Waymo, Uber, and the Price of a Secret
Background and Lawsuit
In late February 2017, Waymo, a self-driving automobile company and subsidiary of Alphabet Inc., sued Uber, alleging trade secret misappropriation, patent infringement, and unfair competition.[2] The complaint claims Uber used confidential information and technology, taken by a former Waymo engineer, Anthony Levandowski, to advance Uber’s self-driving car program.[3] Levandowski was in charge of the Light Detection and Ranging (“LiDAR”) team on Waymo’s self-driving car project before abruptly leaving his job in January 2016 to start his own self-driving car company.[4] LiDAR is a light-based sensor technology crucial to autonomous driving.[5] Shortly before his departure, Levandowski downloaded over 14,000 highly confidential and proprietary files, including Waymo’s LiDAR circuit board designs, to his personal device (“Levandowski’s Files”).[6] Evidence suggested that Levandowski took extraordinary efforts to raid Waymo’s servers for the files and concealed his activities.[7] Additionally, while still employed at Waymo, Levandowski met with Uber executives to discuss his startup, Otto.[8]
Otto’s business focused on self-driving trucks and its LiDAR technology quickly drew attention from the transportation industry.[9] In August 2016, Uber announced that it had agreed to acquire Otto for approximately $680 million.[10] As part of the acquisition, Levandowski joined Uber and took a leading role in developing their new self-driving car project.[11] In late 2016, Waymo grew suspicious that its technology was being improperly used after one of its LiDAR suppliers accidentally sent the company an email containing a drawing of what appeared to be an Uber LiDAR circuit board.[12] Waymo noted that the design bore a “striking resemblance” to their own unique LiDAR design.[13] Further investigation revealed Levandowski’s actions before his resignation, and exposed other former Waymo employees who downloaded highly confidential proprietary information pertaining to Waymo’s LiDAR system, then joined Otto and Uber.[14] Information included supplier lists, manufacturing lists, and statements of work that contained highly technical information.[15]
In early 2017, Waymo received confirmation from regulators that Otto was using designs based on Waymo’s LiDAR technology, and that Uber was claiming the design was in-house.[16] On February 23, 2017, less than two weeks after receiving confirmation from the regulators, Waymo filed its lawsuit against Uber and Otto.[17] Although Uber initially denied the allegations, it eventually conceded that it discovered one of Levandowski’s Files on the personal computer of a former Waymo employee, now employed at Uber.[18] Subsequently, Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California ordered Uber to conduct additional searches of its servers and employee devices, prioritizing the fifty most important files and documents identified by Waymo before searching for the remaining 14,000 files.[19] Then, in May, Judge Alsup concluded that: 1) Uber knew, or should have known, that Levandowski possessed confidential files that likely contained Waymo’s intellectual property when Uber acquired Otto; 2) at least some of the information in those files had seeped into Uber’s LiDAR development efforts; and 3) some of that information qualifies for trade secret protection.[20] The court ordered Levandowski to turn over the documents he took from Waymo and Uber removed him from the self-driving car project before eventually firing him for failing to cooperate with their efforts to defend the lawsuit.[21] The case continued for months, with Waymo and Uber disagreeing over whether any of Waymo’s trade secrets had been involved in the development of Uber’s technology.[22] The case went to trial in February 2018, but ended just after four days of testimony, with Waymo and Uber reaching a settlement just before the fifth day of trial was set to begin.[23] Under the settlement, Waymo received 0.34% share of Uber, valued at approximately $245 million.[24] Additionally, although denying that any of Waymo’s trade secrets were used, Uber agreed to ensure that their technology represents its own work.[25] In 2019, federal prosecutors charged Levandowski separately with trade secret theft, to which he pled guilty to one count.[26] As part of his plea, he admitted that he downloaded thousands of files from Waymo’s servers before leaving with the intent to use them for his own benefit.[27]
Discussion of Trade Secret Law
What made Waymo’s technology a trade secret? Under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), a trade secret is information that derives economic value from not being generally known, is not readily ascertainable through proper means, and is subject to reasonable efforts to keep it secret.[28]
Waymo was not arguing that its trade secret was the use of a LiDAR system in self-driving cars.[29] Rather, Waymo identified specific information about its LiDAR system, including, amongst other things, the positioning and orientation of laser diodes and photodetectors, and the materials and placement of optical components.[30] This information was valuable to Waymo because it represented the results of its research and development into self-driving technology and was information that they did not make available to the public or competitors.[31] Waymo also demonstrated that they took reasonable steps to protect the technology that went into their LiDAR system, including requiring employees, contractors, consultants, vendors, and manufacturers that received the relevant confidential information to sign non-disclosure agreements.[32] However, the court determined that not all aspects related to Waymo’s LiDAR system qualified as trade secrets.[33] Some of the information identified by Waymo consisted of engineering principles and trade-offs generally known in the industry.[34]
Misappropriation of a trade secret occurs when someone acquires, uses, or discloses information through improper means or without the owner’s consent.[35] Misappropriation can occur whether a person knows or has reason to know that they are improperly using a trade secret.[36] Although the court found it possible that at least some of the information from Levandowski’s Files had seeped into Uber’s LiDAR’s system, and that Uber likely knew, or should have known, that it came from Waymo, it never made the final determination that Uber misappropriated Waymo’s trade secrets, as the case settled before the trial was completed.[37]
Implications
One of the biggest implications of this case is the difficulty of separating a company’s trade secrets from the knowledge and experience that an employee is allowed to take with them. Trade secret law protects a company’s specific confidential information but does not give it ownership over an employee's skill or experience.[38] In fact, the court instructed the jury during the trial that trade secrets do not include the professional skills, talents, or abilities that employees develop throughout their work.[39] This further implicates a concept in trade secret law known as the inevitable disclosure” doctrine. This doctrine allows a trade secret owner to argue that an employee should be prevented from working for a competitor because the employee’s new position will inevitably cause them to rely on the former employer’s trade secrets, even without proof of actual or threatened misappropriation.[40] Despite the potential utility of this doctrine to Waymo’s case, Waymo could not capitalize on it because California has rejected the inevitable disclosure doctrine.[41] California court find that the doctrine effectively creates an after-the-fact covenant not to compete because it can prevent an employee from working for a competitor without requiring proof that the employee actually used or threatened to use the former employer’s trade secrets.[42] Instead, California requires an employer to establish actual or threatened misappropriation rather than simply argue that disclosure is inevitable.[43]
Ultimately, this is a case where a few bad actors, namely Levandowski, clearly stole confidential information from Waymo for their own benefit. However, this case also raises the question of how far responsibility extends for companies that hire these employees. There is a notable distinction between an employee taking confidential files to compete against their former employer and an employee taking what they have learned from years of experience. Trade secret law has to account for both, and the Waymo-Uber dispute shows just how difficult that can be when an employee moves directly to a competitor.
