Is this belief based on any knowledge of similarities of the alleged infringing product? Judge Alsup seem to disagree with you since the end product that Waymo

Is this belief based on any knowledge of similarities of the alleged infringing product? Judge Alsup seem to disagree with you since the end product that Waymo sued Uber over seem very different: "Waymo alleged that Uber had stolen its trade secrets and had been violating four patents. Waymo had people signing, under oath, statements about how they could tell the patents had been violated. It's now turned out that the patent claims have completely vanished. They've been dropped. The expert you had was way out of bounds. There was no patent infringement. I think when Waymo got into this case, it thought it was going to go into the files and find an exact duplicate of the Waymo files. As it turns out, the product is dissimilar in a lot of ways. It may even be a vast improvement over what was going on Waymo. So they've come up short there."