Opposition

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1624 Filed 09/18/17 Page 1 of 18
1 MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)

MJacobs@mofo.com
2 ARTURO J. GONZLEZ (CA SBN 121490)
AGonzalez@mofo.com
3 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
4 San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: 415.268.7000
5 Facsimile: 415.268.7522
6 KAREN L. DUNN (Pro Hac Vice)

kdunn@bsfllp.com
7 HAMISH P.M. HUME (Pro Hac Vice)
hhume@bsfllp.com
8 BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
1401 New York Avenue, N.W.
9 Washington DC 20005
Telephone: 202.237.2727
10 Facsimile: 202.237.6131
11 WILLIAM CARMODY (Pro Hac Vice)

bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com
12 SHAWN RABIN (Pro Hac Vice)
srabin@SusmanGodfrey.com
13 SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
14 New York, NY 10019-6023
Telephone: 212.336.8330
15 Facsimile: 202.336.8340
16 Attorneys for Defendants

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
17 and OTTOMOTTO LLC
18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
19
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
20
21 WAYMO LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA
22 Plaintiff, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND

OTTOMOTTO LLCS OPPOSITION TO
23 v. WAYMOS MOTION FOR
CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE
24 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING The Honorable William Alsup
25 LLC,
Trial Date: October 10, 2017
26 Defendants.
27
REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
28
DEFS. UBER TECHS., INC. & OTTOMOTTO LLCS OPPN TO WAYMOS MOT. FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE
Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA
sf-3823902
1
I. INTRODUCTION
2
After claiming for months that it has irrefutable evidence of patent infringement and trade
3
secret theft by Uber, Waymos case has come to a screeching halt. All four patent claims have
4
been dismissed. Its trade secrets claim has been narrowed to a handful of minor features in one
5
LiDAR component. And the heart of Waymos casethat Anthony Levandowski supposedly sat
6
at a computer and selected 14,000 important proprietary files to be downloadedhas collapsed
7
like a house of cards. After discovery closed, Waymo finallyand only in response to a court
8
orderproduced documents stating that the 14,000 files are actually of low value and were
9
someone logged on to that repository. That critical
10
information had never previously been disclosed to Uber, or to this Court.
11
Waymos motion for a continuance asks this Court for a do-over after it knowingly made
12
the informed decision in June 2017 to proceed with expedited discovery and a trial in
13
October 2017 despite not having the Stroz report. In its Motion claiming it now wants to change
14
strategy and delay this trial, Waymo fails to point out that the
15
(Dkt. 1603-4 at 2:17) in the Stroz report is evidence that
16
Until Waymo filed
17
its complaint, no one with access to the Stroz Report could have discerned that a reference to Mr.
18
Levandowski was evidence that Mr.
19
Levandowski had wrongfully taken those files (or somehow retained them). Having worked at
20
Google for over eight years, it is not surprising that Mr. Levandowski would have had
21
22
Similarly, it is not surprising that
23
especially since Uber made clear that it did not want
24
any Google information brought to Uber.
25
And the facts show that the due diligence worked. Waymo has conducted a dozen
26
inspections of Ubers LiDAR device, source code, work stations, computers, and facilities, taken
27
over 50 days of depositions, and has found no evidence that the 14,000 files or any other Google
28
1
sf-3823902
1 files ever made it to Uber. That explains why Waymo is in no hurry to try this case, after
2 requesting and getting expedited discovery and an expedited trial date.
3 Waymo now seeks to delay the trial, even though this Court has made it clear that Waymo
4 may not get a trial date for two years. Waymo claims that it needs a continuance because there
5 are a lot of materials at Stroz. But the question for the jury is what, if anything, did Uber
6 misappropriate. That only helps Uber
7 which explains why Waymo walked away from a dozen inspections
8 at Uber empty-handed.
9 Waymos motion for continuance is motivatedat least in partby the realization that
10 Waymos damages expert failed miserably in his effort to concoct a theory to support Waymos
11 inflated damages claim. As the Court knows, none of the parties have
12 . Nevertheless, Waymos damages are based entirely
13 on speculative future profits and cost savings in a nascent market, and Waymos expert relied on
14 a document that is 18 months old and untested. Furthermore, Waymo failed to conduct any
15 causation analysis to show that the purported unjust future profits were caused by
16 misappropriation of each trade secret.
17 Waymo should not be allowed to use a continuance as a vehicle for attempting to repair
18 these fatal flaws. Instead, as described below, the Court should either deny the motion for
19 continuance or, at most, hold a short bench trial in October on the narrowed list of trade secrets
20 and grant a continuance with regard to any others. If the Court entertains such a limited
21 continuance, Uber believes that it would be helpful to the Court and to the jurors for there to be
22 input from a court-appointed neutral expert.
23 II. THE STROZ REPORT CONFIRMS THAT THE DUE DILIGENCE

