UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Plaintiff Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. ("OWS" or "Plaintiff") and Defendant Lumos Photonics, Inc. ("Lumos" or "Defendant") (collectively, the "Parties") hereby submit this Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-3 of the Northern District of California. This Statement sets forth the Parties' respective proposed constructions for the disputed claim terms in the four patents-in-suit, identifies the extrinsic evidence each side intends to rely upon, and proposes a schedule for claim construction briefing and the Markman hearing.
Right-click to update Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-3, the Parties submit this Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement to assist the Court in resolving the claim construction disputes in this action. The Parties have complied with the requirements of the Patent Local Rules as follows:
On September 12, 2022, both Parties exchanged their respective Preliminary Claim Construction Contentions pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-1, identifying the claim terms each Party believed required construction and providing preliminary proposed constructions with supporting intrinsic evidence. On October 3, 2022, the Parties exchanged Responsive Claim Construction Contentions pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-2, setting forth their responsive proposed constructions and identifying the bases for their respective positions.
Following the exchange of Responsive Claim Construction Contentions, counsel for the Parties met and conferred on multiple occasions, including in-person meetings on October 6, 2022, and October 10, 2022, and telephonic conferences on October 7, 2022, and October 12, 2022. Through these meet-and-confer sessions, the Parties were able to narrow the disputed claim terms from an initial set of twenty-three (23) terms identified in the Preliminary Claim Construction Contentions to the eleven (11) disputed terms set forth herein. Despite good faith efforts, the Parties were unable to reach agreement on the construction of these eleven remaining terms.
This action involves four United States patents owned by Plaintiff OWS, all of which are directed to various aspects of silicon photonics integrated circuit technology:
(a) U.S. Patent No. 10,234,567 (the "'567 Patent"), entitled "Integrated Waveguide Coupler with Tapered Mode Converter for Silicon Photonics Platforms," issued on March 19, 2019;
(b) U.S. Patent No. 10,891,234 (the "'234 Patent"), entitled "Germanium-on-Silicon Photodetector with Graded Buffer Layer for Enhanced Responsivity," issued on January 14, 2021;
(c) U.S. Patent No. 11,045,678 (the "'678 Patent"), entitled "Multi-Channel Optical Transceiver with Integrated Wavelength-Division Multiplexing on Silicon," issued on June 29, 2021; and
(d) U.S. Patent No. 11,312,890 (the "'890 Patent"), entitled "Driver Circuit Architecture for High-Speed Silicon Photonic Mach-Zehnder Modulators," issued on April 26, 2022.
The asserted claims in this action are as follows:
(a) '567 Patent: Claims 1, 4, 7, 12, and 15;
(b) '234 Patent: Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, and 11;
(c) '678 Patent: Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, and 14; and
(d) '890 Patent: Claims 1, 5, 8, and 13.
The Parties respectfully request that the Court conduct a Markman hearing, which is currently scheduled for January 30, 2023, to resolve the eleven disputed claim terms identified herein. Given the technical complexity of the subject matter and the significance of claim construction to the merits of this action, both Parties believe that a full-day hearing with technical tutorials and oral argument is warranted.
II. IDENTIFICATION OF THE PARTIES
A. Plaintiff Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.
Plaintiff Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. ("OWS") is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at 2775 Augustine Drive, Suite 400, San Jose, California 95054. OWS is a fabless semiconductor design company that specializes in the design and development of silicon photonics integrated circuits for data center interconnects and telecommunications applications. OWS does not manufacture its own semiconductor devices but rather contracts with third-party foundries for the fabrication of its designs, which are then sold to hyperscale cloud providers, telecommunications equipment manufacturers, and other customers in the data communications industry.
OWS is the owner by assignment of all four patents-in-suit. Each of the patents-in-suit was assigned to OWS by the respective named inventors, all of whom were employees of OWS at the time of their respective inventions. The assignments were recorded with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Plaintiff OWS is represented in this action by:
Alan Ngo (Cal. Bar No. 247831; USPTO Reg. No. 52,871) Marcus Delgado (Cal. Bar No. 261405) Omar Siddiqui (Cal. Bar No. 273619) Christy Bauer (Cal. Bar No. 285042) CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP One Embarcadero Center, 34th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 773-5600 Facsimile: (415) 773-5601
Email: ango@calderwoodharkness.com
B. Defendant Lumos Photonics, Inc.
Defendant Lumos Photonics, Inc. ("Lumos") is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at 9400 McNeil Drive, Building 7, Austin, Texas 78758. Lumos also maintains a sales office and engineering center at 4750 Great America Parkway, Suite 320, Santa Clara, California 95054. Lumos is an integrated device manufacturer (IDM) that designs, fabricates, and sells silicon photonics components and optical engines for hyperscale data center interconnects. Unlike OWS, Lumos operates its own fabrication facilities and manufactures its products in-house. Lumos is a publicly traded company, listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the ticker symbol "LMPH."
Defendant Lumos is represented in this action by:
Victoria "Tori" Ashworth (Cal. Bar No. 254718) Daniel Kowalski (Cal. Bar No. 268934) BRANNICK HOWELL & STEIN LLP 555 California Street, Suite 2800 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 439-2200 Facsimile: (415) 439-2201
Email: tashworth@bhslaw.com
III. ACCUSED PRODUCTS
Plaintiff OWS alleges that the following Lumos products infringe one or more claims of the patents-in-suit:
1. LumosBridge™ 800G Optical Engine. The LumosBridge™ 800G Optical Engine is a co-packaged optics ("CPO") engine designed for integration with hyperscale data center switch ASICs. The LumosBridge™ 800G Optical Engine provides 800 Gbps aggregate bandwidth using eight lanes of 100G-per-lambda PAM4 signaling, and incorporates silicon photonics transmit and receive optical elements on a single silicon die, including silicon waveguides, optical multiplexers and demultiplexers, germanium photodetectors, and silicon Mach-Zehnder modulators with integrated driver electronics. The LumosBridge™ 800G Optical Engine was first shipped to customers in the first quarter of 2022. According to publicly available pricing information and information produced in discovery, the LumosBridge™ 800G Optical Engine has a unit price in the range of approximately $1,200 to $1,800, depending on volume and customer pricing agreements. OWS accuses the LumosBridge™ 800G Optical Engine of infringing claims of all four patents-in-suit—the '567 Patent, the '234 Patent, the '678 Patent, and the '890 Patent.
