Contract analysis

I. INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH AND IDENTIFICATION OF DECLARANT I, [INSERT DECLARANT FULL NAME], hereby declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 as follows:

1. My name is [INSERT DECLARANT FULL NAME]. I am currently employed by Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. ("OWS" or the "Company") as [INSERT TITLE, e.g., Vice President of Sales / Regional Sales Director — [Region]]. My business address is 4810 Bayside Technology Parkway, Suite 300, Santa Clara, California 95054 [or, if applicable, insert regional office address]. [INSTRUCTION TO DECLARANT: This template is intended for u

2. I am over eighteen (18) years of age, am competent to testify in this matter, and make this declaration based upon my personal knowledge. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the matters set forth herein. The statements in this declaration are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

3. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiff Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.'s request for permanent injunctive relief against Defendant Lumicore Technologies, Inc. ("Lumicore"), and in support of OWS's showing of irreparable harm under the four-factor framework established by the Supreme Court in Northgate Group v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006). This declaration also provides factual support for the

II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS A. Professional Background

4. I have been employed by Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. since [INSERT START DATE], a period of approximately [INSERT NUMBER] years. During that time, I have held positions of increasing responsibility within OWS's sales organization, culminating in my current role as [INSERT CURRENT TITLE].

5. Prior to joining OWS, I was employed in the silicon-photonics transceiver and data-center interconnect industry for approximately [INSERT NUMBER] years. My prior experience includes [INSERT PRIOR RELEVANT EMPLOYMENT HISTORY, including company names, positions held, and approximate dates of employment]. Through these positions, I have developed extensive knowledge of the commercial dynamics of the optical transceiv

6. I hold a [INSERT DEGREE(S)] from [INSERT INSTITUTION(S)]. [If applicable: I also hold the following professional certifications or qualifications: [INSERT].] My educational background and professional training have provided me with a thorough understanding of silicon-photonics technology and the products at issue in this litigation. B. Role and Responsibilities

7. In my current role as [INSERT TITLE] at OWS, I am responsible for the management and oversight of customer accounts on a [global / national / regional — INSERT SCOPE] basis. My specific responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Managing and maintaining relationships with OWS's key customer accounts, including hyperscale data-center operators, Tier 1 telecommunications carriers, and large

8. In my current role, I am directly responsible for [INSERT NUMBER] customer accounts, representing approximately $[INSERT AMOUNT] million in annual revenue to OWS. This figure encompasses revenue from all OWS product lines sold to the accounts under my purview, including the OWS-400ZR, OWS-800XR, and OWS-1600DR product lines at issue in this litigation.

9. OWS's total revenue for fiscal year 2023 was approximately $487.3 million. Of that total, I estimate that approximately $[INSERT AMOUNT] million, or [INSERT PERCENTAGE]%, was attributable to sales of the OWS-400ZR, OWS-800XR, and OWS-1600DR product families — the product lines that compete directly with Lumicore's accused LumiLink 400G-ZR+, LumiLink 800G-DR8, and LumiEdge 1600G-LR modules. The revenue generated by

10. Through my role at OWS, I have direct, personal knowledge of the competitive dynamics in the silicon-photonics transceiver market for hyperscale data centers. This market is characterized by a relatively small number of qualified suppliers competing for procurement contracts from a concentrated group of hyperscale data-center operators and major telecommunications carriers. Purchasing decisions in this market are

11. I am personally familiar with Lumicore Technologies, Inc. as a competitor to OWS in the silicon-photonics transceiver market. Specifically, I am familiar with Lumicore's accused product lines: the LumiLink 400G-ZR+, the LumiLink 800G-DR8, and the LumiEdge 1600G-LR modules. These products compete directly with OWS's OWS-400ZR, OWS-800XR, and OWS-1600DR product lines, respectively, for the same customer application

12. Based on my personal knowledge and experience, OWS and Lumicore compete head-to-head at a significant number of the top hyperscale data-center operators. Specifically, I am aware that both OWS and Lumicore are actively competing for business at twelve (12) of the top twenty (20) hyperscale data-center operators worldwide. Of those twelve accounts, seven (7) major hyperscale customers currently purchase transceive

III. SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF CUSTOMER DIVERSION [INSTRUCTION TO DECLARANT: For each instance of customer diversion described below, provide the following details based on your personal knowledge: (1) the name of the customer (or, if subject to confidentiality restrictions, a coded identifier consistent with the Court's three-tier protective order: Confidential / Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only / Highly Confi

13. In the ordinary course of my duties at OWS, I have become personally aware of multiple specific instances in which customers that were purchasing, or were in the process of evaluating for purchase, OWS's transceiver module products diverted their procurement to Lumicore's accused products. Each of the instances described below is based on my personal knowledge and involvement in the relevant customer relationship

14. Customer Name: [INSERT CUSTOMER NAME OR CONFIDENTIAL IDENTIFIER]

15. Customer Location: [INSERT CITY, STATE]

16. OWS Product Under Consideration or Previously Supplied: [INSERT PRODUCT, e.g., OWS-400ZR]

17. Lumicore Product Selected by Customer: [INSERT PRODUCT, e.g., LumiLink 400G-ZR+]

18. Timeframe of Diversion: [INSERT APPROXIMATE DATE, e.g., Q3 2023]

19. Estimated Revenue Impact to OWS: Approximately $[INSERT DOLLAR AMOUNT] in lost revenue, representing approximately [INSERT NUMBER] units of the [INSERT OWS PRODUCT] that OWS would have sold to this customer but for the diversion.

20. Description of Circumstances: [INSERT NARRATIVE PARAGRAPH. The paragraph should describe: (a) the nature and history of OWS's relationship with this customer, including the length of the relationship and prior product purchases; (b) the customer's stated procurement needs and the competitive evaluation process in which both OWS and Lumicore participated; (c) the specific events leading to the customer's decision

21. Customer Communications: [INSERT DESCRIPTION OF ANY RELEVANT COMMUNICATIONS. Reference any emails, RFQ responses, meeting notes, or verbal statements from the customer indicating the reason for selection of Lumicore's product. In particular, note any customer references to (a) Lumicore's price competitiveness relative to OWS, (b) specific technical features of Lumicore's product that the customer identified as di

22. Customer Name: [INSERT CUSTOMER NAME OR CONFIDENTIAL IDENTIFIER]

23. Customer Location: [INSERT CITY, STATE]

24. OWS Product Under Consideration or Previously Supplied: [INSERT PRODUCT, e.g., OWS-800XR]

25. Lumicore Product Selected by Customer: [INSERT PRODUCT, e.g., LumiLink 800G-DR8]

26. Timeframe of Diversion: [INSERT APPROXIMATE DATE, e.g., Q1 2024]

27. Estimated Revenue Impact to OWS: Approximately $[INSERT DOLLAR AMOUNT] in lost revenue, representing approximately [INSERT NUMBER] units of the [INSERT OWS PRODUCT].

28. Description of Circumstances: [INSERT NARRATIVE PARAGRAPH describing the customer relationship, the competitive evaluation, and how Lumicore's product displaced OWS's product, following the same format as Instance 1 above.]

29. Customer Communications: [INSERT DESCRIPTION OF ANY RELEVANT COMMUNICATIONS from the customer indicating the reason for selection of Lumicore's product, following the same format as Instance 1 above.] D. Customer Diversion Instance 3

30. Customer Name: [INSERT CUSTOMER NAME OR CONFIDENTIAL IDENTIFIER]

31. Customer Location: [INSERT CITY, STATE]

32. OWS Product Under Consideration or Previously Supplied: [INSERT PRODUCT, e.g., OWS-1600DR]

33. Lumicore Product Selected by Customer: [INSERT PRODUCT, e.g., LumiEdge 1600G-LR]

34. Timeframe of Diversion: [INSERT APPROXIMATE DATE, e.g., Q2 2024]

35. Estimated Revenue Impact to OWS: Approximately $[INSERT DOLLAR AMOUNT] in lost revenue, representing approximately [INSERT NUMBER] units of the [INSERT OWS PRODUCT].

36. Description of Circumstances: [INSERT NARRATIVE PARAGRAPH describing the customer relationship, the competitive evaluation, and how Lumicore's product displaced OWS's product, following the same format as Instance 1 above.]