PREVENTED ANY GOOGLE FILES FROM REACHING UBER
24
While replete with inflammatory rhetoric, glaringly absent from Waymos description of
25
the diligence that Stroz performed is the irrefutable conclusion that it worked: none of the
26
after working at Google for several years made
27
its way to Uber or Ottomotto. There is also not a shred of evidence that Uber knew of or
28
2
sf-3823902
1 encouraged any theft. The Report expressly concludes that Stroz
3 (Dkt. 1603-5, Stroz Rpt. at 17 (emphasis added).) And the Stroz due diligence process itself was
4 carefully structured so that Uber did not receive any confidential or proprietary Google
5 information identified by Stroz, such as that Waymo makes a centerpiece
6 of its brief. (See Dkt. 824 at 6.) Waymo does not contend otherwise.
7 This is why, despite a dozen detailed inspections of Ubers facilities poring over Ubers
8 design files and source code, tens of thousands of Uber documents, and more than 45 depositions
9 of Uber engineers and executives, Waymo cannot point to any evidence that the 14,000 files (or
10 any other Google files) are at Uber. They simply are not there. Simply repeating the words
11 stole and stolen is not a substitute for proof.
12 Before Uber acquired Ottomotto, Uber required Levandowski
13
14
15 (Dkt. 1603-5, Stroz Rpt. at 3.) This
16 allowed Stroz and prevent it from coming to Uber. In exchange, Uber
17 agreed to indemnify them, but only to the extent that their participation in the Stroz investigation
18 was completely truthful. (Declaration of Arturo J. Gonzalez in Support of Defendants Uber
19 Technologies, Inc. and Ottomotto LLCs Opposition to Waymos Motion for Continuance of
20 Trial Date (Gonzalez Decl.), Ex. 1 (Indemnification Agreement) 2.2(b)(ii) at
21 UBER000098495.) The Indemnification Agreement also strongly incentivized Levandowski and
22 others not to commit any post-signing bad acts, which were not covered by the indemnity and
23 which could cause Levandowski to lose indemnification for all claims (including Googles
24 pending arbitration against Levandowski). (Id. 2.1(b)(iii) at UBER00098496.) Each diligenced
25 employee attested at the time that they . (Id. Ex. 2 at
26 UBER00319641 (Maxime Levandowski attestation:
27
28
3
sf-3823902
1 ); id. Exs. 3-7 (diligenced employee attestations:
3 ).)
4 Uber and Stroz required Levandowski and the other diligenced employees to
5 , and
6 Levandowski attested that he did so. Then,
8 Thus, there was no way for him for
9 the remainder of his time at Otto or once he joined Uber. (Dkt. 1603-6, Ex. 17 to Stroz Rpt. at 2.)
10
11 (Dkt. 1603-5, Stroz Rpt. at 12-13.) This is the exact scenario the Court
12 recognized as an innocent explanation. (5/3 Public Hrg Tr. at 108:14-25 (The Court: But
13 lets say for some reason they did the deal, joint defense, and under that scenario Uber would be
14 saying: We are innocent. We dont know -- we dont want any of those trade secrets. We just
15 want Levandowski. Hes brilliant. Hes the man in the Smithsonian with the motorcycle. We
16 just want him. We dont want his documents. So go put those documents in a vault. Never look
17 at them. Promise us youre never going to inspect them. Small chance, but some chance that that
18 happened. So what do we do? What does the system of justice do in a case like this, where
19 theres an innocent explanation; theres a guilty explanation; neither of them have been proven up
20 yet.).)
21 With respect to the 14,000 files, Waymo ignores that the Stroz Report confirms that those
22 files could not have come to Uber because Levandowski
23
24 . (Dkt. 1603-5, Stroz Rpt. at 12.) Until Waymo filed its complaint, no one with
25 access to the Stroz Report could have discerned that a reference to Levandowski
26 was evidence that Levandowski had wrongfully taken those
27 files. Likewise, that Waymo alleges
28 Levandowski
4
sf-3823902
1 are not irrefutable evidence that these two trade secrets
2 were directly communicated to Uber. (Mot. at 17.) To the contrary, they were not
3 communicated to Uber at all, much less directly or irrefutably, for
4 and no one at Uber ever received access to these
5 . (Dkt. 823 at 6.)
6 Waymos assertion that Uber knew about and encouraged the destruction of evidence is
7 baseless and supported by nothing in the Report, including Waymos selective quotation of the
8 underlying deposition testimony and of the Report. Contrary to Waymos assertions (Mot. at 2,
9 8-9), Messrs. Kalanicks and Poetzschers deposition testimony on this topic is completely
10 consistent with the Report and shows they directed Levandowski not to bring any Google
11 information into Uber. When Levandowski disclosed his possession of five disks containing
12 Google information, the Report says
13
14 (Dkt. 1603-5,
15 Stroz Rpt. at 10.) Waymos motion selectively omitted the first part of Mr. Kalanicks instruction
16 to Levandowski during that meeting. Waymo also incorrectly claims that Rhian Morgan
17 testified at her deposition that she had no involvement in and never even heard of the Stroz
18 investigation. (Mot. at 9 (citing April deposition).) In an intervening portion of her April
19 deposition that Waymo omits, Ms. Morgan stated (amidst objections) that she did remember
20 there being some interviews that happened for some of our early employees. I'm not sure if that
21 counts under due diligence or not. (Gonzalez Decl. Ex. 8, 4/14/17 Morgan Dep. 17:8-17.) In
22 an additional deposition, she stated that Levandowski and others were being interviewed by a
23 forensic investigation firm, and that she was responsible for filing documents relating to the
24 investigation, but had no further substantive knowledge of the process. (Gonzalez Decl. Ex. 9,
25 8/18/17 Morgan Dep. at 143:2-14, 147:2-148:5.)
26 Having worked at Google for over seven years, it is not surprising that Levandowski
27 would have
28 . (Dkt. 1603-5, Stroz Rpt. at 12.) Using a

