Contract analysis

From: Wendy Schultz <wschultz@calderwoodharkness.com> To: Samantha Briggs <sbriggs@hawthornvegacruz.com> Cc: Omar Siddiqui <osiddiqui@calderwoodharkness.com> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2024 03:47:00 -0000 Subject: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. v. Lumicore Technologies, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00319-JRG (E.D. Tex.) — Deficiencies in Lumicore's Document Production

I hope this finds you well. I am writing regarding Lumicore Technologies, Inc.'s ("Lumicore") document production to date in the above-captioned matter. This email is intended to identify specific deficiencies we have observed in the production and to facilitate their resolution consistent with the parties' obligations under the Scheduling Order issued by Judge Gilstrap on August 12, 2024, the agreed-upon ESI Protoco

As you know, Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. ("OWS") served its First Set of Requests for Production (85 RFPs) on August 26, 2024. To date, Lumicore has produced approximately 147,000 documents (approximately 980,000 pages) in response. Our review team at Calderwood & Harkness has been working through this production on a rolling basis and has identified significant gaps in several critical categories of documents. We h

**1. Source-Code Repositories for the Accused Product Lines**

Lumicore has not produced source-code repositories for the three accused product lines: the LumiLink 400G-ZR+, the LumiLink 800G-DR8, and the LumiEdge 1600G-LR. These materials are directly responsive to RFP Nos. 14, 22, and 37, which requested, among other things, all design documents, engineering specifications, and CAD/layout files for the accused products. The ESI Protocol Agreement specifically provides for nati

These materials are critical to OWS's infringement analysis. OWS's technical expert, Dr. Caroline Ashford of the Northfield Institute of Technology, needs access to the source-code repositories to map the accused products' internal architecture against the limitations of the asserted patent claims — U.S. Patent Nos. 10,234,847 ("the '847 Patent"); 10,891,193 ("the '193 Patent"); 9,678,562 ("the '562 Patent"); and 11,

We note that Lumicore's responses to OWS's First Set of Interrogatories (also served August 26, 2024) identify engineering personnel involved in the design of the accused products and reference internal design repositories maintained by Lumicore's engineering teams. Yet no such repositories have appeared in the production to date. We ask that Lumicore explain this omission and produce these materials promptly.

**2. Photonic Integrated Circuit (PIC) Mask Layout Files**

Lumicore has not produced photonic integrated circuit mask layout files for the accused transceiver modules. These files are responsive to RFP Nos. 22 and 31, which requested layout files, fabrication specifications, and design data for the accused products.

The mask files are essential to OWS's infringement case because they reveal the physical structures of the accused waveguide multiplexer, micro-channel heat sinks, and grating coupler elements — features that are directly at issue under the asserted patents. Teardown reports prepared by Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC — covering the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ (teardown delivered December 12, 2022), the LumiLink 800G-DR8

Lumicore has not produced fabrication run data — including fab run sheets, process control records, and wafer lot data — for the accused product families. These materials are responsive to RFP Nos. 26 and 33 and are necessary to understand the manufacturing processes used in producing the accused products, particularly the thermal management structures covered by the '562 Patent (micro-channel heat sinks) and the wav

Additionally, fabrication run data bears directly on damages. This data provides insight into Lumicore's cost structure for the accused products, which is information that OWS's damages expert, Dr. Lawrence Keating of Meridian Economic Consulting Group, LLC, requires to conduct his lost-profits analysis under the *Panduit* framework and his reasonable-royalty analysis under the *Georgia-Pacific* framework. Without th

**4. Forthcoming Second Set of Requests for Production**

Due to the gaps identified above, OWS is preparing a Second Set of Requests for Production (30 supplemental RFPs) specifically targeting these categories. We intend to serve these supplemental requests by November 4, 2024. That said, we would welcome the opportunity to resolve some or all of these issues through voluntary supplemental production, which would conserve both parties' resources and avoid unnecessary moti

As a reminder, the ESI Protocol Agreement dated August 15, 2024 requires that source code be produced in native format and designated under the "Highly Confidential — Source Code" tier of the Stipulated Protective Order. Other design documents, including mask layout files and fabrication run data, should be produced in native format to the extent they are maintained electronically. To the extent any responsive materi

**6. Proposed Timeline and Meet-and-Confer**

We respectfully request that Lumicore confirm by November 4, 2024 whether it will produce the identified categories of documents and, if so, provide an estimated production timeline. We also propose a telephonic meet-and-confer for the week of November 4, 2024 to discuss these deficiencies and any objections Lumicore may wish to raise. We are available on the following dates and would be happy to accommodate your sch

- Tuesday, November 5, 2024 - Wednesday, November 6, 2024 - Thursday, November 7, 2024

Please let us know what date and time work best for you and Rohan.

As you are aware, the fact discovery close date in this matter is May 1, 2025, and plaintiff expert reports are due June 15, 2025. Given the complexity of the technical analysis required, it is essential that OWS have these materials in hand well in advance of those deadlines to allow for proper analysis, expert report preparation, and deposition planning for the remaining fact and Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. We trust

If the parties are unable to resolve these issues through the meet-and-confer process, OWS reserves the right to seek relief from the Court, including filing a motion to compel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and the applicable Local Rules.

Samantha, this email is sent in the spirit of good-faith cooperation, consistent with the Court's expectation that the parties make every effort to resolve discovery disputes informally before seeking judicial intervention. I am happy to discuss any of the foregoing by phone at your convenience. Please do not hesitate to reach out.

**Wendy Schultz** Senior Associate, intellectual Property Litigation Calderwood & Harkness LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 48th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 T: (213) 555-4718 E: wschultz@calderwoodharkness.com Admitted in California | Admitted *pro hac vice*, E.D. Tex.

*CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient(s). This communication may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law, including attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, use, distribution, or copying of this communicat