Contract analysis

I. OPENING — IDENTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATION AND PURPOSE We write on behalf of our client, Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. ("OWS"), the plaintiff in the above-captioned action pending before the Honorable Judge James R. Gilstrap in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. As you know, Calderwood & Harkness LLP serves as lead litigation counsel for OWS in this matter, together with our local c

II. SUMMARY OF THE COURT'S MARKMAN RULING A. Reference to the Claim Construction Order On March 14, 2025, the Court conducted a Markman hearing in this matter, at which the parties presented argument on the construction of twelve (12) disputed claim terms across OWS's four asserted United States patents. On [DATE OF ORDER — to be inserted], the Court issued its Claim Construction Order (D.E. [Docket Entry — to be ins

III. IDENTIFICATION OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS OWS is the exclusive owner of each of the four asserted United States patents. Each patent is valid, enforceable, and in full force and effect. A brief description of each patent follows. A. 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 Origi

IV. IDENTIFICATION OF THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS OWS has identified three Lumicore product lines that infringe the asserted patents. Each product has been subjected to independent reverse-engineering analysis by Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC ("Benchmark"), a nationally recognized semiconductor teardown and analysis firm, and infringement has been confirmed by claim charts mapping each accused product to the asserte

V. HISTORY OF NOTICE AND LUMICORE'S CONTINUED INFRINGEMENT Lumicore has been on actual notice of its infringement of OWS's patents since at least January 2023 and, based on deposition testimony obtained in this litigation, had actual knowledge of OWS's patent portfolio dating back to the design phase of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ in 2021–2022. Despite this knowledge, Lumicore has taken no steps to cease its infringing act

VI. DEMAND FOR VOLUNTARY CESSATION A. Specific Demanded Actions In light of the foregoing, OWS hereby demands that Lumicore immediately and voluntarily cease and desist from making, using, selling, offering to sell, and importing into the United States each of the following accused products:

1. LumiLink 400G-ZR+ (all versions, configurations, and SKUs);

2. LumiLink 800G-DR8 (all versions, configurations, and SKUs);

3. LumiEdge 1600G-LR (all versions, configurations, and SKUs); and

4. Any colorable imitations, successors, next-generation versions, or derivative products that embody, incorporate, or practice any of the patented technology claimed in the '847, '193, '562, and '015 Patents. This demand extends to any components, kits, subassemblies, or modules that are especially made or especially adapted for use in the accused products and that are not staple articles of commerce suitable for su

VII. CONSEQUENCES OF CONTINUED INFRINGEMENT OWS urges Lumicore to give this demand serious and immediate consideration. Lumicore's continued infringement following the Court's Markman ruling will have significant legal and financial consequences. A. Enhanced Damages for Willful Infringement OWS has asserted willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284, and the Supreme Court's decision in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse

VIII. IMPACT OF CONTINUED INFRINGEMENT ON DAMAGES A. Ongoing Accrual of Damages Every additional day that Lumicore continues to sell the accused products increases its damages exposure. As noted above, total accused-product revenue is projected to reach approximately $714.6 million through Q4 2025, based on the analysis of Dr. Lawrence Keating of Meridian Economic Consulting Group, LLC, OWS's retained damages expert.

IX. INVITATION TO DISCUSS RESOLUTION A. Licensing Alternative While OWS is pursuing its legal remedies with the full vigor warranted by the circumstances, OWS remains willing to discuss a licensing arrangement with Lumicore on commercially reasonable terms. OWS is an innovator and an active participant in the silicon-photonics transceiver market, and it recognizes that licensing can serve the interests of both partie

X. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS OWS expressly reserves all rights, remedies, claims, and defenses available to it under law and equity, including but not limited to the following: (a) All claims asserted in the complaint filed April 22, 2024 (D.E. 1), including direct infringement of the '847, '193, '562, and '015 Patents, induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), and

XI. DEADLINE FOR RESPONSE OWS demands a written response from Lumicore's counsel within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of this letter. The response should confirm one of the following: (a) Cessation: Lumicore's agreement to voluntarily cease all infringing activity with respect to the accused products identified herein, together with a description of the specific steps Lumicore has taken or will take to implem

XII. CLOSING We trust that Lumicore and its counsel will give this letter the serious attention it warrants. The Court's Markman ruling has materially changed the landscape of this litigation, and OWS urges Lumicore to reassess its position in light of the Court's constructions. Continued infringement serves only to increase Lumicore's exposure and to make resolution more difficult. We remain available to discuss thi