37. Customer Communications: [INSERT DESCRIPTION OF ANY RELEVANT COMMUNICATIONS from the customer indicating the reason for selection of Lumicore's product, following the same format as Instance 1 above.] E. Additional Instances [INSTRUCTION TO DECLARANT: Add additional subsections as needed using the same format set forth above. Sequentially number each additional instance (Instance 4, Instance 5, etc.) and continue

IV. LOST DESIGN-IN OPPORTUNITIES A. Explanation of the Design-In Process

38. In the silicon-photonics transceiver market for hyperscale data centers, the "design-in" process is the critical, multi-step competitive evaluation through which a customer selects a transceiver vendor's module for integration into its data-center infrastructure. The design-in process is the principal mechanism by which hyperscale operators and major telecommunications carriers identify, qualify, and approve tran

39. The design-in process is rigorous and typically involves multiple phases, including initial technical evaluation, sample qualification testing, interoperability validation, field trials, and, ultimately, formal vendor qualification and placement on the customer's approved vendor list ("AVL"). From the initial request for proposal to final vendor selection, a design-in evaluation can span six to eighteen months or

40. Winning a design-in is of paramount commercial importance in this industry because it typically locks in a customer relationship for the full product lifecycle of the relevant transceiver generation — often a period of three to five years. Once a customer has completed the qualification process and integrated a vendor's module into its network architecture, the cost and complexity of switching to an alternative v

41. OWS's product lines at issue in this litigation — the OWS-400ZR, OWS-800XR, and OWS-1600DR — embody the innovations protected by the patents asserted in this case: 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"), and U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015 (the "'015 Patent"). These patents cover core aspects of OWS's silicon-photoni

42. Customer Name: [INSERT CUSTOMER NAME OR CONFIDENTIAL IDENTIFIER]

43. Customer Location: [INSERT CITY, STATE]

44. OWS Product Proposed for Design-In: [INSERT PRODUCT, e.g., OWS-800XR]

45. Lumicore Product That Won the Design-In: [INSERT PRODUCT, e.g., LumiLink 800G-DR8]

46. Timeframe: The design-in evaluation commenced on or about [INSERT APPROXIMATE START DATE] and the customer's selection decision was communicated to OWS on or about [INSERT APPROXIMATE DECISION DATE].

47. Estimated Multi-Year Revenue Impact to OWS: Approximately $[INSERT DOLLAR AMOUNT], covering the expected lifecycle procurement volume of approximately [INSERT NUMBER] units over a [INSERT NUMBER]-year deployment period.

48. Description of Circumstances: [INSERT NARRATIVE PARAGRAPH. The paragraph should describe: (a) OWS's participation in the design-in evaluation process, including the stages of evaluation in which OWS participated; (b) the competitive field, including whether Lumicore was the only other competitor or one of several; (c) the customer's evaluation criteria and the relative performance of OWS's and Lumicore's products

49. Specific Technical or Pricing Factors Cited by the Customer: [INSERT DESCRIPTION. Reference any customer statements identifying specific features of Lumicore's product as differentiating factors in the design-in decision, including, for example, waveguide multiplexer performance, thermal management capabilities, grating coupler design efficiency, coherent DSP integration, or power consumption. Also reference any

50. Connection to OWS Patented Technology: [INSERT STATEMENT, if applicable, that the customer specifically identified features corresponding to OWS's patented innovations as differentiators in Lumicore's product. For example, if the customer stated that Lumicore's waveguide multiplexer architecture provided superior signal integrity in dense wavelength-division multiplexing applications — a feature covered by the '8

51. Customer Name: [INSERT CUSTOMER NAME OR CONFIDENTIAL IDENTIFIER]

52. Customer Location: [INSERT CITY, STATE]

53. OWS Product Proposed for Design-In: [INSERT PRODUCT, e.g., OWS-400ZR]

54. Lumicore Product That Won the Design-In: [INSERT PRODUCT, e.g., LumiLink 400G-ZR+]

55. Timeframe: The design-in evaluation commenced on or about [INSERT APPROXIMATE START DATE] and the customer's selection decision was communicated to OWS on or about [INSERT APPROXIMATE DECISION DATE].

56. Estimated Multi-Year Revenue Impact to OWS: Approximately $[INSERT DOLLAR AMOUNT], covering the expected lifecycle procurement volume of approximately [INSERT NUMBER] units over a [INSERT NUMBER]-year deployment period.