Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
256 F. Supp. 3d 1059
N.D. Cal.2017Background
- Waymo sued Uber, Ottomotto, and Otto Trucking for trade secret misappropriation (DTSA and CUTSA), patent infringement, and for unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.
- Waymo alleges former employee Anthony Levandowski downloaded 9.7 GB of Waymo confidential LiDAR materials, later joined Otto, which Uber acquired, and that defendants used Waymo’s LiDAR designs.
- Waymo claims both trade secrets and related confidential information; it pleads CUTSA and DTSA claims and a § 17200 claim that incorporates all factual allegations and accuses defendants of misappropriating confidential information.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the § 17200 claim as superseded by CUTSA, arguing CUTSA provides the exclusive civil remedy for misappropriation-based claims.
- Waymo argued § 17200 can survive for non–trade-secret confidential information and invoked Kremen (conversion/property-right concept) and pleaded § 17200 alternatively pending trade-secret determinations.
- The court considered whether the § 17200 claim, stripped of trade-secret allegations, still pleaded a distinct property right or wrongdoing outside CUTSA’s scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CUTSA supersedes Waymo's § 17200 claim | § 17200 covers misappropriation of confidential info that may not qualify as trade secrets; may plead in the alternative | CUTSA is the exclusive remedy for misappropriation-based claims; § 17200 is superseded if based on same nucleus of facts | CUTSA supersedes the § 17200 claim; dismissal granted |
| Whether a property right under other positive law (e.g., conversion/Kremen) avoids supersession | Kremen shows a property right in confidential info can support non-CUTSA claims | Kremen’s property-right concept (conversion) does not evade CUTSA; Silvaco rejects that escape | Kremen does not save § 17200; conversion/property-right arguments insufficient |
| Whether alleging confidential info (not labeled trade secrets) suffices to avoid CUTSA | Can plead § 17200 as fallback for info that later is found non–trade-secret | If the only alleged property interest arises under trade-secret law, § 17200 cannot be used as a fallback | Pleading non-trade-secret confidential info as a fallback is insufficient; supersession evaluated at pleading stage |
| Whether § 17200 alleges wrongdoing distinct from CUTSA claim | § 17200 alleges unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent acts beyond CUTSA | The § 17200 allegations are indistinguishable from CUTSA misappropriation claims | The § 17200 allegations are duplicative of CUTSA and do not allege materially distinct wrongdoing; dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Silvaco Data Sys. v. Intel Corp., 184 Cal.App.4th 210 (2010) (CUTSA supersedes other civil remedies based on misappropriation; common-law claims preempted when based on trade-secret law)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (2011) (discussed in relation to Silvaco; broader California law context)
- K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of Am. Tech. & Operations, Inc., 171 Cal.App.4th 939 (2009) (§ 17200 claims superseded when based on same nucleus of facts as trade-secret misappropriation)
- Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2003) (conversion requires a property right; court distinguished this concept from CUTSA escape)
- Cel‑Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal.4th 163 (1999) (defining unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent practices under § 17200)