Contract analysis

I. PURPOSE AND STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES A. Overview of Witness Significance Dr. Sandra Michaud is the Chief Technology Officer of Lumicore Technologies, Inc. and has held that role since at least 2020. The precise start date in the CTO position should be confirmed during the deposition, as background investigation has produced some ambiguity regarding whether she was elevated from a VP of Engineering role or came into th

1. Establish Awareness of OWS Patents. The first and most foundational goal is to obtain admissions — or at minimum, develop a detailed record — regarding Lumicore's knowledge of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.'s patent portfolio, with specific focus on the four asserted patents: U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847 (the "'847 Patent"); U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193 (the "'193 Patent"); U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562 (the "'562 Patent");

2. Confirm Design Involvement. The examining attorney must pin down Dr. Michaud's personal role in the design and development of each accused product. This is particularly important for the LumiLink 400G-ZR+, which was launched in Q3 2022 and is the earliest accused product in the case. Dr. Michaud's role must be explored not only to establish her as a competent and knowledgeable witness on the technical features at

3. Document Review of OWS Published Patent Applications. A critical element of the willful infringement case is establishing that Lumicore's engineering team, under Dr. Michaud's direction or with her knowledge, reviewed OWS's published patent applications — specifically Published Application No. 2018/0123456, which corresponds to the '193 Patent — during the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ design phase in 2021–2022. This line of

4. Probe Prior-Art and Non-Infringement Positions. The examining attorney should explore Dr. Michaud's technical basis, if any, for Lumicore's non-infringement and invalidity contentions. Specifically, the deposition should identify what prior art Dr. Michaud was aware of, when she became aware of it, and whether any of the cited prior art was used as a design input during the development of the accused products. Thi

5. Explore Communications with Key Witnesses. The deposition must probe Dr. Michaud's communications with three critical individuals: Melissa Chen (former Lumicore engineer, now at Veridian Photonics, Inc.), Dr. Eric Dalmqvist (VP of Product Development), and Raymond Bautista (General Counsel). Communications with Ms. Chen are relevant to establish the design team's review of OWS publications. Communications with Dr.

6. Lock In Testimony on Non-Infringing Alternatives. An important goal is to determine whether Dr. Michaud can identify any specific non-infringing alternative designs for the accused products and, if so, to obtain sufficient detail to evaluate those alternatives at summary judgment and trial. If she cannot identify alternatives — which is the expected outcome based on Lumicore's deficient 30(b)(6) testimony on Topic

7. Support Willful Infringement Theory. Taken together, the foregoing goals are designed to build the evidentiary record for willful infringement under Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. 93 (2016). The key elements of the Halo theory are: subjective knowledge of the OWS patents; continued product development and launches after notice; and the absence of good-faith design-around efforts. Dr. M

8. Preserve Impeachment Material. Finally, the deposition should obtain testimony on the technical features and design architecture of the accused products in sufficient detail that any changes in Dr. Michaud's testimony at trial can be effectively impeached. If Dr. Michaud takes a position at deposition regarding, for example, the nature of the waveguide multiplexer in the LumiLink 400G-ZR+, and later changes that p

II. WITNESS BACKGROUND AND FOUNDATION A. Educational Background Begin the deposition by establishing Dr. Michaud's educational credentials. This serves multiple purposes: it places her as a technical expert in the field, it establishes that she has the training and knowledge to understand patent disclosures and claims in the relevant technology area, and it may reveal connections to OWS, Solara Optics, or other relev

III. KNOWLEDGE OF OPTIWAVE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP. AND ITS PATENT PORTFOLIO A. General Knowledge of OWS as a Competitor This section establishes the foundation for the willful infringement theory by demonstrating that Dr. Michaud and Lumicore were well aware of OWS as a significant competitor in the silicon photonics transceiver market — and, by extension, were aware of or should have been aware of OWS's patent activitie

1. U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847 (the "'847 Patent") • Title: "Multi-Channel Silicon Photonic Waveguide Multiplexer with Low Insertion Loss" • Filed: September 14, 2016 • Issued: March 19, 2019 • Original Assignee: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. Begin by presenting the certified copy of the '847 Patent (Exhibit A to the Complaint) and asking Dr. Michaud whether she has seen this document before. • When did Dr. Michaud fir

2. U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193 (the "'193 Patent") • Title: "High-Bandwidth Coherent Optical Transceiver Integrated on Silicon Substrate" • Filed: April 7, 2017 • Issued: January 12, 2021 • Original Assignee: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. • Note: This patent shares common Provisional Application No. 62/499,117 with the '015 Patent. • Published Application No. 2018/0123456 — this is a critical exhibit and is expected to

3. U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562 (the "'562 Patent") • Title: "Method for Thermal Management of Photonic Integrated Circuits Using Embedded Micro-Channel Heat Sinks" • Filed: November 22, 2014 • Issued: June 13, 2017 • Original Assignee: Solara Optics, Inc. • Current Assignee: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. (acquired via Asset Purchase Agreement dated June 15, 2018, as part of a portfolio of 12 patents, for $34.5 million)

4. U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015 (the "'015 Patent") • Title: "Polarization-Diverse Grating Coupler for Silicon Photonic Transceivers" • Filed: August 30, 2019 • Issued: August 2, 2022 • Original Assignee: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. • Note: This patent was added in FairPoint's second licensing letter dated May 15, 2023. Present the certified copy of the '015 Patent (Exhibit D to the Complaint) and ask Dr. Michaud whet

IV. LUMILINK 400G-ZR+ DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT A. Project Overview and Michaud's Role The LumiLink 400G-ZR+ is the earliest of the three accused products and is the most critical for the willful infringement theory. This section should be the most detailed and receive the most time during the deposition. • When did development of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ begin? Obtain the approximate date that the project was initiated, t

V. LUMILINK 800G-DR8 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT A. Project Overview and Michaud's Role • When did development of the LumiLink 800G-DR8 begin? Obtain the approximate date of project initiation and key development milestones. • Confirm the product launch date: Q1 2023. • Confirm the product's commercial significance: FY 2023 revenue of $128.4 million, making it the highest-revenue product among the three accused products.

VI. LUMIEDGE 1600G-LR DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT A. Project Overview and Michaud's Role • When did development of the LumiEdge 1600G-LR begin? Obtain the approximate date of project initiation and key development milestones. • Confirm the product launch date: Q4 2023. • Confirm the product's commercial significance: FY 2023 revenue of $41.7 million. While the lowest-revenue product among the three accused lines (reflecti

VII. NON-INFRINGEMENT POSITIONS AND TECHNICAL DEFENSES A. Lumicore's Claimed Basis for Non-Infringement • What is Dr. Michaud's understanding of Lumicore's position that its products do not infringe OWS's patents? Ask her to explain, in her own words, why Lumicore believes its products are non-infringing. • On what technical grounds does she believe the accused products are non-infringing? Is her position based on cl

VIII. INVALIDITY POSITIONS — MICHAUD'S KNOWLEDGE A. Prior Art Awareness • What prior art was Dr. Michaud aware of during the design of the accused products that she believes predates or invalidates the asserted patents? • Walk through each of the key prior-art references from Lumicore's invalidity contentions. Lumicore served its P.R. 3-3 Invalidity Contentions on October 14, 2024, citing 23 prior-art references in t