WeRide Corp. v. Kun Huang
379 F. Supp. 3d 834
N.D. Cal.2019Background
- WeRide (plaintiff) develops autonomous vehicle software (HD mapping, sensor-fusion localization, state machines) and alleges $45M+ invested in code base; employees sign Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement (PIIA).
- Former WeRide CEO Jing Wang left after dispute with Baidu and signed a separation agreement; WeRide alleges he disparaged the company to investors.
- Former WeRide Director of Hardware Kun Huang resigned in August 2018; evidence shows he copied many WeRide files to a USB device, deleted local files, and later joined/worked for defendants ZZX and AllRide (closely related entities).
- WeRide filed suit under the DTSA and CUTSA (and related state claims) and moved for a preliminary injunction and expedited discovery to prevent use/disclosure of asserted trade secrets.
- The court found WeRide identified its alleged trade secrets with reasonable particularity, and granted a preliminary injunction and limited expedited discovery as to Huang, ZZX, and AllRide, but denied relief as to Wang on trade-secret, defamation, and interference theories.
Issues
| Issue | WeRide's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WeRide identified trade secrets with reasonable particularity | Identification of 10 trade secrets: source code and algorithms for HD mapping, localization, and state machines; listed relevant files and functionality | Identification too generic for source code; must identify specific code | Held: identification is sufficiently particular for preliminary injunction/discovery |
| Whether Huang misappropriated WeRide trade secrets | Huang copied confidential files to USB, increased downloads before leaving, erased devices, then worked on similar capabilities at AllRide/ZZX | Huang says he did not use identified trade secrets; many files predate startup or were innocuous; no direct proof trade secrets on USB | Held: Likely to succeed on misappropriation and related breach of contract and fiduciary-duty claims against Huang |
| Whether ZZX/AllRide used/misappropriated WeRide trade secrets | Huang played senior technical role; video showed advanced capabilities developed implausibly fast after Huang left; unusual radar placement matched WeRide design | ZZX/AllRide: development may have started earlier; no direct proof they used WeRide code; procedural objections on evidence/timing | Held: Sufficient substantial questions and likelihood of success to enjoin ZZX/AllRide and authorize expedited source-code discovery |
| Whether Wang liable for trade secrets, defamation, interference, or contract breach | Wang allegedly encouraged investors to withdraw and may have ties to ZZX/AllRide; alleged disparaging statements and solicitation | Wang denies making statements, denies formal role/ownership in ZZX/AllRide, denies receiving payments or participating in product development | Held: WeRide failed to show likely success as to Wang on misappropriation, defamation, interference, and breach claims; injunction denied as to Wang |
| Enforceability of PIIA non-solicitation (Paragraph 5) | Enforcement needed to prevent poaching of employees | Defendants challenge scope and applicability | Held: California law (post-Edwards/AMN) renders employee non-solicitation clause void; WeRide cannot prevail on that clause |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standards for preliminary injunction)
- All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (serious-questions sliding-scale for injunctions)
- Johnson v. Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2009) (district courts may consider otherwise inadmissible evidence on preliminary injunction motion)
- Integral Dev. Corp. v. Tolat, [citation="675 F. App'x 700"] (9th Cir.) (source-code identification can satisfy particularity when key aspects are identified)
- Altavion, Inc. v. Konica Minolta Sys. Lab., Inc., 226 Cal. App. 4th 26 (2014) (software/source code can be trade secrets)
- Lamb-Weston, Inc. v. McCain Foods, Ltd., 941 F.2d 970 (9th Cir. 1991) (injunctions appropriate to prevent unfair advantage from trade-secret misuse)
- Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir. 1992) (considerations for foreign-party discovery burdens)
- Pyro Spectaculars N., Inc. v. Souza, 861 F. Supp. 2d 1079 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (deleting files can support inference of misappropriation)
- Henry Schein, Inc. v. Cook, 191 F. Supp. 3d 1072 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (preliminary relief in trade secret contexts)