2. LumosEdge™ 400ZR+ Pluggable Transceiver. The LumosEdge™ 400ZR+ Pluggable Transceiver is a QSFP-DD form factor pluggable optical transceiver module designed for metro and data center interconnect ("DCI") applications. The LumosEdge™ 400ZR+ Pluggable Transceiver provides 400 Gbps aggregate bandwidth using four wavelength channels of coherent DP-16QAM signaling, and incorporates silicon photonics transmit and receive optical elements, including wavelength-division multiplexing components, germanium photodetectors, and silicon modulators with associated driver circuits. The LumosEdge™ 400ZR+ Pluggable Transceiver has been in production and shipping to customers since the third quarter of 2021. According to publicly available pricing information and information produced in discovery, the LumosEdge™ 400ZR+ Pluggable Transceiver has a unit price in the range of approximately $600 to $900, depending on volume and customer pricing agreements. OWS accuses the LumosEdge™ 400ZR+ Pluggable Transceiver of infringing claims of all four patents-in-suit—the '567 Patent, the '234 Patent, the '678 Patent, and the '890 Patent.
IV. AGREED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
The Parties have met and conferred in good faith regarding the construction of claim terms in the asserted claims of the four patents-in-suit. Despite extensive negotiations, the Parties were unable to reach agreement on the construction of any of the eleven disputed claim terms identified in Section V below.
The Parties do, however, agree that all claim terms in the asserted claims that are not specifically identified as disputed terms in Section V of this Joint Statement shall be given their plain and ordinary meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the respective inventions. The Parties reserve the right to dispute the meaning of additional claim terms to the extent such disputes arise during the course of further proceedings, including during expert discovery and at trial, consistent with the Court's scheduling order and the Patent Local Rules.
V. DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
The Parties dispute the construction of eleven (11) claim terms across the four patents-in-suit. The disputed terms are organized below patent-by-patent. For each disputed term, the Parties present: (1) the claim term at issue; (2) the claim or claims in which the term appears; (3) the context of the term within the relevant claim language; (4) Plaintiff OWS's proposed construction; (5) Defendant Lumos's proposed construction; and (6) the basis for the dispute. A consolidated summary chart of all eleven disputed terms is set forth in Section XIII below.
A. U.S. Patent No. 10,234,567 ("the '567 Patent")
The '567 Patent, entitled "Integrated Waveguide Coupler with Tapered Mode Converter for Silicon Photonics Platforms," is directed to an integrated optical coupler structure that enables efficient optical mode transition between a silicon waveguide and a silicon nitride waveguide in a silicon photonics platform. The '567 Patent describes the use of a tapered silicon waveguide to effect adiabatic mode coupling between waveguide layers of differing refractive index and mode profile. Three claim terms from the '567 Patent are in dispute.
Disputed Term 1: "adiabatically coupled".  Claim(s) in which the term appears: Claim 1 (independent claim); the term is also relevant to dependent Claims 4, 7, 12, and 15, each of which depends directly or indirectly from Claim 1.
Context in Claim 1: Claim 1 of the '567 Patent recites, in relevant part: "an integrated optical coupler comprising a tapered silicon waveguide having a tip width of less than 200 nanometers adiabatically coupled to a silicon nitride waveguide layer . . ."
OWS's Proposed Construction: "coupled such that optical mode transitions occur without significant power loss"
Lumos's Proposed Construction: "coupled through a gradual, continuous taper that prevents excitation of higher-order modes throughout the entire transition region"
Basis for Dispute: OWS contends that its proposed construction is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term "adiabatic" as it is used and understood in the photonics art. OWS argues that the term "adiabatically coupled" is a well-known term of art in integrated photonics that describes a coupling mechanism in which optical power is transferred from one waveguide mode to another without significant loss—that is, the fundamental mode of the input waveguide is smoothly transformed into the fundamental mode of the output waveguide with minimal power scattered into radiation modes or reflected back. OWS contends that its construction properly captures this meaning without importing unnecessary structural limitations from the specification.
Lumos contends that the specification and prosecution history of the '567 Patent require a narrower construction. Lumos argues that throughout the specification, the patentees described "adiabatic" coupling as requiring a gradual, continuous taper—not a segmented, periodic, or discontinuous structure—and that the prosecution history confirms this narrower meaning. Specifically, during prosecution, the "adiabatically coupled" limitation was added by amendment to distinguish over Tanaka et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,456,012), which disclosed a segmented taper coupling structure. Lumos contends that the applicants' amendment and accompanying remarks during prosecution disclaimed segmented taper structures from the scope of the claims. Lumos further argues that its construction properly requires that the coupling prevent excitation of higher-order modes throughout the entire transition region, which is the defining characteristic of adiabatic operation as described in the specification.
Disputed Term 2: "tapered silicon waveguide having a tip width of less than 200 nanometers".  Claim(s) in which the term appears: Claim 1 (independent claim).
Context in Claim 1: Claim 1 of the '567 Patent recites, in relevant part: "an integrated optical coupler comprising a tapered silicon waveguide having a tip width of less than 200 nanometers adiabatically coupled to a silicon nitride waveguide layer . . ."
OWS's Proposed Construction: Plain and ordinary meaning; specifically, "a silicon waveguide with a taper whose narrowest end is less than 200 nm wide."
Lumos's Proposed Construction: "a single, continuously narrowing silicon waveguide structure whose terminal tip measures less than 200 nanometers in width, exclusive of segmented, periodic, or sub-wavelength grating taper structures"
Basis for Dispute: OWS contends that the term "tapered silicon waveguide having a tip width of less than 200 nanometers" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. OWS argues that the claim language is clear on its face: it requires a silicon waveguide that has a taper and whose tip (i.e., the narrowest point of the taper) is less than 200 nanometers in width. OWS contends that nothing in the claim language requires the taper to be "continuous" or "single," and that the claim broadly encompasses any tapered waveguide structure—whether continuous, segmented, or otherwise—so long as the tip width is less than 200 nanometers.
