Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al Featured Case

Plaintiff Waymo LLC sued Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Ottomotto LLC and Otto Trucking LLC for trade secret misappropriation, patent infringement, and unfair competition. Plaintiff alleged that Anthony Levandowski, a former manager in Waymo's self-driving car project, downloaded over 14,000 highly confidential and proprietary files, including those related to Waymo's LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) System. Plaintiff also alleged that Uber was using plaintiff's misappropriated technology to produce Uber's own LiDAR devices.

Plaintiff: Waymo LLC
Defendant: Uber Technologies, Inc., Otto Trucking LLC and Ottomotto LLC
Case Number: 3:2017cv00939
Filed: February 23, 2017
Court: California Northern District Court
Office: San Francisco Office
County: San Francisco
Presiding Judge: William Alsup
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Docket Report

We have record of the following docket entries for this case:

Date Filed#Document Text
February 24, 2017 7 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 3/10/2017. (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2017)
February 23, 2017 6 NOTICE by Waymo LLC Report on the Filing or Determination of an Action Regarding a Patent or Trademark (Verhoeven, Charles) (Filed on 2/23/2017)
February 23, 2017 5 Certificate of Interested Entities by Waymo LLC Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-15 and FRCP 7.1 (Verhoeven, Charles) (Filed on 2/23/2017)
February 23, 2017 4 Proposed Summons. (Verhoeven, Charles) (Filed on 2/23/2017)
February 23, 2017 3 Proposed Summons. (Verhoeven, Charles) (Filed on 2/23/2017)
February 23, 2017 2 Proposed Summons. (Verhoeven, Charles) (Filed on 2/23/2017)
February 23, 2017 1 COMPLAINT against Otto Trucking LLC, Ottomotto LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971-11180330.). Filed byWaymo LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet)(Verhoeven, Charles) (Filed on 2/23/2017)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Waymo LLC
Represented By: Melissa J Baily
Represented By: Felipe Corredor
Represented By: Andrew Michael Holmes
Represented By: Jordan Ross Jaffe
Represented By: James Dubois Judah
Represented By: Grant Nicholas Margeson
Represented By: Jeffrey William Nardinelli
Represented By: John M. Neukom
Represented By: David Andrew Perlson
Represented By: Charles Kramer Verhoeven
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Uber Technologies, Inc.
Represented By: Meredith Richardson Dearborn
Represented By: Karen Leah Dunn
Represented By: Arturo J. Gonzalez
Represented By: Martha Lea Goodman
Represented By: Hamish Hume
Represented By: Michael A. Jacobs
Represented By: Michael Darron Jay
Represented By: Rudolph Kim
Represented By: Matthew Ian Kreeger
Represented By: Daniel Pierre Muino
Represented By: Jessica E Phillips
Represented By: Wendy Joy Ray
Represented By: Kyle N. Smith
Represented By: Eric Akira Tate
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Otto Trucking LLC
Represented By: Meredith Richardson Dearborn
Represented By: Karen Leah Dunn
Represented By: Arturo J. Gonzalez
Represented By: Martha Lea Goodman
Represented By: Hamish Hume
Represented By: Michael A. Jacobs
Represented By: Michael Darron Jay
Represented By: Rudolph Kim
Represented By: Matthew Ian Kreeger
Represented By: Daniel Pierre Muino
Represented By: Jessica E Phillips
Represented By: Wendy Joy Ray
Represented By: Kyle N. Smith
Represented By: Eric Akira Tate
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Ottomotto LLC
Represented By: Meredith Richardson Dearborn
Represented By: Karen Leah Dunn
Represented By: Arturo J. Gonzalez
Represented By: Martha Lea Goodman
Represented By: Hamish Hume
Represented By: Michael A. Jacobs
Represented By: Michael Darron Jay
Represented By: Rudolph Kim
Represented By: Matthew Ian Kreeger
Represented By: Daniel Pierre Muino
Represented By: Jessica E Phillips
Represented By: Wendy Joy Ray
Represented By: Kyle N. Smith
Represented By: Eric Akira Tate
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?