Waymo's allegations of trade secret theft against Uber should be referred to the US attorney for investigation, "based on the evidentiary record supplied thus far," a federal judge ruled yesterday.

"The Court takes no position on whether a prosecution is or is not warranted, a decision entirely up to the United States Attorney," Alsup wrote.

In a separate order, US District Judge William Alsup held that Uber won't be allowed to move Waymo's trade secrets lawsuit into arbitration.

The full details of Alsup's thoughts on the US attorney referral aren't known, as the relevant orders are sealed. However, in previous hearings, Alsup said that Google has strong evidence that Waymo engineer Anthony Levandowski illegally downloaded 14,000 files while he was employed at Google. Uber doesn't deny that the downloads occurred, and Levandowski has asserted his Fifth Amendment rights rather than answer questions.

Google's Waymo self-driving car division filed a lawsuit against Uber in February , saying that Levandowski stole trade secrets, then left Google to found his own startup, Otto. Uber later purchased Otto for $680 million. Waymo also claimed that Uber infringed certain Waymo-owned patents.

In a court hearing two weeks ago, Uber argued that the trade secret litigation should be moved into arbitration. Levandowski's employee agreement with Google clearly said that "any dispute" about his relationship with the company should go into arbitration.

Waymo's lawyer pointed out that Levandowski isn't a defendant in the case. "We're suing a third-party competitor who we didn't have any agreement with," said Waymo lawyer Charles Verhoeven during the hearing.

"Defendants seek to steer this case into arbitration even though they have no agreement with anyone to arbitrate the case," Alsup wrote in last night's order.

Alsup goes on to note that Waymo has initiated two arbitration proceedings against Levandowski, asserting that the ex-employee breached his contract and engaged in fraud, tortious interference, and unfair competition.

"Neither proceeding has anything to do with Waymo's claims of trade secret misappropriation against defendants here," writes Alsup.

Uber's accusations that Waymo used "artful" or "tactical" pleading to avoid arbitration by not suing Levandowski "are unwarranted," he adds. Waymo honored its obligation to use arbitration against Levandowski. "Its decision to bring separate claims against defendants in court was not only reasonable but the only course available."

"This was a desperate bid by Uber to avoid the court’s jurisdiction," a Waymo spokesperson said in an e-mailed statement about Alsup's recent order. "We welcome the court’s decision today, and we look forward to holding Uber responsible in court for its misconduct."

Update 1:25pm: "It is unfortunate that Waymo will be permitted to avoid abiding by the arbitration promise it requires its employees to make," an Uber spokesperson told Ars via e-mail. "We remain confident in our case and welcome the chance to talk about our independently developed technology in any forum."

Neither Waymo nor Uber would comment on Alsup's referral to the US attorney.

Alsup also has ruled on a preliminary injunction that could limit what kinds of self-driving car work Uber is able to do. The full scope of that injunction isn't clear, because the opinion is under seal for now. Levandowski has already agreed to step away from Lidar-related work at Uber, but Waymo is seeking a broader injunction.

The case is currently scheduled for trial in October.

Correction: An earlier version of this article said that Alsup still hasn't ruled on a preliminary injunction. In fact, the ruling was issued but is under seal.

More on Waymo v. Uber:

On February 23, Google's Waymo division filed a lawsuit claiming that Uber's self-driving car chief, Anthony Levandowski, illegally downloaded 14,000 files when he worked at Google.

On March 29, during a closed-door hearing, Levandowski's lawyer said his client would plead the Fifth to avoid testifying about documents that he may have.

On April 3, Google accused Levandowski of creating "competing side businesses," even while he earned a reported $120 million from Google.

On April 4, Levandowski filed a public motion invoking his 5th Amendment rights.

On April 5, US District Judge William Alsup insisted that Uber search harder for the 14,000 allegedly stolen files.

On April 6, Alsup said he would likely rule against Levandowski on the 5th Amendment issue and told him to prepare an appeal.

On April 25, an appeals court ruled against Levandowski, upholding Alsup's decision.

On April 27, Uber lawyers asked to move the trade secret case into arbitration.