Lumos contends that the claim requires a single, continuously narrowing silicon waveguide structure and that segmented, periodic, or sub-wavelength grating taper structures are excluded. Lumos relies on the specification's description of the taper as a "smoothly varying" structure and the prosecution history, in which the applicants distinguished the claimed structure from segmented taper designs. Lumos further argues that the phrase "tip width" implies a single, discrete terminal point of a continuous taper, rather than the end of a periodic or segmented structure that may have multiple tips or discontinuities.
Disputed Term 3: "silicon nitride waveguide layer".  Claim(s) in which the term appears: Claim 1 (independent claim).
Context in Claim 1: Claim 1 of the '567 Patent recites, in relevant part: "an integrated optical coupler comprising a tapered silicon waveguide having a tip width of less than 200 nanometers adiabatically coupled to a silicon nitride waveguide layer . . ."
OWS's Proposed Construction: Plain and ordinary meaning; specifically, "a waveguide layer formed of silicon nitride (SiN or Si₃N₄)."
Lumos's Proposed Construction: "a waveguide layer composed of stoichiometric silicon nitride (Si₃N₄), excluding silicon oxynitride (SiON) and non-stoichiometric compositions"
Basis for Dispute: OWS contends that the term "silicon nitride waveguide layer" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning to encompass any waveguide layer formed of silicon nitride material, including both stoichiometric silicon nitride (Si₃N₄) and non-stoichiometric silicon nitride compositions, which are commonly referred to in the art as "SiN" or "SiNx." OWS argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand "silicon nitride" to broadly encompass the family of silicon nitride materials, including silicon-rich and nitrogen-rich compositions, as these materials are commonly used in silicon photonics waveguide fabrication and are all referred to generically as "silicon nitride" in the art.
Lumos contends that the specification of the '567 Patent consistently refers to "Si₃N₄" when describing the silicon nitride waveguide layer and that the specification's discussion of waveguide properties (including refractive index values and mode confinement characteristics) is specific to stoichiometric Si₃N₄. Lumos argues that the claim term should be limited to stoichiometric silicon nitride (Si₃N₄) and should exclude silicon oxynitride (SiON) and other non-stoichiometric compositions, which have materially different optical properties and would not achieve the coupling performance described in the specification.
B. U.S. Patent No. 10,891,234 ("the '234 Patent")
The '234 Patent, entitled "Germanium-on-Silicon Photodetector with Graded Buffer Layer for Enhanced Responsivity," is directed to a germanium-on-silicon photodetector structure that employs a graded buffer layer between the silicon substrate and the germanium absorber to reduce threading dislocation density and enhance the photodetector's optical responsivity. Three claim terms from the '234 Patent are in dispute.
Disputed Term 4: "graded buffer layer having a continuously varying germanium concentration".  Claim(s) in which the term appears: Claim 1 (independent claim); the term is also relevant to dependent Claims 3, 5, 8, and 11, each of which depends directly or indirectly from Claim 1.
Context in Claim 1: Claim 1 of the '234 Patent recites, in relevant part: "a graded buffer layer having a continuously varying germanium concentration disposed between the silicon substrate and the germanium absorber layer . . ."
OWS's Proposed Construction: "a buffer layer in which the germanium concentration changes across the layer thickness"
Lumos's Proposed Construction: "a buffer layer in which the germanium atomic fraction increases monotonically and without step changes from the silicon substrate interface to the absorber layer"
Basis for Dispute: OWS contends that "continuously varying" broadly means "changing" and should be construed to encompass any buffer layer design in which the germanium concentration is not uniform—i.e., where the concentration changes from one level to another across the thickness of the buffer layer. OWS argues that this construction is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term and can encompass step-graded designs (in which the germanium concentration changes in discrete steps) as well as linearly or non-linearly graded designs, so long as the germanium concentration varies across the layer. OWS further notes that the specification of the '234 Patent describes both "continuously graded" and "step-graded" buffer layer embodiments and that the claims should not be limited to only one embodiment.
Lumos contends that the claim language "continuously varying" has a specific and well-understood mathematical and physical meaning that excludes step-graded designs with discrete composition steps. Lumos argues that "continuously varying" means the germanium concentration changes smoothly and without discontinuities—i.e., the concentration profile is a continuous function of position within the buffer layer. Lumos further argues that the germanium concentration must increase monotonically from the silicon substrate interface (where it is low or zero) to the germanium absorber layer (where it approaches 100%), consistent with the physical purpose of the graded buffer layer as described in the specification. Lumos contends that OWS's broad construction improperly reads out the word "continuously" from the claim and would render that word superfluous, in violation of the canon against surplusage.
Disputed Term 5: "enhanced responsivity".  Claim(s) in which the term appears: The phrase appears in the title of the '234 Patent and in Claim 1 (independent claim), which recites the phrase in the context of the preamble.
Context in Claim 1: Claim 1 of the '234 Patent recites, in relevant part: "A germanium-on-silicon photodetector for enhanced responsivity at optical communication wavelengths, comprising . . ."
OWS's Proposed Construction: Plain and ordinary meaning; specifically, "improved optical-to-electrical conversion efficiency."
Lumos's Proposed Construction: "responsivity exceeding 0.8 A/W at the specified operating wavelength, as described in the specification"
Basis for Dispute: OWS contends that "enhanced responsivity" is a qualitative, relative term that should be given its plain and ordinary meaning—i.e., "improved optical-to-electrical conversion efficiency"—without importing a specific numerical threshold from the specification. OWS argues that the term "enhanced" simply means "improved" or "better than" some baseline, and that the specification's reference to a responsivity of 0.8 A/W is merely one example of the improved performance achieved by the claimed photodetector structure. OWS further notes that the preamble language in which "enhanced responsivity" appears may not be limiting, although OWS does not concede that the preamble is non-limiting for purposes of this claim construction proceeding.
Lumos contends that the specification of the '234 Patent defines "enhanced responsivity" with reference to a specific numerical threshold. Lumos argues that the specification repeatedly describes "enhanced responsivity" as meaning responsivity exceeding 0.8 A/W at the specified operating wavelength (e.g., 1310 nm or 1550 nm), and that the specification contrasts this enhanced level of performance with the responsivity of prior art detectors that did not employ the claimed graded buffer layer. Lumos further contends that importing the 0.8 A/W threshold is necessary to give the term a definite meaning and to avoid rendering it impermissibly vague. In the alternative, Lumos argues that if the term is found to be indefinite or non-limiting, the claim should be construed without reference to any particular responsivity level, which would render the term merely precatory.