5
sf-3823902
1 personal device for work purposes is not evidence of theft; indeed, Waymos policies expressly
2 (Gonzalez Decl. Ex. 10 (Waymo personal device policy).) Similarly, it is not
3 surprising that
4 , especially since Uber made it clear throughout the deal negotiations that it did
5 not want any Google information brought to Uber.
6 In sum, and contrary to Waymos misleading claims, the Stroz Report confirms that no
7 Google material came into Uber. Contrary to Waymos misleading arguments, the Report:
9 , contrary to Waymos assertion that the Report states plainly
10 that Levandowski took trade-secret information from Waymo. (Mot. at 4 (citing
11 Stroz Rpt. at 12).)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 (Dkt. 1603-5,
19 Stroz Rpt. at 12-13.)
20 III. UBER DID NOTHING IMPROPER WITH RESPECT TO THE STROZ

REPORT
21
The parties to the Stroz Report legitimately believed that a common interest privilege
22
applied. Uber could not decide unilaterally to waive that privilege. After this Court decided that
23
the common interest privilege did not exist until the term sheet was signed, Uber did not appeal
24
this Courts decision to the Federal Circuit; Mr. Levandowski did.
25
Once the Federal Circuit issued its decision, Uber promptly produced the Stroz Report and
26
its exhibits within hours. (Gonzalez Decl. 3.) Uber produced its Stroz-related documents the
27
next day. (Gonzalez Decl. 4.) MoFo also made the from the Stroz database that are in
28
6
sf-3823902
1 its fileswhich MoFo received on behalf of Mr. Levandowski after Google filed its arbitrations
2 against him and are the only Stroz materials MoFo has other than the Stroz Report and its exhibits
3 available for review promptly.
4 Since the Federal Circuits decision, Uber has provided deposition dates for five
5 deponents. (Gonzalez Decl. 2.) Waymo has rejected these dates. (Id.) Uber understands that
6 Stroz has provided a date for its deponents. Waymo has not responded to Strozs proposal.
7 IV. WAYMO IS SEEKING A CONTINUANCE SO IT CAN SHORE UP ITS

