbercompete inthenascentself-drivingcarindustry.Bothcompanies some tradesecrets,andthatsome provisionalreliefiswarrantedwhilethiscase * 1

the same parentcompany, Alphabet,inDecember 2016. in-house LightDetectionandRanging(LiDAR) nvoking anarbitrationclauseinLevandowski’s least shouldhaveknownthatLevandowskihad their part,defendantsseektosteerWaymo’s 2 self-drivingcarproject(codename “Chauffeur”) nts misappropriated Waymo’s trade secretsand United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 to theunredactedversionsof the documents cited. discovery hasyettounearth thedocument itself,UberexecutiveJohnBares described itas“full Milestones v5”forLevandowskitoreviewinadvance ofameeting thefollowingday.While executives onJanuary12and13showed theyhadpreparedadocument titled “NewCo technology athisnewcompany (Dkt.No.25-31¶27).Meanwhile,emails betweenUber (Dkt. No.25-29¶¶16–19,21–23). additional documents pertainingtoWaymo andLiDARfrom GoogleDrivetoapersonaldevice January 4and11of2016,healsousedhiscorporateaccountcredentialstoexportsix December 18,hereformatted thatlaptopwith anewoperatingsystem, wipingitclean.On attached aportabledatatransferdevicetohi downloaded dataincluded2GBsfrom LiDAR used thatlaptoptodownloadover14,000filesfrom theSVNrepository.The9.7GBsof specialized softwarecalledTortoiseSVN(Dkt.No.25-47¶25). specific authorizedusers.Additionally,th encrypted andauthenticatedallingressegresstrafficagainstaregularlyauditedlistof information (Dkt.No.25-29¶¶12,15).ToprotectthecontentsofSVNrepository,Waymo Waymo’s password-protectedrepositoryofdesignfiles,schematics, andotherconfidential Waymo’s intranetfor“chauffeursvnlogin”a would beinterestedinbuyingtheteam responsibleforWaymo’s LiDAR(Dkt.No.25-31¶28). McClendon, anUberexecutiveinvolvedwithUber’sself-drivingcarproject;andthat Droz thatitwouldbenicetocreateanewself-dri likely tobeprovenattrial,forthemost partwithoutcontradiction. Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument433Filed05/15/17Page3of26 2 Forthebenefitofcourt appealsandwitha On January5,LevandowskitoldDrozheplanned to“replicate”Waymo’s LiDAR On December 11,2015,LevandowskiequippedhisworklaptopwithTortoiseSVN,then On December 3,2015,Levandowskiusedhiscompany-issued worklaptoptosearch In summer of2015,whileworkingforWaymo, LevandowskitoldcoworkerPierreYves The followingissupportedbythemotion recordand,unlessotherwiseindicated,is e SVNrepositorycouldbeaccessedonlythrough s worklaptopforapproximately eighthours.On nd “chauffeursvneeesetup.”“SVN”referredto subdirectories. OnDecember 14,Levandowski 3 pologies tothepublic,allrecord citationshereinare ving carstartup;thathehadtalkedwithBrian 2 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 late Octoberof2016,Uber abandonedSpiderinfavorofitscurrentLiDAR project,“Fuji.” working onaLiDARproject called“Spider,”wh CEO TravisKalanick(Dkt. Nos.27-23,27-25).Atthetime ofitsacquisition,Ottowas lead itsself-drivingcarefforts.Inhisnewposition, LevandowskireporteddirectlytoUber 24–29). InlateJuly,KshirsagarandRadutaleft Waymo tojoinLevandowskiatOtto. Waymo’s LiDARdepartment) likewiseexportedthreemore documents ( five documents from GoogleDrive. InJul negotiated withLiDARhardwaresuppliers)usedhiscorporateaccountcredentialstoexport intellectual propertylitigationwithWaymo asaresultof hismove toUber. “due diligence”onLevandowskiwithaneyetowardjointlydefendingagainstpotential joint defenseagreement (Dkt.No.147-1).Inotherwords,itseems Uberperformed specialized Levandowski. OnApril11,defendants,Levandowski,andtheircounselexecutedawritten diligence report”onitsinvestigationandanalysisof files andelectronicmedia from things, digitalforensics,intellectualproperty,andlitigationsupport—topreparea“due at No.2060).OnFebruary1,Levandowskiformed OttoTrucking(Dkt.No.27-22). litigation,” regarding“duediligence”forthepot further investigationforthepurposeofobtaini confidence byLevandowskiorhisattorneyandsharedpursuantto“jointdefenseagreement” to prior notice.ByJanuary29,internalemails atUberreflectedcommunications made in company (Dkt.No.25-31¶29).OnJanuary27,Levandowskiresignedfrom Waymo without Levandowski admitted toDrozthathehadmet withUbertolookforinvestorshisnew high barforsure.Butthenagainsoiswhat[Levandowski]askingin$$.” Referring tothesame document, hetoldanotherUberexecutive,“thislistofdeliverablesisa of numbers allofwhichcanandshouldbeadjustednegotiated.overthenextweek.” Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument433Filed05/15/17Page4of26 In August,UberboughtOttoforapproximately $680million andhiredLevandowskito In JuneandJuly,Sameer Kshirsagar(thenaWaymo manager who,among otherthings, By March,UberhaddirectedStrozFriedberg—afirm specializingin,among other On January15,Levandowskiformed Ottomotto (Dkt.No.27-21).LaterinJanuary, y, RaduRaduta(thenamanufacturing engineerin ng orgivinglegaladvice,“inanticipationof 4 ential acquisitionofOttomotto (Dkt.No.272-2 ich continuedatUberuntil October2016.In see Dkt.No.25-29¶¶ United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Velodyne (acommercially-available LiDARsystem). Initsreplybrief,Waymo claims that— represented totheCourt that theLiDARmentioned inOtto’s Nevadasubmission wasFujior available’ LiDAR”(Dkt.No.216at1).Du any vehiclestestedandcertifiedby[OttoinNe commencement ofthisaction —whenUbersentalettertotheNevadaDMV“clarifyingthat relevant part( (“Otto’s Nevadasubmission”) (Dkt.No.27-32at51–62).ThatOttodocument statedin Knowledge andExpertise,”whichOttohadsubmitted inaccordancewith Nevadaregulations February 9,Waymo’s requestturnedupadocument titled“Autonomous Technology Office ofEconomic Development andDepartment generation LiDARsystem, GrizzlyBearversi printed circuitboarddesignforUbercloselyresembles thedesignforWaymo’s owncurrent- drawings of aprintedcircuitboard(the“Gorilladrawings”).Waymo claims thedepicted “[email protected],” featuredthesubjectline“OTTOFILES,” andappendedmachine The email concernedOttoandUberbutsomehow gotmis-sent toGrossman. Itwasalsosentto email stringamong employees atGorillaCircuits,oneofWaymo’s LiDARcomponent vendors. On December 13,Waymo employee William Grossman became anaccidental recipientonan aforementioned downloadingbyLevandowski,Kshirsagar,andRaduta( Around October2016,GaryBrown,aforensicssecu of employees tojoinLevandowskiandinvestigatedthecircumstances oftheirdepartures. arguments concerningWaymo’s assertedtradesecrets. Details aboutbothSpiderandFujiarediscussedfurtherbelowinthecontextofparties’ Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument433Filed05/15/17Page5of26 Defendants subsequentlywalkedbackthisstatement onMarch 15—afterthe On February3,2017,Waymo filedapublicrecordsrequestwiththeNevadaGovernor’s Meanwhile, insummer of2016,Waymo hadbecome suspiciousovertheabruptexodus id. emitting 6.4million beams asecondat10Hz. include . and/or currentlydeployedinOtto’sautonomous vehicles Selected advancedself-drivingtechnologiesdevelopedin-house at60–61): LiDAR -In-housecustom built64-laser(Class1) ring oralargument onApril12,defensecounsel on 3(GBr3)(Dkt.Nos.25-45;245-3at3). vada] thatusedLiDARonly‘commercially 5 ofMotorVehicles(Dkt.No.27-31).On rity engineeratGoogle,discoveredthe see Dkt.No.25-3at9). United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 vendors forOttoorUber ( Uber, orusedWaymo’s confidentialinformation tomake decisionsregarding suppliersor further statedthathehasnotusedanyinformation from thosedocuments inhisworkatOttoor any copiesofsaiddocuments withhim whenheleftWaymo (Dkt.No.184at¶¶9–15).He Drive asdescribedabove,hedidsoinfurthera submitted asworndeclarationstatingthat, while This hasfrustratedWaymo’s attempts tolearnhowLevandowskihasusedthedownloads. in responsetothevastmajority ofdocument requests anddepositionquestionsdirectedathim. motion (Dkt.No.202).Levandowski’semergenc preparation (Dkt.No.147).OnApril10,afterbriefingandargument, an orderdeniedthe diligence report,aswelldescriptionsofitems from Levandowskireviewedduringits defendants’ privilegelogtoconcealtheidentityofthirdpartythatprepareddue — evenonaprivilegelog.(Thetranscriptofthatconferencewaseventuallymade public.) seeking toprohibitdefendantsfrom revealingcertaininformation abouttheduediligencereport counsel, however,broadlyassertedhisFifthAm report onaprivilegelog”(Dkt.No.131at12:22–13:1).Levandowskithroughseparate was done.Athirdpartypreparedareportbasedonthatduediligence.We intendtoputthat conference, defensecounselexplained,“Beforetheacquisition[ofOtto]some duediligence a non-publicconferenceatwhichseparatecounselappearedforLevandowski.Atthat expedited discovery(Dkt.No.61).OnMarch29,atUber’scrypticrequest,theCourtconvened March 10.On16,afteracasemanagement conference, anorderapprovedaplanfor Otto’s Nevadasubmission actuallyreferredtoSpider,anassertiondefendantsdon’tcontest. contrary tobothdefendants’letterdatedMarch15andtherepresentationsofdefensecounsel— Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument433Filed05/15/17Page6of26 In supportofdefendants’oppositiontothemotion forprovisionalrelief,Kshirsagar Levandowski hasalsoassertedhisFifthAmendment privilegeagainstself-incrimination On April4,Levandowskifiledaformal motion tointerveneseekredact Waymo filedthiscivilactiononFebruary23andmoved forprovisionalrelief on id. at¶¶16,18).Hisdeclaration alsoincludedcopiesofhissigned nce ofhisjobdutiesatWaymo anddidnottake 6 endment privilegeagainstself-incrimination, hedidexportfivedocuments from Google y appealfrom thatorderwasrejected. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 board. Evenafterthislitigation commenced, Uber known ofthedownloading butneverthelessproceededtobringLevandowski andOttoon Levandowski’s possession. Therecordfurtherindi and Uber.Asofthedatethisorder,thosefiles havenotbeenreturnedandlikelyremain in over 14,000filesfrom Waymo, evidentlytohavethem availabletoconsultonbehalfofOtto driving careffortsbutisbarrenonhowLevandowski hasbeenearningthatmoney andtitle. services foratremendous amount ofmoney andpositionedhim attheforefrontofitsself- driving cardevelopment. Putdifferentl inquiry intoLevandowski’swork,essentiallyer any confidential information from Waymo. Thatnarrative,however,studiouslyomitted any development” narrativeinwhichtheydevelopedtheirownLiDARtechnology withoutusing been asubjectoffrequentandheateddebate. Notably, however,whetherthosesearcheshavebeenadequateunderthesecircumstances has expedited discoverythusfarhavelocatedanyofthe14,000-plusfilesonUber’sservers. LiDAR designsorotherself-drivi wall orpolicyregardingAnthonyLevandowski’s after diligentinvestigation,theycouldnotfindanydocuments “sufficienttoshowanyethical confidential information from othercompanies. Onthecontrary,defendantsrepresentthat, those signedbyKshirsagar—topreventhim fr of anyprophylacticstepstakenspecificallyastoLevandowski—forexample, offerletterslike that Uberanticipatedlitigationfrom Waymo overthatacquisition.Nordotheyofferevidence that Uberluredhim withthepossibilityofacquisitionassoon(andbefore)heleftWaymo, or from Levandowski.Significantly,theydonot property orconfidentialinformation from othercompanies. offer letterswithOttoandUber,eachofwhichrequiredthathenotbringoruseanyintellectual Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument433Filed05/15/17Page7of26 To summarize, Waymo hasmade astrongshowingthatLevandowskiabsconded with Instead, defendants’main theme hasbeenthatnoneofthevariousterm searchesdonein In contrast,defendantshavenotoffereda ng cartechnology”(Dkt.No.246-19). y, therecordshowsUberboughtLevandowski’s Defendantshavealsopresentedan“independent deny thathetookover14,000filesfrom Waymo, 7 om bringingandusingintellectualpropertyor asing him from thehistoryofUber’sself- ny declarationorotherexculpatingevidence participation orinputintoDefendants’ keptLevandowskiasthe headofitsself- cates thatUberknewor at leastshouldhave United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 his personallaptopsand electronic devices(whichUberhasadmittedly neversearched),(iii) Levandowski’s possession, (ii)LevandowskihasbroughtcopiesofWaymo’s filestoUberon privilege anddefendants’ withholdingofdiscover Waymo asksthe Courttoinfer,basedonLevandowski’sassertionofhisFifthAmendment probative evidence,bothdocumentary andtestimonial, from Waymo’s view. proliferation ofdiscoverybattles,motion practice,andrelentlessconcealment oflikely asserted extensiveclaims ofprivilegeinresponsetoattempted discovery.Theresulthasbeena asserted hisFifthAmendment privilegeintheseproceedings. discovery disputesthatfallintotwocategories. discovery. Hereiswhy. Levandowski’s assertionofhisFifthAmendment reasonable inferencestherefrom) withoutresortingto“adverseinferences” basedon would becoldcomfort againstthedangeroftradesecretmisappropriation forUber’sbenefit. the Waymo files.ButevenifLevandowskisoagreed,hiswordunderthesecircumstances been shown),Ubermay haverequiredLevandowski,asamatter ofform, tocommit nottouse to tellLevandowskireturnthetreasuretroveitsrightfulowner.Atbest(andthishas as hewished(solongkeptitonhisownpersonaldevices),andthatUberwillfullyrefused possible thatUberknowinglyleftLevandowskifree however, leaveopenthedangerofallmanner of employer wouldbebroughttoorusedatUb and that“Ubertookstrictprecautionstoensurenotradesecretsbelongingaformer reply inoppositiontoprovisionalrelief( driving efforts untilhis“recusal”from LiDARdevelopment onthedaybefore defendants’ sur- Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument433Filed05/15/17Page8of26 In response,Waymo hasrequestedmultiple adverseinferencesinitsfavor. Specifically, The historyofthislitigationhasbeenandcontinuestobewroughtwithcontentious This orderdecidesWaymo’s motion basedontheactualfactsinrecord(and Defendants maintain thatWaymo’s filesnevercrossedovertoUber’sserversordevices see ANALYSIS Dkt.No.295-4at2&n.2). er” (Dkt.No.222-1at8–9).Thesedenials, 8 First mischief. Forexample, itremains entirely y, that“(i)copiesofWaymo’s filesarein privilege ordefendants’allegedobstructionin to keepthattreasuretroveoffilesashandy , asstated,Levandowskihasbroadly Second , defendantshavealso not United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 difference tohisability consultthefiles. Whether Levandowskikeptthefilesonpersonalor workdevicesandserverswouldmake little his workforUber,defense counselhasadm surrendered possessionofthefiles.Astowhether Levandowskieverconsultedthosefilesin he leftWaymo, combined withthetotalabsenceofanyevidencethathe returnedorotherwise be readilysurmised from justtheoverwhelming evidencethathetookthosefileswithhim when on thisrecord.Thatthe14,000-plusdownloaded filesremain inLevandowski’s possessioncan available, todrum upsufficientevidencetosupportallitsrequestsforextraordinaryrelief. complain thatitshouldbeexcusedfrom thatburdensimply becauseitfailed,inthelimited time speed aheadanyway,confidentthatitcouldmeet that itwouldnothavethebenefitofafullevidentiaryrecordonthismotion butpushedfull to keepthehearing”(Dkt.No.230at97:18–98:9).Inotherwords,Waymo clearlyunderstood counsel replied,“wedon’twanttomove thehearing,andwe’rewillingtodowhateverittakes everything. Orwecanpushitofftwomonths andyou’llget25percentmore.” Waymo’s not goingtogetafulldeckofcards.becauseit’sallexpedited.It’simpossible toget basis .youcan’thaveeverything.SoweeitherthehearingonMay3rd,butyou’re undersigned judgecautionedWaymo’s counsel,“you’retheonethatwantsthisonahurry-up decided quickly.Forexample, duringahearingonmultiple discoverydisputesonApril12,the evidentiary record.Itrequestedexpediteddiscoveryandinsistedthatthismotion beheardand to drawtheforegoingadverseinferencesonbasesassertedbyWaymo, forthreereasons. assertion toblock[Waymo] from theevidence.”Atthisstage,orderdisagreesanddeclines then theywill.getawaywithblockingandusingLevandowski’sFifthAmendment stated, “IfyourHonoronlyrulesonaninjunctionwithjusttheevidencewe’vediscovered. development” (Dkt.No.245-3at13).Duringoralargument onthismotion, Waymo’s counsel (iv) Uberhasusedtheitems delineatedinWaymo’s TradeSecretListinitsLiDAR Levandowski hasaccessedcopiesofWaymo’s fileswhile‘workingfrom home’ forUber,and Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument433Filed05/15/17Page9of26 Second First , Waymo itselfembraced earlyontheforeseeabledisadvantageofanincomplete , thespecificadverseinferencesWaymo seeksareunnecessaryorunwarranted itted thatnothingprevented him from doingso. And, onthisrecord,itwould straincredulityto 9 itsburdenofproofwithless.Itcannotnow United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 from thisorderassupportforthe experts’opinions. be succinctlystated. P 1. infringement andtrade secretmisappropriation claims asthebasisforthismotion. v. Cottrell irreparable injuryandthattheinjunctionisinpublicinterest. can supportissuanceofapreliminary injunctionsolongasWaymo alsoshowsalikelihoodof questions goingtothemerits” andabalanceofhardshipsthattipssharplyinWaymo’s favor Natural ResourcesDefenseCouncil,Inc. balance ofequitiestipsinitsfavor,andthataninjunctionisthepublicinterest. the merits, thatitislikelytosuffer irreparableharm intheabsence of preliminary relief, thatthe showing of entitlement thereto,thenitremains free tobringadditionalmotions for suchrelief. “right uptothedayof trial.”If, aslitigationcontinues,Waymo substantiallyimproves its judge pointedoutduringoralargument onthis for adverseinferencesisspurned,Waymo willhavenofuturerecourse.Astheundersigned trade secrets,thisorderdeclinestofill thegapwithadverseinferences atthisstage. light ontheanswer.Insofar asWaymo stillfalls shortof showinguseastocertainasserted devices, document production,anddepositionsofde Waymo hasreceivedexpediteddiscovery—in Waymo’s listoftradesecrets,thatisthemain questionontheinstantmotion. Accordingly, of thedownloadedtrove.Finally,astowhetherUberhasusedanyinformation enumerated in imagine thatLevandowskiplunderedWaymo’s vaultthewayhedidwithnointenttomake use Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument433Filed05/15/17Page10of26 3 Asthislitigationproceeds,the partiesshallinstructtheirexpertsto Waymo’s patenttheoriesaretooweaktosupportanyprovisionalrelief.Thereasoncan To obtainapreliminary injunction,Waymo must establishthatitislikelytosucceedon Third ATENT , 632F.3d1127,1134–35(9thCir.2011).Waymo reliesononlyitspatent , Waymo’s counselwasandremains wrong insuggestingthat,ifWaymo’s request I NFRINGEMENT * C LAIMS , 555U.S.7,20(2008).Inourcircuit,“serious . motion, provisionalreliefremains available 10 cluding aninspectionofdefendants’LiDAR fendants’ engineersandexperts—toshed not Alliance fortheWildRockies relyuponorquoteinanyway 3 Winter v. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 for ourpurposes.“Misappropriation”means: and thefederalDefendTradeSecretsAct,bothof whichofferessentiallythesame definitions misappropriation claims andthatcertainprovisionalreliefiswarranted,asdetailedbelow. This orderconcludesthatWaymo hasestablishedallfour T 2. clear thatSpiderisnowdefunctanddoesnotneedtobeenjoined. Even ifSpiderusedacommon-lens designandwouldhaveinfringedWaymo’s patents,itseems LiDAR .wasnevermade, used,offeredforsa never evolvedintoaworkingprototypeandwasabandonedinOctober2016,”“aSpider common-lens design( however, FujiturnedouttobeaLiDARsystem submission ( LiDAR system basedonlyonextrapolationfrom Kintz, ahiredexpertwitnesswhopredictedunderoaththeexistenceofaninfringingUber receive beams ( “fundamental common lensdesign”requiring asingle,common lensto bothtransmit and 8,836,922 (“the’922patent”)and9,285,464’464patent”),bothofwhichconcerna Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument433Filed05/15/17Page11of26 .Likelihood ofSuccessontheMerits. Waymo bringsmisappropriation claims under A. By contrast,thetradesecretscasepresentedbyWaymo doeswarrantprovisionalrelief. In itsreply,Waymo shiftedfrom accusingFujitoSpider.But“Spider. In itsmotion, Waymo initiallyaccused defendants ofinfringingU.S.PatentNos. RADE see Dkt.Nos.25-3at17–19;25-61¶¶11,61–74).ContrarytoKintz’sprediction, S see Dkt.No.25-3at16).ThoseaccusationsreliedonanalysisbyGregory implied consentbyapersonwho: (2) Disclosureoruseof a tradesecretofanotherwithoutexpressor improper means; or or hasreasontoknowthatthetradesecretwasacquired by (1) Acquisitionofatradesecretanotherbyperson whoknows ECRET see Dkt.No.174-1¶7).ExpertKintzwasflat-outwrong. trade secret;or (A) Usedimproper means toacquireknowledgeof the M ISAPPROPRIATION . Among other distinctions,Fujinotablydoes C LAIMS 11 le, sold,orimported” (Dkt.No.295-4at7). theGorilladrawingsandOtto’sNevada the CaliforniaUniform TradeSecretsAct . Winter factorsastoitstradesecret not usea United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 independent derivation.C breach ofdutytomaintain secrecy,orespionage,andexcludesreverseengineering And “improper means” includestheft,bribery,misrepresentation, breachorinducement ofa “Trade secret”means information that: offs ratherthanthesingle, specificsolutionadoptedbyWaymo. Theproblem, ofcourse,isthat claiming broadswaths ofsolutionstogeneralcompeting considerationsandengineering trade- value from notbeinggenerallyknown. further boilsdowntowhetheranyinformation withinthosefiles derivesindependenteconomic disputed —thatitusedreasonableefforts tomaintain thesecrecyof thefiles, thelatterquestion trade secret.SinceWaymo hasalsomade astrongshowing—anddefendantshavenot information withinthosefiles.Theyalsodisputewhetherany suchinformation qualifiesasa him onboard.Thepartiesdispute,however, 14,000 filesfrom Waymo, andthatUberkneworshouldhaveknownasmuch whenitbrought this orderquotesonlyfrom theCUTSA). Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument433Filed05/15/17Page12of26 In thisconnection,Waymo’s descriptionsofitsassertedtradesecretsfollow apatternof As stated,Waymo hassupplied acompelling recordthatLevandowskipilferedover circumstances tomaintain itssecrecy. (2) Isthesubjectofeffortsthatarereasonableunder can obtaineconomic valuefrom itsdisclosureoruse;and not beinggenerallyknowntothepublicorotherpersonswho (1) Derivesindependenteconomic value,actualorpotential,from knowledge ofithadbeenacquiredbyaccidentormistake. had reasontoknowthatitwasatradesecretand (C) Beforeamaterial changeofhisorherposition,knew know thathisorherknowledgeofthetradesecretwas: (B) Atthetime ofdisclosureoruse,knewhadreasonto AL .

