Waymo’s allegations of trade secret theft against Uber should be referred to the US attorney for investigation, “based on the evidentiary record supplied thus far,” a federal judge ruled yesterday.
“The Court takes no position on whether a prosecution is or is not warranted, a decision entirely up to the United States Attorney,” Alsup wrote.
In a separate order, US District Judge William Alsup held that Uber won’t be allowed to move Waymo’s trade secrets lawsuit into arbitration.
The full details of Alsup’s thoughts on the US attorney referral aren’t known, as the relevant orders are sealed. However, in previous hearings, Alsup said that Google has strong evidence that Waymo engineer Anthony Levandowski illegally downloaded 14,000 files while he was employed at Google. Uber doesn’t deny that the downloads occurred, and Levandowski has asserted his Fifth Amendment rights rather than answer questions.
Google’s Waymo self-driving car division filed a lawsuit against Uber in February, saying that Levandowski stole trade secrets, then left Google to found his own startup, Otto. Uber later purchased Otto for $680 million. Waymo also claimed that Uber infringed certain Waymo-owned patents.
In a court hearing two weeks ago, Uber argued that the trade secret litigation should be moved into arbitration. Levandowski’s employee agreement with Google clearly said that “any dispute” about his relationship with the company should go into arbitration.
Waymo’s lawyer pointed out that Levandowski isn’t a defendant in the case. “We’re suing a third-party competitor who we didn’t have any agreement with,” said Waymo lawyer Charles Verhoeven during the hearing.
“Defendants seek to steer this case into arbitration even though they have no agreement with anyone to arbitrate the case,” Alsup wrote in last night’s order.
Alsup goes on to note that Waymo has initiated two arbitration proceedings against Levandowski, asserting that the ex-employee breached his contract and engaged in fraud, tortious interference, and unfair competition.
“Neither proceeding has anything to do with Waymo’s claims of trade secret misappropriation against defendants here,” writes Alsup.
Uber’s accusations that Waymo used “artful” or “tactical” pleading to avoid arbitration by not suing Levandowski “are unwarranted,” he adds. Waymo honored its obligation to use arbitration against Levandowski. “Its decision to bring separate claims against defendants in court was not only reasonable but the only course available.”