SHAKY CASE
8
A. All of Waymos Patent Claims Have Been Dismissed
9
Waymos patent claims were a complete misfire. Waymos claims based on all four
10
patents have been dismissed.
11
B. Waymos Nine Asserted Trade Secrets Are Weak
12
As the Court recognized at a recent hearing, this is for Waymo.
13
(9/6/17 Sealed Hrg Tr. 106:9-11.) Waymo started the case by accusing Uber of copying
14
Waymos entire single-lens LiDAR design, but is now reduced to asserting misappropriation of a
15
handful of minor features in one LiDAR component Waymos nine
16
remaining trade secret claims have numerous defects: the purported evidence of misappropriation
17
is thin to non-existent, with only a very strained connection to the 14,000 files Waymo alleges
18
Levandowski wrongfully downloaded; the accused features in Ubers Fuji LiDAR were
19
independently developed with no specific design input from Mr. Levandowski; and most of the
20
claimed trade secrets are broad, generally-known concepts that are within the intellectual
21
toolbox of LiDAR engineers.
22
The following is a brief summary of the state of play for each of Waymos nine alleged
23
trade secrets:
24
TS 96 (GBr3 ): This trade secret covers the specific
25
of Waymos GBr3 LiDAR. As detailed in Ubers summary judgment motion on
26
TS 96 (Dkt. 1514), Waymos technical expert, Dr. Hesselink, confirms that Uber does not
27
use the specific implementation of GBr3 . The do not
28
7
sf-3823902
1 match, even when the differing focal lengths are (improperly) factored out. (Dkt. 1512-4
2 at 3-6.) Further, Dr. Hesselink acknowledges that the
5 TS 9 ( ): This broadly-defined trade secret boils down to a fundamental optics
6 principlei.e., . As
7 explained in Ubers summary judgment motion on TS 9 (Dkt. 1419), Waymo concedes
8 that its own 922 patent discloses all elements of TS 9 except for
9 Yet, Waymos engineers admitted that is a
10 well-known concept in optics. (Dkt. 1419-4 at 11-12.) Moreover, public literature
11 discloses , and the concept has been used in commercially-
12 available LiDARs for years (including Velodynes HDL-64, used by both Google and
13 Uber in their self-driving vehicles). (Id. at 13-15.)
14 TS 2 ( transmit block): Waymos misappropriation theory for TS 2 is that the
15 two separate transmit blocks in Ubers Fuji LiDAR are the same as the single
16 transmit block in GBr3, because . That simplistic notion ignores Fujis
17 2-cavity LiDAR design (hence, its two transmit blocks), which is fundamentally different
18 than GBr3s single-cavity, single-lens design with a single block. Waymo has presented
19 no evidence that Uber embraced as a magic number; rather, Uber chose
20 to distribute the 32 diodes in each of Fujis 2 cavities, because that configuration provided
21 enough physical space for mounting the diodes. Uber is currently
22 .
23 TS 7 ( ): Waymo initially claimed that having a laser diode
24 was a trade secret, but retreated when faced with the numerous public
25 disclosures of that concept. Now Waymo claims that a is its trade
26 secret. But internal Waymo emails and testimony show that was an arbitrary
27 number , and was not the result of any testing or lengthy
28 development. (See, e.g., Gonzalez Decl. Ex. 12 at WAYMO-UBER-00022197-198

8
sf-3823902
1 (vendor writing in response to Waymo statement that
4 ).) It was
5 also shared with vendors apparently without any NDA. (See, e.g., Gonzalez Decl. Ex. 13
6 at WAYMO-UBER-00022246 (2/4/2016 Email to third-party ), attaching, inter
7 alia, id. Ex. 14 at WAYMO-UBER-00022288 (
8 ); see also Dkt. 923 at 1 (granting Uber motion to compel all vendors NDAs);
9 Gonzalez Decl. Ex. 15 (Email from Uber counsel stating that Uber had not located an
10 NDA for in Waymos productions).) Uber has already
11
12 TS 13 ( ): Waymo claims that the general concept of using
13
14 . Numerous vendor websites reveal, however,
15 that using is well known. Indeed,
16 vendors sell for this very purpose.
17 Moreover, Uber is currently .
18 TS 14 : TS 14 is the concept of having in PCBs to align the PCBs to
19 each other and to be used as reference points for . Waymos own
20 922 patent discloses the in Waymos LiDAR boards, and public references
21 disclose for aligning PCBs and used as reference points for .
22 Moreover, Uber is currently from the boards.
23 TS 90 : This alleged trade secret does not pertain to Fuji at all,
24 but only to Ubers abandoned Spider LiDAR design. Waymo asserts that
25 Mr. Levandowski disclosed Waymos method to Uber engineer
26 James Haslim, who purportedly implemented that method in Spider. The evidence shows,
27 however, that Spiders method (and the rough sketch that Mr. Levandowski
28 provided) was a publicly-known technique. Mr. Haslim consulted public references to

9
sf-3823902
1 develop his method. Moreover, Waymos allegedly proprietary method is also disclosed
2 in public references, and is not a trade secret.
3 TS 25 : Waymo accuses Uber of having misappropriated
4 Waymos , but has no evidence to support this. Waymo relies
5 exclusively on a handful of notes and an email from the former head of Ubers Pittsburgh
6 research facility (who was not working on Ubers LiDARs) recording a few vague
7 references to during conversations with Mr. Levandowski. There is
8 no mention in these scant materials of any specific Waymo and
9 no evidence that any Waymo were adopted by Uber or used to develop
10 Ubers LiDARs. Uber has its own , which Waymos technical expert admits
11 do not contain any of Waymos .
12 TS 111 ( ): Waymo contends that Mr. Levandowski steered
13 Uber away from a based on his prior negative experience with
14 Waymos design. Yet, Waymo has proffered no evidence that Mr.
15 Levandowski ever once mentioned the experience or discussed the drawbacks of
16 with anyone at Uber. Waymos sole evidence is that
17 Mr. Levandowski preferred to implement a spinning-head LiDAR (like the Velodyne
18 HDL-64) rather than a LiDAR. That is not evidence of misappropriation of
19 negative know-how.
20 C. Waymos Allegations About the 14,000 Files Have Been Undercut by

