Uber loses bid to avoid trial in Waymo case

Sorry bros, you'll have to tell it to the jury – and give us the Stroz Report too

By Shaun Nichols in San Francisco


Uber has lost a pair of appeals at the center of its ongoing trade secrets case with the Alphabet-owned Waymo Inc.

In separate rulings, the Washington, DC, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals said Wednesday that the ride-sharing giant would not be able to move the case to an independent arbiter, making a trial likely.

Uber had asked the appeals court to rule that two arbitration agreements Waymo entered into with Anthony Levandowski while he was an employee would prevent the company from moving forward with its lawsuit accusing both Levandowski and Uber of conspiring to steal Waymo's self-driving car technology.

Echoing an earlier ruling from a California US District Court, the Appeals Court panel ruled that Uber was not covered in that agreement and that Waymo's lawsuit would not be restricted by the arbitration deals.

"The California courts have, in a few situations, compelled arbitration against an entity that was not a party to an arbitration agreement," the panel said in its opinion [PDF].

"The district court explored this precedent, and concluded that the present case did not warrant compulsion to arbitrate."

Meanwhile, Levandowski and Uber were also handed a defeat in a separate appeals case around the admissibility of a report Uber commissioned before it acquired Levandowski's startup Ottomotto.

The document, known as the "Stroz Report," investigated Levandowski and other former Waymo employees who had left the company to join Ottomotto.

Believing the report key to their claim of trade secret theft, Waymo had subpoenaed both the report itself and the firm that had compiled it, Stroz Friedberg, LLC. Levandowski and Uber had unsuccessfully lobbied to have the report barred on the grounds it was covered by attorney-client privilege.

"Mr Levandowski contends that disclosure of the Stroz Report would be 'particularly injurious or novel'," the court said in its ruling [PDF].

"His arguments are unpersuasive, for it is apparent that Mr Levandowski cannot invoke attorney-client privilege or work-product protection."

Meanwhile, the Waymo v Uber case itself is ongoing back in the San Francisco US District Court. ®

Sign up to our NewsletterGet IT in your inbox daily


More from The Register

FBI probing Uber over use of 'Hell' spyware to track rival biz Lyft

Beleaguered company says it's 'cooperating' with investigation

Uber sued by Uber for tarnishing the good name of Uber

Can't we all just be Uber-alles?

Uber fined £385k by ICO for THAT hack of 57m customers' deets

Updated 2.7 million Brits caught up in 'serious failure of data security' says UK data watchdog

Uber 'does not exist any more' says Turkish president

Authorities start rounding up ride share drivers, passengers

Ignore that FBI. We're the real FBI, says the FBI that's totally the FBI

Don't open that malware mail from the Feds that's not from the Feds, Feds warn

Uber to dole out $148m settlement among US states over breach it paid $100k to bury

Nice. Ride-hailing app firm also vows to comply with law

Uber hid database hack from FTC while FTC probed Uber for an earlier database hack

Cab-hailing upstart shows it takes your privacy seriously

Uber v Waymo latest: Google spinoff refused access to Uber internal doc hunt details

Wall of silence remains, albeit with a couple of holes

Uber JUMPs, slurps San Francisco bike biz

Nobody believes we're not a taxi company, let's go multi-modal and see if that works

Cops: Autonomous Uber driver may have been streaming The Voice before death crash

Reports say she was watching reality TV at time of fatal impact