C secrecy orlimit itsuse;or duty tothepersonseekingrelief tomaintain its (iii) Derivedfrom orthroughapersonwhoowed duty tomaintain itssecrecyorlimit itsuse;or (ii) Acquiredundercircumstances givingrisetoa utilized improper means toacquireit; (i) Derivedfrom orthroughapersonwhohad IV .

C ODE §3426.1; whether defendantshaveactuallyusedany 12 see also 18U.S.C.1839(forbrevity’ssake, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 all agreethatthedesignsforFuji andGBr3bothspecificallycallfor vary simply duetomanufacturing tolerances. Thispr should benotedthatallagree the eeal nw. ocamabodsaho l solutionsisthusnotcredible.Inthe face ofthiscriticism, Waymo hasnowretreatedtoclaiming generally known.Toclaim abroadswathofall — overhang,underhang,orhangingexactlyflush.Theengineeringprosandconsofeachare LiDAR transmit block.Theproblem isthatthereare,broadlyspeaking, gis soitddabcswt netoa .”Inshort,Waymo nowclaims its weighed against associateddrawbackswithintentional reflects “aftermonths ofresearchanddevelopment andtrial Waymo’s resultingknowledgeaboutthebenefitsofparticularamounts of error, andspentyearsvalidatingitinaproduction environment. The responded thatitarrivedat trade secretbroadlycapturesthe concerning whether and principles.Waymo’s gamesmanship onthisscoreundermines itscredibilityonthismotion. others. Todosowouldbetoallowmonopolizati merely because theyallfallonthesideofgenerallyfavoringaparticularconsiderationover leverage asinglesolutionintomonopoly overbroadswathsofothersolutions—forexample, resolution may wellqualifyasatradesecret.Butitwouldbewrongtoallowanycompany to can beexpectedtosettleonsome specific resolutionthereof, andeverycompany’s specific such considerationsandtrade-offsareknownout by defendantsandqualifiesfortradesecretprotection.Twoexamples willsuffice. Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument433Filed05/15/17Page13of26 4 Althoughbothsidesandthis orderrefertothede That beingsaid,Waymo hasshown atleastseriousquestionsgoingtothemerits When theCourtaskedwhatwassospecialabout First Uber’sFujiusespreciselythis , Waymo claims asatradesecret some information withinthe14,000-plusdownloadedfileshasbeenused actual

concept of actical caveatdoesnot,however, altertheanalysis,since (Dkt.No.25-7¶7).Atfacevalue,thisasserted 13 sign atissueas on ofbroadscientificorengineeringconcepts side ofWaymo. Everycompany inthefield withrespecttoLiDARprinted circuitboardswill diodesonprintedcircuitboardsina (Dkt.No.245-3at5). only threepossibilities . , Waymo 4

, it United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 undersigned judgenotedduringoralargument, conduct isfactoredintotherelief grante defendants themselves arehardlyinnocent)wouldbean undulysevereresponse.Instead, Waymo’s inequitable likely misappropriation bydefendantssimply becauseWaymo engagedinlitigationgamesmanship (ofwhich moving targetsasassertedtradesecrets.Butatthis trade secretprotectiongeneral approachesandprinciples questions goingtothemerits astothisassertedtradesecret. short, viewingtherecordasawhole,thisorderconcludesWaymo hasshownatleastserious ingeneral benefits as For example, whiledefendants havearguedthattechnicalliteratureinthefield discloses optimally balancepertinentconsiderations,evenif the as doesWaymo’s GBr3withnoexcuseofindependentderivation.Additionally, however, therecordatleastindicatesthatUber’sFujiuses Defendants donotdenythisandhavenocredibleexplanationforhowtheyarrivedat qualify asatradesecret.Uber’sFujiindeed diode placement (Dkt.No.360-1at2–3).Th Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument433Filed05/15/17Page14of26 ” designchoiceeveninGBr3;rather,itjust“w 6 5 Thisconclusiondoesnotin any wayblessWaymo’s overreachingattempt tosweepintotheambit of OneUberengineer,GaetanPennecot,testified Second, Waymo claims asatradesecret Further discoverymay ultimately disproveevenWaymo’s revisedpositionthat ingeneral alsospecifically . Andwhiledefendantsarguethat isnotgenerallyknownandeconomically valuableinthefield.Atthisstage, may qualifyasatradesecretinsofaritresultsfrom aniterativeprocessto , theyhavenotsimilarly shownthatanyliteraturediscloses . 5 providestheoptimal compromise ofcompeting considerations.In andoptimally balancescompeting considerationsassociatedwith isnotwellknownandqualifiesasatradesecretbecauseit , thatdoesnotforeclosethepossibility d herein,asthisorderexplains below. thisisnotacredibleexplanation. stageandonthisrecord,tojettison Waymo’s showing of as easytotype”(Dkt.No.366-5at21:18–21:22).Asthe is farbroaderthanitsactualGBr3 design,oritsuseof 14 that “therewasnotmuch importance tothat general 6 cneto wouldnot. conceptof

providesthesame wouldlikely . United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 as towhetherUber’sadoptionof whereas misappropriation oftradesecrets.At thisstage, overall LiDARdesign.Putdifferently,Ubera configuration itselfissupposedlyvaluablewithoutreferencetoitsplacement inanyparticular because Uberhassplituptheconfigurationtooperateina adoption oftheexactsame configurationissuspicious.Thissuspicionnotrelievedsimply unclear whythisparticularconfigurationisbetterthananyother,buttherubthatUber’s Uber’s LiDARdesigns. suggesting thatatleastsome information from Waymo’s fileshasalreadyfounditswayinto this record,nootherLiDAR—copiessuchsp LiDAR deviceusing in viewofknowndesignconsiderations”butidentifynotechnicalliteraturedisclosingorother 3 at6).Defendantsessentiallyrespondthatthesechoicesconstitutean“obviousconfiguration Uber uses that donotdefeatitsclaims ofmisappropriation. What matters, accordingtoWaymo, isthat Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument433Filed05/15/17Page15of26 In short,onthisrecord,Waymo hasshownatleastseriousquestionsgoingto the merits Waymo contends,however,thattheforegoing There aremany possiblecombinations ofPCBsanddiodearrangements thatwould (Dkt.No.25-7¶¶2–3).Whereas Waymo’s GBr3uses , Uber’sFujiuses usedbyWaymo —resultedfrom old-fashioned,all-American ecific GBr3specificationsisstrikingevidence ppears tobeusingWaymo’s 15 that issufficienttoextrapolate thatatleast . , simply adaptedfor distinctions are“minor modifications” . Again,thatFuji—and,atleaston . , isonlyone.Itremains somewhat —theexact and (Dkt.No.245- . Moreover, , sincethe United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 plurality of lightsourcesconfigured toemit apluralityof lightbeams, whereinthe notice here. claim ownership overgeneralprinciplesandapproachesinthefield.Oneexample deserves not allqualifyfortradesecretprotection.Asstated,Waymo hasoverreachedinattempting to litigation progresses. protection, andthatcertainreliefiswarrantedtopreventthemisuse ofthosedownloadsasthis some oftheinformation inthe14,000-plusdownloadslikelyqualifiesfortradesecret is usedinLiDARtoilluminate specific points inthefield of view. a landscapevisibleinfront of thelens, evenadistantpoint,canbeilluminated. This,of course, terrain infrontofthelens. Byadjustingthe specific positioningofthelight source,anypointin that alightsource,likelaser,behindthelenswill beprojectedtoitscorrespondingpointinthe principle ledtocameras andfilm photography.Anotherknownprincipleisthe converse,i.e. duplicate thesame overallimage (albeitupsidedownandreversedlefttoright). Thisknown points withinthefieldofviewinfrontalenscome intofocus behindthelens,organizedto been alitigationgimmick toanticipatethepossibilitythatdiscoverywouldrevealdifferent 25-31 ¶22).Thebroadscopeofthisassertedtr claimed tradesecrettothespecificationsofitsownPCBsbutbroadlyclaims the “optimal layout,orientation,andspacingofallthelaserdiodes,”Waymo doesnotlimit its Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument433Filed05/15/17Page16of26 Waymo claims asitsfirstassertedtradesecret“aPCBforaLiDARsystem comprising a Turning brieflytotherestofWaymo’s 121assertedtradesecrets,thisordernotesthat Since MatthewBrady,ifnotGalileoGalilei,the science ofopticshastaughtthatall betweenthepluralityoflightsources betweenUber’sFujiandWaymo’s GBr3. designcopiedbyUberrequired ” (Dkt.No.25-7 * between“lightsources”( 16 ¶ 1).Notably,despiteclaiming thatits ade secretisbreathtakingandappearstohave a six-month “iterativeprocess”tofigureout see Dkt.Nos.25-3at13–14; any PCBwith specific , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 the filesthemselves, hasseepedinto Uber’s ownLiDARdevelopment efforts;andthatatleast containing Waymo’s intellectualproperty;thatat knew orshouldhaveknownthathepossessedover 14,000confidentialWaymo fileslikely not altertheoutcome ofthisorder. other arguments raisedintheparties’briefingandatoralargument andconcludes theywould secret discussedabove,whichdebateneednotberepeatedhere.TheCourthasalsoconsidered For example, atoralargument, thepartiesdebatedatlengthvariousfacetsofeachassertedtrade Co. therefore notprotectibleastradesecrets.SeeWinstonResearchCorp.v.Minn.Min.&Mfg. principles thataresimply partoftheintellectualequipment oftechnicalemployees. Theyare physics, however,arenot“secret,”sincetheyconsistessentiallyofgeneralengineering nothing more thanOptics101.Generalapproachesdictatedbywell-knownprinciplesof laser positionsmust, asexplainedabove, this may undersample thefarfield.Tosample at project ontothelandscapeinitsfieldofviewatevergreaterdistances.ForLiDARpurposes, points recedes. Thissimple propositiontellsusthatifanarrayoflasersbehindalensistosample behind thelenstoilluminate eachendofthelinewillneedtobecloserandaslens line 10feetlongpaintedonaroadwillshrinkwithdistance.Conversely,thelightsourcesused known thattheobject’simage behindthelenswillshrinkandviceversa.Thus,image ofa Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument433Filed05/15/17Page17of26 , 350F.2d134,139(9thCir.1965). The bottom lineistheevidenceindicatesthatUberhiredLevandowski eventhoughit The foregoingisnotanexhaustiveanalysisofthemany arguments raisedbybothsides. By thesame token,averticalrowoflightsources As alensmoves fartherandawayfrom anobjectinalandscape,itiscommonly * 17 least some information from thosefiles,ifnot . Inshort,Waymo’s supposedtradesecretis , thenthelasersmust be evenly spaced . behindalenswill , thecorresponding United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 those efforts.Levandowski hasbroadlyasserted — eventhoughUber,in adealworthapproximately $680million dollars,hiredhim tolead efforts thatconspicuously andincrediblyde someone whohastostealanything.Heknowsthisstuff.”)). 169 at49:20–50:6(extollingLevandowski’saccomplishments beforeconcluding, “thisisnot brilliance ratherthanhisexploitationof Waymo’s confidential information ( self-driving careffortsissimply independentdevelopment oreventheresultof Levandowski’s untraceable. Forexample, defendantsmight claim thatanysuspicious“breakthrough”intheir pass throughanUberserver.Suchmisuse ofWaymo’s tradesecretsmight bevirtually information tofurtherdefendants’LiDARdevelopment evenifnoneofthefileseveractually the information thereininhisworkfor acompetitor. Hecaneasilyandatanytime consultthat files —atleastsome ofwhichlikelycontaintradesecrets—fortheostensiblepurposeusing record, Levandowskidownloadedandretainedpossessionofover14,000confidentialWaymo warrants injunctivereliefatthisstage(Dkt.No.295-49–10). competitive harm Waymo might suffer. Thereisthusnothreatof irreparableharm that reason, theCourtcanalwayspreventthem from “hittingthemarket first,”therebyundoingany driving carindustry(Dkt.No.25-3at20–21).De secrets togainacompetitive edge—orevenbeatWaymo tomarket —inthenascentself- irreparable harm withoutthebenefitofanypresumption initsfavor. This orderneednotreachtheissue,becauseitconcludesWaymo hasshownlikelihoodof Waymo toshowseriousquestions goingtothemerits ofitscase. some ofsaidinformation likelyqualifiesfortradesecretprotection.Thisissufficient Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument433Filed05/15/17Page18of26 Indeed, defendantshavealreadycarefullycrafted anarrativeoftheirself-drivingcar Defendants’ argument oversimplifies ourcase.Therootproblem remains that,onthis Waymo claims itwillsuffer irreparableharm if defendants areallowedtouseitstrade LikelihoodofIrreparableHarm. The partiesdebatewhethercourtsmay presume irreparableharm intradesecretcases. B. nies anymeaningful contributionby Levandowski 18 hisFifthAmendment privilege.Andtrovesof fendants respondthat . Atthatpoint,defendants see, e.g.,Dkt.No. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Defendants’ theoryseems tobethat Waymo shouldhavesued assoonitfoundevidenceof they argue,implies alackofurgencyand undermines Waymo’s claims ofirreparableharm. unavailable tocompensate fortheirreparableharm threatenedhere. the destructionofitstradesecretspertainingto same. Monetary damages wouldthusbe injury sufferedfrom eitherthelossofWaymo’s competitive positioninthisnascentindustryor against Levandowski. and theharm itentailsare,infact,thesubjectofWaymo’s separatearbitrationproceedings talented engineersawayfrom competitors —includingWaymo itself. Thatpoachingscenario LiDAR development, thatmomentum wouldimprove theirabilitytoattractinvestorsand another example, ifdefendantsuseWaymo’s tradesecretstoacceleratetheirownprogressin commercialization processforself-drivingcars.Otto’sNevadasubmission showsasmuch. As disclosures—arepartandparcelofthe dispute thatsuchfilings—includingtechnical defendants’ regulatoryfilings. Defendants claim thisisaspeculativepossibility,butdonot any Waymo tradesecretusedindefendants’ secrets evenif extent warrantedonthisrecord. prophylactic measures nowtopreventmisappropriation (orfurthermisappropriation) tothe competitive positionsasif nomisappropriation hadoccurred.Itisfar bettertoinsteadputin And, eventhen,itmay proveimpossible tofullyrestorethepartiestheirrespective defendants’ technologythatuseWaymo’s tradesecrets.Itwillbeabone-crushingendeavor. easy matter — evenifWaymo prevailsattrial—tosimply identifyandenjoinpartsof evidentiary disputesandintensedebate.Contrarytodefendants’suggestion,itwouldnotbean has shown,questionsonthemerits astoevenafewassertedtradesecretsprovokebitter privilege thatshrouddealingsbetweenLevandowskianddefendantsinsecrecy.Asthismotion likely probativeevidencehavebeenconcealedfrom Waymo underrelentlessassertionsof Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument433Filed05/15/17Page19of26 Defendants alsocontend thatWaymo undulydelayed infilingthisaction.Thisdelay, It wouldlikelybefutile toattempt, after thefact, toestimate themonetary valueof Waymo may alsosufferotherirreparableharms from misappropriation ofitstrade technology may bedestroyedviadisclosurein 19 . Forexample, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Uber tocontinuedeveloping itstechnologywillleadtomore competition andconsumer choice not yetshownotherwise —thepublichasaninterestinvindicatingthose rights. may haverightsinvalid tradesecretswarrantingprotectionuntiltrial—anddefendants have least seriousissuesgoingtothemerits ofitsmisappropriation claims. Inasmuch as Waymo on itsclaims (Dkt.No.222-1at24–25).Thisor interest doesnotweighinWaymo’s favorbecauseWaymo hasnotshownlikelihoodofsuccess property rights,andinprohibitingunfaircompe the relief grantedherein. order thereforeconcludesWaymo hasshownlikelihoodofirreparableharm sufficienttojustify unwound afterthefact,norcanitbeadequatelycompensated forwithmonetary damages. This circumstances, theharm thatWaymo islikelytosuffer asaresultofsuchmisuse cannotbe Misuse ofthattreasuretroveremains anever-presentdangerwhollyathiswhim. Underthese confidential filesfrom Waymo, atleastsome ofwhichlikelycontainWaymo’s tradesecrets. irreparable harm. and thatnothingaboutthiscourseofaction that Waymo reasonablyrefrained from bringingsuituntilitdiscoveredevidenceindicatinguse, not suingbeforeithad contend thatWaymo lacks defendants haveactually contention that, Dkt. No.295-4at10).Alinchpinofdefendant Gorilla email datedDecember 13,butdefendantsdismiss thisdevelopment asimmaterial ( Levandowski’s downloadsinOctober2016,ifnotearlier( Waymo respondsithadnoevidencethatdefendantswereactually Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument433Filed05/15/17Page20of26 Defendants alsoarguethat thepublicinterestweighsintheirfavorbecause allowing PublicInterest. Defendants donotdisputethatthepublichasaninterestinvindicatingintellectual C. To repeat,asfartherecordshows,Levandowskiremains inpossessionofover14,000 even now any used , Waymo cannotproveitscasebecauseitlacksevidencethat evidenceofuse.Thisargument impeaches itself.Thisorderfinds sufficient the14,000-plusdownloadedfiles.Inotherwords,defendants evidenceof usebutsimultaneously criticizeWaymo for suggests alackofurgencybelyinglikelihood 20 s’ misappropriation defense,however,istheir tition. Rather,defendantsarguethatthispublic der disagrees.Asstated,Waymo hasshownat see Dkt.No.222-1at21–22). using thefiles untilthe see United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 those tradesecretsfrom theoffending technology. accused technology,thisorder willnotnecessarilypr defendants say, by defendantsthusfar. LiDAR development thatisdisproportionatetoWaymo’s limited showingofmisappropriation Even alimited injunctionastothesespecificfeatureswouldimpose hardshiponUber’soverall and difficultcircumstances heredemand narrowandcarefully-tailoredrelief. the merits — even thespecificassertedtradesecretsonwhichWaymo hasshownseriousquestionsgoingto from usinganyof them soastoeffectively haltUber’sself-driving efforts untiltrial. pretending thatall121ofWaymo’s secretsarevalid,andenjoiningdefendants assertedtrade inference thatcouldbedrawninWaymo’s favorwouldjustifyoverlookingtheseproblems, secrets toevadedefensivearguments. Underthesecircumstances andonthisrecord,noadverse both overreachedindefiningitstradesecretsandmade moving targetsoutofitsassertedtrade does even thehandfulofassertedtradesecretsbriefedonthismotion containsinformation thatlikely secrets identifiedinWaymo’s listoftradesecrets”(Dkt.No.245-3at15).But,asexplained, discussed inWaymo’s briefing[and,]basedonadverseinference,usingtheadditionaltrade legitimate brazen misappropriation oftradesecretsbyitsexecutiveandengineerwouldhardlydiscourage continuing todevelopitstechnology.Moreover,safeguardsimposed onUberinresponseto in theself-driving carmarket. Butthelimited relief grantedhereinwillnotstopUberfrom Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument433Filed05/15/17Page21of26 not 8 7 Ifthejuryfinds,however,that Waymo’s trade secrets havebeenwrongly incorporated intoany Plus,itishardtoseehowthe reliefgrantedhereinwouldappreciablylimit consumer choiceif, as Importantly, Waymo’s motion seeksreliefviatheCourt’sequitablepower.Theunusual For similar reasons,thisorderalsodeclines,atstage,toenjoinUberfrom using BalanceofHardships. Waymo asks“thatUberbepreliminarily enjoinedfrom . .usingthetradesecrets D. On balance,thepublicinterestfactor favors thetailoredrelief grantedherein. qualifyfortradesecretprotection.Moreover,ithasbecome clearthatWaymo has competition inafieldwhereintellectualpropertyrightsareimportant toinnovation. i.e. , 8 otect defendantsfrom apermanent injunction stripping 21 . discussedabove. See SierraForest 7

