Contract analysis

I. Background and Posture of the Case A. Nature of the Dispute As you are aware, OWS filed this action on April 22, 2024, asserting infringement of four United States utility 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"), and U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015 (the "'015 Patent"). These patents cover a range of innovation

II. Proposal for Mediation A. Rationale for Mediation at This Stage OWS believes that the current posture of this case is ideally suited for a productive mediation. Several considerations support this view. First, the parties have completed extensive claim construction briefing and the Markman hearing is scheduled for March 14, 2025. Following the Court's claim construction order, the contours of both the infringemen

III. Proposed Mediators OWS proposes three highly qualified mediators, any one of whom we believe would be an excellent choice to facilitate a resolution of this dispute. We are, of course, willing to consider alternative candidates that Lumicore may wish to propose. A. Retired Judge Harold K. Devereaux — JAMS, Dallas, Texas Judge Harold K. Devereaux (Ret.) is a former United States District Judge with extensive expe

IV. Costs and Logistics OWS proposes that the mediator's fees and expenses be shared equally between OWS and Lumicore. Each party would bear its own attorneys' fees and costs associated with mediation preparation and attendance, including travel, expert consultation, and related expenses. This cost-sharing arrangement is standard in mediations of this type and ensures that neither party bears a disproportionate share

V. Court's ADR Program The Eastern District of Texas local rules and Judge Gilstrap's standing orders actively encourage parties in patent cases to explore alternative dispute resolution as a means of achieving efficient and cost-effective resolutions. Mediation is specifically contemplated as an appropriate ADR mechanism under the Court's program. If Lumicore agrees to mediation, the parties can jointly notify the C

VI. OWS's Good-Faith Commitment OWS is making this proposal in good faith and with the genuine desire to explore a mutually beneficial resolution of this dispute. OWS has consistently demonstrated its willingness to engage constructively with Lumicore, as reflected in FairPoint Licensing Group's extensive pre-suit licensing outreach, including the January 15, 2023 and May 15, 2023 licensing letters and the April 20,

VII. Request for Response OWS respectfully requests that you discuss this proposal with your client, Lumicore Technologies, Inc., including CEO Thomas Kessler and General Counsel Raymond Bautista, and provide a substantive response within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the date of this letter. I am available to discuss this proposal by telephone or in person at your convenience. Please do not hesitate to contact me

VIII. Reservation of Rights Nothing in this letter, and nothing in any mediation that may result from this proposal, constitutes or shall be construed as a waiver of any claims, defenses, rights, or remedies of OWS, including but not limited to: • OWS's claims for enhanced damages for willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284; • OWS's request for a permanent injunction under 35 U.S.C. § 283; • All rights and remedie

IX. Closing I appreciate your time in reviewing this proposal and hope that both OWS and Lumicore can find a constructive path forward through mediation. The litigation process is well underway, the record is mature, and the parties are well positioned to evaluate their respective risks and opportunities. I believe a mediation at this juncture offers the best opportunity for a resolution that serves the commercial in