SAN FRANCISCO — Waymo's lawsuit against Uber over autonomous vehicle technology may go into a second round focused on new claims that Uber is ripping off software code trade secrets, a judge said Thursday.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California postponed a ruling on Waymo's motion to add the two new software-related trade secrets, saying he would decide the matter after the first trial concludes in December or January. After that, there may be “trial number two,” he said at a hearing.

Alsup said introducing the software claims at this stage would complicate plans to keep the current trial schedule, which has already been pushed back once. Jury selection in the trial starts on Nov. 29, with opening statements currently set for Dec. 4.

The case as it stands is “not as clean a case as the plaintiffs would've wanted, but it is a triable case,” the judge said. Waymo “ought to get in there and put up or shut up,” he added.

Until earlier this week, Waymo's case focused almost exclusively on claims that Uber is using designs stolen from Waymo for LiDAR hardware, the system that allows autonomous vehicles to “see” their environment.

On Monday, the company sought to add two new trade secrets related to “planner software” that helps interpret the car's sensor data and determine the vehicle's trajectory. It appeared to be the first time Waymo publicly accused Uber of using specific software-based trade secrets.

Charles Verhoeven of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Waymo's lead lawyer in the case, said at the hearing Thursday that the software trade secrets are currently being used by Waymo and that Uber has so far not denied it is using them. Waymo alleges the software designs were taken to Uber by Don Burnette, a former Waymo engineer.

Michael Jacobs of Morrison & Foerster—one of the three law firms representing Uber in the case—said Waymo has claimed the trade secrets are worth “6–10 percent of the value of self-driving” technology. Waymo in a filing called them “highly valuable.”

Jacobs argued Waymo should not be able to bring the new trade secret claims into the case at all, saying the law requires plaintiffs to define their asserted trade secrets at the outset of their case, not midway through. “You're not supposed to be able to rummage around,” he said.

Verhoeven shot back that Waymo only had reason to believe the trade secrets were taken because of newly obtained documents from Stroz Friedberg. The digital forensics firm conducted a due diligence report on a number of former Waymo employees, including Burnette, before Uber acquired a company that they started called Ottomotto.

“These arguments are like 'truth is falseness,'” Verhoeven said, after Jacobs accused Waymo of rummaging through the files to try and find a trade secret that would salvage its case. “I'm sorry, I know I have a hot head, but that's just not what's going on,” Verhoeven added.

Alsup—who has familiarity with computer programming languages himself and presided over both phases of the Oracle v. Google trial—emphasized that if there is a second trial that delves into software, the presentation of the evidence could be a challenge.

“When we get into code, it's going to be harder and harder for the jury to get its hands around the case,” he said.