United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 this stage. and briefingprogressed.ThisfurtherweighsagainstgrantingWaymo broaderrelief,atleast both overreachinginitsassertionofsupposedtradesecretsandmoving thetargetasdiscovery necessities of theparticularcase.”).Waymo itself contributedsignificantly tothedifficulty by essence ofequityjurisdictionisthepowercourttofashionaremedy dependinguponthe United Statesv.OdessaUnionWarehouseCo-op 641 (9thCir.2004)(recognizingthedistrictcourt’ .S 3. the reliefdescribedherein. order thereforeconcludesthebalanceofhardshipstipssharplyinWaymo’s favor,atleastasto Levandowski’s potentialmisuse ofitsproprietaryinformation incompeting technology.This minimal. Ontheotherhand,thiswillprovideconsiderableprotectiontoWaymo against Uber hasveryrecentlyimplemented ofitsowninitiative,sothehardshipondefendantswillbe order prescribesrelieftostriketheproperbalance. all theforegoingfactorsanduniquedemands ofthiscaseonWaymo’s instantmotion, this F.2d 1074,1080(9thCir.1986)(“Hewhoseeksequitymust doequity.”).Havingconsidered in thecontextofthatnarrowinjunction.”); narrowly tailoredinjunction,districtcourtsmust assesstheharms pertainingtoinjunctiverelief Legacy v.Rey Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument433Filed05/15/17Page22of26 This ordermainly prohibitsLevandowskifrom workingonUber’sLiDAR—ameasure Having consideredtheforegoing,Court COPE OF See Cty.SanitationDist.No.2ofLosAngelesv.InlandContainerCorp. , 577F.3d1015,1022(9thCir.2009)(“When decidingwhethertoissuea proprietary orconfidential information. and whetherornotanysuch materials qualifyastradesecretsor Waymo’s employment, regardlessofhowlonghekeptthem for Levandowski downloadedfrom Waymo andkept uponleaving Theterm “downloadedmaterials,” asusedinthis provisional order,means anyandallmaterials thatAnthony 1. R ELIEF G RANTED . High SierraHikersAss’nv.Blackwell 22 , 833F.2d172,175(9thCir.1987)(“The s broadlatitudeincraftingequitablerelief); ORDERS asfollows: , 390F.3d630, , 803 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Uber hasnoexcuseunderthe FifthAmendment topull anypunchesastoLevandowski. that theFifthAmendment prohibitssuchactions byprivat free toforfeithisprivateemployment topreserve hi that threatwouldbebackedup byonlyUber’spowerasaprivateemployer, andLevandowskiwould remain pilfered filestotheirrightful owner. IfUberwere simply directs Amendment groundsaretoocostly.”Thisor quote asanexample of how“certainsanctionsstemmi produce the14,000-plusdownloadedfiles. Perhaps defendantsmean tosuggestthatUbercannot incrimination bythreatsthattheiremployment willbeterminated.” 232F.3d1258,1265(9thCir. 2000). the propositionthat“individualscannotbeforcedto Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument433Filed05/15/17Page23of26 9 Intheirpresentationfororalargument, defendantsquoted Uber , aprivateemployer, todowhateveritcan exempted from theforegoingrequirement. their litigationexpertstouseindefending thiscivilactionare by copies, excerpts,andsummaries thereoftoWaymo (ortheCourt) and (b)causethem toreturnthedownloadedmaterials andall consulting, copying,orotherwiseusingthedownloadedmaterials; officers, directors,employees, andagentsofdefendantsfrom authority to(a)preventAnthonyLevandowskiandallother Defendants must immediately andinwritingexercisethe full extentoftheircorporate,employment, contractual,andother 2. prohibition, andfurtherinstructthem inwritingtoimmediately agents, suppliers,consultants,andcustomers inwritingofthis Defendants shallinstructalltheirofficers,directors,employees, copying, orotherwiseusingthedownloadedmaterials inanyway. customer ofdefendants; and(c)prohibithim from consulting, with anyofficer,director,employee, agent,supplier,consultant,or him from havinganycommunication onthesubjectofLiDAR pertaining toLiDAR;(b)takeallstepsintheirpowerprevent With respecttoAnthonyLevandowski, defendantsshall immediately (a)remove him from anyroleorresponsibility 3. M AY 31 ATNOON Ifso,thesuggestionisbaseless. der, however,threatensnosanctionsagainst . Copiesessentialforcounselofrecordand to threatenLevandowskiwith termination fornoncompliance, s FifthAmendment privilege.Nobindingcaselawholds waivetheirFifthAmendment rightsagainstself- use anyemployer authoritytopressureLevandowski ng from aparty’srefusaltoanswerquestiononFifth e employers. Inshort,incomplying withthisorder, 23 ensurethatitsemployees return14,000-plus Doe exrel.Rudy-Glanzerv.Glanzer 9 Glanzer producedtheforegoing Levandowski . It for United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument433Filed05/15/17Page24of26 and servedby efforts made toobtaincooperation.Theaccountingmust befiled defendants’ accountingshall setforththeparticulars,includingall For example, ifapotentialcustodianrefusestocooperate,then obtain cooperationwiththeforegoingprocedure from allinvolved. must also usethefullextentoftheirauthorityandinfluenceto diligence reportreferencing downloadedmaterials. Defendants of custodiansforeverycopyanydownloaded materials ordue materials. Theaccountingshallalsoidentifythecomplete chains due diligencereportbutshallcoveranyandalldownloaded downloaded materials thathappenedtomake theirwayintosome employed forthislitigation.Theaccountingshallnotbelimited to this civilaction,theattorneysofrecordandtheirstaffexperts may exclude,foronlythetime periodafterthe commencement of including Levandowskiandhisseparatecounsel.Theaccounting shall includeallpersonswhofittheforegoingdescription, LiDAR. Defendants’accountingshallnotbelimited toUberbut communicated withAnthonyLevandowskion thesubjectof interview personnelwithparticularfocusonanyonewhohas than queryserverswithterm searches.Forexample, theymust for whatpurpose.Intheirinvestigation,defendantsmust domore materials, whattheysaworheard,when heardit,and person whohasseenorheardanypartofdownloaded and provideadetailedaccountingunderoathsettingforthevery With respecttoallotherpersons,includingthosewith Stroz Friedberg,defendantsshallconductathoroughinvestigation 4. the Court). report anysuspectedbreachesthereoftothespecialmaster (orto J UNE 23 ATNOON 24 . Theaccountingmay befiled United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument433Filed05/15/17Page25of26 .Alsoby 5. materials. declarants insupportof such motion must sitfordepositionsonan moves for further provisional relief before trial,then allits response time isalsoreduced to14calendardays.IfWaymo propound 28reasonablynarrowinterrogatoriesfor whichthe the responsetime isreducedto14calendardays,andmay may propound28reasonablynarrowdocument requestsforwhich may takesevenfurtherdepositionson calendardaysnotice, respect toitstradesecretmisappropriation claims whether ornotsaidworkresultedinanyprototypedevice.With schematics, workorders,sourcecode,notes,andemails — work involvingLiDAR—including,withoutlimitation, expert may inspectanyandallaspects ofdefendants’ongoing order, anduponreasonablenotice,Waymo’s counselandone Waymo isherebygrantedfurther expediteddiscoveryin aid ofpossiblefurtherprovisionalrelief.Subjecttotheprotective 6. notes orrecordsreferencingthecommunication. persons involved,andsubjectsdiscussed,aswellanyall each suchcommunication thetime, place(ifapplicable),mode, all supplier, orconsultantofdefendants.Thelogshallidentifyfor mentioned LiDARtoanyofficer,director,employee, agent, letters, memos, andvoicemails —whereinAnthonyLevandowski meetings, phonecalls,one-on-oneconversations,texts,emails, communications —including,withoutlimitation, conferences, chronologically organizedlogofalloralandwritten Waymo’s counselandtheCourtwithacomplete and under seal only totheextentthatitquotesorappendsdownloaded J UNE 23 ATNOON 25 , defendantsshallprovide only , Waymo United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 or othersecurityintheamount of The foregoingprovisionalreliefshallbecome effectiveuponthepostingbyWaymo ofabond ae: a 1 07 Dated: May11,2017. D Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument433Filed05/15/17Page26of ENIED IT ISSOORDERED. For theforegoingreasons,plaintiff’smotion is inallotherrespects. Levandowski remains sealedofffrom LiDARactivities. monitor communications asnecessarytoensurethatAnthony provide for thespecialmaster tovisitdefendants’ facilities and proposed protocolstotheCourtforapproval.Theshall verification protocolswiththeparties’inputandthensubmit the special master shallpromptly developproposedmonitoring and master shallmonitor andverifysaidcompliance. Tothatend,the directives giventoAnthonyLevandowskiandothers.Thespecial Defendantsshallkeepcomplete andaccuraterecordsof their compliance withalloftheforegoingrequirements, including 7. discovery, itmay continuewithnormal discovery. unexpedited discovery.AfterWaymo hasexhausteditsexpedited expedited basis.Otherwise,defendantsmay takeonlynormal, FIVE MILLION DOLLARS CONCLUSION 26 G U W RANTED NITED . ILLIAM totheextentstatedaboveand S TATES A LSUP D ISTRICT J UDGE United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Defendants’ motion isalso immediately beforeleavinghisemployment theretostartOttomotto andOttoTrucking non-party AnthonyLevandowski, downloadedover14,000confidentialfiles from Waymo surroundings. Thecenterpiece ofWaymo’s caseisits evidencethatitsformer starengineer, Detection andRanging(LiDAR)technologythat helpsself-drivingcars“see”their “Uber”), andOttoTruckingLLCforallegedmi plaintiff Waymo LLCsueddefendantsUberTechnologies,Inc.,Ottomotto LLC(collectively, strike andforsummary judgment astoassertedtradesecretnumber 96are judgment onselectissues.Plaintiff’smotion isG TRUCKING LLC, OTTOMOTTO LLC;andOTTO UBER TECHNOLOGIES,INC.; v. WAYMO LLC, Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2219Filed11/14/17Page1of18 The factualbackgroundofthisactionhasbeendetailed inapriororder.Inbrief, In thisactionfortradesecretmisappropriation, allpartiesmove forpartialsummary Defendants. Plaintiff, FOR THENORTHERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA IN THEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT G RANTED INPART INTRODUCTION STATEMENT / andD sappropriation oftradesecretsconcerningLight RANTED INPART ENIED INPART (UNDER SEAL) SECRET NUMBER96 STRIKE ASSERTEDTRADE JUDGMENT ANDMOTIONTO PARTIAL SUMMARY ORDER REMOTIONSFOR No. C17-00939WHA andD . Defendants’motions to ENIED INPART G RANTED . . United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 No. 9,368,936,butWaymo’s dismissal ofitspatent cl are totheunredactedversions ofthedocuments cited. (quoting MatsushitaElec.Indus.Co.,Ltd.v.ZenithRadio Corp. the material facts”inthenon-movant’s favor,however,willnotsuffice. Id. Id. court must believethenon-movant’s evidenceanddrawalljustifiableinferences intheirfavor. Lobby, Inc. is onethat“might affecttheoutcome ofthesuitundergoverninglaw.” the moving partyisentitledtojudgment asamatter oflaw.Agenuinedisputematerial fact trade secretnumber 96( Nos. 1108,1129),whichhasalreadybeendeniedastoallchallengedclaims exceptasserted represents thefinalpieceofdefendants’priormotion tostrikecertaintradesecretclaims (Dkt. including thatitwasinadequatelydisclosed(Dkt.Nos.1514,1518).Thelattermotion also partial summary judgment onWaymo’s assertedtradesecretnumber 96onmultiple grounds, misappropriated anyallegedWaymo trade secret nine isnotatradesecret,andOttoTruckingmoves forsummary judgment thatithasnot 1418). Ubermoves forpartialsummary judgment thatWaymo’s assertedtradesecret number however, Waymo successfullymoved tocontinuethetrialdateDecember 4(Dkt.No.1954). belated productionofnon-partyStrozFriedberg’sduediligencereportontheOttoacquisition, self-driving carefforts(Dkt.No.426). (collectively, “Otto”).UberthenacquiredOtto Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2219Filed11/14/17Page2of18 at255.“Themere existenceofascintillaevidence”or“some metaphysical doubtasto 2 1 Defendantsalsomoved forsummary judgment ofnoninfringement ofWaymo’s UnitedStatesPatent Forthebenefitofcourt appealsandwith .L Summary judgment isappropriatewhentherenogenuinedisputeofmaterial factand 1. This orderfollowsfullbriefingandoralargument. Waymo moves forpartialsummary judgment oncertainaffirmative defenses(Dkt.No. By agreement of bothsides,thisactionwassetforajurytrialonOctober10.Afterthe , 477U.S.242,247–48(1986).Indecidingamotion forsummary judgment, the EGAL S TANDARD see Dkt.No.1260at108:5–15,110:13–111:3,133:24–134:13). . 1 ANALYSIS aim moots thatpartofthemotion (Dkt.No.1593). motto andhired Levandowskiastheheadofits 2 apologies tothepublic,most record citationsherein (Dkt. No.1423).Alldefendantsalsomove for , 475U.S.574,586(1986)). Anderson v.Liberty at252,260–61 2 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 before ithad that Waymo lacks misappropriation bydefendants. receiving theGorillaemail thatappearedtocontainfirstevidence ofactualtradesecret of Ottomotto.” ThesefactsdonothingtorebutWaymo’s pointthatitfiledsuitpromptly after concerns” and“accelerat[ing]itsinvestigationaf facts actuallyindicatethatWaymo acteddiligentlybyactivelyinvestigatingits“potential its “potentialconcerns”(Dkt.No.1524-3at16).Farfrom showingfailuretomitigate, these imminent acquisitionofOttomotto,” andinternallydiscussedwhentoreachoutUberabout investigation byJulyandAugust2016,“accelerateditsafterlearningaboutUber’s secrets” months beforereceivingtheGorillaemail, involvedoutsidecounselinsaid on thetiming ofWaymo’s suit”(Dkt.No.1418at8–9). “[t]he lengthoftheheadstartcreatedbyUbe Gorilla Circuits( misappropriation,” because (1)Waymo sued“withinweeksofobtainingevidence.tradesecret defense remain indisputeonthismotion. 1524-3 at2).Onlydefendants’failure-to-mitigate defenseandOttoTrucking’suncleanhands defenses (Dkt.No.1418).Intheiroppositionbrief,defendantswaivedallbuttwo citation omitted). moving party, thereisnogenuineissuefortrial.”Matsushita “Where therecordtakenasawholecouldnotleadrationaltrieroffacttofindfornon- Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2219Filed11/14/17Page3of18 As notedinthepriororder grantingprovisionalrelief,defendantsessentially “contend Defendants notethatWaymo “beganinvestigatingacompromise ofitsallegedtrade Waymo contendsdefendants havenoevidencethatitfailed tomitigate itsdamages Waymo initiallymoved forsummary judgment onelevenofdefendants’ affirmative .W 2. any .FailuretoMitigate. A. evidenceofuse”(Dkt.No. 426at19–20).Thisdissonanceremains onfull see Dkt.No.426at5);(2)any“delay”inbringingsuitwas AYMO sufficient i.e. , theemail datedDecember 13,2016,from LiDARcomponent vendor ’ S M evidenceof usebutsimultaneously criticizeWaymo for notsuing OTION RE A FFIRMATIVE r’s tradesecretmisappropriation doesnotdepend 3 ter learningaboutUber’simminent acquisition D EFENSES , 475U.S.at587(quotationand . de minimis;and(3) United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 unclean hands.Id. actions and“hands[that] arenotas‘cleansnow’”donecessarilyrise tothelevelof Maint. Mach.Co.,324U.S.806,814(1945)). Asourcourtofappealshassaid,“troubling” Now, Inc. or badfaith relativetothematter inwhichheseeksrelief.” its entitlement toequitablerelief. as anequitablematter, Waymo’s timeliness (orlackthereof)insuingmay somehow diminish Trucking untilitcouldcobbletogetherawaytosueUber,”permeate thedefensebrief( Mr. Levandowskiorhiscompanies” and“made thestrategicchoicetodelayinsuingOtto Waymo couldorwouldhavesoughtearlierrelief. secrets” (Dkt.No.1524-3at15).Were true,itwouldbeamystery thisreally howorwhy Otto Truckingisinvolvedinthedevelopment ofLiDARorthatithasusedthepurportedtrade relief astoOttoTrucking”andintheverynextparagraphclaim “Waymo hasnoevidencethat argue that“Waymo hasfailed tomeet itsdutytomitigate bydelayinginseekinginjunctive display indefendants’oppositiontotheinstantmotion. Forexample, defendantsspecifically summary judgment onthisdefenseis find fordefendantsonsaiddefenseastoanyclaim tobetriedbyajury.Waymo’s motion for mitigate defensebecausethisrecord,takenasawhole,couldnotleadrationaltrieroffactto bringing thisaction. Waymo that,takenasawhole,therecordreflectsonly damages andsquandereditbyfilingsuitlaterratherthansooner.Thisorderagreeswith further indicate,asdefendantssuggest,thatWaymo hadsome prioropportunitytomitigate its claims insofarastheymay speaktothevalueofassertedtradesecrets.Buttheydonot 16). Suchfacts,iftrue,may bearonthemerits ofWaymo’s tradesecretmisappropriation Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2219Filed11/14/17Page4of18 Unclean hands“closesthedoorsofacourtequity toonetaintedwithinequitableness Insinuations aboutWaymo’s ulterior motives, includingthat“Waymo didnot careabout Defendants havefailedtoshowagenuinedisputeofmaterial factontheirfailure-to- , 304F.3d829,841(9thCir.2002)(quoting .UncleanHands. B. at842.Rather,“thedefense ofillegalityoruncleanhandsisrecognized G RANTED 4 withoutprejudicetoanyfutureargument that, Precision InstrumentMfg.Co.v.Auto. de minimis,ifany,delaybyWaymo in Jarrow Formulas,Inc.v.Nutrition see id. at United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 defense ofuncleanhands is because itispremature andbecauseit is moot, Waymo’s motion forsummary judgment on the order, whichgrantssummary judgment ofnoliabilityinfavorOttoTrucking.Thus, both Waymo’s motion relatesspecificallytoadefenseassertedbyOttoTrucking,itismooted bythis may (ormay not)requiremoderation orevendenialofanyrelief.Moreover,inasmuch as relief, whereuponitsownconductinthislitigation might loom largeasan inequity andfairness yet come tolight.ItisconceivablethatWaymo might winattrialandthenseeksome equitable this stage,sincelitigationremains ongoingandfurtherevidenceofWaymo’s misconduct may merits, thereisnoneedtoreachitnow.Indeed,wouldbepremature todecidetheissueat Waymo’s “presentationof itscasecontrarytofacts” constitutesuncleanhands. had tobepriedoutofWaymo byCourtorder. regular practiceforengineers”todownloadtheentireSVNrepository( who toldWaymo’s lawyersthedownloadedfileswere“low-value”andaddedthat“itwas 1524-3 at13–14).Forexample, OttoTruckingpointstoSashaZbrozek,aWaymo engineer, Waymo’s SVNserver,”citingevidencetendingtoshowweaknessesinWaymo’s case(Dkt.No. trade secretsfrom Waymo bydownloading14,000files—theentirerepositoryfrom impression’ thatitsforensicinvestigationprovedMr.Levandowskihadstolenvaluable response, OttoTruckingclaims “Waymo has ‘soughtateveryturntocreatethefalse misconduct directlyrelatedtotheclaims thatWaymo isasserting”(Dkt.No.1418at9).In Wash. CapitolsBasketballClub,Inc.v.Barry hands doctrineinagivencaseisequitablenatureandwithinthediscretionoftrialcourt.” F.3d 983,990–91(9thCir.2009)(quotationomitted). “T courts byfalsifyingacourtorderorevidence.” subject matter ofthe.action”—forexample, whenaplaintiff“misused theprocessof only rarely,whentheplaintiff’stransgressionisof Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2219Filed11/14/17Page5of18 Since this Here, Waymo contendsOttoTruckinghasnoevidencethat“Waymo engagedin equitable defense willhavemeaning onlyif Waymo ultimately prevailsonthe D ENIED . , 419F.2d472,478(9thCir.1969). Giventhisstonewalling,OttoTruckingargues, 5 Dream GamesofAriz.,Inc.v.PCOnsite seriousproportionsandrelatesdirectlytothe he applicationorrejectionoftheclean ibid. ), revelationsthat , 561 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 disclose a“cylindricallens beingconfiguredto secret number ninewasgenerallyknown tothepublicorinfield.The’922patent did not lenses to commercially-available LiDARsystem asanexample ofanotherLiDARsystem thatusesFAC in thefield,asisgeneralnotionthatlens in frontofalightsourcecanbe for thepropositionthatusingFAClensesto ( plurality of laserdiodes,whereinsaidtransmit blockiscomprised of apluralityof PCBs” 23-1) disclosedatallrelevanttimes “aLiDARsystem comprising atransmit blockcomprising a field. DefendantspointoutthatWaymo’s ownUnitedStatesPatentNo.8,836,922(Dkt. that varioussubpartsofWaymo’s assertedtradesecretnumber ninearegenerallyknowninthe number nineclaims (Dkt.No.25-7at8): C Act define“tradesecret”asinformation that: Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2219Filed11/14/17Page6of18 see Dkt.No.1419-4at10).Theyalsoquotethedepositiontestimony ofWaymo’s engineers AL .