Disputed Term 6: "germanium-on-silicon photodetector".  Claim(s) in which the term appears: Claim 1 (independent claim).
Context in Claim 1: Claim 1 of the '234 Patent recites: "A germanium-on-silicon photodetector for enhanced responsivity at optical communication wavelengths, comprising . . ."
OWS's Proposed Construction: Plain and ordinary meaning; specifically, "a photodetector having a germanium absorber layer formed on a silicon substrate or silicon layer."
Lumos's Proposed Construction: "a photodetector in which a germanium absorber is epitaxially grown directly on a silicon substrate using a single epitaxial growth process sequence"
Basis for Dispute: OWS contends that "germanium-on-silicon photodetector" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art—i.e., a photodetector in which a germanium absorber layer is disposed on (formed on top of) a silicon substrate or silicon layer. OWS argues that the claim language describes the structural arrangement of the device (germanium on silicon) without specifying or limiting the particular fabrication process used to form the germanium absorber on the silicon substrate. OWS contends that the term encompasses photodetectors in which the germanium absorber is formed by any technique, including but not limited to epitaxial growth, wafer bonding, or other integration approaches.
Lumos contends that "germanium-on-silicon" has a specific meaning in the semiconductor art that implies epitaxial growth of germanium directly on silicon, and that the specification of the '234 Patent confirms this understanding. Lumos argues that the entire '234 Patent is directed to the challenges and solutions associated with epitaxial growth of germanium on silicon—specifically, the lattice mismatch between germanium and silicon and the use of a graded buffer layer to manage threading dislocations that arise during epitaxial growth. Lumos contends that wafer-bonded germanium-on-silicon structures do not present the same lattice mismatch challenges and would not require the claimed graded buffer layer, and that interpreting the term to encompass non-epitaxial approaches would be inconsistent with the specification. Lumos further argues that the phrase "single epitaxial growth process sequence" is necessary to distinguish the claimed structure from multi-step, multi-wafer integration approaches.
C. U.S. Patent No. 11,045,678 ("the '678 Patent")
The '678 Patent, entitled "Multi-Channel Optical Transceiver with Integrated Wavelength-Division Multiplexing on Silicon," is directed to a multi-channel optical transceiver architecture in which a wavelength-division multiplexing (WDM) element is monolithically integrated on a single silicon die, enabling compact, low-cost, high-bandwidth optical transceivers for data center and telecommunications applications. Three claim terms from the '678 Patent are in dispute.
Disputed Term 7: "integrated wavelength-division multiplexing element monolithically formed on a single silicon die".  Claim(s) in which the term appears: Claim 1 (independent claim); the term is also relevant to dependent Claims 2, 6, 9, and 14, each of which depends directly or indirectly from Claim 1.
Context in Claim 1: Claim 1 of the '678 Patent recites, in relevant part: "a multi-channel optical transceiver comprising . . . an integrated wavelength-division multiplexing element monolithically formed on a single silicon die . . ."
OWS's Proposed Construction: "a WDM component fabricated as part of the same semiconductor fabrication process on a single die"
Lumos's Proposed Construction: "a WDM component formed during front-end-of-line processing within the same silicon substrate, excluding hybrid integration, flip-chip bonding, or any heterogeneous integration technique"
Basis for Dispute: OWS contends that "monolithically formed on a single silicon die" means that the WDM element is fabricated as part of the same semiconductor fabrication process as the other components on the die—i.e., the WDM element is formed on the same die using compatible fabrication steps. OWS argues that this construction is consistent with the broad, well-understood meaning of "monolithic" in the semiconductor industry, which generally refers to the integration of multiple functional elements on a single chip or die. OWS does not contend that "monolithically formed" requires any particular processing step (e.g., front-end-of-line versus back-end-of-line) and argues that the claim should not be limited to exclude back-end-of-line integration techniques.
Lumos contends that the prosecution history of the '678 Patent requires a narrow construction of this term. During prosecution, the applicants added the limitation "monolithically formed" by amendment to overcome prior art references that disclosed hybrid integration approaches in which separate WDM elements were bonded or flip-chip attached to a silicon die. In the applicants' remarks accompanying the amendment, the applicants stated that "the present invention is distinguished from heterogeneous integration approaches" and argued that the monolithic integration claimed in the '678 Patent was fundamentally different from the hybrid and heterogeneous integration disclosed in the prior art. Lumos contends that prosecution history estoppel precludes OWS from now construing "monolithically formed" broadly enough to encompass any form of integration, including hybrid integration, flip-chip bonding, or heterogeneous integration. Lumos further argues that "monolithically formed" specifically requires that the WDM component be formed during front-end-of-line processing within the same silicon substrate, consistent with the meaning of "monolithic" in the context of silicon photonics fabrication.
Disputed Term 8: "multi-channel optical transceiver".  Claim(s) in which the term appears: Claim 1 (independent claim).
Context in Claim 1: Claim 1 of the '678 Patent recites: "A multi-channel optical transceiver comprising . . ."
OWS's Proposed Construction: Plain and ordinary meaning; specifically, "an optical transceiver capable of transmitting and receiving on more than one optical channel."
Lumos's Proposed Construction: "an optical transceiver with at least four independent wavelength channels for simultaneous bidirectional communication"
Basis for Dispute: OWS contends that "multi-channel optical transceiver" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which requires only that the transceiver operate on more than one optical channel. OWS argues that "multi" means "more than one" and that the claim does not specify a minimum number of channels beyond two. OWS notes that the claim language is open-ended and does not recite a specific number of channels.
Lumos contends that the specification of the '678 Patent consistently describes the "multi-channel" transceiver as having at least four wavelength channels and that every embodiment in the specification utilizes four or more channels. Lumos argues that the specification describes the advantages of the claimed architecture specifically in the context of four-channel and eight-channel WDM configurations, and that a two-channel device was neither described nor contemplated by the patentees. Lumos further argues that the specification's discussion of "simultaneous bidirectional communication" supports the requirement that the transceiver operate in both transmit and receive directions simultaneously, using independent wavelength channels in each direction.
