Contract analysis

I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW A. Purpose of This Claim Chart This claim chart is served as part of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.'s ("OWS" or "Plaintiff") P.R. 3-1 Infringement Contentions pursuant to the Court's Scheduling Order (D.E. 27, entered August 12, 2024) and the Patent Rules for the Eastern District of Texas. The chart is intended to provide Lumicore Technologies, Inc. ("Lumicore" or "Defendant") with notice o

1. LumiLink 800G-DR8. The LumiLink 800G-DR8 is a silicon-photonic transceiver module designed for 800 Gigabit Ethernet data-center interconnect applications. The product was launched commercially by Lumicore in the first quarter of 2023. Based on Lumicore's public financial disclosures and segment-level reporting, the LumiLink 800G-DR8 generated approximately $128.4 million in revenue during fiscal year 2023. The pro

2. LumiEdge 1600G-LR. The LumiEdge 1600G-LR is a silicon-photonic transceiver module designed for 1.6 Terabit long-reach interconnect applications in both data-center and telecommunications environments. The product was launched commercially by Lumicore in the fourth quarter of 2023. Based on Lumicore's public financial disclosures, the LumiEdge 1600G-LR generated approximately $41.7 million in revenue during the por

II. CLAIM CHART FORMAT AND CONVENTIONS The claim charts set forth in Sections III through VII of this document use a two-column format as follows: • Left Column — Claim Language: Contains the exact claim language of each limitation of the asserted claims, broken out on a limitation-by-limitation basis. Claim elements are identified using the notation "Limitation 1[a]," "Limitation 1[b]," etc. • Right Column — Accused

III. CLAIM 1 — INDEPENDENT CLAIM (LITERAL INFRINGEMENT) Claim 1 of the '015 Patent is an independent claim. OWS contends that both the LumiLink 800G-DR8 and the LumiEdge 1600G-LR literally infringe every limitation of Claim 1. The following chart sets forth OWS's infringement contentions on a limitation-by-limitation basis. Preamble Limitation 1[a] Limitation 1[b] Limitation 1[c] Limitation 1[d] Summary — Claim 1: Ev

IV. CLAIM 5 — DEPENDENT CLAIM (LITERAL INFRINGEMENT) Dependency Claim 5 depends from Claim 1 and incorporates all limitations of Claim 1. All elements of Claim 1 are met by both accused products as described in Section III above. The additional limitation of Claim 5 is addressed below. Additional Limitation of Claim 5 Summary — Claim 5: The additional limitation of Claim 5 is literally met by both the LumiLink 800G-D

V. CLAIM 8 — DEPENDENT CLAIM (LITERAL INFRINGEMENT) Dependency Claim 8 depends from Claim 1 and incorporates all limitations of Claim 1. All elements of Claim 1 are met by both accused products as described in Section III above. The additional limitation of Claim 8 is addressed below. Additional Limitation of Claim 8 Summary — Claim 8: The additional limitation of Claim 8 is literally met by both the LumiLink 800G-DR

VI. CLAIM 12 — DEPENDENT CLAIM (LITERAL INFRINGEMENT AND DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS) Dependency Claim 12 depends from Claim 8, which in turn depends from Claim 1. All elements of Claims 1 and 8 are incorporated and met by both accused products as described in Sections III and V above. The additional limitation of Claim 12, and OWS's dual theories of literal infringement and doctrine of equivalents, are addressed below.

1. Background — Prosecution History During prosecution of the '015 Patent before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the Examiner issued a final office action rejecting then-pending Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 8,412,007 (Bergmann) in combination with International Publication No. PCT/EP2015/071234 (Simonsen). The Bergmann reference disclosed a one-dimensional sub-waveleng

2. Function-Way-Result Analysis Even if Lumicore's accused grating structures are found not to literally embody a "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating" as construed by the Court — for example, if the Court adopts a narrow construction requiring strict equal periodicity in both orthogonal in-plane directions, or requiring a specific geometric arrangement such as a square lattice — OWS contends that the accused stru

3. Prosecution History Estoppel Analysis OWS acknowledges the narrowing amendment to Claim 12 during prosecution and the resulting Festo presumption that the applicant surrendered equivalents that are within the territory between the original and amended claim scope. See Festo Corp. v. Fenmore & Co., 535 U.S. 722, 740 (2002). However, OWS contends that the presumption of surrender is rebutted under the Festo framewor

