Contract analysis

1. Precluding Lumicore and its counsel, Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP, from referring to, questioning witnesses about, or presenting evidence of Ridgeline Capital Partners, LP's ownership stake in OWS, the $780 million acquisition, the role of Franklin Osei as Board Chair, or Ridgeline's involvement in any aspect of OWS's business or litigation strategy;

2. Precluding Lumicore from referring to, questioning witnesses about, or presenting evidence of OWS's litigation budget, Board Resolution No. 2024-07, or the April 2, 2024 letter from Franklin Osei to Rebecca Tanaka;

3. Precluding Lumicore from referring to, questioning witnesses about, or presenting evidence of the success fee component or any other terms of Calderwood & Harkness LLP's engagement letter dated March 18, 2024;

4. Precluding Lumicore from referring to, questioning witnesses about, or presenting evidence of Pacific Rim Insurance Group Policy No. PLI-2023-08812 or any other litigation-cost insurance maintained by OWS;

5. Precluding all of the foregoing references in voir dire, opening statements, examination of witnesses (fact or expert), expert reports or testimony, trial exhibits, demonstratives, and closing arguments; and

6. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE PATENT-TROLL OR NON-PRACTICING ENTITY CHARACTERIZATIONS A. Background and Factual Context OWS is, by any measure, a practicing entity that designs, develops, and sells silicon-photonics transceiver modules in direct competition with Lumicore. OWS's commercial product families include the OWS-400ZR, OWS-800X

1. Precluding Lumicore and its counsel from using the terms "patent troll," "non-practicing entity," "patent assertion entity," "patent pirate," "patent monetizer," "shell company," "paper company," or any similar pejorative characterization of OWS, OWS's licensing activities, or OWS's intellectual property enforcement program at any point during trial;

2. Precluding all such characterizations in voir dire, opening statements, examination of witnesses (fact or expert), expert reports or testimony, trial exhibits, demonstratives, and closing arguments;

3. Precluding Lumicore from arguing or suggesting to the jury that OWS's assertion of patents acquired from Solara Optics, Inc. is improper, suspect, or indicative of non-practicing status;

4. Precluding Lumicore from arguing or suggesting to the jury that OWS's engagement of FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC as a licensing agent renders OWS a non-practicing entity or is otherwise improper; and

5. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE LUMICORE'S UNDISCLOSED OPINION-OF-COUNSEL LETTERS A. Background and Factual Context The factual record relevant to this motion establishes a clear pattern of Lumicore invoking the existence of opinion-of-counsel letters while simultaneously refusing to produce them. On January 15, 2023, FairPoint Licensing

1. Precluding Lumicore from referencing, presenting, or relying upon at trial any opinion-of-counsel letters that were not produced to OWS during discovery;

2. Precluding Lumicore's witnesses—including, without limitation, Raymond Bautista (General Counsel), Dr. Sandra Michaud, Tom Kessler, and any other fact or expert witness—from testifying about the existence, content, conclusions, or recommendations of any undisclosed opinion-of-counsel letters;

3. Precluding Lumicore's counsel from arguing to the jury, in opening or closing statements, or at any other time, that Lumicore obtained legal advice or opinions supporting its non-infringement position, unless the underlying opinion letters were timely produced during discovery and OWS's experts were afforded a meaningful opportunity to address them;

4. Alternatively, if the Court has not yet ruled on OWS's Motion to Compel (D.E. 40), ruling on that motion prior to trial and, in the event the Court orders production, providing OWS with sufficient time to have its experts review and respond to the opinions; and

5. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE PRIOR-ART REFERENCES NOT DISCLOSED IN LUMICORE'S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS A. Background and Factual Context The Eastern District of Texas Patent Rules require a defendant asserting patent invalidity to serve detailed invalidity contentions identifying each item of prior art on which the defendant intends to r

1. Precluding Lumicore from introducing, referencing, or relying upon at trial any prior-art reference that was not identified in Lumicore's P.R. 3-3 Invalidity Contentions served on October 14, 2024;

2. Applying this preclusion order to testimony by Dr. Rajesh Sundaram and any other defense witness, as well as to trial exhibits, demonstratives, and closing arguments;

3. Precluding Lumicore's counsel from arguing to the jury that the Asserted Patents are invalid based on any prior-art reference not identified in the P.R. 3-3 Invalidity Contentions; and

4. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY FROM DR. RAJESH SUNDARAM ON DAMAGES TOPICS OUTSIDE HIS DESIGNATED SCOPE A. Background and Factual Context Lumicore has designated two expert witnesses in this case, each with a clearly defined scope of expertise and opinion. Dr. Rajesh Sundaram, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at

1. Limiting Dr. Rajesh Sundaram's testimony at trial to technical and validity topics within the scope of his expert disclosures and report;

2. Precluding Dr. Sundaram from offering opinions or testimony regarding damages calculations, royalty rates, royalty bases, apportionment, the value of the patented technology, the availability and cost of non-infringing alternatives, the incremental value of the patented features, or any other damages-related topic, to the extent such opinions were not included in his expert report and disclosure;

3. Instructing Lumicore's counsel that questions directed to Dr. Sundaram during direct or redirect examination must remain within the scope of his designated technical/validity opinions; and

4. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO OTHER PENDING OWS PATENT LITIGATIONS A. Background and Factual Context As discussed above, OWS holds a substantial intellectual property portfolio comprising 142 issued United States patents and 58 pending patent applications. As a major participant in the silicon-photonics industry, OWS active