the Evidence It Sought to Hide
21
Waymo hid crucial information about the 14,000 files. Information Waymo was
22
compelled to produce reveals that those files were low value, that the entire set is
23
, and that the download did not raise any red flags. (Dkt. 1584-4, Gonzalez Decl. at
24
1-3.) Moreover, the 14,000 files have almost no connection to the asserted trade secrets.
25
D. Waymo Has No Basis for Damages
26
Waymos only evidence of damages is based on the opinions of its expert, Michael
27
Wagner. Despite this Courts repeated warnings for Waymo not to get greedy with its damages
28
10
sf-3823902
1 claim, Waymo did exactly thatMr. Wagners report purports to calculate future unjust profits
2 for each of the nine asserted trade secrets that reach as high as . Mr. Wagner then
3 uses those figures as the baseline royalty before arbitrarily applying a across the board
4 increase under Georgia Pacific, resulting in total damages of for the alleged
5 misappropriation of a single trade secret. On Saturday, Defendants filed a motion to exclude all
6 of Mr. Wagners opinions as speculative and not reliable. (Dkt. 1614-4.)
7 As explained in that motion, Mr. Wagner calculates those astronomical figures using a
8 methodology that is not reliable, inserting variables that he neither derived nor tested, and making
9 assumptions that no reasonable expert would make. For the future unjust profits analysis, he
10 takes an 18-month old slide prepared by an Uber corporate development manager that was never
11 used for any purpose, adopts it without testing it, and then opines that the nine discrete trade
12 secrets relating to LiDAR hardware will allow Ubers entire autonomous vehicle (AV) program
13 to skip ahead in all aspects of development and commercialization. For saved development costs,
14 Mr. Wagner assumes the discrete trade secrets will allow Uber to save the cash burn rate for
15 Ubers entire AV unit for the amount of time that it would have taken Uber to
16 independently develop each trade secret. And for his reasonable royalty opinion, Mr. Wagner
17 uses his future unjust profits figures as the baseline royalty, and then applies an arbitrary
18 across the board increase purportedly based on the Georgia Pacific factors, though the
19 increase is neither calculated nor tied to any specific factor. Mr. Wagners opinions do not come
20 close to meeting causation and apportionment standards, and the assumptions on which they
21 depend are wholly unreliable and untested.
22 V. THE COURT SHOULD PROCEED IN A MANNER THAT WILL

RESOLVE THIS DISPUTE EFFICIENTLY WHILE HOLDING WAYMO
23 TO ACCOUNT FOR ITS INFORMED CHOICE TO SEEK AN
EXPEDITED TRIAL DATE.
24
The Court has three options in moving this case forward to a resolution. The first is to
25
26 maintain the current trial date, recognizing that the expedited trial schedule was implemented at
27 Waymos request and it made an informed choice despite the risks to push forward at significant
28
11
sf-3823902
1 expense and time to the parties and the Court. The secondgranting the continuance and
2 permitting Waymo to bog the Court and the parties down with its bloated list of 121 trade secrets
3
plus more to come and years of additional discoveryis the most unwieldy and inefficient. And
4
after consuming tremendous public and private resources, the parties will find themselves back in
5
this exact same position in one or two yearson the eve of trial with a brand-new list of proposed
6
7 trade secrets to try. Lastly, if the Court strikes the plaintiffs speculative and unreliable damages
8 model, it could try an equitable bench trial starting on October 10th. An equitable bench trial
9 would resolve the plaintiffs best nine trade secrets quickly and serve as a bellwether to provide
10
the parties information for resolving this dispute.
11
12 A. Denying the Continuance
13 The best option for the Court is to deny the continuance and proceed to trial on the current
14 schedule. The expedited trial schedule was imposed on the parties and the Court at Waymos
15 request, and the parties have invested considerable resources preparing for an October trial as a
16 result of that request. Thousands of documents have been produced between the parties and 69
17 depositions have been taken, with 12 witnesses being deposed multiple times to date. Waymo
18 understood the risks of pursuing an expedited October 2017 trial date, including the risks that it
19 would need to narrow the issues for trial and that it might not obtain every conceivable piece of
20 discovery it might want. The Court has addressed these risks at numerous points, such as on
21 June 6, 2017 when discussing Waymos meritless patent claims:
22 I want to give a lecture to Waymo. Youre the plaintiff. Youre the