References
[1] Photo by Aamy Dugiere, A Waymo Self-Driving Car Is Seen in the City, Unsplash (June 22, 2025), https://unsplash.com/photos/a-waymo-self-driving-car-is-seen-in-the-city-KDOigAcQ8PE
[2] See Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc.: Trade Secret Misappropriation, Digital Forensics, and Autonomous Vehicle Litigation, Forensis Grp. (Mar. 31, 2026), https://www.forensisgroup.com/resources/expert-legal-witness-blog/waymo-llc-v-uber-technologies-inc-digital-forensics-trade-secret-theft-and-self-driving-car-technology-litigation.
[3] See id.
[4] See Paul Mersino & Jennifer Dukarski, Waymo v. Uber - - “Epic” Trade Secret Case Involving Autonomous Vehicles Settles for $244 Million, Butzel (Feb. 12, 2018), https://www.butzel.com/alert-Waymo-v-Uber-Epic-Trade-Secret-Case-Involving-Autonomous-Vehicles-Settles-for-244-Million.
[5] See Alexandria Sage, Waymo accepts $245 million and Uber’s ‘regret’ to settle self-driving car dispute, Reuters (Feb. 9, 2018), https://www.reuters.com/article/world/waymo-accepts-245-million-and-ubers-regret-to-settle-self-driving-car-disput-idUSKBN1FT2BD/.
[6] See Complaint at 2, Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. No. C 3:17-cv-00939-WHA ECF No. 1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2017).
[7] See id. at 3.
[8] See Kia Kokalitcheva, The Full History of the Uber-Waymo Legal Fight, Axios (May 9, 2017), https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/the-full-history-of-the-uber-waymo-legal-fight-1513301467.
[9] See Shezaad, Otto Set to Disrupt the Freight Industry, Harv. Bus. Sch. (Nov. 18, 2016), https://aiinstitute.hbs.edu/platform-rctom/submission/otto-set-to-disrupt-the-freight-industry/index.html.
[10] See Kokalitcheva, supra note 8.
[11] See Mike Isaac, A Lawsuit Against Uber Highlights the Rush to Conquer Driverless Cars, N.Y. Times (Feb. 24, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/technology/anthony-levandowski-waymo-uber-google-lawsuit.html?eafs_enabled=false.
[12] See A Note on Our Lawsuit Against Otto and Uber, Waymo (Feb. 23, 2017), https://waymo.com/blog/2017/02/a-note-on-our-lawsuit-against-otto-and/.
[13] See id.
[14] See id.
[15] See id.
[16] See Kokalitcheva, supra note 8.
[17] See Complaint, supra note 6.
[18] See Kokalitcheva, supra note 8.
[19] See Order After Hearing re Discovery Letter Dated April 3, 2017, at 1, Waymo LLC v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA, ECF No. 163 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2017).
[20] See Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction at 17, Waymo LLC v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA, ECF No. 433 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2017).
[21] See Mike Isaac, Uber Fires Former Google Engineer at Heart of Self-Driving Dispute, N.Y Times (May 30, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/30/technology/uber-anthony-levandowski.html?eafs_enabled=false.
[22] See Sage, supra note 5.
[23] See id.
[24] See id.
[25] See id.
[26] See Former Uber Executive Sentenced To 18 Months in Jail for Trade Secret Theft from Google, U.S. Att’y’s Off. (Aug. 4, 2020),
[27] See id.
[28] See 18 U.S.C § 1839(3) (2018).
[29] See Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, supra note 20, at 2.
[30] See Complaint, supra note 6, at 16–17.
[31] See Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, supra note 20, at 13.
[32] See Complaint, supra note 6, at 16–17.
[33] See Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, supra note 20, at 16.
[34] See id at 17.
[35] See 18 U.S.C. § 1839(5).
[36] See id.
[37] See Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, supra note 20, at 2; see also Sage, supra note 5.
[38] See Camilla A. Hrdy, The General Knowledge, Skill, and Experience Paradox, 60 B.C. L. Rev. 2239 (2019).
[39] See Penultimate Jury Instructions on Trade Secret Misappropriation at 4, Waymo LLC v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA, ECF No. 2449 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2018).
[40] See Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co., 101 Cal. App. 4th 1443, 1446 (2002).
[41] See id. at 1447.
[42] See id.
[43] See id. at 1464.
Comments