4. Supporting Evidence for Doctrine of Equivalents Theory The following evidence supports OWS's doctrine of equivalents theory for Claim 12: • Benchmark teardown photographs and SEM images comparing the accused grating structures to the claimed two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating, demonstrating the structural similarity and functional equivalence of the accused structures. [Benchmark-800G-DR8-021; Benchmark-1600G-

VII. CLAIM 16 — DEPENDENT CLAIM (LITERAL INFRINGEMENT) Dependency Claim 16 depends from Claim 1 and incorporates all limitations of Claim 1. All elements of Claim 1 are met by both accused products as described in Section III above. The additional limitation of Claim 16 is addressed below. Additional Limitation of Claim 16 Summary — Claim 16: The additional limitation of Claim 16 is literally met by both the LumiLink

VIII. SUMMARY TABLE OF INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS BY ACCUSED PRODUCT The following tables summarize OWS's infringement contentions for each asserted claim, organized by accused product. Detailed claim-by-claim, limitation-by-limitation analysis is set forth in Sections III through VII above. LumiLink 800G-DR8 LumiEdge 1600G-LR

IX. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS OWS reserves the right to amend, supplement, or modify these infringement contentions as additional discovery is obtained and as the case progresses, including but not limited to the following circumstances:

1. Supplemental Document Productions. OWS anticipates receiving additional Lumicore design files, including RTL schematics, firmware source code, and photonic-IC layout files designated Highly Confidential — Source Code, which have been requested but not yet fully produced. Upon completion of OWS's review of these materials, OWS anticipates serving supplemental infringement contentions, currently expected in April 20

2. Claim Construction Order. OWS reserves the right to update this claim chart following the Court's claim construction order, which is expected to issue following the Markman hearing scheduled for March 14, 2025. To the extent the Court's constructions of disputed claim terms differ from OWS's proposed constructions or from the constructions applied in this claim chart, OWS will conform its infringement contentions

3. Expert Analysis. OWS has retained Dr. Caroline Ashford, Professor of Electrical Engineering and Photonics at the Northfield Institute of Technology, as its technical expert on infringement. Dr. Ashford's expert report on infringement is due June 15, 2025 pursuant to the Court's Scheduling Order. OWS reserves the right to supplement or modify its infringement contentions based on Dr. Ashford's analysis, including h

4. Additional Depositions. OWS anticipates deposing additional Lumicore personnel and third-party witnesses, including but not limited to the anticipated deposition of Melissa Chen (former Lumicore Senior Photonic Design Engineer, now employed at Veridian Photonics, Inc., San Jose, CA). Ms. Chen was a member of Lumicore's design team for the LumiLink 800G-DR8 and LumiEdge 1600G-LR and may provide testimony regarding

5. Induced and Contributory Infringement. OWS also asserts induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) of the '015 Patent against Lumicore, as set forth in Counts V and VI of the Complaint (D.E. 1). Supporting contentions for those counts, including identification of specific acts of inducement and the specific components or materials sold by Lumicore that cons

6. Willful Infringement. OWS further asserts that Lumicore's infringement of the '015 Patent is willful, as set forth in Count VII of the Complaint (D.E. 1). OWS's willful infringement theory is based on, among other things: (a) FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC's May 15, 2023 supplemental licensing letter to Lumicore, which specifically identified the '015 Patent and the LumiLink 800G-DR8 as an accused product, thereby

X. CERTIFICATION The undersigned counsel of record for Plaintiff Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. hereby certify that the infringement contentions set forth in this claim chart have been prepared in good faith and are based on a reasonable investigation of the facts and applicable law. The investigation underlying these contentions includes, without limitation, a thorough review of: (i) the asserted claims of U.S. Patent

XI. APPENDICES (REFERENCED BUT SEPARATELY BOUND) The following appendices are referenced in this claim chart and are submitted as separately bound exhibits to OWS's P.R. 3-1 Infringement Contentions: Appendix 1: Annotated Benchmark Teardown Photographs — LumiLink 800G-DR8 Appendix 1 contains cross-referenced figures from Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC's June 2023 teardown report for the LumiLink 800G-DR8, anno