one that wants to get to trial. Youre a big firm. You big firms
23 always think you can hold on to every issue and have it both ways,
but at some point you got to cut loose and decide, do you really
24 think these patent claims are worth the salt. In my view, theyre not.
25 (6/7/17 Hrg Tr. 47:23-48:3.) If Waymo was concerned that the Courts suggestion to narrow the
26 list of trade secrets would be deemed a waiver of the others, then it should have sought
27 clarification from the Court and decided whether to continue on an expedited calendar or not.
28
12
sf-3823902
1 Instead, Waymo waited over two months after the case management orderand more than two
2 weeks after narrowing its list of trade secretsbefore seeking that clarification. And when told at
3 the August 16 hearing that they would be waiving their other trade secrets if they pushed forward
4 with the current trial date, Waymo continued to proceed for another month despite knowing it did
5 not have the Stroz report. Waymo made a deliberate and informed choice in asking to proceed at
6 breakneck speed, imposing a significant burden on the Court and the parties. Waymos relentless
7 push for an October trial dateknowing full well the consequences it may have and the burdens
8 it placed on the parties and the Courtshould have consequences. The Court has discretion to
9 hold Waymo to their informed choice. Waymo should therefore be compelled to stick with the
10 trial date it sought and waive any trade secret other than those currently scheduled to be tried.
11 B. Granting the Continuance

12 Granting a continuance without limiting Waymo on the number of trade secrets it can
13 pursue is not a cost-effective or realistic option. At the start of this litigation, Waymo pursued
14 claims on 121 alleged trade secrets. (Dkt. 25-7, Jaffe Decl. Ex. 1.) That long list allowed
15 Waymo to begin a fishing expedition in hopes of finding somethinganythingin Ubers
16 LiDAR systems that might match one of their trade secrets. Waymo extensively investigated
17 every aspect of Ubers LiDAR systems and knew the Stroz report was not yet produced, but made
18 an informed choice to proceed with an October trial. Disappointed that the best it could find was
19 the current nine trade secretsall of which are easily shown to be without meritWaymo now
20 wants to go back to the drawing board by resurrecting its first list of trade secrets and apparently
21 attempt to add even more.
22 It is obvious that Waymo cannot possibly try 120+ trade secrets at once. Such a trial
23 would be unmanageable and take years. See AMEC Envt & Infrastructure, Inc. v. Geosyntec
24 Consultants Inc., No. C 12-02973, 2013 WL 3923459, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2013) (stating
25 plaintiffs pursuit of several hundred trade secrets implicates significant case management
26 issues and that a trial on so many trade secrets likely would be unmanageable). If a
27 continuance is granted, Waymo will again have to narrow its list of trade secrets to proceed to
28 trial, and when it does everybody involved will suffer from a serious case of dj vu as we all
13
sf-3823902
1 return to the present state of affairsa short list of dubious trade secrets chosen only with the
2 benefit of hindsight after yet another incredibly-burdensome fishing expedition. Granting the
3 continuance will only serve to re-open discovery for another year or two, impose significant
4 burdens on the parties and case management burdens on the Court, and likely push the parties
5 further away from resolving their dispute.
6
C. Equitable Bench Trial
7
Between these extremes, the Court could hold a short bench trial in October on the
8
narrowed list of trade secrets and grant a continuance with regard to any others. On Saturday,
9
10 Defendants filed a Daubert motion to exclude testimony from Michael Wagner, Waymos
11 damages expert. (Dkt. 1614-4.) Despite this Courts repeated warning not to be greedy, Waymo
12 does exactly thatMr. Wagners report applies a model and assumptions that he neither created
13 nor tested to calculate the future unjust profits that Uber supposedly will realize one day far in
14
the future from a head start. That exercise resulted in absurd damages numbers, including a claim
15
for for a single trade secret. Even worse, Mr. Wagners reasonable royalty analysis
16
uses the future profits figure and then applies a across the board increase to arrive at a lump
17
18 sum reasonable royalty up to for that single trade secret. (Gonzalez Decl. Ex. 11
19 440.) Mr. Wagners opinions are so unfounded and unreliable that the Court should reach the
20 only possible conclusionthat Mr. Wagner must be excluded. Because Waymo has no other
21
disclosed evidence of monetary damages, Waymo will be left only with a claim for injunctive
22
relief that can be resolved through an equitable bench trial where the Court decides the scope of a
23
permanent injunction, if any.
24
A bench trial now could be completed in less than half the time of the currently-scheduled
25
26 trial given the Courts familiarity with the technology underlying the nine purported trade secrets,
27 and could be limited to a discrete set of issues unaffected by the Stroz report. The Stroz report
28
14
sf-3823902
1 does not address whether the nine trade secrets are valid trade secrets, does not address whether
2 the asserted trade secrets are used in Ubers LiDAR systems, and does not address whether Uber
3
independently developed the trade secrets. That is especially so where Waymos motion for a
4
continuance makes no mention of any additional information regarding the current nine trade
5
secrets.
6
7 Not only would the bench trial not involve evidence of damages and the Stroz report, it
8 also would not call for live testimony from Anthony Levandowski and many other fact witnesses
9 because it would be primarily focused on technical issues. Finally, this trial would inform any
10
settlement discussions and likely push the parties toward resolving the entire litigation, which
11
would save the Court and the parties significant time and expense.
12
13 VI. UBER REQUESTS A COURT-APPOINTED NEUTRAL EXPERT
14 If the Court is inclined to grant a continuance, a Court-appointed neutral expert is
15 appropriate in this case, where the evidence is confusing and conflicting and an independent
16 expert could assist the court in evaluating contradictory evidence. Walker v. Am. Home Shield
17 Long Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 1999). In McKinney, the Ninth Circuit
18 remanded the case and recommended that the district court consider appointing an expert because
19 of the complexity of the scientific evidence. McKinney v. Anderson, 924 F.2d 1500, 1511 (9th
20 Cir. 1991), vacated on other grounds by Helling v. McKinney, 502 U.S. 903 (1991). The Federal
21 Circuit, applying Ninth Circuit law, has upheld the appointment of an expert where the district
22 court was confronted by what it viewed as an unusually complex case and what appeared to be
23 starkly conflicting expert testimony. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. O2 Micro Intl Ltd., 558
24 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009). This Court, for example, has appointed a neutral expert where
25 there are extremely divergent views on damages and given the unusual complexity of the
26 damages aspect of this case. Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., No. C 10-03561 WHA, 2015 WL
27 7429277, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2015).
28 This case is likewise complex, involves starkly conflicting expert testimony, and requires
15
sf-3823902
1 the factfinder to evaluate confusing and contradictory evidence. Waymos trade secrets have
2 been and continue to be a moving target. (See Dkt. 426, PI Order at 21 (it has become clear that
3 Waymo has both overreached in defining its trade secrets and made moving targets out of its
4 asserted trade secrets to evade defensive arguments.) For example, Waymo has retreated from
5 claiming under TS 7 to claiming , or a range of
6 . (Id. at 13; Dkt. 335-4 at 4.) In response to a Waymo email stating that
7 Waymos expert now opines that
8 (Gonzalez Decl.
9 Ex. 12, WAYMO-UBER-00022196 at 22197; Id. Ex. 16, Hesselink Reply Rpt. 97.) In light of
10 Waymos repeated attempts to make moving targets out of its alleged trade secrets, a neutral
11 expert would be valuable in helping the factfinders to understand the technical merits of the case.
12 Moreover, even now, the number of trade secrets Waymo will pursue remains uncertain,
13 with the possibility remaining that Waymo will assert dozens more trade secret claims, many
14 involving general principles and approaches in the field. (Mot. at 15-19 (seeking to add trade
15 secrets; see also Dkt. 426, PI Order at 16 (Waymo has overreached in attempting to claim
16 ownership over general principles and approaches in the field.). A neutral expert would be
17 valuable in assisting the factfinders with sorting through a large number of complex claims and
18 understanding what is in the public domain.
19 Waymo argues against a neutral expert because the parties have already submitted reports
20 from four different technical experts. (Mot. at 19.) The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument in
21 Walker, where defendant contended that a neutral expert was unnecessary because record was
22 sufficiently developed. Walker, 180 F.3d at 1071. The Ninth Circuit found that the appointment
23 was warranted, notwithstanding the existing record, because the evidence was confusing and
24 conflicting. Id. The same considerations apply here.
25 Waymo also argues that the appointment of a neutral expert will cause the jury to simply
26 rely on the experts opinions and result in a denial of the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
(Mot. at 20-21.) This argument was rejected in the Monolithic Power Systems case that Waymo
27
cites in its motion. In Monolithic Power Systems, the Federal Circuit found that:
28 DEFS. UBER TECHS., INC. & OTTOMOTTO LLCS OPPN TO WAYMOS MOT. FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE
Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 16