C IV None oftheforegoingevidenceconclusivelyshows thatWaymo’s entireasserted trade Defendants’ motion reliesonacompilation ofevidencefrom varioussourcestoargue Both theCaliforniaUniform TradeSecretsActandthefederalDefend .U 3. .

C ODE being configuredto lens ispositionedinfrontofeachlaserdiode,saidcylindrical laser diodeisconfiguredtoemit beams andwhereinacylindrical of apluralityof PCBs[printed circuitboards], andwhereineach plurality of laserdiodes,whereinsaidtransmit blockiscomprised [A] LiDARsystem comprising atransmit blockcomprising a circumstances tomaintain itssecrecy. (2) Isthesubjectofeffortsthatarereasonableunder can obtaineconomic valuefrom itsdisclosureoruse;and not beinggenerallyknowntothepublicorotherpersonswho (1) Derivesindependenteconomic value,actualorpotential,from § BER

3426.1; seealso ’ S M OTION RE 18U.S.C.1839.Here,Waymo’s assertedtradesecret A SSERTED ( . see id. T 6 at10–12).Finally,theypointtoVelodyne’s RADE S ECRET N UMBER isawell-knownconcept ( see id. N INE at13). . .” United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 transmit blockiscomprised of apluralityof PCBs”( system “comprising atransmit blockcomprising apluralityof laserdiodes,whereinsaid question, from includinginsuchadesignthebasicopticalconceptof using multiple diodesonmultiple PCBs”becauseofits’922patent,yet“seek[ing]tobarthem Defendants accuseWaymo of“acknowledg[ing]thatitcannotbaritsformer engineersfrom Dkt. Nos.1526-4at10,1636-42(emphasis added)).(Velodyneuses positions in assertedtradesecretnumber nine“stems inpartfrom thefactthatWaymo, unlikeVelodyne, of itsLiDARsystem constitutetradesecretinformation (Dkt.No.1455). 19). Additionally,Velodyneitselfinsists—albeitingeneralterms —thattherelevantdetails example, bothsidesagreethatVelodyne’s Li patent. Butitremains aquestionoffactwhetherornotWaymo’s useofFAClenses to its patentedLiDARsystem isactuallya“basicopticalconcept.” Dkt. No.1526-28at68:7–69:6),Waymo contendsthis while VelodynehasuseditsFAClensesto known inthefield( using FAClensesto The same Waymo engineersquotedbydefendantsalsotestifiedtotheeffectthatstrategyof Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2219Filed11/14/17Page7of18 , itseems, Velodyne reliesonthestrategic In theirreplybrief,defendantsseizeuponWaymo’s explanationthatthedesignclaimed True, substantialpartsofassertedtradesecretnumber nineare encompassed by the’922 multiple i.e. , whetherWaymo’s useof FAClensesto inthefirst instance(seeDkt.No.1526-4at16–17).Forthelatterpurposeof laserdiodesonasinglePCB,withmultiple PCBsstacked see Dkt.Nos.1526-10at230:16–231:19;1526-25217:16–218:20).And ” (Dkt.No.1636-4at2).Butthisreasoningmerely begsthe wasgenerallyknowntothepublicorinfield. For DAR system meets thedefinitionofaLiDAR 7 , notto see Dkt.Nos.1526-4at7,1636-4 at4n.1).

inaLiDARsystem isnotgenerally ( see, e.g.,Dkt.No.1526-27at initsLiDARsystems ( wasusedto in parallel .) ” ( within see see United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 confidential,” urginginsteadthat“thepointisthegeneralconceptofusinganFACto Waymo’s particularsolutionof using FAClensesto asserted tradesecretninethatisencompassed bythe’922patentbutneverthelessnotarriveat including inhoweachsystem usesitsFAClensesto Yet, asexplainedabove,Velodyne’sLiDARsystem issignificantlydifferentfrom Waymo’s, Levandowski undervarious unpersuasivetheories,whichthisordernow discusses. misappropriation claims againstOttoTruckingbylumping ittogether withUberand remains aseparatecompany. Waymo neverthelessseekstopreserveitstradesecret system (Dkt.No.1419-4at16–20).UnlikeOttomotto, ithasnotbeenacquired byUberand and existssimply asaholdingcompany toowntrucksequippedwithVelodyne’s LiDAR for summary judgment thatassertedtradesecretnumber nineisnotatradesecret disputes ofmaterial fact.Theyareaccordinglyreservedforthejury,anddefendants’motion that assertedtradesecretnumber nineisgenerallyknowninthefield—allpresentgenuine trade secretnumber nine,andwhetherornotVelodyne’sdesignsconstitutesufficientevidence Waymo’s ’922patentandVelodyne’scommercially-available LiDARsystem discloseasserted concepts andskillsinherentintheheadof everyLiDARengineer,thedegreetowhich whether ornotWaymo’s assertedtradesecretnumber nineencompasses nomore thanordinary in thefield,asdefendantscontend. whether ornotWaymo’s assertedtradesecretnumber nineis whether ornotVelodyneconsidersitsdesigntobetradesecretinformation may bearon 1636-4 at4).Thisargument dismisses theevidencewithoutrespondingtoit.Thepointisthat Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2219Filed11/14/17Page8of18 isknownintheLiDARfield,andfollows Defendants alsobrushoffthequestionof Otto Truckinghasneverbeeninvolvedinthedevelopment or useofLiDARsystems, In summary, defendants’arguments astoassertedtradesecretnumber nine—including .O 4. . Inshort,itremains possiblethataLiDARdesignmight usethatpartof TTO T RUCKING ’ S M OTION RE 8 fundamental principlesofoptics”(Dkt.No. “whether Velodyne’sFACdesignispublicor M ISAPPROPRIATION generally knowntothepublicor . D ENIED . . United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 this CourtandtotheFederalCircuitthatithas own making. Toavoidhavingtoarbitratethiscase,Waymo hasrepeatedlyrepresentedtoboth for purposesofthisparticularlitigation.Inaspecialway,iskeylimitation ofWaymo’s matter, similarly situatedoreveninterchangeableinsome sense,theyare existence asMr.Levandowski’scompany” (Dkt.No.1526-4at23). Waymo’s caseagainstOttoTruckingrestslargelyon—inWaymo’s words—its“very on evidenceof secrets willincreaseOtto Trucking’svalueasanacquisitiontargetfor Uber.Thus, Waymo formed it.Moreover,Waymo claims, Levandowski’spossessionofmisappropriated trade Levandowski’s misappropriation because itfailedtotakeadverseactionagainsthim afterhe arguments ontheinstantmotion throughthelensofthisfoundationalprinciple. — suchthatWaymo neednotseparatelyprovethelatter.Thisorderevaluates Waymo’s automatically transmogrified intomisappropriation byOttoTrucking—oranyotherdefendant is somehow astand-inforLevandowski,orthatmisappropriation by Levandowskiissomehow defendant, Waymo may notrenegeandsuggestth its word.Havingmade andbenefittedfrom itsstrategicchoicetonotname Levandowskiasa Waymo hassuccessfullyavoidedarbitrationandkeptitsclaims inapubliccourt.Itmust keep ( Trucking’s acquisition—bywayof (Dkt. No.1526-4at19(emphasis added)).Waymo alsocontendsitsclaims “encompass — isOttoTrucking’sExecutiveChairman, co-ManagingMember, andlargeststockholder” that “acentralfigureinthemisappropriation ofWaymo’s tradesecrets— purports toidentify“ misappropriation byLevandowski repeatedly suggeststhat Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2219Filed11/14/17Page9of18 id. at21).AndevenWaymo’s supplemental offerofproofasto To beveryclear,whetherornotOttoTruckingandLevandowskiare,asapractical In itsoriginaloppositionbrief,Waymo contendsOttoTruckingisvicariously liable for A recurringproblem inWaymo’s briefingmust beaddressedattheoutset.Waymo Levandowski’s Otto Trucking’s Otto Truckingshouldbedeemed automatically liablefortradesecret misappropriation ( . Togivejustafewnon-exhaustiveexamples, Waymo Mr. Levandowski’s roleinthemisappropriation” butgoesontoreciteonly not 9 see Dkt.No.2055-3at2–7).Inshort, at OttoTrucking—oranyotherdefendant suedLevandowskiherein.Bydoingso, theft—oftheassertedtradesecrets Otto Truckingreliesprimarily not Anthony Levandowski interchangeable Otto United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2219Filed11/14/17Page10of18 matter of remedies, notof liability. judgment astoliability( include OttoTruckingaswell,butincorrectlyasserts thatthispracticalfactbarssummary sequence onitsheadanddrasticallyexpandthescope ofliabilityunderCUTSAandDTSA. Counting themere possibilityof suchbenefit asproof of misappropriation wouldturnthis reached onlyafter defendant benefitted from tradesecretmisappropriation wouldtypicallybeoneof damages, entities merely becauseitmight benefitinthe information. Waymo citesnoauthorityforitssuggestionthat and DTSAprovideforliabilityonlythroughacquisition,use,ordisclosureoftradesecret respect tothetradesecretmisappropriation claims inthis another lawsuitinthefutureifdefendants’actionsgiverisetoadditionalclaims). With subject of theoperativecomplaint in Waymo isrelyingonOttoTrucking’spossible Levandowski misappropriated itsassertedtradesecrets.Asexplained,thiswillnotbeallowed. approach, Waymo simply wantstobeable toholdOttoTruckingliablebyprovingonlythat indistinguishable from automatic equivalenceofLevandowskiandOttoTrucking.Undereither matter. Forall intentsandpurposes,Waymo’s proposedtheoryofvicariousliabilityis moment for vicariousliabilitypurposesthatOttoTruckinghasnomeaningful choiceinthe always bedeemed tohave“ratified”whateverLevandowskihasdone,anditwouldbeofno against Levandowski.Waymo’s argument, ifaccepted,wouldmean thatOttoTruckingmust 20–25). ButitisundisputedthatOttoTruckinghasnopracticalabilitytotakeadverseaction thereby ratifyinghiscontinuedpossessionofWaymo’s tradesecrets( reasons, OttoTrucking“acceptedandretained”thebenefitofLevandowski’smisappropriation, . Indeed,thissuggestionputsthecartbeforehorse.Thequestionofwhethera Waymo correctlynotesthatanyeffectiveinjunctivereliefagainstUbermay haveto Otto Trucking’spotentialfuturewithUberdoesnotcompel adifferentresult.Insofaras themisappropriation itself hasbeenestablishedinthefirst instance. see Dkt.No.1526-4at23). Theeffectivenessofinjunctivereliefisa this future from themisappropriation ofotherindividualsand litigation(althoughWaymo remains freetofile 10 future actions,thoseactionsarenotproperlythe litigation,theplaintextofCUTSA Otto Truckingcanbeliable see Dkt.No.1526-4at now United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2219Filed11/14/17Page11of18 sought toaddasnewclaims lateinthecase( Otto Trucking,misappropriated tradesecretsin 2–9). Italsosummarizes evidencethatDonBurnette,anotherco-founderandshareholderof Levandowski’s substantially overlapswithWaymo’s priorarguments andagainreliesheavilyonevidenceof material factas toOttoTrucking’sliabilityfortheclaims atissueinthislitigation.It proposed newsoftwaremisappropriation claims) ( Trucking backinforasecondtriallateronifWaymo iseventuallyallowedtoaddinits Waymo’s currentclaims againstOttoTrucking(althoughtheymay justifyaddingOtto however, willnotbeaddedtoourupcoming trialthisyear,sotheydonotjustify preserving that Ronpossesseditstrade secrets—itneverpointstospecific evidencethat the dataretained Significantly, althoughWaymo describesthisdatainsome detail— andstatesinlaterargument report asevidencethatRon retainedpossessionofsome “confidentialWaymo data.” reasons alreadystated.AstoRon,Waymo’s supplemental offerofproofcitestheduediligence shareholder ofOttoTrucking.AstoLevandowski, thesetheoriesarerejectedforthesame ratification theoriestoincludebothLevandowski andLiorRon,anotherco-founder material factastoOttoTrucking’sliability. Otto TruckingonWaymo’s currentclaims. Thisevidencefailstoraiseagenuinedisputeof authority forwhythisevidenceagainst 10–11). Waymo stylesthisasashowingofdirectliabilitybutprovidesnoexplanationor of acceleratingdevelopment ofautonomous driving inbothcarsandtrucks”(Dkt.No.2055-3at simultaneously employed byUberandOttoTrucki LiDAR development effortsbyMr.Levandowskiandotherindividualswhowere Mr. LevandowskiwasworkingatOttoTrucking,”“thattradesecretinformation wasusedin “Levandowski possessedandretainedaccessed[ Waymo’s supplemental oppositionbriefsimilarly failsto raise agenuineissueof In itssupplemental oppositionbrief,Waymo alsoexpandsitsvicariousliabilityand In itssupplemental oppositionbrief,Waymo reiteratesinoneshortparagraphthat misappropriation tostateacaseagainst other individualsandentities see id. 11 motion planning softwarethatWaymo had sic see Dkt.No.2129). ng,” and“thatworkwasdoneforthebenefit at9–10,16).Thoseproposednewclaims, ] toWaymo tradesecretinformation while Otto Trucking( addsuptoacaseagainst see Dkt.No.2055-3at United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2219Filed11/14/17Page12of18 therefore retainjurisdictionover OttoTruckingfor thelimited purposeof possiblyfacilitating any effectiveinjunctive relief may have toincludeOttoTruckingaswell.TheCourt will to Waymo’s currentclaims fortradesecretmisappropriation againstOttoTrucking. Trucking misappropriated anyassertedtradesecrets.Summary judgment isthereforeproperas evidence againstOttoTruckingfailstoraiseagenuine disputeofmaterial factthatOtto joint andseveralliability.With thisfoundationalprincipleinmind, theremainder ofWaymo’s limitation ofitsownmaking byrestylingitstheoryasoneofvicariousliability, ratification,or litigation strategy,Waymo cannottreatthetwoasfungibletargets.Norcanitcircumvent this on misappropriation isaboutLevandowski liable onWaymo’s currenttradesecretmisappropriation claims. Waymo’s strongestevidence genuine disputeof material fact astoOttoTrucking’sliability. Waymo’s currentclaims. Itsblipaboutjointandseveralliabilitythereforefailstoraisea explanation orauthorityforwhytheseassertionsadduptoacaseagainstOttoTruckingon stands tobenefitinthefuturefrom Uber’sdevelopment efforts.Again,Waymo providesno in Uber’sLiDAR-development effortsarealso the jurymay usetofindOttoTruckingliable”becausemany ofthesame individualsinvolved that alldefendants arejointlyandseverallyliable“[r]egardless of thespecific theoryof liability vicarious liabilityandratification theories(seeid. In short,Waymo’s supplemental evidenceregardingRon’sactionsfailstoimprove onits “refus[al] totakeanyremedial actions” againstRonisof littlesignificance (seeid. behalf ofOttoTrucking( evidence thatanyofthisshadybehaviorrelate tracks andotherwiseactedsuspiciouslyduringtheduediligenceprocess,butproffers no Waymo alsosummarizes evidencethatbothLevandowski andRonattempted tocovertheir by Ronactuallyincludedanyoftheassertedtradesecretsatissueinthiscase( That said,itremains apracticalconcern that,ifWaymo prevailsagainst Uberattrial, In short,therecordtakenasawholecouldnotleadrationaljurytofindOttoTrucking Finally, inanothershortparagraphofitssupplemental oppositionbriefWaymo argues see id. at4–5).Inlightofthesedeficiencies,OttoTrucking’s , notaboutOttoTruckingandasaresultofitsown d toorindicatedtradesecretmisappropriation on OttoTruckingemployees, andOttoTrucking 12 at11–16). see id. at13–14). at4). United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2219Filed11/14/17Page13of18 encompassed notonlytheinformation containedinthe schematic itself butalsostrategiesor secret information. Worse, Waymo argued thatitsassertedtradesecretnumber 96 componentswhat partthereofmight andspecificationswithno clueasto beconsideredtrade demonstration. Itbecame readilyapparentthattheschematic inquestionincludedhundreds of also insisting thatitsassertedtradesecretclai (Dkt. No.1159-4at7).Inotherwords,Waymo attempted toavoidtheoverbreadthproblem by PCB inonespecificLIDARdesigncouldbedefi response, Waymo stated,“Itisnotclearhowatradesecretdisclosurethatidentifiesonespecific engineering schematics’ itcontendstobeatradesecret”(Dkt.Nos.1107-4at4,1129).In particularity whatspecificaspectsofthehundredscomponents disclosedinthe‘detailed asserted tradesecretnumber 96asoverbroadbecause“Waymo failstoidentifywith manufacturing tolerances”(Dkt.Nos.25-7at55). and unknowndesigncharacteristicssuchasthe unique include schematics] the [in details these Waymo’s “[f]orexample, addedthat, disclosure design schematics andlayoutscontainedinfolder‘ accused filesandconvenientlyassertthatcontentsthereinweretradesecretsstolenfrom them.) front itsassertedtradesecrets.(Otherwise,trade-secretplaintiffsareliabletogetintothe reasonable particularity”priortodiscoverythereon,theCourtrequiredWaymo todiscloseup California CodeofCivilProcedure,which G such relief.Totheforegoingextent,OttoTrucking’smotion forsummary judgment is RANTED Dkt.No.1491at32:3–4). , theselectionandlayoutofindividualelectricalcomponents, andtherequired The judgepersonallyexamined thePCBschematic inquestionduringaclosed Prior totheinstantmotion forsummary judgment, defendantshadmoved tostrike Waymo’s assertedtradesecretnumber 96claimed “theG[B]r3PCBTransmit BoardC D Pursuant toitscasemanagement responsibilityaswellSection2019.210ofthe 5. . OttoTruckingwillnotbeapartof theupcoming trialthisyear. EFENDANTS ’

