Judge Refers Uber Trade Theft Allegations to Criminal Prosecutors as Case Goes Public

Waymo’s lawsuit against Uber Technologies’ alleged theft and usage of autonomous trade secrets is going to trial.

Judge William Alsup ruled Uber could not force the case into private arbitration and is referring the matter to the United States Attorney for a very public investigation.

This is everything the ride-hailing company didn’t want.

Alsup has also partially granted Alphabet’s self-driving unit’s request for a court injunction against Uber’s self-driving research, but that injunction has been filed under seal so the full extent of the order is not yet known.

Waymo accuses Anthony Levandowski, one of its former engineers, of stealing thousands of confidential documents before establishing Otto — his own self-driving truck startup. It believes Otto was little more than a placeholder company created by Uber and Levandowski to disguise its plans to steal the driverless car technology. Uber argued unsuccessfully that those claims belonged in arbitration proceedings due to a clause in Levandowski’s former employment contracts, while denying it has any connection to the alleged stolen files.

Judge Alsup previously stated Waymo had not made a compelling case against Uber, but theorized the matter had everything to do with Levandowski unwillingness to testify and the withholding of specific documents.

“Defendants have repeatedly accused Waymo of using ‘artful’ or ‘tactical’ pleading to evade its arbitration obligations by omitting Levandowski as a defendant,” Judge Alsup wrote on his decision. “These accusations are unwarranted.”

Speaking to TechCrunch, an Uber spokessperon said it was “unfortunate that Waymo will be permitted to avoid abiding by the arbitration promise it requires its employees to make. We remain confident in our case and welcome the chance to talk about our independently developed technology in any forum.”

Waymo had already pursued arbitration against Levandowski in the fall — months before it filed the lawsuit against his current employer.

“Waymo has honored its obligation to arbitrate against Levandowski by arbitrating its claims against Levandowski,” Alsup wrote. “Its decision to bring separate claims against defendants in court was not only reasonable but also the only course available, since Waymo had no arbitration agreement with defendants. Even though he is not a defendant here, moreover, Levandowski’s assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege has obstructed and continues to obstruct both discovery and defendants’ ability to construct a complete narrative as to the fate of Waymo’s purloined files. As a practical matter, it is hard to imagine how consolidating proceedings as to Levandowski and defendants, whether here or in arbitration, could alleviate these difficulties.”

Alphabet’s Waymo has stated it welcomes the court’s decision and looks “forward to holding Uber responsible in court for its misconduct.”

While the referral does not ensure the U.S. Attorney’s Office will open an official investigation or bring charges against Levandowski, Alsup’s recommendation does create the possibility. Likewise, the extent of the preliminary injunction decision against Uber is unknown. Waymo did not receive everything it wanted but it still might be enough to stall its rival’s self-driving research and development efforts.

[Image: Uber Technologies Inc.]