sf-3823902
1 Ultimately, [defendants] arguments that [the neutral experts]

testimony relieved the jury of its tasks are policy arguments against
2 Rule 706. However, Congress entertained and rejected these
arguments during the framing of Rule 706. Furthermore, the
3 Supreme Court has long recognized the constitutionality of court-
appointed experts.
4
Monolithic Power Sys., 558 F.3d at 1348 (citations omitted). The Monolithic Power Systems
5
court notes that the district court took care to instruct the jury that it should not assign [the
6
experts] opinion greater inherent weight on accord of his independent status, and the jurys
7
verdict did not track the experts opinions. Id. at 1347. The same jury instruction can be
8
provided here to alleviate Waymos concerns.
9
VII. CONCLUSION
10
Waymo insisted on an extremely expedited discovery schedule and made the knowing
11
strategic decision to proceed on the expedited schedule without having the Stroz report. The
12
parties have worked very hard to meet that schedule and to be ready for trial on nine trade secrets.
13
That plan should not be derailed. The Court should resolve Ubers motion in limine on damages
14
and try the nine trade secrets.
15
16 Dated: September 18, 2017 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
17
18 By: /s/ Arturo J. Gonzlez

ARTURO J. GONZLEZ
19
Attorneys for Defendants
20 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
and OTTOMOTTO LLC
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17
sf-3823902

Opposition

Uploaded by

Opposition

Uploaded by

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1624 Filed 09/18/17 Page 1 of 18

1 MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)

6 KAREN L. DUNN (Pro Hac Vice)

11 WILLIAM CARMODY (Pro Hac Vice)

16 Attorneys for Defendants

18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21 WAYMO LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

22 Plaintiff, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND

2 requesting and getting expedited discovery and an expedited trial date.