M OTIONS RE med onlythespecificdesignofonePCB( requires tradesecretstobeidentified “with A SSERTED 13 ned withanymore ‘reasonableparticularity’” T RADE S ECRET N UMBER .’” Therestof 96. see United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2219Filed11/14/17Page14of18 as willbeexplainedina moment. Buttheoverbreadth of the disclosureitself wasfurther the respect intoUber’sLiDARsystem. TheonlyaspectofthePCB designsupposedlycopiedwas PCBs inWaymo’s LiDARsystem, onlyonewasevenclaimed tohavebeencopiedinany claimed thatdefendantscopiedit—butevencollapsedupon examination. Outof alleged misappropriation oftradesecrets,itfocusedononetiny portionoftheschematic and it hadbeenmisappropriated. When Waymo submitted itsoffer of proof astodefendants’ was exactlytheopposite—seizinguponaseemingly-random subpartofaandclaiming misappropriating theentireschematic lock,stock,andbarrel.Itseventualaccusation,however, known topersonsskilledinthatfield.”) particularity may berequiredtodistinguishtheallegedtradesecretsfrom matters already advances inthestateofartahighlyspecializedtechnicalfield,more exactinglevelof See ibid. either didnotqualifyastradesecretinforma and innumerable otherstrategiesandconceptsarguably“reflected”therein,asWaymo putit— the untenablepositionofhavingtoprovethathundredssubpartsdesignschematic — each case.”).ThevastnessofWaymo’s disclosurewasmost unfair,foritplaceddefendantsin ‘particularity’ thatis‘reasonable’willdiffer, dependingontheallegedtradesecretsatissuein Modular Sputtering,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt the breadthofassertedtradesecretnumber 96. added)). Suchwide-rangingexpanderscompounded themisery intryingtoplacearms around required manufacturing tolerances”(Dkt.Nos.25-7at55,1260113:10–21(emphasis Waymo said,“uniqueandunknowndesigncharacteristics concepts “reflected”intheschematic ( It soonturnedoutthateven thesupposedequivalenceof Waymo’s broadclaim might havebeenforgivenhaditaccuseddefendantsof This disclosurecame nowhereneartherequiredreasonableparticularity. (“Where, ashere,theallegedtradesecretsconsistofincremental variationson,or , theselectionandlayout ofindividualelectricalcomponents, andthe see, e.g.,id. , nothingelse. , 132Cal.App.4th826,836(2005)(“Thedegreeof tion orwerenotusedindefendants’technology. 14 at54:18–55:6).Italsocomprehended, such as the See Advanced wasuntrue, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2219Filed11/14/17Page15of18 ‘the PCB schematic, andidentifiedforDefendantsthatoneuniqueaspectoftheschematic disclosure wasadequateastoassertedtradesecretnumber 96becauseit“identifiedthisexact former claimed itsspecific — thatWaymo’s truefocusinassertedtradesecretnumber 96allalong wasonlyonits mention itsexpansionoftheassertedtrade secrettoinclude“reflected”strategiesandconcepts from thecomplex schematic andfrom Waymo’s nonexclusive list ofexamples —notto asserted tradesecret,itwouldhavebeenwholly unreasonable toexpectdefendantsdiscern, the into sharprelieftheunreasonablenessofWaymo’s initialdisclosure.Although Waymo didlist trade secretnumber one,previouslyrejectedasnothingmore than“Optics101.” schematic toaclaim over“itsimplementation ofits confirmed thatitwasattempting toreframe itsclaim overanentireprintedcircuitboard attempting tocirclebackclaiming a“ the partiesbegantoargueoverassertedtradesecretnumber 96( “nothing more thanOptics101,”deletingthatsupposed“tradesecret”from thecaselongbefore relief orderhadalreadyspecificallyfoundthatWaymo’s assertedtradesecretnumber onewas 1371-4 at17–25 printed circuitboardinaLiDARsystem —attheprovisionalreliefstage( asserted tradesecretnumber one—whichclaimed theconceptof turned outtobemerely amore detailedrenditionoftheevidenceithadofferedwithrespectto bear withusaswerevisitthathistory. amplified whenread inthecontextof assertedtradesecretnumber one,sothereaderwillplease .” Waymo attempted todistinguishnumber 96from number onebysuggestingthatthe This raisedproblems. First Defendants filedasupplemental briefpointingoutthatWaymo wasessentially Waymo’s narrowedofferofproof astoassertedtradesecretnumber 96inlargepart ( with see, e.g.,Dkt.No.1449-4at3–4).Moreover,Waymo arguedthatits Dkt.Nos.25-61at8–11,245-3

as , asexplained,iteffectivelyresurrectedWaymo’s asserted one example configurationratherthanthegeneralconceptof 15 ofmany “characteristics”encompassed byits ’” (id.at4(emphasis added)). 3–4). Significantly,theprovisional ” concept.Waymo’s response see DktNo.426at16–17). andtheresulting compare Second, itcast Dkt.No. reflected ona United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 surface alsocalledthePetzval surface. Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2219Filed11/14/17Page16of18 — tomaximize theoverlapbetweenresultingparabolicgraphs(id. lenses, evenscalingforthediscrepancybetweentheirfocallengths—120mm versus150mm graphs, Dr.Hesselinkcompared thePetzvalsurfacesofWaymo andUber’srespectivetransmit declaration byitshiredexpertLambertus Hesseli PCBs inbothLiDARsystems) ( comparisons oftheir e.g., Dkt.No.1357-3at24).TheCourtneverthelessaskedbothsidestoprovidedetailed conclusively different,andnojurycouldreasonablyfindotherwise. Dkt. No.1159-4at6).ButthePCBinquestionwasnotcopieditsentirety,evenclose. component of the claimed schematic would emerge astheissue,very Even assuming forthesakeofargument thatdefendantswereobligedtoguesswhatspecific asserted tradesecretnumber oneactuallyexacerbatedtheunreasonablenessofitsdisclosure. what supposedlymatters isthe as broaditis,hasnothingtodowiththe“optical properties”ofanytransmit lens.Rather, optical properties”( “his analysisshowsthatthetransmit lenses[are] substantiallysimilar interms of theiroverall to theshapeofPetzvalsurfaceincase ofthetwo transmit boards undercomparison,” so Hesselink’s analysisshowsthatthelensmaterial andlensshape donotmeaningfully contribute An overlayofPetzvalsurfacesprovesnothinginthiscase.Waymo insiststhat“Prof. Waymo presentedevidencethat defendantsmisappropriated its be expectedtoguesswouldsomething alreadydeletedfrom thecase. or 3 Inanopticssystem, theimage corresponding toalinearobjectfocusedbylenswilllieon acurved For starters,Waymo’s PCB Nor, asitturnsout,wasthe Two identicallenses,however,willalwayshavePetzvalsurfaces—always. To repeat,Waymo’s disclosure might still perhapshavebeenreasonablyadequatehad see, e.g.,Dkt.No.1634-4at18–19).Butassertedtradesecret number 96, strategy.Third,andinasimilar vein,Waymo’s retreatbacktoits see Dkt.Nos.1408,1416).Inresponse,Waymo submitted a strategiesforbothPCBsinquestion(andall 16 nk (Dkt.No.1456-3).Inaseriesofparabolic copied.Thelatterprovedtobe whileUber’s specific implementation alongthePetzvalsurfaces, ¶¶13–23). last thingtheycould 3

( ( see, see United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 similar Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2219Filed11/14/17Page17of18 differences betweenthe two sides’ onWaymo’s claimed PCB,andthe similar approachtoWaymo indesigningtheir and mirrors. Hisinexplicableleapfrom thatsimilarity totheconclusionthatUber“took a did notoverlapwithany of Uber’s is That provesnothingforWaymo. What matters withrespecttoassertedtradesecretnumber 96 position thatUber“tookasimilar approachtoWaymo indesigningtheir overlaid curves,heparroted,withnoadditionalanalysis,Waymo’s unsupportedlitigation And despiteacknowledgingthatthe visually-similar match inPetzvalsurfacessomehow translatedtosimilar surfaces ofWaymo andUber’srespectivetransmit lenses,andthentriedtosuggestthatthis In otherwords,Dr.Hesselinkmanufactured avisually-similar match betweenthePetzval whereWaymo andUber’s do notoverlapatall( that the Hesselink’s overlayofthescaledPetzvalsurfaces which am’ lie C ( Waymo’s claimed PCB must beplacedsomewhere onthePetzvalsurface— otherwise theywillbeoutoffocus.But,asstated,Uber’saccusedPCB are placed.Ofcourse,all where onthePetzvalsurfaces 4 Thisisconsistentwithother responsesbyboth sides showing thattheirLiDARsystems share neither Dr. Hesselink’semphasis onthesimilarity ofthePetzvalsurfacesisatrick— smoke To repeat,twoidenticallenseswillalwayshavePetzvalsurfaces—always. Nevertheless, Dr.Hesslinkconcluded( foreachsideproduceddramatically different took asimilar approach toWaymo indesigningtheir reflected bythefactthatcurvesarequitesimilar. from theUbersystem fallontheWaymo parabola. This comparison allowsevaluationofwhetherthe norasimilar see Dkt.No.1456-3¶23). . aresimilar as well, butnotidentical,reflectingthatUber te inWaymo andUber’srespectiveLiDARsystems the see, e.g.,Dkt.No.1357-3at24).Moreover,the strategy( id. 17 4 see, e.g. approaches—rendershis opinionunreliable, ¶24(emphasis added)): , however,itisapparentfrom hisowngraphs are“notidentical”evenonthescaledand , Dkt.Nos.1458-5,1461-5). fallontheoverlaidPetzvalsurface ” —despitealltheaforementioned They do,as The . EvenwithDr. . .” while . United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2219Filed11/14/17Page18of Defendants’ motion isalso Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and thusinadmissible, underFederalRuleofEvidence702and ae: coe 0 07 Dated: October30,2017. strike andforsummary judgment astoassertedtradesecretnumber 96areG and forsummary judgment astoassertedtradesecretnumber 96arethereforeG number 96,thereisnogenuinedisputeofmaterial factthatdefendantsuseneitherWaymo’s evidentiary recordshowsthatevenunderWaymo’s reformed versionofassertedtradesecret resurrect assertedtradesecretnumber one,itisrejectedagainas“Optics101,”and(4)the prejudicial thanprobativetothejury,(3)insofarasWaymo reformed itsassertedtradesecretto misappropriation bydefendantsrelieduponanunre (1) itwasinadequatelydisclosedattheoutsetofthislitigation,(2)Waymo’s evidenceof well. Dr.Hesselink’sopinionastoassertedtradesecretnumber 96istherefore misleading tothejury,more prejudicialthanprobative,andthusinadmissible underFRE403as evidence thatUbermisappropriated Waymo’s overlap ofthePetzvalsurfaces—which,course,arevisuallysimilar —somehow constitutes analytical gapbetweenthedataandopinionproffered”).Moreover,hissuggestionthat 146 (1997)(adistrictcourtmay excludeanexpe For theforegoingreasons,plaintiff’smotion is IT ISSOORDERED. In short,summary judgment isappropriate astoassertedtradesecretnumber 96because , 509U.S.579,597(1993). norits G RANTED INPART CONCLUSION andD 18 rt opinionwhere“thereissimply toogreatan See Gen.Elec.Co.v.Joiner liable expertopinionthatwouldbemore strategy.Defendants’motions tostrike ENIED INPART G U W RANTED INPART NITED ILLIAM Daubert v.MerrellDow S TATES A . Defendants’motions to strategywouldbegrossly LSUP andD D RANTED ISTRICT , 522U.S.136, S RANTED ENIED INPART TRICKEN . J UDGE . . . United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 IN PART LLC’s initialdisclosures andtoprecludeitsdamages claims andcertainwitnesses(Dkt.Nos. Ottomotto LLC(collectively,“Uber”),and Otto and neednotberepeated here.InJulyofthisyear,defendantsUberTechnologies, Inc., to strikeis Wagner is information pertinenttoplaintiff’s damages move toexcludeplaintiff’sdamages expert,andtoexcludeevidenceofcertainfinancial initial disclosuresandtoprecludeitsdamages claims andcertainwitnesses.Defendants also TRUCKING LLC, OTTOMOTTO LLC;andOTTO UBER TECHNOLOGIES,INC.; v. WAYMO LLC, Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2220Filed11/14/17Page1of16 The factualandproceduralbackgroundofthisaction hasbeendetailedinpriororders In thisactionfortradesecretmisappropria andD G D RANTED ENIED ENIED INPART Defendants. Plaintiff, . FOR THENORTHERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA . Theirmotion toexcludeevidenceoffinancialinformation is IN THEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT asstatedherein.Excepttotheextentherein, theirmotion INTRODUCTION STATEMENT / theory. Defendants’motion toexcludeMichael Trucking LLCmoved tostrikeplaintiff Waymo tion, defendantsmove tostrikeplaintiff’s (UNDER SEAL) OTHER RELIEF AT TRIAL,ANDDENYING FINANCIAL EVIDENCE RESTRICTING USEOF MICHAEL WAGNER, ORDER EXCLUDING No. C17-00939WHA G RANTED United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 are totheunredactedversions ofthedocuments cited. testimony istheproductofreliableprinciples andmethods; and(d)theexperthasreliably or todetermine afactinissue;(b)thetestimony isbasedonsufficientfactsor data;(c)the technical, orotherspecializedknowledgewillhelp education may testifyintheform ofanopinion benefit ofmultiple roundsofbriefingandhearing,thisordernowresolvesthoseissues. Waymo’s damages theoryagainstUberforallegedtradesecretmisappropriation. With thefull (Dkt. No.942)hasalsobeenmooted. Thei strike (Dkt.No.797)hasthereforebeenmooted. OttoTrucking’sseparatemotion tostrike Trucking (Dkt.No.2151).InsofarasitpertainstoWaymo’s patentclaims, Uber’smotion to Nos. 841,1593)andanotherordergrantedsummary judgment ofnoliabilityinfavorOtto at thefirstfinalpretrialconferenceonSeptember 27. information pertinenttoWaymo’s damages theory(Dkt.No.1557-4).Bothmotions wereheard No. 1615¶¶3–5).Defendantsalsomoved inlimine computation of commercial damages overthelast40yearsof[his]professionalcareer”(Dkt. economic issues thatariseincommercial disputes.” Heclaims tohave“specializedinthe at LitiNomics, Inc.,“afinancialandeconomic consultingfirm specializingintheanalysisof accountant and Nos. 1614-4,1653).Wagner isnotaneconomist butmerely an exclude thetestimony andopinionsofWaymo’s hireddamages expertMichaelWagner (Dkt. eventual damages theory( 797, 942).Apriororderheldthosemotions inabeyancependingevaluationofWaymo’s Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2220Filed11/14/17Page2of16 1 Forthebenefitofcourt appealsandwith .M “A witnesswhoisqualifiedasanexpertbyknowledge, skill,experience,training,or 1. While thosemotions hungfire,Waymo voluntarilydismissed itspatentclaims (Dkt. After discoveryclosedandthepartiesdisclosedexpertreports,defendantsmoved to inactive OTION TO OTION California-licensedattorney.Hecurrentlyworksasmanaging director see Dkt.No.1261at78:6–14). E XCLUDE XCLUDE M ICHAEL ANALYSIS ssues remaining foradjudicationpertainonlyto 2 or otherwiseif: (a)theexpert’sscientific, apologies tothepublic,most record citationsherein W thetrieroffacttounderstandevidence AGNER toexcludeevidenceofcertainfinancial 1 . inactive certified public United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 the relevant sections of Wagner’s reportdiscussed below. the relevantsectionsofWagner’s ( see one totwoyears.Based onthisestimated accelerationandUber’sowninternal“Rubicon” acquisition couldpotentiallyaccelerateUber’sautonomous-vehicle development timeline by acquisition couldpotentiallybenefit Uber.TheQislide estimated that theentireOttomotto executive NinaQipriortotheOttomotto acquisitiontosummarize heranalysisofhowthe development, Wagner reliedonaninternalpresentationslidethathadbeencreated byUber was] unabletoquantify”( also describedahostof“otherwaysinwhichDefendantshavebeenunjustlyenrichedthat[he As toassertedtradesecretnumber 90,hetook profits orsaveddevelopment costsasaresultofacceleratedautonomous-vehicle development. trial, Uber’sallegedunjustenrichment couldbemeasured interms ofeitherincremental future because theyaresubstantiallymore prejudicialthanprobativeunderFRE403. will beexcludedbothbecausetheydonotqualifyasexperttestimony underFRE702and evidence inthecasethatcanspeakforitself.Asthisordernowexplains,Wagner’s opinions reliability. Instead,hemade thesame arguments thatthelawyerscanmake basedonother methodology, theory, ortechnique,much less Other thangrade-schoolarithmetic, however, he didnotapplyanycoherentprinciple, 2014); exclude “junkscience.” role” toensurethatexperttestimony admitted intoevidenceisbothreliableandrelevant,to Merrell DowPharms.,Inc. applied theprinciplesandmethods tothefactsofcase.”F Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2220Filed11/14/17Page3of16 Dkt.No.2151at13–18).Number 96isneverthelessmentioned inthisorderonlytofaithfully reproduce 2 Sundance, Inc.v.DeMonteFabricatingLtd. Apriororderdeletedasserted tradesecretnumber To quantifyincremental futureprofitsfrom acceleratedautonomous-vehicle Wagner opinedthat,astoeightofthenineassertedtradesecretsWaymo selectedfor Wagner offeredopinionslabeledasbothunjustenrichment andreasonableroyalty. .UnjustEnrichment. A. .IncrementalFutureProfits. 1. Messick v.NovartisPharms.Corp. see Dkt.No.1615¶¶264–65). , 509U.S.579,592–94(1993).Districtcourtshavea“gatekeeping one possessinganydiscernibleindiciaof a differentapproach,asexplainedbelow.He 3 96 from theoriginallistofnineselected fortrial , 550F.3d1356,1360(Fed.Cir.2008). 2 , 747F.3d1193,1197(9thCir. ED .

R.

E VID .