Disputed Term 9: "single silicon die".  Claim(s) in which the term appears: Claim 1 (independent claim).
Context in Claim 1: Claim 1 of the '678 Patent recites, in relevant part: "an integrated wavelength-division multiplexing element monolithically formed on a single silicon die . . ."
OWS's Proposed Construction: "a single piece of semiconductor substrate, including silicon-on-insulator (SOI) substrates"
Lumos's Proposed Construction: "a single, unitary piece of silicon semiconductor material that has not been bonded, stacked, or combined with any separately fabricated die or substrate"
Basis for Dispute: OWS contends that "single silicon die" should be construed to encompass any single piece of semiconductor substrate made of or based on silicon, including silicon-on-insulator (SOI) substrates. OWS argues that SOI substrates are the industry-standard substrate for silicon photonics and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand an SOI substrate to be a "silicon die," notwithstanding the fact that SOI substrates are fabricated by bonding a thin silicon device layer to a silicon handle wafer with an intervening buried oxide layer. OWS contends that the SOI bonding process is a standard wafer-level manufacturing step that produces a unitary substrate and should not be confused with die-level bonding or multi-chip module assembly.
Lumos contends that "single silicon die" requires a single, unitary piece of silicon semiconductor material that has not been bonded, stacked, or combined with any separately fabricated die or substrate. Lumos argues that the prosecution history, in which the applicants distinguished the claimed monolithic integration from hybrid and heterogeneous approaches involving bonding, supports this narrow construction. Lumos acknowledges that the specification of the '678 Patent describes embodiments using SOI substrates but contends that the claim language "single silicon die" should be construed to exclude multi-die assemblies, stacked dies, and other combinations of separately fabricated dies. Lumos reserves its position as to whether SOI substrates are encompassed within its proposed construction, noting that the SOI substrate question may be addressed separately if necessary.
D. U.S. Patent No. 11,312,890 ("the '890 Patent")
The '890 Patent, entitled "Driver Circuit Architecture for High-Speed Silicon Photonic Mach-Zehnder Modulators," is directed to a driver circuit architecture in which a pre-emphasis equalization stage is co-integrated with a Mach-Zehnder modulator on a common substrate, enabling high-speed modulation with reduced power consumption and improved signal integrity. Two claim terms from the '890 Patent are in dispute.
Disputed Term 10: "pre-emphasis equalization stage electrically co-integrated with the modulator on a common substrate".  Claim(s) in which the term appears: Claim 1 (independent claim); the term is also relevant to dependent Claims 5, 8, and 13, each of which depends directly or indirectly from Claim 1.
Context in Claim 1: Claim 1 of the '890 Patent recites, in relevant part: "a driver circuit for a silicon photonic Mach-Zehnder modulator, the driver circuit comprising a pre-emphasis equalization stage electrically co-integrated with the modulator on a common substrate . . ."
OWS's Proposed Construction: "an equalization circuit located on the same substrate as the modulator"
Lumos's Proposed Construction: "an equalization circuit fabricated in the same semiconductor process as the modulator, sharing the same doping profiles and process layers, and electrically connected without bond wires, interposers, or package-level routing"
Basis for Dispute: OWS contends that "co-integrated" means that the equalization circuit and the modulator are integrated together—i.e., co-located—on the same substrate. OWS argues that the term "co-integrated" is a straightforward compound of "co-" (meaning "together") and "integrated," and that it simply requires the equalization stage and the modulator to be on the same substrate. OWS argues that its construction does not preclude any particular fabrication approach, connection method, or level of process sharing, as none of these limitations appear in the claim language.
Lumos contends that the prosecution history of the '890 Patent requires a narrow construction of "co-integrated." During prosecution, the "co-integrated" limitation was added by amendment to distinguish prior art that disclosed separately fabricated driver circuits bonded to or wire-bonded to modulator dies. In the applicants' remarks, the applicants argued that the "co-integrated" design of the present invention was fundamentally different from the "discrete driver chip" approach of the prior art, emphasizing that the co-integrated approach eliminated the parasitic inductance and capacitance associated with bond wires and package-level interconnects. Lumos contends that prosecution history estoppel requires that "co-integrated" be construed to mean fabricated in the same semiconductor process, sharing the same doping profiles and process layers, and electrically connected without bond wires, interposers, or package-level routing—consistent with the applicants' statements distinguishing the claimed invention from separately fabricated and bonded driver circuits. Lumos further argues that the specification supports this narrow construction, as the specification describes "co-integration" as a process-level integration in which the driver circuit and modulator share the same silicon device layer, doping steps, and metallization layers.
Disputed Term 11: "common substrate".  Claim(s) in which the term appears: Claim 1 (independent claim).
Context in Claim 1: Claim 1 of the '890 Patent recites, in relevant part: "a pre-emphasis equalization stage electrically co-integrated with the modulator on a common substrate . . ."
OWS's Proposed Construction: "a single substrate on which both the equalization stage and the modulator are located"
Lumos's Proposed Construction: "a single semiconductor substrate in which both the equalization circuit and the modulator are fabricated during the same front-end-of-line process, excluding multi-chip modules, interposers, and package substrates"
Basis for Dispute: OWS contends that "common substrate" simply means a substrate that is shared by, or common to, both the equalization stage and the modulator. OWS argues that the plain meaning of "common" is "shared" or "mutual," and that the claim requires only that both elements be located on the same substrate. OWS argues that the claim does not specify the type of substrate, the fabrication process by which the elements are formed on the substrate, or any particular level of process integration.
Lumos contends that "common substrate" must be construed in the context of the full claim phrase "electrically co-integrated with the modulator on a common substrate" and in light of the prosecution history. Lumos argues that the term "common substrate" refers to a single semiconductor substrate—not a multi-chip module, interposer, or package substrate—and that both the equalization circuit and the modulator must be fabricated during the same front-end-of-line process on that substrate. Lumos contends that construing "common substrate" to encompass multi-chip modules, interposers, or package substrates would render the term "co-integrated" meaningless, because any two chips mounted on a common circuit board or interposer could be said to share a "common substrate." Lumos argues that the specification and prosecution history confirm that "common substrate" refers to a single semiconductor die on which both elements are fabricated together.