6 misappropriate. That only helps Uber

7 which explains why Waymo walked away from a dozen inspections

12 . Nevertheless, Waymos damages are based entirely

16 misappropriation of each trade secret.

22 input from a court-appointed neutral expert.

23 II. THE STROZ REPORT CONFIRMS THAT THE DUE DILIGENCE

1 encouraged any theft. The Report expressly concludes that Stroz

5 information identified by Stroz, such as that Waymo makes a centerpiece

11 stole and stolen is not a substitute for proof.

12 Before Uber acquired Ottomotto, Uber required Levandowski

15 (Dkt. 1603-5, Stroz Rpt. at 3.) This

16 allowed Stroz and prevent it from coming to Uber. In exchange, Uber

18 was completely truthful. (Declaration of Arturo J. Gonzalez in Support of Defendants Uber

20 Trial Date (Gonzalez Decl.), Ex. 1 (Indemnification Agreement) 2.2(b)(ii) at

21 UBER000098495.) The Indemnification Agreement also strongly incentivized Levandowski and

24 pending arbitration against Levandowski). (Id. 2.1(b)(iii) at UBER00098496.) Each diligenced

25 employee attested at the time that they . (Id. Ex. 2 at

26 UBER00319641 (Maxime Levandowski attestation:

1 ); id. Exs. 3-7 (diligenced employee attestations:

6 Levandowski attested that he did so. Then,

8 Thus, there was no way for him for

22 files could not have come to Uber because Levandowski

26 was evidence that Levandowski had wrongfully taken those

27 files. Likewise, that Waymo alleges

1 are not irrefutable evidence that these two trade secrets

3 communicated to Uber at all, much less directly or irrefutably, for

4 and no one at Uber ever received access to these

5 . (Dkt. 823 at 6.)

12 Google information, the Report says

18 investigation. (Mot. at 9 (citing April deposition).) In an intervening portion of her April

25 8/18/17 Morgan Dep. at 143:2-14, 147:2-148:5.)

28 . (Dkt. 1603-5, Stroz Rpt. at 12.) Using a

2 (Gonzalez Decl. Ex. 10 (Waymo personal device policy).) Similarly, it is not

5 not want any Google information brought to Uber.

9 , contrary to Waymos assertion that the Report states plainly

10 that Levandowski took trade-secret information from Waymo. (Mot. at 4 (citing

11 Stroz Rpt. at 12).)

19 Stroz Rpt. at 12-13.)

20 III. UBER DID NOTHING IMPROPER WITH RESPECT TO THE STROZ

3 available for review promptly.

7 IV. WAYMO IS SEEKING A CONTINUANCE SO IT CAN SHORE UP ITS

2 at 3-6.) Further, Dr. Hesselink acknowledges that the

5 TS 9 ( ): This broadly-defined trade secret boils down to a fundamental optics

7 explained in Ubers summary judgment motion on TS 9 (Dkt. 1419), Waymo concedes

9 Yet, Waymos engineers admitted that is a

10 well-known concept in optics. (Dkt. 1419-4 at 11-12.) Moreover, public literature

11 discloses , and the concept has been used in commercially-

13 Uber in their self-driving vehicles). (Id. at 13-15.)

14 TS 2 ( transmit block): Waymos misappropriation theory for TS 2 is that the

16 transmit block in GBr3, because . That simplistic notion ignores Fujis

19 no evidence that Uber embraced as a magic number; rather, Uber chose

21 enough physical space for mounting the diodes. Uber is currently

23 TS 7 ( ): Waymo initially claimed that having a laser diode

25 disclosures of that concept. Now Waymo claims that a is its trade

27 number , and was not the result of any testing or lengthy

28 development. (See, e.g., Gonzalez Decl. Ex. 12 at WAYMO-UBER-00022197-198

1 (vendor writing in response to Waymo statement that

6 at WAYMO-UBER-00022246 (2/4/2016 Email to third-party ), attaching, inter

7 alia, id. Ex. 14 at WAYMO-UBER-00022288 (

10 NDA for in Waymos productions).) Uber has already

12 TS 13 ( ): Waymo claims that the general concept of using

14 . Numerous vendor websites reveal, however,

15 that using is well known. Indeed,

16 vendors sell for this very purpose.

17 Moreover, Uber is currently .

18 TS 14 : TS 14 is the concept of having in PCBs to align the PCBs to

19 each other and to be used as reference points for . Waymos own