702; see Daubertv. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 as quotednowfrom hisreport(Dkt.No. 1615¶285): saved time takenfrom otherevidenceinthecasetoarrive athisunjustenrichment conclusion, Dkt. No.1786-3at46:18–47:15). trade secretnumber 90,Wagner tookadifferentapproach,asexplainedbelow ( “would notsignificantlyormaterially impact” itsoveralldevelopment timeline. Forasserted despite Uber’sclarificationintheverysame interrogatoryresponses thatitsredesignestimates asserted tradesecretacceleratedUber’sentire system. Wagner claimed thoseestimates representedtheamounts oftime bywhicheach long itwouldtakeanindependentcontractor 13, 14,and7,Wagner cherry-pickedfrom Uber’sinterrogatoryresponses,whichestimated how misappropriating assertedtradesecretnumber 111.Forassertedtradesecretnumbers 9,96,2, years justbymisappropriating assertedtradesecretnumber 25andoneyearjustby the opinionofLambertus Hesselink,anotherWaymo-hired expert,thatUberhadsavedtwo Waymo hadselectedfortrial.Henoindependentopinionaboutthis.Instead,hereliedon time Uberhadallegedlysavedbymisappropriating eightofthenineassertedtradesecrets accelerated autonomous-vehicle development, Wagner thenpurportedtoestimate howmuch how Wagner made it. should topoutatthehighestnumber intheslide.Thisisafantasticleap.Heresummary of numbers. But Waymo seekstotransmogrify thisslideinto proofthatasingletradesecretalone cities coveredby2022)( $1.585 billion(oneyear)to$2.61(twoyears)givenan“optimistic” assumption (thirty billion (twoyears)givena“baseline”assumption (thirteencitiescoveredby2022),andfrom Uber asaresultoftheOttomotto acquisitionrangedfrom $836million (oneyear)to$1.69 business model, theQislideestimated thatthepresentvalueof incremental future profits to Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2220Filed11/14/17Page4of16 Wagner thensimply multiplied thedollaramounts from theQislidewithunitsof Assuming thattheQislidereliablyestimated incremental future profits basedon The Qislidewillcome intoevidenceandWaymo cantrytoholdUberthosesky-high id. ¶¶271–81). to redesigntheaccusedfeaturesinitsLiDAR autonomous-vehicle development timeline, 4 see id. ¶284, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 that stated,“Ifmultiple tradesecretsare foundtobeinfringed,Ihaveconservativelyassumed selected for trialafter discovery. came from legitimate benefitsasopposedtothemisappropriation ofeightspecifictradesecrets the Qislideandleavenoroom for thepossibilitythatrealvalueof theOttomotto acquisition and 111,accordingtoWagner.) for the comparison withtheQislide’sestimate of eight specifictradesecrets worth ofdevelopment time andover$5.5billion(giventhe“optimistic” assumption) forjust timeline asmuch asWagner concludeditdid,thenUberwouldhavesavednearly Of course,ifeachofthoseassertedtradesecretsindependentlyacceleratedUber’sdevelopment Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2220Filed11/14/17Page5of16 entire Ottomottoacquisition To blurtheavariciousoptics ofoverreaching,Wagner addedtwoconclusorysentences Amazingly, thesefigures,takentogether,farexceedthehighest numbers anywhere in —remarkable figuresbyanymeasure, butparticularlyin . (Uberwouldhavesavedthree one to 5 two yearsand$836million to$2.61billion yearswithjustnumbers 25 four years’ United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 that Ottocouldadvance these effortsbyonetotwoyears.”);1834-4at1 (“[Wagner] is secrets).”), 9(“Evaluating Waymo’s tradesecretsaspart oftheOttoacquisition,Uberestimated 409; 1777-3at4(“Uber was evaluatingwhethertoacquireOtto(andthus, Waymo’s trade intent tomisappropriate Waymo’s desire forLiDARtechnology suggested asmuch, frequentlyconstruingevidenceinthecaseto conflateUber’sexpressed Waymo’s tradesecretsinitsestimation ofOttomotto’s value.Wagner andWaymo haveboth Either way,however,raisesseriousproblems withthereliabilityof Wagner’s opinion. Waymo’s theorythatUberknowinglymisappropriated itstradesecretsthroughOttomotto). autonomous-vehicle development intoincremental futureprofits(whichwouldundermine or whethertheQislidewasusefulonlyasageneralformula forconvertingaccelerated with Waymo’s theorythatUberknowinglymisappropriated itstradesecretsthroughOttomotto) Waymo’s tradesecretsaspartofitsestimation trial gimmick —afactorthatfurtherundercutsthereliabilityofhisopinion. supposedly couldhavesought.Inshort,Wagner’s phonycloakofconservatism wasamere desensitize thejurytoenormity ofwhatWaymo isseekingbycontrastwithwhatit trade secrets.Putdifferently, itwasatransparentattempt toskewthedamages horizonand to appearreasonabledespitetheastronomical valuationsassignedtoeachofWaymo’s asserted “conservatism,” bothintheaforementioned paragraphandthroughouthisreport,wasaneffort litigation tacticoftheassumption, however,isapparent.Wagner’s emphasis onhissupposed 12, 1786-3at96:5–17).(Thatexplanationraised other problems, asexplainedbelow.)The different aspectsofLiDARdevelopment couldproceedconcurrently(seeDkt.Nos.1777-3at Waymo (inbriefing)andWagner explainedthathehadassumed (indeposition) subsequently be awarded”( enrichment for thetradesecretwithlongestperiodofacceleratedAVdevelopment should that theacceleratedAVdevelopment isnotadditive.Therefore,onlythecorrespondingunjust Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2220Filed11/14/17Page6of16 Possibly, Wagner’s (andWaymo’s) theorywasthattheQislideincludedvalueof Wagner’s reportleftambiguous whether,inhisopinion,theQislideactuallyincluded id. ¶286).Wagner’s reportofferednoexplanationforthisassumption, although in general specific duringtheOttomotto acquisitionwithUber’salleged tradesecrets( of Ottomotto’s value(whichwouldbeconsistent 6 see, e.g.,Dkt.Nos.1615¶¶309–11, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 and experienceinahighlyspecializedin-demand field,aswell acquisition conclusion becauseitestimated incremental futureprofitsattributabletothe potential enrichment misappropriating Waymo’s tradesecrets( accelerate itsownAVtimeline atthetime ofmisappropriation.”), 2(“AsDefendantswere calculating Defendants’unjustenrichment basedonhow 12:21–15:11). Thisinterpretationwouldavoid secret misappropriation andthelegitimate benefits of acquisition( to thiseffectwhenaskedwhyWagner neverapportionedtheQi slide’sestimates betweentrade one yearequals$836million andtwoyearsequals$1.69billion). Waymo gaveanexplanation as ageneralformula tocalculateincremental futureprofitsfrom saveddevelopment time ( Waymo’s tradesecretsinitsestimation of Ottomotto’s value,andtheyreliedontheslideonly acquisition encompassed thereinwouldrenderhisopinionunreliableunderFRE702. the Qislide’sestimates withnoapportionment forthe stated intheQislideandcopiedbyWagner. Underthisinterpretation,Wagner’s relianceon attributable totradesecretmisappropriation wouldhavebeenfarlessthanthefullamounts enrichment (Dkt.No.1615¶¶309–11).Thus,theestimated incremental futureprofitsactually misappropriation oftradesecrets”andshouldthereforenotbeincludedincalculatingunjust recruiting engineersandreducingtheengineerranksatGoogleisunrelatedto competitors. Indeed,Wagner himself admitted laterinhisreportthat“anygaintoUberfrom benefits forUber,likethepotentialtodisruptandslowdowndevelopment effortsof those responsesunfavorable tohiscause.Uberspecificallynotedinitsinterrogatory responses to relyonUber’sinterrogatory responsesaboutredesigntimes butselectivelyexcisedparts of still runheadlongintootherflawsinWagner’s report. Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2220Filed11/14/17Page7of16 Under thisinterpretation,however,theQislidewouldactuallycontradictWagner’s Alternatively, perhapsWagner (andWaymo) assumed theQislidenevercontemplated With respecttoassertedtradesecretnumbers 9,96,2, 13,14,and7,Wagner purported , includinglegitimate to itself asofthatdate.”)(emphasis inoriginal)). assetslikeanentireteam ofengineerswithknowledge,skill, i.e. , astheywereacquiringOtto),Ubercalculatedthe the aforementioned apportionment problem but 7 legitimate Uber expectedthetradesecretsto elements of theOttomotto see Dkt.No.1863at legitimate entire Ottomotto anticipated e.g., United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 of anyrealexpertiseisa pervasiveproblem inWagner’s incremental futureprofits“analysis,” counsel candoonaneasel. Where Thereisnone. Theabsence isany specializedknowledge? example, Wagner simply adoptedtheopinionsofothersandperformed grade-school arithmetic repeat, heisnotaneconomist butmerely aninactiveCPAandlawyer. Here,for 96:5–17, 111:14–112:2). LiDAR development couldproceedinparallel( development timeline, yet(2)Waymo’s damages arenotadditivebecausedifferent aspectsof (and Waymo’s) assumptions that(1)eachassertedtradesecretwouldbottleneckUber’sentire on itsoveralldevelopment timeline. NordoesitexplainawaythetensionbetweenWagner’s redesign estimates whileignoringitsaccompanying commentary abouttheimpact ofredesign LiDAR isimportant toUberinnowayjustifiesWagner’s decisiontoselectivelyrelyonUber’s drawing conclusionsfrom reliableanalysisofthefacts. contradictory evidencefurtherindicatesthathepickedfactstosuithisconclusionsinsteadof of unjustenrichment. Wagner’s willingnesstostitchtogetherstrategicfragments of and Hesselink’sopinionthatthoseverysame interrogatoryresponseswereanunreliablemetric Wagner tosimultaneously relyonbothselectivefragments ofUber’sinterrogatoryresponses ( pointed outinhisdepositionandreplyreportthat Uber’s redesignestimates didnotadequatelycaptureitsunjustenrichment. Wagner also other words,heseizedonthepartofanswerlikedandtossedasidedisliked. ( explanation thatdifferentaspectsofLiDARdevelopment could indeedproceedconcurrently Uber’s caveatactuallyremains consistentwithbothWaymo andWagner’s after-the-fact technology tothegeneralpublic the timelineforcommercializationandrolloutofUber’sfully-autonomousself-driving that “scheduletimesidentifiedfortheredesigns.wouldnotsignificantlyormateriallyimpact Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2220Filed11/14/17Page8of16 see Dkt.Nos.1615¶284,1777-1074,1786-3at92:18–93:22). see Dkt.Nos.1777-3at12,1786-396:5–17).Wagner, however,rejectedthiscaveat;in A separateproblem isthatWagner bringsnospecializedknowledgetothetable. To Wagner attempted tojustifythischerry-pickingbyquotingHesselink’sopinionthat ” (Dkt.No.1617-2at4(emphasis added)).Significantly, 8 see, e.g.,Dkt.Nos.1777-3at8,12;1786-3 LiDARisimportant toUber’sdevelopment Second, thegeneralpropositionthat First , itwasinconsistentof United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 internal Uberdocument abouttheOttomotto acquisition thatforecastedsaving“months” of causing unfairprejudicesubstantiallyoutweighs theprobativevalueofitslawyerargument. excluded underFRE403becauseitsdangerofconfusing theissues,misleading thejury,and more thanlawyerargument opinion.Hisopinionwill thereforealsobe dressedupasexpert on itsownforthejury’sconsideration.Wagner’s barometers ofUber’sexpectationsgoingintotheOttomotto acquisition,thatevidence canstand the subjectmatter atissueis“beyondthecommon knowledgeoftheaveragelayman”). 108 F.3d1031,1038(9thCir.1997)(expertwitnesstestimony isadmissible underFRE702if mouthpiece forarguments thatWaymo’s lawyerscanmake. is wellwithinthekenofaveragejuror.TherenoreasonforWagner toserveasa 46:6–47:15). Straightforwardapplicationofgr by Hesselinkwithdollaramounts liftedfrom theQislide(seeDkt.Nos.1777-3at4,1786-3 Wagner appliedno“specializedknowledge”bysimply multiplying theunitsoftime espoused Hesselink’s opinionsregardingsaveddevelopment time werereliableinthefirstinstance, misleading becauseofthedifficultyinevaluatingit.”); and FRE403.SeeDaubert,509U.S.at595(“Expertevidencecanbebothpowerfulquite misleading facadeofexpertise.Hisopinion evidence Wagner reliedoncanspeakforitself,andhisonlycontributionwouldbetopilea not furthercomplicated bytheaforementioned cherry-pickingproblem. Therubisthatthe though itisclearerwithrespecttoassertedtradesecretnumbers 25and111becausetheyare time, respectively( parroted Hesselink’sopinionsthattheysavedUbertwoyearsandoneyearofdevelopment because theirtestimony is“likelytocarryspecialweightwiththejury”). 1212 (9thCir.2014)(expertwitnessesmay receive“unmerited credibility”forlaytestimony Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2220Filed11/14/17Page9of16 To quantifythedevelopment costsallegedly savedbyUber,Wagner reliedonanother Insofar astheQislideandotherevidenceinthiscasemay turnouttobegood To taketheexamples ofassertedtradesecretnumbers 25and111,Wagner essentially see Dkt.No.1615¶284).Assuming forthesakeofargument that .SavedDevelopment Costs. 2. should thereforebeexcludedunderbothFRE702 ade-school arithmetic touncomplicated numbers 9 ipse dixit United Statesv.Gadson andpseudo-“analysis”arenothing See, e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Morales , 763F.3d1189, , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2220Filed11/14/17Page10of16 which canspeakforitself, plussome basic arithmetic usingastraightforward$20million figure because itamounted tonothingmore thanuncriticalacceptance ofotherevidenceinthecase, Wagner’s “analysis”regardingsaveddevelopment costs shouldbeexcludedunderFRE702 jury candothegrade-schoolarithmetic andfollowcounsel’sclosing argument onaneasel. counsel canmake theargument aswellWagner, whoaddsnothingbywayofexpertise. The of Wagner’s “analysis”regardingsaveddevelopment costs. figure, andthebasicarithmetic requiredtoproducetheforegoing chartrepresented thetotality a fewassertedtradesecrets.Thisassumption, thereferencetoUber’sinternal$20million even highertotalwhilepreservinghighnumbers incasethejuryfinds liabilityonlyastooneor figures Wagner wouldassigntoeachassertedtradesecretsoasavoidtheabsurdresultofan As stated,thisassumption washighlysuspect,awa trade secretwiththelongestperiodofsaveddevelopment time shouldbeawarded”( saved development time isnotadditive,”so“onlythecorrespondingunjustenrichment forthe Wagner thenrepeated,againinconclusoryfashion,thathe“conservativelyassumed thatthe produce thefollowingresults,quotedfrom hisreportverbatim ( saved (discussedabove),multiplied the$20million figurebymonths supposedlysavedto 1615 ¶292).Wagner tookthisinternalestimate and,usingthesame unitsoftime supposedly development, whereineachmonth ofdevelopment savedtranslatedto$20million (Dkt.No. Again, thedocuments citedbyWagner canindependentlycome intoevidenceand 10 y todeflectattentionfrom thestratospheric id. ¶293): id. ¶295). United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 of thatexperttoo.Eitherbot argument ofcounselbasedonuncomplicated evidencealready inthecase, thenfairplaywillrequireexclusion Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2220Filed11/14/17Page11of16 critical distinctioninhis reportwaswhenhestated,“Irecognizedthatin additiontothe ( property, yethedidnoworkwhatsoevertoaccount forthevalueofthoselegitimate benefits including Tyto’semployees, certain deposition thattheeightmillion dollarsofconsiderationaccounted for“anumber ofbenefits,” between legitimate benefitsandtradesecretmisappropriation. Indeed,Wagner agreedin that hemade noattempt toapportiontheallegedaccelerationofUber’sdevelopment timeline enrichment ofDefendantsrelatedtoTradeSecretNo.90”( concluded that“the$8million cashconsiderationisareasonablenumber tousefor theunjust million dollarsplusequityinconsiderationfor Tyto( secret number 90(Dkt.No.1615¶¶298–99).Wagner thennotedthatUberpaidatotalofeight 2016, so(3)defendantssavedtwoyearsandfive using assertedtradesecretnumber 90todevelopitsproduct,and(2)UberacquiredTytoin Waymo claims wassurreptitiouslyownedbyLevandowski,spenttwoyearsandfivemonths adopted wholesaleHesselink’sopinionthat(1)Tyto,anotherautonomous-vehicle company that Uber’s allegedunjustenrichment withrespecttoassertedtradesecretnumber 90,Wagner again substantially more prejudicialandmisleading thanprobativeunderFRE403. excluded underFRE702, See Daubert,509U.S.at595;Gadson763F.3d1212.Itis“junkscience”thatshouldbe evidence hecitedbutalsoactuallymuddy theuncom Indeed, Wagner’s “analysis”wouldnotonlyfailtoimprove ontheprobativevalueof understand theevidenceordetermine afactinissue. from Uber’sinternal documents. Thisisnot“specializedknowledge”thatwillhelpthejury see Dkt.No.1786-3at114:4–117:19).Theclosest Wagner came toacknowledging this 3 IfUberalsoplansonusingan “expert”whoislittlemore than amouthpiece forpresentingthe It willsuffice tosimply pointoutoneglaringproblem inWagner’s “analysis,”namely Asserted tradesecretnumber 90receivedWagner’s separateconsideration.Toquantify .AssertedTradeSecretNumber90. 3. h sidescandoit,orneithercan. see Messick legitimate , 747F.3dat1197,andshouldfurtherbeexcludedas forms ofintellectualproperty,andsome tangible 11 months bymisappropriating assertedtrade plicated factswithhisfacadeofexpertise. id. See, e.g.,Morales108F.3dat1038. ¶¶301,304,306).From thishe id. ¶¶307–08). 3 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2220Filed11/14/17Page12of16 the opinionheprofferedwarrantshisexclusionunderFRE702. trade secretmisappropriation inthiscase.Theanalyticalchasm betweenthedatahecitedand account forcommonsensical factorsvitaltoanyreliablecomputation ofunjustenrichment from single assertedtradesecret.His“analysis”astosecretnumber 90failedto table intheTytoacquisition,includinglegitimate forms ofintellectualandtangibleproperty. the legitimate benefits acquired,and(4)stilldidnotaccountforotherlegitimate benefitsonthe employees, (3) made noattempt toexplainhowtheequitycorrespondedevenapproximately to deposition testimony thattheeightmillion dollarsofconsiderationalsoaccountedforTyto’s not evenstateWagner’s conclusionbutmerely leftittoimplication, (2)flatlycontradictedhis contributed atanypointintime. Ifso,thissuggestionwaswhollyinadequatebecauseit(1)did but perhapsmeant tosuggestthatitfullyaccountedforanyvalueTyto’semployees might have Ottomotto” (Dkt. No.1615¶307).Heneverbotheredtoexplainthesignificanceofthatequity also paidadditionalconsiderationbeyondthe$8million cashintheform of2.75%equityin technology, Defendantswerealsoacquiringfiveemployees from Tyto.However,Defendants FRE 702.Togivejustoneexample, Wagner opined(Dkt.No.1615¶319 (emphasis added)): expertise. It,too,shouldbeexcludedunderbothFRE702and403. probative thantheevidenceitcitedandwouldlikelydistortthatwithfacade of 522 U.S.136,146(1997).Moreover,aswithhisotheropinions,thisopinionwouldbenomore It wasabsurdfor Wagner tosimply attributeTyto’sfull stickerpricetothevalueof a The finalsectionofWagner’s unjustenrichment opinionalsofailstopassmuster under could bedramatic. cost ofthird-partyLiDAR atvolume, theexpectedcostsavings $1,895.5 billionperyear . Therefore,dependingon theexpected 2020 forsavingsof$18,955pervehicle,thecost savingswouldbe from the$19,950expectedin2018downto$995 in its ownLiDARresultsinvolume purchasesavingsforLiDAR expects topurchase100,000vehiclesperyear,and isdeveloping that itexpectstorollout.Justasanexample calculation,ifUber will resultinsubstantialcostsavingsgiventhenumber of vehicles savings overthenextseveralyearsonitsLiDAR sensors,andthis There isevidencethatUberlikelytoachievesignificant cost attributable tothemisappropriation ofthetradesecrets. on developingitsownLiDAR, letalonethecostsavings to reliablyestimatethecost savingsthatUberwillachievebased .UnquantifiableUnjustEnrichment. 4. At thistime,Ihavenotfound enoughevidence 12 See Gen.Elec.Co.v.Joiner , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 See CUTSA norDTSApermits anaward ofdamages measured by Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2220Filed11/14/17Page13of16 essence synthesizesthefourteen”otherfactors( tend toincreasethereasonableroyaltybysome unspecifiedamount whilethefifteenth“in through theGeorgia-Pacific (measured byincremental futureprofits)thathehadcalculatedearlier( December 2015toAugust2016periodanda“baselineroyalty”equaltheunjustenrichment allegedly misappropriated tradesecrets,Wagner beganwithahypotheticalnegotiationinthe savings, becausehisactualopinionswillbeexcludedunderbothFRE702and403. this cardandinvitethejurytospeculateabout“significant,”“substantial,”or“dramatic” cost and faithfultoreliabledata,Iwillnotgothere.”Wagner willnotgettheopportunitytoplay In effect,thisleavestheimpression, “Thenumbers couldgoevenhigherbutbeingconservative This isjustanotherattempt tosurroundastronomical numbers withafacadeofconservatism. reasonable royalty“analysis”issummed upasfollows( royalty. Wagner callsit“tenpercent,”evidentlytomasquerade asmore reasonable.His parties isatenpercent(10%)increaseovertheBaselineRoyalty”(Dkt.No.1615¶439). all theconsiderationsdescribedabove,reasonableroyaltythatwouldbeagreedtoby these “neutral”or“increase”factors,Wagner thensimply concluded,“Inmy opinion,basedon factors pertinenttoreasonableroyaltycalculationsforapatentlicense).Aftersumming up Corp. v.UnitedStatesPlywood 18U.S.C.1836(b)(3)(B)(ii); C 4 Inareasonableroyaltyanalysis, youdon’tget To quantifyareasonableroyaltythatdefendantswouldhavepaidforWaymo’s Mind you,thiscomes toatotalroyaltymorethantentimesgreater .ReasonableRoyalty. B. LiDAR atthistime. value toUberrelatedcostsavingsbasedonlowercostsof Therefore, Ihavenotperformed aspecificquantificationforthe AL factors,concludingthatfourteenwereeither“neutral”orwould .

C IV .