VI. PLAINTIFF'S IDENTIFICATION OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-3, Plaintiff OWS identifies the following extrinsic evidence that it intends to rely upon in support of its proposed claim constructions.
A. Expert Testimony
OWS intends to rely on the testimony of Dr. Harold Whitfield in support of its proposed claim constructions. Dr. Whitfield holds a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering with a specialization in photonics from the University of California, Berkeley (1989). Dr. Whitfield is Professor Emeritus of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where he served on the faculty for over twenty-five years. Dr. Whitfield has authored or co-authored over 200 publications in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings in the field of integrated photonics, including publications on waveguide coupling, photodetector design, monolithic integration of photonic and electronic circuits, and silicon photonics platform development. Dr. Whitfield is a Fellow of the IEEE and a Fellow of the Optical Society of America. He currently serves as a principal of Whitfield Technical Consulting Group, Inc., located at 530 Lytton Avenue, Suite 210, Palo Alto, California 94301.
Dr. Whitfield is expected to testify regarding the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art ("POSITA") as to each of the eleven disputed claim terms identified in this Joint Statement. Dr. Whitfield will opine on the plain and ordinary meaning of the disputed terms as they would have been understood by a POSITA at the time of the respective inventions, drawing on his extensive experience in the field of integrated photonics. Dr. Whitfield will also address the technical background necessary to understand the disputed terms, including the physics of adiabatic mode coupling, the fabrication and characterization of germanium-on-silicon photodetectors, the principles of monolithic integration in silicon photonics, and the design of integrated driver circuits for optical modulators.
In addition, Dr. Whitfield will serve as a technical tutorial witness to educate the Court on the fundamentals of silicon photonics technology as it relates to the patents-in-suit and the disputed claim terms. Dr. Whitfield's tutorial will cover the following topics: (1) the basics of silicon photonics, including waveguide structures, optical mode propagation, and material systems; (2) waveguide coupling physics, including the concept of adiabatic mode transitions and the distinction between adiabatic and non-adiabatic coupling; (3) photodetector architectures, including germanium-on-silicon photodetectors and the role of buffer layers in managing lattice mismatch; (4) monolithic integration of photonic components on a single silicon die, including WDM elements; and (5) modulator driver circuit design, including the concept of pre-emphasis equalization and co-integration of electronic and photonic elements.
A declaration of Dr. Whitfield will be submitted with OWS's Opening Claim Construction Brief.
B. Technical References and Treatises
OWS intends to rely upon the following technical dictionaries, textbooks, and reference works to support its proposed plain and ordinary meaning constructions of the disputed claim terms:
1.  L. Chrostowski & M. Hochberg, Silicon Photonics Design: From Devices to Systems (Cambridge University Press, 2015).
2.  G.T. Predding & A.P. Knights, Silicon Photonics: An Introduction (Crowne Albany Industries, 2004).
3.  T. Baehr-Jones et al., "Myths and Rumours of Silicon Photonics," Nature Photonics, Vol. 6, pp. 206–208 (2012).
4.  A. Yariv & P. Yeh, Photonics: Optical Electronics in Modern Communications (Oxford University Press, 6th ed. 2007) (particularly Chapter 13, discussing adiabatic mode coupling and mode transition in waveguide structures).
5.  IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms (7th ed., IEEE, 2000).
6.  R. Soref, "The Past, Present, and Future of Silicon Photonics," IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 1678–1687 (2006).
7.  J. Michel, J. Liu & L.C. Kimerling, "High-Performance Ge-on-Si Photodetectors," Nature Photonics, Vol. 4, pp. 527–534 (2010) (discussing germanium-on-silicon photodetector architectures, epitaxial growth techniques, and buffer layer designs).
8.  D. Thomson et al., "Roadmap on Silicon Photonics," Journal of Optics, Vol. 18, 073003 (2016).
9.  S. Rumley et al., "Silicon Photonics for Exascale Systems," Journal of Lightwave Technology, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 547–562 (2015).
10.  J.S. Orcutt et al., "Monolithic Silicon Photonics," in Optical Fiber Communication Conference (2012) (discussing the meaning and scope of "monolithic integration" in the context of silicon photonics).
11.  M. Asghari & A.V. Krishnamoorthy, "Silicon Photonics: Energy-Efficient Communication," Nature Photonics, Vol. 5, pp. 268–270 (2011).
OWS reserves the right to identify additional technical references and treatises in its Opening Claim Construction Brief.
C. Prosecution History
OWS intends to rely upon the complete file histories of all four patents-in-suit, including all office actions, applicant responses, amendments, examiner interview summaries, declarations, information disclosure statements, and any other documents forming part of the prosecution record:
1.  '567 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,234,567): The prosecution history of the '567 Patent includes two office action rejections. In the first office action, the Examiner rejected the claims as obvious over Tanaka et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,456,012) in view of secondary references. In response, the applicants amended Claim 1 to add the "adiabatically coupled" limitation and argued that the Tanaka reference did not disclose adiabatic coupling, as the Tanaka coupler utilized a segmented taper structure that did not achieve adiabatic mode transition. The applicants' remarks distinguished the claimed invention from the Tanaka reference on the basis that the claimed adiabatic coupling ensured mode transition without excitation of higher-order modes, whereas the Tanaka segmented taper structure was inherently non-adiabatic. The claims were subsequently allowed after a second office action.
2.  '234 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,891,234): The prosecution history of the '234 Patent reflects that the claims were allowed on the first office action following an examiner interview. The examiner interview summary indicates that the Examiner and applicants discussed the scope of the "continuously varying germanium concentration" limitation and the prior art landscape. The specification of the '234 Patent contains descriptions of both "continuously graded" and "step-graded" buffer layer embodiments; however, the claims as allowed recite only "continuously varying" germanium concentration. OWS contends that the prosecution history does not reflect any narrowing of the claim scope with respect to this term.
