Ex-Autonomous Vehicle Engineer for Google and Uber Charged With Trade Secret Theft
Anthony Levandowski is accused of stealing thousands of files related to driverless car technology as he departed from Google. Levandowski asserted his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself in Google's trade secret dispute with Uber, which purchased the startup company he founded after his departure from Google.
August 27, 2019 at 01:50 PM
4 minute read
Anthony Levandowski, the former head of Google's autonomous vehicle unit who was at the center of the company's high-profile dispute with Uber Technologies, has been hit with federal trade-secret theft charges.
In an indictment returned Aug. 15 and unsealed Monday, Levandowski faces 33 counts of stealing or trying to steal Google's trade secrets. The indictment claims that Levandowski, a founding member of Google's "Project Chauffeur" autonomous vehicle project, had decided to leave the company no later than September 2015 and used the time up until his January 2017 departure to take thousands of company files from Google.
"All of us have the right to change jobs," said U.S. Attorney David Anderson of the Northern District of California, in a press statement announcing the charges. "None of us has the right to fill our pockets on the way out the door. Theft is not innovation."
Anderson said at a press conference Tuesday morning that both Uber and Google had been "responsive" to the office's investigation and requests for documents.
Levandowski was allowed to self-surrender and is set to be arraigned at 1:30 p.m. Tuesday before U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins.
Levandowski was a pivotal—though silent—player in the civil dispute between Google's Waymo subsidiary and Uber. Waymo accused Levandowski of downloading 14,000 company files before leaving Google in 2016 to start a new company, Otto, which he quickly sold to Uber for $680 million. Levandowski formally invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in the civil dispute and refused to provide testimony. That decision resulted in Levandowski being first removed from all development of laser-based vision technology at Uber in April 2017, and then terminated by the company the next month. U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California, who oversaw the civil dispute, referred the case to the U.S. Attorney's Office for a potential criminal probe.
Levandowski's lawyers, Ismail Ramsey and Miles Ehrlich of Ramsey & Ehrlich, said in a written statement that their client is innocent and they look forward to defending him at trial.
"This case rehashes claims already discredited in a civil case that settled more than a year and a half ago," they said. "The downloads at issue occurred while Anthony was still working at Google—when he and his team were authorized to use the information. None of these supposedly secret files ever went to Uber or to any other company."
Levandowski is also being represented by Cristina Arguedas of Arguedas, Cassman, Headley & Goldman.
A spokesperson from Uber said the company has been cooperating with the government's investigation and will continue to do so.
A spokesperson for Waymo said that the company has "always believed competition should be fueled by innovation, and we appreciate the work of the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI on this case."
Uber ultimately agreed to pay about $244.8 million in stock to Waymo one week into what was expected to be a three-week trial and to have an independent monitor ensure that no Waymo technology made its way into its autonomous vehicle program. Uber disclosed in its initial public offering documents that it could possibly be on the hook for an additional $127 million award Google won against Levandowski in arbitration—an award Levandowski's lawyers claimed Uber owed as part of an indemnification agreement included in the deal to purchase Levandowski's company.
The federal criminal case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Katherine Wawrzyniak, Andrew Dawson and Amie Rooney, members of the corporate fraud strike force launched by Anderson earlier this year to investigate and prosecute white-collar cases.
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFederal Judge Rejects Teams' Challenge to NASCAR's 'Anticompetitive Terms' in Agreement
Film Company Alleges Elon Musk, Tesla Used AI to Mimic 'Blade Runner' Scene
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
- 2Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 3When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250