C ODE , 318F.Supp.1116,1120(S.D.N.Y.1970)(listingfifteen §3426.3(b). 13 both the“base” id. ¶¶386–438). both unjustenrichment see id. and the“royalty.”Plus,neither ¶440): See generallyGeorgia-Pacific 4 and areasonableroyalty. id. ¶¶383–85).Heran a“tenpercent” United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 claims ( supplemental reportregardingdamages attributable from ourupcoming trialthisyear.This orderstates not reachthem becausetheforegoing Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2220Filed11/14/17Page14of16 as Waymo insiststhattheaforementioned evidenceisrelevanttoWagner’s damages opinions, Wagner’s damages opinionsandthereforemooted in lightofhisexclusion.Similarly, insofar Much ofdefendants’motion isactuallydedicatedtoarguments abouttheinadequacies in revenue forecastsandestimated lostprofits,and(3)Uber’sfinancial conditionorresources. in tradesecretdevelopment relatingtoautonomous-vehicle technology,(2)Waymo’s future FRE 403.Defendants’motion toexcludeWagner’s opinionsandtestimony is are alsosubstantiallymore prejudicialthanprobativeandthereforesubjecttoexclusionunder unjust enrichment numbers bytenpercentacrosstheboard. “increase” factorsinahypotheticallicensingnego whatsoever tobridgetheanalyticalgapbetw should beexcludedonthisbasisalone.Italsobecausehemade noattempt incremental futureprofits)opinion,soitsuffersfrom thesame problems discussedaboveand Wagner’s reasonableroyaltycalculationispremised onhisunjustenrichment (measured by see 5 Defendants’ other stated objections to Wagner’s Defendants’otherstatedobjections toWagner’s .M Defendants move toexcludeevidenceof(1)Waymo’s estimates ofitsowninvestments 2. In summary, Wagner’s opinionsfailtopassmuster underFRE702and Dkt.No.2062at20–21). OTION TO OTION E XCLUDE XCLUDE problems arealreadymore exclusion thansufficienttowarrantWagner’s E VIDENCE OF noopinionastotheadmissibility proposed ofWagner’s to Waymo’s proposednewsoftwaremisappropriation een hisdiscussionofunquantified“neutral”and 14 opinions may wellhavemerit, butthisorder need tiation andhisdecisiontosimply raisehis F INANCIAL See Joiner I NFORMATION , 552U.S.at146. G Daubert . RANTED . They . 5 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2220Filed11/14/17Page15of16 because suchinformation isirrelevant and posesariskofbiasingthejury’saward”(Dkt. No. offering anyevidenceabout Uber’scurrentrevenues,profitability,orother financialresources evidence ofitsfuturerevenueforecastsandestimated lostprofits attrial. also seektheCourt’sadvancepermission viaawrittenofferof proofbeforeintroducing propose asuitableuseforthisevidenceattrial.This orderthereforeconcludesWaymo must straightforward evidenceof Uber’sowninternalestimates, butconceivablyWaymo couldstill seems unlikelythatthisproposedcomparison wouldaddmuch probativevaluetothe on thereasonablenessofUber’scorresponding investments, itsownfuturerevenueforecastsandestimated lostprofitsarerelevantas“checks” damages horizonforthejury(Dkt.No.1557-4at2–4).Waymo respondsthat,likeitsestimated forecasts andestimated lostprofitsareirrelevanttoitsdamages theoryandlikelytoskewthe proof beforeintroducingevidenceofWaymo’s estimated investments attrial. concludes onlythatWaymo must seektheCourt’sadvancepermission viaawrittenoffer of however, itisnotclearthatthisevidenceshouldbeexcludedoutright.Thisordertherefore especially giventhevastuniverseofvariablesthatwouldbesweptunderrug.Atthispoint, to Uber’sinternaldocument containingthe$20million figure,whichcouldspeakforitself, comparison betweentwoverydifferentcorporations’expensescouldaddmuch probativevalue to $20million saved(Dkt.No.1557-12at2–3).Itseems unlikelythatthistypeofsimple reasonableness of asserted tradesecrets(overthecourseof2–7years)”—arerelevanttocorroborate investments — supposedly“between$50million and$1billiontodeveloptheindividual horizon becauseoftheirhighfigures( improperly calculated, irrelevanttoWagner’s damages theory,andlikelytoskewthedamages about theactualevidenceprofferedbyWaymo separateandasidefrom Wagner’s opinions. that argument no longercarriesanyweight.Thisorderfocusesonlyontheparties’arguments Third Second, andinasimilar vein,defendantscontendWaymo’s ownfuturerevenue First , defendantscontendWaymo’s estimates ofitsowninvestments are“conclusory,” , defendantsassertinconclusory fashionthat“Waymo shouldbeprecludedfrom Uber’s estimate that each month ofsaveddevelopment time wouldtranslate see Dkt.No.1557-4at2).Waymo respondsthatitsown 15 figures (Dkt.No.1557-12at3–4).Again,it United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2220Filed11/14/17Page16of PART above andbeyondwhathasalreadybeengrantedherein,itisD Waymo’s initialdisclosures.Insofar astheremainder of Uber’smotion tostrikeseeksrelief finds thatnofurtherreliefisnecessaryunderthesecircumstances toremedy anyshortfallsin financial information is specific items of evidenceattrial.Asstatedherein,theirmotion toexcludeevidenceof motion astothisevidenceisthereforeD under whichUber’srevenues,profitability,orfinancialresourcesmay berelevant.Defendants’ evidence. EvenwithoutWagner, itisconceivablethatWaymo couldpresentadamages theory 1557-4 at4).Thisisnotsufficienttojustif ae: oebr2 07 Dated: November 2,2017. Their motion toexcludeevidenceoffinancialinformation is asstatedherein.Excepttotheextentherein,theirmotion tostrikeis For theforegoingreasons,defendants’motion toexcludeMichaelWagner is R With thebenefitofWaymo’s fulldamages theoryandtheforegoingrulings,thisorder 3. IT ISSOORDERED. EMAINDER OF G RANTED INPART U BER ’ S CONCLUSION M ENIED OTION TO OTION y outrightexclusionofsuchbroadswaths andD withoutprejudicetotargetedobjections 16 ENIED INPART S TRIKE U W NITED ILLIAM . G RANTED INPART ENIED . S TATES A . LSUP D ISTRICT andD D ENIED G J ENIED IN RANTED UDGE . . United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 compilations, program devices,formulas, designs business, scientific,technical, economic, orengineeringinformation, includingpatterns, plans, fifteen pagesandfollowtheguidelinesforcasequotations previouslydescribed. proposed modification must befiledby change. Pleasenotethatnewinstructionshavebeen added.Anyandallobjections before thejuryandshallnotclaim “reliance”ontheseinstructions,sincetheyare subject to the endoftrialevidence.Counselandwitnessesshallpleasenotrefertotheseinstructions The Courtreservesthediscretiontoreviseandafurther conference onthem willbeheld near the misappropriation claims, afterconsideration ofallarguments andsubmissions todate. and OTTOMOTTOLLC, UBER TECHNOLOGIES,INC., v. WAYMO LLC, Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2449Filed01/03/18Page1of11 A “tradesecret”involvesinformation andcanpotentiallycover anyform of financial, Below pleasefind therevisedpenultimate juryinstructionsandspecialverdictform on Defendants. Plaintiff, FOR THENORTHERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA IN THEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT / NOON ON ON NOON I. , prototypes,methods, techniques,processes, J ANUARY MISAPPROPRIATION ON TRADESECRET JURY INSTRUCTIONS PENULTIMATE No. C17-00939WHA 29,

2018 . Pleaselimit yourfilingto . United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 given AllegedTradeSecret,therefore,Waymo must proveallofthefollowing: secrets. Acquisitionalonewillnotbeenoughtorecoverdamages. recovery thatrequiresittoproveunjustenrichment byreasonofuseordisclosuretrade acquisition, useordisclosureoftradesecrets,Waymo proceedsinthistrialonatheoryof although ourtradesecretlawsallowrecoveryforunjustenrichment basedonimproper unjust enrichment, ameasure thatisrecognizedunderourtradesecret laws.Furthermore, misappropriation isproven,Waymo has chosentoproceedonameasure ofdamages called secret. are (ornot)infacttradesecrets.Waymo must stillprovethateachonequalifiesasatrade of theseinasingledocument hasbeendoneforyourconvenience.Itdoesnotmean thatthey that atradesecretconcernsinformation. factors thatIwilldescribeinamoment but,bywayofintroduction,Iwantyoutounderstand writing. Whether ornotanyparticularinformation qualifiesasatradesecretdependsupon compiled, ormemorialized physically,electr procedures, programs, orcodes,whethertangibl Inc., andOttomotto 111, whicharedefinedinTX_____.Waymo cont Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2449Filed01/03/18Page2of11 the AllegedTradeSecret; secret atthetime itwas allegedlymisappropriated; To succeedonitsclaim forunjustenrichment basedonallegedmisappropriation ofany Although ourtradesecretlawsallowrecoveryof“actualdamages,” once This trialconcernsWaymo AllegedTradeSecretsNumbers 2,7,9,13,14,25,90,and .Thatthedefendant wasthereby unjustlyenriched;and 3. Thatthedefendantimproperly acquired, then usedordisclosed 2. ThattheAllegedTradeSecretqualifiedasanenforcible trade 1. LLC misappropriated theseAllegedTradeSecrets.Thesummary andlisting onically, graphically,photographically,orin IV. III. 2 II. e orintangible,andwhetherhowstored, ends thatdefendantsUberTechnologies, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 that must beexpendedingathering it,thelesslikelyitisreadilyascertainable by propermeans. On theotherhand,more difficultinformation is to obtain,andthemore time andresources books, orpublishedmaterials orifitcouldbereadily determined bythoseskilledintheart. For example, information isreadilyascertainableif itisavailableintradejournals,reference developed, reverse-engineered,orcompiled wit means.” Ingeneral,information isreadilyascertainable ifitcanbeobtained,discovered, trade secret.Thereisnofixedstandardfordetermining whatis“readilyascertainablebyproper means bythoseskilledintheartattime oftheallegedmisappropriation cannotqualifyasa misappropriation. Todoso,Waymo must proveallofthefollowing: that eachAllegedTradeSecretqualifiedasanen elements ofproofinmore detail. all oftheAllegedTradeSecrets,forsome ofth Secret. Itisforyou,thejury,todecidewhetherornotalloftheseelements havebeenprovenfor all oftheseelements ofproofaresatisfiedastothatdefendantandgivenAllegedTrade No defendantmay beheldliableforadamage aw Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2449Filed01/03/18Page3of11 Information thatisgenerallyknowninthefieldorreadilyascertainablebyproper I willnowexplainthesefactors inmore detail. misappropriation tokeepsecrettheAllegedTradeSecret. independent economic valueatthat time becauseitwassecret;and Turning tothefirstelement ofproofforamisappropriation claim, Waymo must prove enriching thedefendant. .ThatWaymo made reasonableeffortsuptothealleged 4. That theAllegedTradeSecrethadactualorpotential ThattheAllegedTradeSecretwassecretatthattime; 3. That Waymo ownedtheAllegedTradeSecret; 2. 1. Thatsuchuseordisclosurewasasubstantialfactorinunjustly 4. em, orfornoneofthem. Iwillnowexplainthese VI. V. hout significantdifficulty,effort,orexpense. 3 forcible tradesecretatthetime of alleged ard astoanygivenAllegedTradeSecretunless United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 qualifies ornotasatrade secret,applyingthesame testasforother information. found intheliterature.It isforthejury,ineachcase,todetermine whether negativeinformation the-job insightsthatbecome partof theengineer’sgeneralskills,talentsandabilities,orcanbe qualify asanenforcibletradesecretbecause,for example, itremains oneofthosepracticalon- depending onthefactsandcircumstances, negativeinformation might negative information issometimes called“negativetradesecrets.”Bythesame token, qualify asanenforcibletradesecretifallprerequisites foratradesecretaremet. Thistypeof professional skills,talents,orabilities. a former employer’s tradesecretinformation attheirnewjobsversushavingutilized with them. Itisforthejurytodecideineachcasewhetheremployees haveusedordisclosed Nor may theymemorize orphotocopydownloadtotaketheirprioremployer’s tradesecrets qualify asatradesecret,eventhosedevelopedordiscoveredbytheengineersthemselves. information developedbytheirprioremployers wheresuchspecificsolutionsorinformation new jobswithemployers touseordisclo part oftheirprofessionalskills,talents,andabilities.Engineerscannot,however,gofurtherin learned whileonthepayrollofprioremployer. Thoselessonsmust bedeemed tobecome practical lessonsfrom memory andwillremain freeunderthelawtousethem, eventhough to newjobswithemployers, theycannotbeexpectedtoerasesuchnaturalon-the-job accumulate practicallessonsthatsupplement theirskills,talents,andabilities.When theymove and applicationoftheirprofessionalskillsonthejob,naturallysharpen developed attheexpenseofemployer. Engineerswill,forexample, throughtrialanderror talents, orabilitiesdevelopedbyemployees intheiremployment eventhoughtheymay be not coverprofessional skills,talents,orabilities.Tradesecrets,therefore, donotcoverskills, Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2449Filed01/03/18Page4of11 The resultsof extendedresearch, whichprovesthatacertainprocesswill As Ihavetoldyou,a“tradesecret”concernsinformation. Bycontrast,tradesecretsdo se toothersspecificengineeringsolutionsor VIII. VII. 4 not , inagivencase, not work,can United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 been generallyknowntothepublicorotherswhocouldhaveobtainedvaluefrom knowingit. disclosed tononemployees iftheywereobligatedtokeepitsecret.However,must not have secret aslongtheywereinstructedtokeeptheinformation secret.Itmay alsohavebeen relevant time. Itmay havebeendisclosedtoemployees involvedintheowner’suseoftrade absolute secrecyinthesensethatnooneelseworldpossessedinformation atthe improperly acquireandthenuseordisclosesomeone else’stradesecretsindoingso. independently developandusesimilar information ontheirown.Theycannot,however, company hasaprotectabletradesecretincertaininformation, othercompanies arefreeto on theirownwithoutthebenefitofsomeone else consider thefollowing: information hadactualorpotentialindependenteconomic valuebecauseitwassecret, youmay have obtainedeconomic valuefrom itsdisclosureoruse.Indetermining whetherthe or potentialbusinessadvantageoverotherswhodidnotknowtheinformation andwhocould Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2449Filed01/03/18Page5of11 The secrecyrequiredtoprovethatsomething isatradesecretdoesnothavetobe Everyone hastherighttouseordiscloseinformation thattheyindependentlydevelop using theinformation. developing theinformation; and from the information if itwerenotsecret; economic valuefrom theinformation inkeepingitsecret; A tradesecrethasindependenteconomic valueifitwouldhavegiventheowneranactual .Theamount oftime, money, orlaborthat defendantsavedby 4. Theamount oftime, money, orlaborthattheownerexpendedin 3. Theextenttowhichotherscouldhaveobtainedeconomic value 2. Theextenttowhichtheownerobtainedorcouldhave obtained 1. 5 IX. XI. X. ’s tradesecrets.Therefore,evenifone United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 secret, thefollowingfactorsshouldbeconsidered,among anyotherfactorspertinenttotheissue: This requirement appliesseparatelytoeachitem thatclaimed tobeatradesecret. as theallegedowner,exercisingduecaretoprotectimportant information ofthesame kind. made byareasonablebusinessinthesame situationwiththesame knowledgeandresources determinative. Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2449Filed01/03/18Page6of11 would preventtheunauthorized disclosureoftheinformation; and information orassets; information, orwhetheritreliedongeneralmeasures takentoprotectits the information tosignconfidentialityornondisclosure agreements; secured area; persons whohadabusinessreasontoknowtheinformation; confidentiality; confidential suchthatemployees might beunsureofwhatgenuinelyneeded information asconfidential; containing theinformation weremarked withconfidentiality warnings; In determining whetherornottheownermade reasonableeffortstokeeptheinformation Reasonable effortstokeeptheinformation secretaretheeffortsthatwouldhavebeen The presenceorabsenceofanyonemore ofthesefactorsisnotnecessarily .Theextenttowhich anygeneralmeasures takenbythe owner 8. Whether theownertookanyactiontoprotectspecific 7. Whether theownerrequiredemployees orotherswithaccessto 6. Whether theownerkeptinformation inarestrictedor 5. Whether theownerrestrictedaccesstoinformation to 4. Whether theownerunreasonablyover-classifiedinformation as 3. Whether theownerinstructeditsemployees totreatthe 2. Whether products,hardware,documents orcomputer files 1. XII. 6 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 defendant doesnotautomatically mean thattheyused Waymo’s tradesecrets aftertheyleft Google and/orWaymo. Themere factthatemployees leftGoogleorWaymo toworkfora In thisconnection,youhave heardtestimony that employees ofdefendants onceworkedfor of anaccuseddefendantwouldinevitablyhaveused theclaimed tradesecretintheirwork. by anyofthefollowing: secrecy. Itisnotimproper, however,toacquireatradesecretorknowledgeofthe not limited to,theft,misrepresentation, and breach orinducingaofdutytomaintain trade secretcame throughpersonswhohadacquireditbyimproper means. by improper means oratthetime ofuse,kneworhadreasontoknowthatitsknowledgethe without Waymo’s consentandthatsaiddefendanteitheracquiredknowledgeofthetradesecret Waymo must alsoprovethattheAllegedTradeSecretwasusedordisclosedbyadefendant determinative. Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2449Filed01/03/18Page7of11 Misappropriation byuserequiresactualuse.Itis notenoughtospeculatethatemployees sources. trade journals,referencebooks,theInternet,orother publicly-available determine howitworksbyapersonwhohasrighttopossesstheproduct; Improper means ofacquiringatradesecretorknowledgeinclude,butare Turning tothesecondelement ofproofforamisappropriation claim fordamages, The presenceorabsenceofanyonemore ofthesefactorsisnotnecessarily owner thatitdidnottake. .Obtainingtheinformation from publishedliterature,suchas Observingtheinformation inpublicuseorondisplay; 4. 3. Reverseengineering;thatis,examining ortestingaproductto Independenteffortstoinventordiscovertheinformation; 2. 1. Whether therewereotherreasonablemeasures availabletothe 9. XIV. XIII. XV. 7 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 value fortheunjustenrichment bythat defendant.Iwillnowinstructyouonthelaw concerning thereby unjustlyenriched, thenyoumust decide whether Waymo hasprovenacalculable dollar or disclosureofitsAllegedTradeSecret. acquirer. Inthiscase,however,Waymo’s theoryofrecovery depends,asstated,onprovinguse that conduct. substantial factorincausingunjustenrichment more thanaremote ortrivialfactor.Itdoesnothave tobetheonlycause.Conductisnota that areasonablepersonwouldconsidertohavec causing theunjustenrichment. Asubstantialfactorincausingunjustenrichment means afactor would havebeenrealizedanyway.Theuseordisclosuremust havebeenasubstantialfactorin of someone else’stradesecrets.Unjustenri its owndevelopment timeline and/orsavingondevelopment costsbytakingimproper advantage unjust enrichment occurswheneveradefendantreapsanundeservedbenefitsuchasaccelerating two designsdiffered. working onthenextemployer’s owndesign,suchstudyingwouldconstituteuseeventhoughthe someone tookacopyofsecretdesignwithhim tohisnextemployer andstudiedthecopywhile information qualifyingasatradesecretofprioremployer. talents andskillsintheirnewjobs.Doingsoislawfulaslongtheydon’trevealoruse Google orWaymo. Again,employees havetherighttochangeemployers andtoapplytheir Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2449Filed01/03/18Page8of11 If youfindanydefendantmisappropriated one Acquiring someone else’s enforcibletradesecretmay (ormay not)unjustly enrichthe Turning tothethirdandfourthelements ofproofWaymo’s misappropriation claim, Use isnotlimited todirectcopyingbutincludesstudyingandconsulting.Forexample, if chment doesnotoccur,however,wherethebenefit XVIII. XVII. XIX. XVI. if thesame benefitwouldhaveoccurredwithout 8 ontributed totheunjustenrichment. Itmust be or more AllegedTradeSecretsandwas United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 question ofliability.Thatisaentirelyuptoyou. such damages. Bydoingso,Iam notsuggestingforwhom yourverdictshouldbeonthe the conductinquestion, and theconductwasnotreasonableundercircumstances atthetime enrichment. amount ofexemplary damages uptotwotimes anyamount awardedasdamages forunjust are intendedtopunishanddetermisappropriation oftradesecrets.Youmay determine an amount ofexemplary damages Waymo shouldrecove defendant’s conductwaswillfulandmalicious. Ifyousofind,thenmust determine what that defendantisliablefordamages forunjustenrichment, thenyoumust decidewhetherthat award. instruction andsupplemental closingargument toassistyouinarrivingatanalternative form of Question Nos.2and6youanswer“Yes”“Zero,”thenwemay haveashortsupplemental has failedtoproveacalculabledollaramount ofunjustenrichment, meaning on SpecialVerdict conjecture. including thedollarvalueofitsownindependentresearchanddevelopment. use ordisclosure.Thensubtractfrom that dollar valueofthatdefendant’sactualbenefitwouldnothavebeenachievedexceptforits factor incausingthatdefendanttobeunjustlyenriched. Secrets, thenWaymo isentitledtorecoverdamages if theuseordisclosurewasasubstantial Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2449Filed01/03/18Page9of11 Conduct is“willful”ifdone withapurposeor If youfindanydefendantusedordisclosed If youfind,astoanyAllegedTradeSecret,thatitwasusedordisclosedbutWaymo Your awardmust bebaseduponevidence,andnotspeculation,guesswork,or To decidethedollaramount ofanyunjustenrichment toadefendant,firstdetermine the If Waymo provesthatanydefendantusedordisclosedonemore AllegedTrade amount thatdefendant’sreasonableexpenses, XXII. XXI. XX. 9 one ormore AllegedTradeSecretsandthat willingnesstocommit theactorengagein r from thatdefendant.Exemplary damages United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2449Filed01/03/18Page10of11 principal. the performance ofdutieswhichwereexpresslyorimpliedly assignedtotheagentby may beoralorwritten.Anagentisactingwithinthescopeof authorityif theagentisengagedin means ofperforming the services.Theotherpersoniscalledaprincipal.agencyagreement implied agreement andwhoissubjecttotheother’scontrolorrightmanner and proves thatsuchfirm wasunderanobligationnottodisclosethetradesecretthatdefendant. treat thatinformation ashavingbeenacquiredwellbythatdefendantunlessthedefense or bothofthesefirms acquiredWaymo information asanagentofadefendant,thenyoumust connection withUber’sacquisitionofOttomotto forensic analyticsfirm ofStrozFriedberg, probable consequencesoftheirconductanddeliberatelyfailtoavoidthoseconsequences. despised byordinarydecentpeople.Someone acts withknowingdisregardwhenawareofthe Conduct isdespicablewhenitsovileorwretchedthatwouldbelookeddownuponand injury orwasdespicableanddonewithawillful and wasnotundertakeningoodfaith.Conductis“malicious” ifdonewithanintenttocause Ottomotto itselfdidnototherwise acquire,useordiscloseit,thendamages attributableto or disclosedanAlleged Trade Secret,asagentonbehalfofOttomotto, butfurtherfind that if any,byMorrisonorStroz,takingintoaccount theparticularsofanysuchuseordisclosure. or discloseit,thentheonlydamages youmay impose, ifany,wouldbefortheuseor disclosure, Secret, asagentonbehalfofUber,butfurtherfi An agentisapersonwhoperforms servicesforanotherpersonunderanexpressor The same istrueforOttomotto. IfyoufindthatMorrisonorStrozacquired,thenused If youfindthatMorrisonorStrozacquiredandthen usedordisclosedanAllegedTrade You haveheardevidencethatthelawfirm ofMorrison&Foerster, LLC XXIV. XXIII. XXV. , receivedinformation originatingwithWaymo in 10 nd thatUberitselfdidnototherwiseacquire,use andknowingdisregardfortherightsofothers. LLC . Underthelaw,ifWaymo provesthatone LLP , and/orthe United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2449Filed01/03/18Page11of ae: aur ,21. Dated: January3,2018. must provetheelements ofproofsetforthintheseinstructions. To holdthem liable,oreitherofthem, formisappropriation ofanyAllegedTradeSecret,Waymo Waymo isnot,byitself,enough tomake UberorOttomotto liabletoWaymo inthistrial. This trialisagainstonlyUberandOttomotto. ThatLevandowskihimself might beliableto required tofindthatanyanswerbyhim wouldhave party inthecase,youshouldconsiderallofotherevidenceandcircumstances. Youarenot Ottomotto orWaymo. Beforefindingthattheanswerwouldhavealsobeenadversetoanother That, however,wouldnotnecessarilybethesame asbeingadversetothepositionofUberor would haveincriminated him andthattheseanswerswouldhavebeenadversetohisposition. Nevertheless, youmay butarenotrequiredtofindthatthequestionscalledforanswers himself undertheFifthAmendment inourBillofRights.Thiswashisrighttodoso. disclosed it. Ottomotto, ifany,wouldhavetobebasedontheparticularsofhowMorrisonorStrozused IT ISSOORDERED. Waymo issuingAnthonyLevandowskiinaseparateproceeding,notthiscase. When AnthonyLevandowskitestifiedatourtrial,heinvokedhisrightnottoincriminate XXVII. XXVI. 11 been adversetohim ortoanypartyherein. U W NITED ILLIAM S TATES A LSUP D ISTRICT J UDGE I’m not so sure Waymo’s going to win against Uber - The Verge Page 1 of 6

