Contract analysis

I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. ("OWS") respectfully submits this Reply Claim Construction Brief in response to the Responsive Claim Construction Brief filed by Defendant Lumicore Technologies, Inc. ("Lumicore") on December 6, 2024 (D.E. 48). Lumicore's responsive brief, filed by its counsel Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP, asks this Court to adopt claim constructions that would improperly narrow the

II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION The parties agree on the basic framework for claim construction, and OWS therefore provides only a brief recitation of the governing legal standard for the Court's convenience. Claim construction is a question of law for the Court. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 388–91 (1996). Where the district court's construction rests on the intrinsic evidence—the pa

III. ARGUMENT A. "Waveguide Multiplexer" ('847 Patent, Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 14)

1. OWS's Proposed Construction (Restated). OWS proposes that the term "waveguide multiplexer" as used in the '847 Patent should be construed to mean: "an optical device that combines multiple optical signals of different wavelengths onto a single waveguide." This construction reflects the ordinary and customary meaning of the term as it would be understood by a POSITA—an individual with a Master of Science or Ph.D. i

2. Lumicore's Improperly Narrow Construction. Lumicore proposes that "waveguide multiplexer" should be construed to mean: "an arrayed waveguide grating that combines optical signals using a slab coupler and phase-shifted waveguide array." Lumicore Responsive Br. at 8. Lumicore's construction is deficient in multiple respects. Most fundamentally, it limits the claim term to a single species—the AWG—of a broader genus.

3. Rebuttal of Lumicore's Arguments. ##### a. The Specification Does Not Define "Waveguide Multiplexer" as Only an AWG Lumicore argues that because the specification describes the AWG embodiment in the greatest detail and identifies it as the "preferred embodiment" (col. 5, l. 14), a POSITA would understand "waveguide multiplexer" to mean an AWG and only an AWG. Lumicore Responsive Br. at 9–12. This argument fails fo

4. Conclusion on "Waveguide Multiplexer". For the foregoing reasons, and for the additional reasons set forth in OWS's Opening Brief, the Court should construe "waveguide multiplexer" as proposed by OWS: "an optical device that combines multiple optical signals of different wavelengths onto a single waveguide." This construction is faithful to the claim language, consistent with the specification's disclosure of mult

1. OWS's Proposed Construction (Restated). OWS proposes that the term "integrated on a silicon substrate" as used in the '193 Patent should be construed to mean: "formed on or within a silicon-based wafer using semiconductor fabrication processes." This construction encompasses both monolithic integration—where all components are fabricated directly on a single silicon wafer—and hybrid integration techniques, includi

2. Lumicore's Improperly Narrow Construction. Lumicore proposes that "integrated on a silicon substrate" should be construed to mean: "monolithically fabricated on a single silicon die without hybrid bonding or heterogeneous integration." Lumicore Responsive Br. at 17. Lumicore's construction would categorically exclude all forms of hybrid integration—including wafer bonding of III-V materials, micro-transfer printin

3. Rebuttal of Lumicore's Arguments. ##### a. The Specification Expressly Contemplates Hybrid Integration The most fundamental problem with Lumicore's construction is that it reads out of the patent an entire class of embodiments that the specification explicitly discloses. The '193 Patent specification provides the following description: "The coherent optical transceiver may be integrated on a silicon substrate usin

4. Conclusion on "Integrated on a Silicon Substrate". For the foregoing reasons, and for the additional reasons set forth in OWS's Opening Brief, the Court should construe "integrated on a silicon substrate" as proposed by OWS: "formed on or within a silicon-based wafer using semiconductor fabrication processes." Lumicore's construction impermissibly excludes hybrid integration approaches expressly disclosed in the s

1. OWS's Proposed Construction (Restated). OWS proposes that the term "micro-channel heat sink" as used in the '562 Patent should be construed to mean: "a heat-dissipating structure containing channels with a hydraulic diameter of less than 1 mm." This construction reflects the ordinary and customary meaning of "micro-channel" in the thermal management literature and is consistent with the '562 Patent specification.

2. Lumicore's Improperly Narrow Construction. Lumicore proposes that "micro-channel heat sink" should be construed to mean: "a closed-loop liquid-cooling system with channels having a hydraulic diameter between 10 µm and 200 µm." Lumicore Responsive Br. at 25. Lumicore's construction imposes two additional limitations not found in the claim language: (a) the requirement that the system be a "closed-loop liquid-coolin

3. Rebuttal of Lumicore's Arguments. ##### a. The Claims Do Not Require a "Closed-Loop Liquid-Cooling System" The claim language recites "micro-channel heat sink" without specifying a closed-loop system, an open-loop system, liquid cooling, air cooling, or any particular cooling mechanism. The term is purely structural: it identifies a heat sink with micro-channels. The cooling medium and system architecture are not

4. Conclusion on "Micro-Channel Heat Sink". For the foregoing reasons, and for the additional reasons set forth in OWS's Opening Brief, the Court should construe "micro-channel heat sink" as proposed by OWS: "a heat-dissipating structure containing channels with a hydraulic diameter of less than 1 mm." Lumicore's construction improperly imports both a "closed-loop liquid-cooling" limitation and a 200 µm upper bound t

1. OWS's Proposed Construction (Restated). OWS proposes that the term "polarization-diverse grating coupler" as used in the '015 Patent should be construed to mean: "a grating coupler capable of coupling light of two orthogonal polarization states." This construction captures the functional purpose of the claimed element—coupling light regardless of its polarization state—without limiting it to a specific structural

2. Lumicore's Improperly Narrow Construction. Lumicore proposes that "polarization-diverse grating coupler" should be construed to mean: "a two-dimensional grating coupler with a polarization-splitting element that simultaneously couples TE and TM modes." Lumicore Responsive Br. at 30. Lumicore's construction imposes two additional limitations not found in the claim language: (a) the requirement that the grating be "

3. Rebuttal of Lumicore's Arguments. ##### a. The Claims Do Not Require a "Two-Dimensional" Grating Lumicore's first proposed limitation—restricting the grating to a "two-dimensional" structure—is squarely foreclosed by the claim language and the doctrine of claim differentiation. Independent Claim 1 of the '015 Patent recites "a polarization-diverse grating coupler" without the modifier "two-dimensional." The claim

4. Conclusion on "Polarization-Diverse Grating Coupler". For the foregoing reasons, and for the additional reasons set forth in OWS's Opening Brief, the Court should construe "polarization-diverse grating coupler" as proposed by OWS: "a grating coupler capable of coupling light of two orthogonal polarization states." Lumicore's construction improperly limits the term to two-dimensional gratings with discrete polariza

IV. BRIEF REPLY ON REMAINING DISPUTED TERMS In addition to the four terms addressed in detail above, there are eight additional disputed terms that were identified in the Joint Claim Construction Statement (D.E. 40). For these remaining terms, OWS rests on the arguments presented in its Opening Claim Construction Brief (D.E. 44) and the supporting Declarations of Dr. Ashford (D.E. 45) and Dr. Huang (D.E. 46), togethe

V. RESPONSE TO LUMICORE'S MEANS-PLUS-FUNCTION ARGUMENTS In its responsive brief, Lumicore argues that Claim 9 of the '847 Patent and Claim 15 of the '193 Patent should be construed as means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Lumicore Responsive Br. at 40–43. OWS addressed these limitations in its Opening Brief and agrees that these claims contain means-plus-function terms subject to construction unde