Contract analysis

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE AND RELIEF SOUGHT 1.1 Plaintiff's Description Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. ("OWS") is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 2775 Augustine Drive, Suite 400, San Jose, California 95054. OWS is a fabless semiconductor design company specializing in the design and development of silicon photonics integrated circuits for data center interconnects and telecommunications applications. Since its

2. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT 2.1 Subject Matter Jurisdiction This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because this action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. Plaintiff's Complaint asserts claims for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Defendant's counterclaims for declaratory judgments of non

3. FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE The Parties agree on the following facts, which are not in dispute for purposes of this Joint Case Management Statement:

1. Plaintiff Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. is the assignee and current owner of the four United States utility patents asserted in this action: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,234,567; 10,891,234; 11,045,678; and 11,312,890.

2. Defendant Lumos Photonics, Inc. manufactures and sells the LumosBridge™ 800G Optical Engine and the LumosEdge™ 400ZR+ Pluggable Transceiver.

3. The LumosEdge™ 400ZR+ Pluggable Transceiver has been in commercial production and available for sale to customers since the third quarter of 2021 (Q3 2021).

4. The LumosBridge™ 800G Optical Engine was first shipped to customers in the first quarter of 2022 (Q1 2022).

5. Defendant Lumos Photonics, Inc. is a publicly traded company whose common stock is listed and traded on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the ticker symbol "LMPH."

6. Each of the four Patents-in-Suit is currently in force and has not expired. All required maintenance fees have been timely paid to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The foregoing stipulated facts are without prejudice to either Party's right to assert additional undisputed facts at later stages of this litigation, including in connection with any motion for summary judgment.

4. PRINCIPAL ISSUES IN DISPUTE 4.1 Claim Construction The Parties anticipate that the construction of multiple claim terms across all four Patents-in-Suit will be dispositive or will significantly affect the merits of the Parties' infringement, invalidity, and damages positions. Claim construction is expected to be a central and contested aspect of this litigation. Based on preliminary analysis conducted by both Part

5. RELATED CASES The Parties have conducted a reasonable inquiry and are not aware of any related cases currently pending in this Court or in any other federal or state court that involve the same or substantially similar parties, claims, patents, or accused products as those at issue in this action. Neither Party is aware of any proceeding currently pending before the United States Patent and Trademark Office involv

6. PATENT LOCAL RULES COMPLIANCE AND CLAIM CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 6.1 Patent Local Rules The Parties agree that the Northern District of California Patent Local Rules (effective January 1, 2017, as amended) apply to this action and govern the procedures for patent-specific disclosures, claim construction proceedings, and related matters. Both Parties are familiar with and will comply with the requirements of the Paten

7. DISCOVERY PLAN 7.1 Fact discovery The Parties propose the following general framework for the conduct of fact discovery in this action, subject to further refinement through the meet-and-confer process and the Court's scheduling order: Document discovery. The Parties anticipate that document requests pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 will be served beginning in November 2022. The Parties expect that d

8. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR REMAINING PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS The Parties jointly propose the following overall case schedule for the Court's consideration and adoption, subject to modification by the Court as it deems appropriate: The Parties respectfully request that the Court set the post-Markman schedule after issuance of the Court's claim construction order. The Parties believe this approach is appropriate because the

9. CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE The Parties do not consent to having this case tried before a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The Parties request that this case remain assigned to the Honorable Edward J. Torvelis for all purposes, including trial.

10. ADR CONSIDERATIONS 10.1 Prior Settlement Discussions Prior to the filing of this action, Plaintiff OWS, through its outside counsel Calderwood & Harkness LLP, sent a detailed cease-and-desist letter to Lumos on March 15, 2022, identifying the four Patents-in-Suit, providing preliminary infringement analyses for the accused LumosBridge™ and LumosEdge™ products, and demanding that Lumos cease its infringing activit

11. OTHER MATTERS 11.1 Corporate Disclosure Plaintiff Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. has filed a Corporate Disclosure Statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1. OWS discloses that Vantage Point Capital Partners Fund IV, LP holds approximately sixty-two percent (62%) of OWS's outstanding equity interests. No publicly held corporation owns ten percent (10%) or more of OWS's stock. OWS is a privately held