Contract analysis

I. INTRODUCTION This case involves the deliberate, willful, and expanding infringement of four United States patents by Defendant Lumicore Technologies, Inc. in the fast-moving and fiercely competitive market for silicon-photonics transceiver modules used in hyperscale data centers. Plaintiff Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. — the innovator and patent holder — now comes before this Court seeking emergency relief to halt

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. The Asserted Patents OWS is the owner by assignment of each of the four Asserted Patents. Each patent is directed to innovations in silicon-photonics technology that are critical to the design and performance of modern transceiver modules for data-center interconnects. All four patents are utility patents, all maintenance fees are current, and no inter partes review ("IPR") petitions have be

III. LEGAL STANDARD The issuance of a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) and (b). In patent cases, the movant must demonstrate four factors: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that the movant will suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief is not granted; (3) that the balance of hardships tips in favor of the movant; and (4) that

IV. ARGUMENT A. OWS Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits

1. OWS Is Likely to Prove Infringement. OWS's infringement case is strong, well-developed, and supported by compelling physical evidence, expert analysis, and admissions from Lumicore's own officers. Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC, under the direction of Lead Engineer Kevin Ng, performed independent physical teardown analyses of all three currently accused Lumicore products. These teardowns — conducted on Dece

2. Lumicore's Validity Defenses Are Unlikely to Succeed. Lumicore's invalidity contentions, served on October 14, 2024, cite a total of twenty-three prior-art references across the four Asserted Patents. OWS has carefully analyzed each of these references and submits that none, individually or in combination, renders any asserted claim invalid. The '847 Patent. Lumicore's principal invalidity reference for the '847 P

3. OWS Is Likely to Prove Willful Infringement. The evidence of willfulness is not merely sufficient — it is compelling, and it independently supports the need for injunctive relief by demonstrating that Lumicore will continue to expand its infringing activities unless restrained by this Court. FairPoint's January 15, 2023 letter placed Lumicore on actual notice of the '847, '193, and '562 Patents and identified the

1. Direct Competition and Market Erosion. OWS and Lumicore are direct competitors in the silicon-photonics transceiver module market for hyperscale data centers. This is not a case where the patent holder and the alleged infringer operate in separate market segments or serve different customer bases. To the contrary, OWS and Lumicore compete head-to-head at twelve of the top twenty hyperscale data-center operators, a

2. Price Erosion. The average selling price ("ASP") of 400G-ZR transceiver modules declined by 18.7% from the third quarter of 2022 — the quarter in which Lumicore launched the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ — through the fourth quarter of 2023. See Ex. 19. OWS attributes a significant portion of this price erosion to Lumicore's market entry with infringing products sold at aggressively low pricing. When a competitor enters the m

3. Loss of Goodwill, Customer Relationships, and Market Position. OWS is the third-largest U.S. supplier of silicon-photonics transceiver modules for hyperscale data centers. Lumicore's rapid growth — fueled in significant part by its accused products — threatens OWS's competitive position in this strategically important market. Lumicore's FY 2023 accused-product revenue of $264.9 million represents a significant and

4. Monetary Damages Cannot Fully Compensate OWS. While OWS seeks approximately $210 million in damages in this action, monetary relief alone is inadequate to compensate for the competitive harm caused by Lumicore's infringement. The inadequacy of monetary damages arises from several independent factors: Lost design-in opportunities cannot be recaptured. Design-in decisions in the hyperscale data-center market lock in

5. The Triggering Event Accelerates Irreparable Harm. [Placeholder — This subsection will be completed upon the occurrence of the triggering event. It will provide a specific discussion of how the new product announcement or major customer win creates heightened, imminent irreparable harm that cannot wait until the February 2, 2026 trial date. The discussion will address the specific competitive threat posed by the t

V. BOND UNDER RULE 65(c) OWS acknowledges that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) requires that a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction shall not issue except upon the giving of security by the applicant "in an amount that the court considers proper, for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained." OW

VI. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Issue a temporary restraining order effective immediately upon entry, enjoining Defendant Lumicore Technologies, Inc., its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with Lumicore, from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing into the United States the LumiLink 400G-ZR+, LumiLink 800G-DR8, LumiEdge 1600G-LR, [New Accused Product], and any col

2. Set a hearing on OWS's motion for preliminary injunction on an expedited schedule, within fourteen days of entry of the temporary restraining order;

3. Enter a preliminary injunction maintaining the status quo and continuing the injunctive relief through trial;

4. Set the bond amount in an amount to be determined by the Court; and

5. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP By: ________ Alan Ngo (CA Bar No. __) Admitted Pro Hac Vice 350 South Grand Avenue, 48th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 555-1800 Email: ango@calderwoodharkness.com Marcus Delgado (TX Bar No. __) 350 South Grand Avenue, 48th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (2

1. A likelihood of success on the merits of its claims that Defendant Lumicore Technologies, Inc.'s LumiLink 400G-ZR+, LumiLink 800G-DR8, LumiEdge 1600G-LR, and [New Accused Product] transceiver modules infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,234,847; 10,891,193; 9,678,562; and 11,402,015;

2. That Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm absent a temporary restraining order, including but not limited to loss of market share, customer diversion, erosion of design-in opportunities, price erosion, and damage to goodwill and competitive position;

3. That the balance of hardships tips in favor of Plaintiff, considering the evidence of Defendant's willful infringement after receiving actual notice of Plaintiff's patent rights and the availability of non-accused product lines constituting approximately 58% of Defendant's revenue; and

4. That the public interest favors granting the temporary restraining order, as enforcement of valid patent rights incentivizes innovation and non-infringing alternatives remain available in the market. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Lumicore Technologies, Inc., its officers (including, without limitation, Chief Executive Officer Thomas "Tom" Kessler, Chief Technology Officer Dr. Sandra Michaud, General Co