3.  '678 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,045,678): The prosecution history of the '678 Patent includes three office actions. In the third office action response, the applicants amended Claim 1 to add the "monolithically formed" limitation to overcome prior art based on hybrid integration approaches. In the applicants' remarks accompanying the amendment, the applicants stated: "The present invention is distinguished from heterogeneous integration approaches, which rely on separately fabricated components bonded or attached to the silicon die. In contrast, the claimed WDM element is monolithically formed on the single silicon die as part of the same fabrication process, eliminating the alignment tolerances and coupling losses inherent in hybrid integration." OWS contends that these remarks support a construction that requires fabrication on a single die but do not require the additional limitations proposed by Lumos (e.g., front-end-of-line processing only, exclusion of all heterogeneous techniques).
4.  '890 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,312,890): The prosecution history of the '890 Patent includes two office actions. In response to the second office action, the applicants amended Claim 1 to add the "co-integrated" limitation to distinguish prior art involving separately fabricated driver circuits that were wire-bonded or flip-chip bonded to modulator dies. The applicants argued that the claimed "co-integrated" design provided superior high-frequency performance by eliminating the parasitic inductance and impedance discontinuities associated with package-level interconnects.
D. Prior Art References
OWS intends to rely upon the following prior art references, cited for context regarding how the disputed claim terms were understood in the art at the time of the inventions:
1.  Tanaka et al., U.S. Patent No. 9,456,012, "Segmented Waveguide Coupler for Photonic Integration," issued September 6, 2016. This reference is relevant to understanding the scope of "adiabatically coupled" in the context of the '567 Patent prosecution, as it was the primary prior art reference over which the applicants amended the claims.
2.  Chen & Liu, "Segmented Taper Coupler Design for Low-Loss Fiber-to-Chip Coupling," Journal of Photonic Integration, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 217–229 (2016). This reference discusses segmented taper coupler designs and distinguishes them from adiabatic taper couplers, providing context for the technical distinction between these approaches.
3.  European Patent Application EP 3,234,567 A1, "Graded Germanium Buffer for Infrared Photodetection," published August 2, 2017 (applicant: Nordlicht Photonische GmbH). This reference is relevant to the understanding of "continuously varying" germanium concentration in the context of the '234 Patent.
4.  Iyer & Patel, "Co-Design of Modulator Drivers and Silicon Photonic Mach-Zehnder Structures," IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems, Vol. 65, No. 8, pp. 2701–2713 (2018). This reference discusses the concept of co-integration of driver circuits with silicon photonic modulators and is relevant to the understanding of "co-integrated" and "common substrate" in the context of the '890 Patent.
OWS reserves the right to identify additional prior art references in its Opening Claim Construction Brief.
VII. DEFENDANT'S IDENTIFICATION OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-3, Defendant Lumos identifies the following extrinsic evidence that it intends to rely upon in support of its proposed claim constructions.
A. Expert Testimony
Lumos intends to rely on the testimony of Dr. Raymond Ng in support of its proposed claim constructions. Dr. Ng holds a Ph.D. in Photonics from the University of Colorado Boulder (1995). Dr. Ng served as a Professor of Photonics at the University of Colorado Boulder from 1998 to 2018, where he led a research group focused on integrated photonic devices and systems. Dr. Ng has over 150 publications in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings in the field of integrated photonics, with particular expertise in waveguide coupler design, photodetector fabrication, and monolithic photonic-electronic integration. Dr. Ng currently serves as Of Counsel and Technical Consultant to Brannick Howell & Stein LLP.
Dr. Ng is expected to testify regarding the understanding of a POSITA as to each of the eleven disputed claim terms identified in this Joint Statement. Dr. Ng will provide opinions supporting Defendant Lumos's proposed narrower constructions of the disputed terms, drawing on his extensive experience in the silicon photonics field to explain the specific technical meanings of the disputed terms as they would have been understood by a POSITA at the time of the respective inventions.
Dr. Ng will also serve as a technical tutorial witness for Lumos to educate the Court on the technical distinctions that are central to the claim construction disputes in this case. Dr. Ng's tutorial will address the following topics: (1) the distinction between continuous (adiabatic) tapers and segmented (non-adiabatic) taper structures in waveguide couplers; (2) the distinction between step-graded and continuously graded buffer layers in germanium-on-silicon photodetectors; (3) the distinction between monolithic integration and heterogeneous or hybrid integration in silicon photonics; and (4) the distinction between co-integrated and separately fabricated driver circuits for optical modulators.
A declaration of Dr. Ng will be submitted with Lumos's Responsive Claim Construction Brief.
B. Technical References and Treatises
Lumos intends to rely upon the following technical dictionaries, treatises, and published references to support its proposed narrower constructions of the disputed claim terms:
1.  K. Okamoto, Fundamentals of Optical Waveguides (Academic Press, 2nd ed. 2006) (particularly Chapter 9, discussing adiabatic mode coupling and the conditions for adiabatic mode transition, including the requirement of gradual, continuous transitions that prevent higher-order mode excitation).
2.  R. Adar et al., "Adiabatic 3-dB Couplers, Filters, and Multiplexers Made with Silica Waveguides on Silicon," Journal of Lightwave Technology, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 46–50 (1992) (defining "adiabatic" coupling in the waveguide context as requiring gradual transitions that maintain single-mode operation).
3.  A. Novack et al., "Germanium Photodetector with 60 GHz Bandwidth Using Thin Film Transfer," Optics Express, Vol. 21, No. 23, pp. 28387–28393 (2013) (distinguishing epitaxially grown germanium-on-silicon from wafer-bonded germanium, supporting the distinction relevant to Disputed Term 6).
4.  D. Liang & J.E. Bowers, "Recent Progress in Lasers on Silicon," Nature Photonics, Vol. 4, pp. 511–517 (2010) (defining the terms "monolithic" and "heterogeneous" integration in the context of photonics on silicon, supporting a narrow construction of "monolithically formed").
5.  M. Streshinsky et al., "Monolithically Integrated High-Speed CMOS Photonic Transceivers," in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Group IV Photonics (2008) (discussing monolithic integration as fabrication within a single process flow on a single substrate, as distinguished from heterogeneous integration techniques).
6.  P. Dong et al., "Silicon Photonic Devices and Integrated Circuits," Nanophotonics, Vol. 3, No. 4–5, pp. 215–228 (2014).
7.  T.H. Lee, The Design of CMOS Radio-Frequency Integrated Circuits (Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed. 2004) (discussing the meaning of "co-integrated" in the context of circuit design as referring to fabrication in the same process flow with shared process layers).
