Contract analysis

1. Scope and Proportionality. OWS objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is not proportional to the needs of this case under Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, considering the importance of the issues at stake in this action, the amount in controversy (which exceeds $75 million), the parties' relative access to relevant information, the importance of the di

2. Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection. OWS objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent it calls for, or its answer would require disclosure of, information or communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery, including but not limited to the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctri

3. Premature Contention Interrogatories. OWS objects to each Interrogatory that constitutes a contention interrogatory under Rule 33(a)(2) to the extent such Interrogatory is premature given the current stage of this litigation. The parties are presently engaged in the claim construction phase of this case, and a Markman hearing has been scheduled for January 30, 2023 before the Honorable Edward J. Torvelis. Many of

4. Ongoing Investigation. OWS's investigation into the facts and circumstances underlying this action is ongoing. Neither fact discovery nor expert discovery has been completed, and OWS has not yet had the opportunity to review and analyze the full universe of documents and information that Lumos has produced or will produce in this litigation. OWS's Responses are based on information currently known and reasonably a

5. Construction of Claim Terms. OWS objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it assumes, incorporates, or relies upon definitions of patent claim terms or claim constructions that are disputed between the parties and that are the subject of pending claim construction proceedings before the Court. The parties have submitted competing proposed claim constructions for multiple terms in the asserted claims. OWS answer

6. Confidentiality. OWS objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent that a full and complete response would require disclosure of confidential, proprietary, or trade secret business information of OWS or third parties beyond the protections afforded by the Stipulated Protective Order entered by the Court on September 19, 2022 (Dkt. No. 42). OWS will provide confidential information in accordance with the te

8. Incorporation of General Objections. OWS hereby incorporates each of the foregoing General Objections into every specific response set forth below as if fully and completely stated therein. The failure to restate a particular General Objection in response to a specific Interrogatory shall not constitute a waiver of that objection. DEFINITIONS For purposes of these Responses and Objections, the following defined te

1. Dr. Kevin Fong, Chief Technology Officer and Co-Founder, Optiwave Semiconductor Corp., 2775 Augustine Drive, Suite 400, San Jose, CA 95054. Dr. Fong has knowledge of the inventions claimed in the '567 Patent, the '234 Patent, and the '890 Patent, including the conception, development, and reduction to practice of those inventions. He has knowledge of the state of the art in silicon photonics waveguide coupling, ge

2. Dr. Priya Ramanathan, Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder, Optiwave Semiconductor Corp., 2775 Augustine Drive, Suite 400, San Jose, CA 95054. Dr. Ramanathan has knowledge of the inventions claimed in the '567 Patent and the '678 Patent, including her role as a co-inventor of those patents. She has knowledge of OWS's business, products — including the OWS-400ZR and OWS-800LR coherent optical transceiver chipsets

3. Theodore "Ted" Marchetti, Vice President of intellectual Property, Optiwave Semiconductor Corp., 2775 Augustine Drive, Suite 400, San Jose, CA 95054. Mr. Marchetti (USPTO Registration No. 58,304) has knowledge of OWS's patent portfolio, which comprises eighty-seven (87) issued U.S. utility patents and fourteen (14) pending U.S. patent applications. He has knowledge of the prosecution history of each Patent-in-Suit

4. Dr. Amara Osei, Principal Engineer, Optiwave Semiconductor Corp., 2775 Augustine Drive, Suite 400, San Jose, CA 95054. Dr. Osei has knowledge of the inventions claimed in the '234 Patent and the '678 Patent, including her contributions as a named inventor on both patents. She has specific knowledge regarding germanium-on-silicon photodetector architectures, including the distinctions between continuously graded an

5. Hideo Tanaka, Former Engineer, Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. (employed 2016–2019). Mr. Tanaka has knowledge of the invention claimed in the '567 Patent, including his contributions as a named inventor. He has knowledge of the state of the art in silicon photonic waveguide coupling as reflected in his prior patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,456,012 (issued September 6, 2016), which was invented prior to his employment at OW

6. Liwei Zhang, Design Engineer, Optiwave Semiconductor Corp., 2775 Augustine Drive, Suite 400, San Jose, CA 95054. Mr. Zhang has knowledge of the invention claimed in the '678 Patent, including the multi-channel optical transceiver architecture with a monolithically formed wavelength-division multiplexing element on a single silicon die.

7. Rajesh Iyer, Circuit Designer, Optiwave Semiconductor Corp., 2775 Augustine Drive, Suite 400, San Jose, CA 95054. Mr. Iyer has knowledge of the invention claimed in the '890 Patent, including the driver circuit architecture for high-speed silicon photonic Mach-Zehnder modulators featuring a pre-emphasis equalization stage co-integrated with the modulator on a common substrate. Mr. Iyer designed the equalization ci

8. Sandra Ellison, General Counsel, Optiwave Semiconductor Corp., 2775 Augustine Drive, Suite 400, San Jose, CA 95054. Ms. Ellison has knowledge of OWS's cease-and-desist correspondence with Lumos, including OWS's March 15, 2022 letter to Lumos identifying the '567 and '234 Patents and accusing the LumosBridge and LumosEdge products of infringement. Ms. Ellison also has knowledge of Lumos's April 4, 2022 response den

9. Dr. Harold Whitfield, Whitfield Technical Consulting Group, Inc., 530 Lytton Avenue, Suite 210, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Dr. Whitfield is a technical expert retained by OWS. He has knowledge of the technology underlying the Patents-in-Suit, the meaning of disputed claim terms from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and the analysis of whether the Accused Products infringe the asserted claims. Dr

10. Dr. Lawrence Kessler, Apex Claim Analytics LLC, 150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2400, Chicago, IL 60601. Dr. Kessler is a damages expert retained by OWS. He has knowledge of the reasonable royalty analysis framework, the application of the Georgia-Pacific factors to the circumstances of this case, and the calculation of damages attributable to Lumos's alleged infringement. Dr. Kessler holds a Ph.D. in Economics