Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
3:17-cv-00939
N.D. Cal.Jun 8, 2017Background
- Waymo alleges former employee Anthony Levandowski downloaded 9.7 GB of Waymo confidential materials relating to LiDAR while employed, then joined and helped form Otto, which was acquired by Uber.
- Waymo asserts DTSA and CUTSA claims for trade secret misappropriation, four patent-infringement claims, and a single Section 17200 (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) unfair competition claim incorporating all factual allegations.
- Waymo’s Section 17200 claim accuses defendants of unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent acts including misappropriating Waymo’s confidential and proprietary information; it seeks to proceed alongside CUTSA/DTSA claims.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the Section 17200 claim as preempted/superseded by CUTSA because it is based on the same nucleus of facts as the trade-secret claims.
- The court evaluates whether Waymo’s 17200 claim can be sustained independent of its trade-secret theory or whether CUTSA preempts it under California law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CUTSA supersedes Waymo’s Section 17200 claim | Waymo: 17200 claim alleges misappropriation of confidential information that may not qualify as trade secrets; may be pled in the alternative | Defendants: 17200 is based on same misappropriation facts and therefore superseded by CUTSA | Court: Granted dismissal — CUTSA supersedes the 17200 claim as pleaded |
| Whether a property right based on other positive law (Kremen/conversion) avoids supersession | Waymo: Kremen shows a property right could support non-CUTSA claims for non-trade-secret information | Defendants: Kremen’s property-right concept does not avoid CUTSA preemption | Court: Kremen’s conversion-property concept insufficient to avoid CUTSA; Silvaco controls |
| Whether pleadings show wrongdoing materially distinct from CUTSA claim | Waymo: 17200 alleges unfair/fraudulent acts distinct from CUTSA | Defendants: 17200 merely repackages misappropriation allegations | Court: 17200 is not materially distinct and therefore preempted |
| Whether plaintiff may plead 17200 in the alternative until trade-secret status is determined | Waymo: permitted to plead alternately until resolution | Defendants: pleadings-stage supersession applies regardless | Court: Not permitted; supersession evaluated at pleadings stage and 17200 dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Silvaco Data Sys. v. Intel Corp., 184 Cal. App. 4th 210 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (CUTSA supersedes other civil remedies based on misappropriation of trade secrets; preemption scope explained)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310 (Cal. 2011) (discussing and disapproving aspects of Silvaco on other grounds)
- Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2003) (conversion requires a property right in the thing converted; court explains limits of that concept)
- Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163 (Cal. 1999) (defining the scope of unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices under § 17200)