8.  Sterling Reach Industries Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (6th ed., Sterling Reach Industries, 2003) (defining relevant terms including "adiabatic," "monolithic," and "substrate").
Lumos reserves the right to identify additional technical references and treatises in its Responsive Claim Construction Brief.
C. Prosecution History
Lumos intends to rely upon the same complete file histories of all four patents-in-suit as identified by Plaintiff in Section VI.C above. In addition to the general prosecution histories, Lumos will place particular reliance on the following aspects of the prosecution record:
1.  '567 Patent: Lumos will rely on prosecution history estoppel arising from the narrowing amendment in which the applicants added the "adiabatically coupled" limitation to Claim 1 to overcome the Tanaka et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,456,012) prior art reference. Lumos contends that by adding this limitation and distinguishing Tanaka's segmented taper coupler as non-adiabatic, the applicants disclaimed from the scope of the claims any coupling mechanism that does not achieve adiabatic mode transition through a gradual, continuous taper. Lumos will further rely on the applicants' remarks stating that the claimed adiabatic coupling "prevents excitation of higher-order modes," which Lumos contends should be incorporated into the construction.
2.  '678 Patent: Lumos will rely on prosecution history estoppel arising from the narrowing amendment in which the applicants added the "monolithically formed" limitation to Claim 1 to overcome prior art references disclosing hybrid integration of WDM elements. Lumos contends that the applicants' explicit statement that "the present invention is distinguished from heterogeneous integration approaches" constitutes a clear disavowal of claim scope and precludes OWS from now construing "monolithically formed" in a manner that would encompass hybrid, flip-chip, or heterogeneous integration techniques.
3.  '890 Patent: Lumos will rely on the prosecution history in which the applicants added the "co-integrated" limitation to Claim 1 to distinguish prior art involving separately fabricated driver circuits. Lumos contends that the applicants' remarks emphasizing the elimination of "parasitic inductance and impedance discontinuities associated with package-level interconnects" support a construction requiring that the equalization circuit be fabricated in the same process and electrically connected without bond wires, interposers, or package-level routing.
D. Prior Art References
Lumos intends to rely upon the same prior art references identified by Plaintiff in Section VI.D above, as well as additional references Lumos may identify in its Responsive Claim Construction Brief. Lumos places particular reliance on the following:
1.  Tanaka et al., U.S. Patent No. 9,456,012 (issued September 6, 2016). Lumos will rely on this reference to demonstrate the scope of subject matter disclaimed during prosecution of the '567 Patent. The Tanaka reference discloses a segmented waveguide taper coupler, and the applicants distinguished the '567 Patent claims from Tanaka by adding the "adiabatically coupled" limitation and arguing that the Tanaka coupler was non-adiabatic. Lumos contends that this prosecution history demonstrates that the scope of "adiabatically coupled" excludes segmented taper structures.
2.  European Patent Application EP 3,234,567 A1 (published August 2, 2017; applicant: Nordlicht Photonische GmbH). Lumos will rely on this reference to support its understanding of "continuously varying" in the context of germanium buffer layers, as the Nordlicht reference distinguishes between "continuously varying" (smooth gradient) and "step-graded" (discrete steps) germanium concentration profiles.
Lumos reserves the right to identify additional prior art references in its Responsive Claim Construction Brief.
E. Inventor Testimony
Lumos intends to rely upon the deposition testimony of the following named inventors, whose depositions were taken during the claim construction discovery period in October 2022:
1.  Dr. Kevin Fong — Dr. Fong is the Chief Technology Officer and co-founder of OWS and is a named inventor on the '567, '234, and '890 Patents. Dr. Fong's deposition was taken on October 11, 2022, in San Jose, California. Lumos intends to rely on Dr. Fong's testimony regarding the meaning and scope of the disputed claim terms, the circumstances of the inventions, and the prosecution of the patents-in-suit.
2.  Hideo Tanaka — Mr. Tanaka is a former OWS engineer and is a named inventor on the '567 Patent. Mr. Tanaka is also the inventor of the cited prior art reference, U.S. Patent No. 9,456,012. Mr. Tanaka's deposition was taken on October 18, 2022, in San Jose, California. Lumos intends to rely on Mr. Tanaka's testimony regarding the technical distinctions between the '567 Patent claims and his own prior art, and regarding the understanding of "adiabatically coupled" in the silicon photonics art.
3.  Dr. Amara Osei — Dr. Osei is a Principal Engineer at OWS and is a named inventor on the '234 and '678 Patents. Dr. Osei's deposition was taken on October 20, 2022, in San Jose, California. Lumos intends to rely on Dr. Osei's testimony regarding the meaning and scope of the disputed claim terms, including "continuously varying germanium concentration," "monolithically formed," and "single silicon die."
Plaintiff OWS may also rely on the same deposition testimony, and the Parties agree that the deposition transcripts may be cited by either side in their claim construction briefs.
VIII. THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
The Parties have not reached agreement on the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art ("POSITA") at the time of the inventions claimed in the patents-in-suit. The Parties' respective proposed definitions are set forth below.
A. OWS's Proposed Definition of a POSITA
Plaintiff OWS contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventions claimed in the patents-in-suit would have had:
(1) A master's degree or Ph.D. in electrical engineering, applied physics, or a closely related field, with a focus on photonics, optoelectronics, or integrated circuit design; and
(2) At least two (2) years of experience in the design, fabrication, or characterization of silicon photonics integrated circuits, or equivalent academic research experience in the field.
OWS contends that this definition reflects the level of skill of the typical engineer or researcher working in the silicon photonics field at the time of the inventions and is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the patents-in-suit and the prior art of record.
B. Lumos's Proposed Definition of a POSITA
Defendant Lumos contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventions claimed in the patents-in-suit would have had:
(1) A Ph.D. in electrical engineering, applied physics, or materials science, with a specialization in integrated photonics or optoelectronics; and
(2) At least three (3) years of industry or academic experience in the design and fabrication of silicon photonics devices, including specific experience with one or more of the following: waveguide couplers, photodetectors, and/or optical modulators.
Lumos contends that this definition more accurately reflects the level o