I’m not so sure Waymo’s going to win against Uber Waymo v. Uber, day 4 By Sarah Jeong @sarahjeong Feb 8, 2018, 6:39pm EST

So… guys? Can we talk about something for a second?

It’s day 4 of Waymo v. Uber, and I’m still not entirely clear on what Waymo’s case is.

Yes, it’s a case where a former Google engineer absconded with over 9 gigabytes of data, transferred it to his laptop, backed it up onto disks that he put in his closet, sent texts about shredding evidence, and deleted texts about

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/8/16993208/waymo-v-uber-trial-trade-secrets-lidar 8/31/2018 I’m not so sure Waymo’s going to win against Uber - The Verge Page 2 of 6

shredding evidence, and is also now expected to invoke the Fifth Amendment on the stand. And yes, when Uber acquired his company, it indemnified him for intellectual property claims as part of the acquisition.

But even with all that, I’m not sure Waymo is going to win because I can’t figure out the case they’re putting on.

It’s a trade secrets case, and because trade secrets lose trade secret status when they become public, portions of the trial were always going to be under seal. Waymo originally asserted that over a hundred trade secrets had been misappropriated by Uber — that’s been narrowed down to eight. We don’t know what these trade secrets are. They could be circuit boards, they could be the placement of components on the circuit boards, they could maybe even be machine learning data sets. Trade secrets are a pretty broad category: they can be a “formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process.” We, the public, are not allowed to see what those eight secrets are.

But, uh, it’s a little weird that we have literally no idea even what general ballpark they’re in? I mean, given that only 45 minutes of Waymo time have been under seal?

Can you really explain eight self-driving car trade secrets in 45 minutes?

And then there’s the part where Anthony Levandowski is not on trial, Uber is. Even if Levandowski took 14,000 confidential documents, that doesn’t mean that Uber did something wrong — there isn’t a clear link to how those documents got onto Uber computers or were used in Uber self-driving cars.

Though, sure, there isn’t clear evidence the documents didn’t find their way over to Uber. A lot of things got deleted, not everything was forensically recoverable, and also, a hard drive named “NEWCO” was connected to Anthony Levandowski’s personal laptop in January 2016. NEWCO was Uber’s code

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/8/16993208/waymo-v-uber-trial-trade-secrets-lidar 8/31/2018 I’m not so sure Waymo’s going to win against Uber - The Verge Page 3 of 6

name for the company that became Ottomotto. No one was able to find and examine that hard drive.

Things feel off, but still, this is Waymo’s case to make and their burden of proof to carry. And I’m really confused about what their case even is.

One part of what they’re supposed to prove is that the trade secrets they assert are actually trade secrets. Again, the trade secret could be a schematic, a circuit board, a process or a technique, but regardless, the company who owns the trade secret has to be taking reasonable care to keep the secret a secret.

Part of Uber’s case appears to be that Google doesn’t take reasonable care to keep its LIDAR a secret because Waymo’s LIDAR technical lead Pierre-Yves Droz took one of the old LIDARs with him to Burning Man. But let’s not even get into that now.

A trade secret also has to be valuable and it has to be valuable because it’s a secret. It also can’t be “readily ascertainable by proper means” by other people who might get something out of its value — in other words, if you can legally reverse engineer the technology after buying it off the shelf, that technology isn’t a trade secret.

Whatever these Google trade secrets are, there’s some convincing testimony that they’re worth stealing. Today, lawyers trotted Droz out to testify about the differences between Waymo’s secretive, proprietary LIDAR and Velodyne’s off- the-shelf LIDAR.

Grizzly Bear 3 (GBR-3) — which he had helped develop through many iterations over many years — is long-distance, where Velodyne is “medium-distance,” he said. While both GBR-3 and Velodyne LIDAR featured 64 lasers, GBR-3 wasn’t just more powerful, it’s much, much cheaper — it costs about $4,000 where Velodyne’s is $75,000. If there’s a secret sauce that gives Waymo that edge, it’s a valuable one.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/8/16993208/waymo-v-uber-trial-trade-secrets-lidar 8/31/2018 I’m not so sure Waymo’s going to win against Uber - The Verge Page 4 of 6

But Uber has an email from Sasha Zbrozek, a Google engineer, who wrote, “It’s all electronics designs, schematics and PCB layouts and the component library for their creation. It was considered low-value enough that we had even considered hosting it off Google infrastructure.”

Trial exhibit.

Zbrozek took the stand today to clarify that he thought hardware was treated like a “second-class citizen” compared to software and algorithms — that didn’t mean that hardware wasn’t valuable at all.

It’s still a weird, conflicting statement! But let’s set that part aside.

I’m much more weirded out by something else: Waymo keeps throwing out red herrings about their trade secrets during trial. When the public came back into the courtroom after the sealed portion of Waymo’s opening statements, Judge Alsup chided them for putting up “stuff that looked like promotional videos” in the sealed courtroom. That shouldn’t have been under seal, he said.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/8/16993208/waymo-v-uber-trial-trade-secrets-lidar 8/31/2018 I’m not so sure Waymo’s going to win against Uber - The Verge Page 5 of 6

“In fact, look, I want to say, this is for you newspaper reporters out there, in the sealed portion, only about two-thirds of it deserved to be sealed,” the judge added, pointedly. “There were things about LIDAR, there were things about — like these promotional ads that you’ve put up there that the public could have seen.”

Alsup told Waymo lawyers that they were “leaving the impression with the jury that you invented LIDAR, that you invented self-driving cars, and that that’s what this case is about.” Mindful of his rant, Waymo was careful to mention that Google did not invent LIDAR later that day.

And then there’s the circuit board from the Gorilla Circuits email. Back in December 2016, a manufacturer of printed circuit boards (PCBs) accidentally forwarded an email to a Waymo engineer that was for Ottomotto — the company that Anthony Levandowski had founded after suddenly quitting Google, and had then been acquired by Uber.

The email contained a zip file labeled “manufacturing docs for Fuji laser,” containing schematics and all the other information necessary to manufacture a PCB. The engineer opened up the email and got suspicious about a drawing of a circuit board. It looked awfully like a PCB in one of Waymo’s LIDARs.

He showed it to his manager. The matter was swiftly escalated up the food chain, each person agreeing that the circuit board looked a lot like theirs.

The gallery was not allowed to see the drawing in question, which is under seal.

Well, that sounds bad, doesn’t it? Here’s the thing. In the break, when the jury had gone into the jury room, Judge Alsup took a moment to berate the lawyers for keeping the drawing under seal. It had to do with “Trade Secret 96,” but 96

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/8/16993208/waymo-v-uber-trial-trade-secrets-lidar 8/31/2018 I’m not so sure Waymo’s going to win against Uber - The Verge Page 6 of 6

was one of the many dozens that got tossed out as Waymo’s case was narrowed down to the final eight.

“You know, you have been attached to that Gorilla Circuits email,” said Alsup. “You have squirmed left and right trying to figure out some way to build your case around it. And even though 96 got thrown into oblivion, you’re still trying to find some way to screw that into the case and it has nothing to do with any trade secret that’s in play.”

Look, it’s a trade secrets case. I walked into this fully expecting to be locked out of the courtroom for huge portions, for the very core of this case to remain an unknowable black box. And yes, the core of the case is still a black box, but it’s a black box the size of a Tamagotchi and I would very much like to know why.

Waymo took another 15 minutes of sealed testimony today. They seem to be on track to finish presenting their evidence tomorrow, giving Uber a chance to start their case on Monday. Both sides have physical LIDARs admitted as exhibits in court and are maybe going to show them to the jury?

Maybe the general direction of questions will make more sense to me tomorrow. For now, I’m just extremely confused.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/8/16993208/waymo-v-uber-trial-trade-secrets-lidar 8/31/2018

Portfolio Media. Inc. | 111 West 19th Street, 5th Floor | New York, NY 10011 | www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | [email protected]

Overcoming Bad Evidence: Lessons From Waymo V. Uber Trial By Arturo González and Esther Kim Chang (March 26, 2018, 1:03 PM EDT)

One piece of “bad” evidence (or evidence that simply looks bad) can sink a client at trial. How do you neutralize the evidence before the judge and keep the jury sympathetic to your client when there is evidence that, at first glance, appears to implicate your client? This article addresses some of the bad evidence that we — Uber’s counsel — encountered in the Waymo v. Uber battle involving autonomous vehicles, and explains how that evidence was neutralized in front of the court and at trial.

The Setting Arturo González

Waymo filed a federal lawsuit in the Northern District of California and immediately sought a preliminary injunction based on an allegation that a former employee had improperly downloaded 14,000 files prior to resigning. Waymo alleged that the files contained important trade secrets, that the former employee had taken the files to Uber, and that Uber was using that information in its development of autonomous vehicles. In support of its motion for preliminary injunction, Waymo included declarations that purported to show evidence of Waymo’s internal forensic investigation that uncovered the downloading of the 14,000 files. Esther Kim Chang In response to this preliminary showing, U.S. District Judge William Alsup expressed very strong views about Waymo’s case and stated in addressing Uber’s counsel: “This is an extraordinary case. I have never seen a record this strong in 42 years. So you are up against it.”

Uber’s objective from the outset was to demonstrate that: (1) the 14,000 files were not as important as Waymo claimed they were and (2) the files never made it to Uber.

Are These Really “Trade Secrets”?

Discovery unearthed internal Waymo emails that discredited Waymo’s argument that the 14,000 files

contained important information. Sasha Zbrozek, the Google employee tasked with the responsibility of determining where to store the 14,000 files at Google,[1] wrote to his boss’ boss in March 2015, lamenting that Google had run out of space to store the 14,000 files and characterizing those files: “[I]t’s not code, it’s not user data, it’s pretty low-value.”[2] The phrase “low-value” is one most jurors would understand.

Those sentiments were confirmed a year and a half later when Zbrozek exchanged emails in October 2016 with Google’s outside counsel, who were investigating the departure of employees from Google to Uber. In describing the repository that contained the 14,000 files, Zbrozek again used the same two words: “It was considered low-value enough that we had even considered hosting it off of Google infrastructure.”[3] (Uber obtained this email after the magistrate ruled that Google waived privilege over its internal forensic investigation when it submitted a declaration from a Google employee in support of its motion for preliminary injunction that included some of the purported findings from that investigation.)

Thus, Uber’s discovery efforts resulted in a pair of bookends that could be used to demonstrate that, prior to trial, Waymo had admitted that the 14,000 files were “low-value,” in contrast to Waymo’s argument at trial that the files contained valuable trade secrets.

The Automatic Downloading

In addition to Waymo’s characterizations of the repository for the 14,000 files, Uber made another remarkable discovery as it dug into the facts. When Zbrozek set up the repository for the 14,000 files, he included instructions on how to log on to that repository. Following those instructions caused the entire repository containing the 14,000 files to be automatically downloaded. This discovery allowed Uber to argue that the fact that a former employee may have downloaded the 14,000 files was not necessarily nefarious. Uber used this fact during Zbrozek’s cross-examination to drive home the theme that these documents were not valuable, much less trade secrets:

Q: Did anybody at Google say to you, “You know what, Sasha? That’s not a good idea to have everything automatically downloaded because we’ve got some trade secrets in here”? Did anybody say that to you?

A: No.

The Files Never Made It to Uber

One of the more unsettling parts of the litigation allowed counsel for Waymo (and at times, Waymo’s experts) to visit Uber to inspect Uber’s facilities, servers, source code, design files, and prototypes. But the repeated inspections ultimately became a powerful fact for Uber because, after 12 inspections, Waymo found none of the 14,000 files at Uber.

Uber planned to introduce evidence of these inspections through simple and clean responses to

requests for admission, which contained Waymo’s admissions regarding the dates, times, and locations of the inspections. (The case settled after four days of trial, and this evidence was never introduced.)

Uber’s trial strategy also included a short cross-examination of Waymo’s own forensics expert. Waymo’s forensics expert provided detailed testimony about what the former employee allegedly did with the 14,000 files after he downloaded those files, even though that former employee was not a defendant in the case. The defendant that the jurors were to judge was Uber. Uber’s cross-examination of Waymo’s forensics expert lasted only three minutes. Uber first elicited testimony that the expert had worked very hard on the project, had a team of people helping him, and had collectively spent hundreds of hours working on the case before obtaining the main takeaway testimony:

Q: After spending hundreds of hours with three colleagues, do you have any evidence that the 14,000 files ever made it to an Uber computer?

A: I didn’t examine any Uber computers.

Q: Is the answer no?

A: No, that wasn’t my role in the investigation.

Q: Do you have any evidence that any of the 14,000 files ever made it to an Uber server?

A: Same answer.

It was not necessary to ask the follow-up question as to whose role it was to confirm whether any of the 14,000 files made it to Uber, because that was a rhetorical question that could be asked during closing argument.

The “Last Accessed” Files

At trial, Waymo argued that the former employee had “accessed” Google files from his personal laptop after he left Google and was no longer an employee. At first glance, the evidence seemed incriminating. Why would the former employee be “accessing” Google files after leaving Google? But further analysis revealed that computers frequently (and automatically) “access” files when there is a software update, or for other technical reasons. Thus, the fact that Google files were “accessed” did not necessarily mean that a user had logged into a computer to physically locate and open Google files. To demonstrate this, Uber used the following demonstrative at trial, which shows some of the files that were actually “accessed” by the former employee’s laptop:

Two things stand out: (1) dozens of files were “accessed” at the exact same minute and (2) many of the files “accessed” were random files, like the pictures of the hanging plant and the muffins in a basket. (For closing argument, we planned to bring a basket of muffins into the courtroom.)

It would be surprising if any of the jurors believed that Google’s proffer established that the former employee had purposely “accessed” Google files. More likely, had the case gone into deliberations, any suggestion that this evidence showed proof of misappropriation would have likely been met with a simple retort: “Are you kidding me? Do you really think he purposefully accessed a picture of muffins in a basket?”

Happy Thanksgiving — The Jacobs Letter

The evening before Thanksgiving 2017, a week before trial, Judge Alsup issued a notice advising the parties that he had received a letter “from the United States Attorney regarding this case.”[4] The letter was not attached. The notice notified the parties that the letter would “be kept under seal until further order of the Court.”[5] It was a virtual certainty that the letter was anything but good news for Uber.

Later that evening, the parties received a copy of the letter from the United States attorney. In short, it stated that the government had interviewed a former Uber employee, Richard Jacobs, who advised the government that “Uber employees routinely use[d] non-attributable electronic devices to store and transmit information that they wished to separate from Uber’s official systems. He surmised that any wrongfully-obtained intellectual property could be stored on such devices, and that such action would prevent the intellectual property from being discovered in a review of Uber’s systems.” This testimony created an inference that Uber may have stolen Waymo’s documents and hidden them in secret “non- attributable electronic devices.”

As if that were not bad enough, the letter from the U.S. attorney went on to say that counsel for Jacobs had shared this information with Uber’s in-house counsel in a letter written several months earlier, in May 2017. Up to this point in the litigation, no such letter had been produced and there had been no mention of “non-attributable” devices.

Judge Alsup reacted swiftly to the letter from the U.S. attorney. On Thanksgiving Day, Judge Alsup issued an order requiring Uber to advise the court at the final pretrial conference the following Tuesday of “the precise extent to which the information provided by Richard Jacobs [was] accurate” and “the precise extent to which the devices referred to by Jacobs [had] been searched by Uber for responsive materials in discovery.”[6] Judge Alsup required that Uber “fully investigate[] the matter and be prepared to testify under oath.”[7] In addition, Judge Alsup ordered Uber to produce three fact witnesses to testify at the final pretrial conference regarding these issues, including Jacobs (who lived out-of-state) and the Uber in-house counsel who received the May 2017 letter from counsel for Jacobs.

Judge Alsup was on a mission to get to the bottom of this issue, and quickly. Our team scrambled over Thanksgiving weekend to get to the bottom of the allegations to be able to explain the situation to Judge Alsup (and to the throng of media that followed the case very closely).

On Nov. 28 and 29, 2017, Uber presented five witnesses for examination by opposing counsel (and, to some extent, by Judge Alsup himself). We successfully neutralized the Jacobs letter during its examination of the witnesses, at least with respect to the limited assertions relevant to this case, by having Jacobs admit that he had no personal knowledge of any of the 14,000 files making it to Uber and no knowledge of anyone working on autonomous vehicles ever using “non-attributable devices.”

Our other goal was to explain to Judge Alsup the limited number of Uber employees who used “non- attributable devices,” and for what purpose they used them. On cross-examination, we asked all the fact witnesses to explain the threats and physical violence that Uber drivers face in certain regions of the world, beginning with Jacobs himself:

Q: When your team is investigating potential threats of violence against the company, do you want the people that you’re investigating to know who you are?

A: No.

***

Q: Is it your understanding that that is why these folks were using these non-Uber machines?

A: Yes, yes.[8]

Having demonstrated Uber’s legitimate need for such devices, we then introduced evidence that use of these devices was limited to a few individuals on the securities team — and not anyone working on

autonomous vehicles. This persuaded Judge Alsup that the entire “non-attributable” device issue was more prejudicial than probative. After extensive briefing, he ruled that there would be no evidence of “non-attributable” devices at trial. And indeed, after four days of trial, there was no mention at all of the infamous Jacobs letter.

In sum, through careful and thoughtful planning, we were able to neutralize some of Waymo’s best evidence at trial, which likely contributed to the resolution of this important matter.

Arturo J. González is a partner and Esther Kim Chang is a senior associate in the San Francisco office of Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Disclosure: Arturo González was Morrison & Foerster's lead trial counsel for Uber in the case discussed in this article, and Esther Kim Chang was the lead associate on the Uber trial team.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general info rmation purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

[1] Waymo did not exist at the time of the downloading; it was spun out of Google in December 2016.

[2] Trial Ex. 2216.

[3] Trial Ex. 2217.

[4] Dkt. 2260.

[5] Id.

[6] Dkt. 2261.

[7] Id.

[8] Tr. at 101:23-102:7.