ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT — PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL

ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT — PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
DEPOSITION OUTLINE — RAYMOND BAUTISTA
General Counsel, Lumicore Technologies, Inc.
OPTIWAVE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP., Plaintiff,
v.
LUMICORE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant.
Case No. 2:24-cv-00319-JRG United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Prepared by: Wendy Schultz, Lead Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP Reviewed by: Alan Ngo, Responsible Partner, Calderwood & Harkness LLP Date: November 25, 2024
This document constitutes attorney work product prepared in anticipation of litigation and is protected by the work-product doctrine and the attorney-client privilege. It is intended solely for the use of attorneys and representatives of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. in connection with the above-captioned matter and shall not be disclosed to any third party without the prior written authorization of Calderwood & Harkness LLP.
Right-click to update Table of Contents
I. DEPOSITION OBJECTIVES
A. Primary Objectives
The following primary objectives should guide the examination of Raymond Bautista. Each line of questioning is designed to develop the factual record necessary to support Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.'s ("OWS") case-in-chief on willful infringement, and to advance OWS's pending Motion to Compel Production of Opinion-of-Counsel Letters (D.E. 38).
1.  Establish Bautista's personal receipt of and response to the January 15, 2023 FairPoint licensing/notice letter. The first licensing communication from FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC on behalf of OWS was addressed directly to Raymond Bautista in his capacity as General Counsel. That letter identified three patents: the '847 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847, "Multi-Wavelength Silicon Photonic Transmitter Array"), the '193 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193, "Low-Loss Waveguide Coupling Architecture for Coherent Optical Transceivers"), and the '562 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562, "High-Speed Modulator Driver with Integrated Thermal Compensation"). The letter specifically identified the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ as an accused product. It is critical to establish that Bautista personally received this letter, understood its contents, and appreciated that Lumicore was being put on notice of potential patent infringement. This forms the cornerstone of the willful infringement theory.
2.  Establish Bautista's receipt of FairPoint's May 15, 2023 supplemental letter. The second FairPoint letter expanded the scope of the patent assertions by adding the '015 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015, "Polarization-Diverse Grating Coupler for Silicon Photonic Transceivers") and by expanding the list of accused products to include the LumiLink 800G-DR8, which had been launched by Lumicore in Q1 2023 — after receipt of the first FairPoint letter. Establishing Bautista's receipt of and response to this letter is essential for showing that Lumicore had actual, particularized notice covering an expanding range of patents and products.
3.  Pin down the timeline of Lumicore's internal response to each FairPoint letter. It is essential to develop a detailed chronology of who at Lumicore was informed of the FairPoint letters, what internal discussions took place, what actions were taken in response, and when each action occurred. This timeline will be critical in demonstrating the degree of Lumicore's deliberation (or lack thereof) in the face of notice. We need to identify each person within Lumicore who was made aware of OWS's patent assertions, the dates they were informed, and whether any action was taken as a result.
4.  Explore the circumstances surrounding Lumicore's commissioning of opinion-of-counsel letters. Lumicore's July 10, 2023 declination letter expressly states that Lumicore "has obtained competent legal opinions that its products do not infringe." The existence of these opinion letters, the circumstances under which they were commissioned, and the identity of the opinion-rendering counsel are all factual matters that bear directly on the willful infringement analysis and the pending Motion to Compel. We need to understand when the opinions were requested, when they were delivered, who rendered them, and who at Lumicore reviewed and relied upon them.
5.  Identify the scope of Bautista's communications with Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP concerning infringement risk, to probe potential privilege waiver. By affirmatively referencing "competent legal opinions" in the July 10, 2023 declination letter, Lumicore has placed — or arguably placed — the advice it received at issue. We need to develop the factual record around those communications to support the argument that Lumicore has waived privilege over the opinion letters. The focus should be on the fact of communications (who, when, what subject matter), rather than the substance of any legal advice, while preserving objections for the Court.
6.  Establish facts supporting willful infringement. The willful infringement theory rests on a mosaic of evidence: (a) actual notice via the January 15, 2023 and May 15, 2023 FairPoint letters; (b) an in-person licensing meeting on April 20, 2023 at which claim charts were presented; (c) continued sales of accused products after notice; (d) the launch of an entirely new accused product — the LumiEdge 1600G-LR — in Q4 2023, after both FairPoint letters and the in-person meeting; and (e) the apparent failure to undertake any design-around analysis before launching the LumiEdge 1600G-LR or at any point thereafter. Bautista is the individual at Lumicore best positioned to confirm or deny each of these facts.
7.  Lay groundwork for the pending Motion to Compel Production of Opinion-of-Counsel Letters (D.E. 38). The Bautista deposition is a critical opportunity to develop the record that will be before the Court when it rules on the Motion to Compel. Every question relating to the opinion letters — and every privilege objection and instruction not to answer — should be carefully documented and preserved for citation in supplemental briefing or at oral argument.
B. Secondary Objectives
The following secondary objectives supplement the primary objectives and should be pursued as time permits, consistent with the seven-hour limitation.
1.  Explore Bautista's involvement in or knowledge of the April 20, 2023 in-person licensing meeting in Austin, TX. This meeting was attended by Angela Reeves (FairPoint), Rebecca Tanaka (OWS), Raymond Bautista (Lumicore), and Kate Rourke (HVC). Reeves has testified that Lumicore's representatives showed "no interest in negotiating" at the meeting, and we need to develop Bautista's version of events to test that characterization and to establish that Lumicore was presented with detailed infringement analysis and chose to disregard it.
2.  Identify what internal analysis, if any, Lumicore performed before launching the LumiEdge 1600G-LR in Q4 2023. Specifically, we need to determine whether any freedom-to-operate study, design-around analysis, or infringement evaluation was conducted with respect to the new product and OWS's patents. The absence of any such analysis would be powerful evidence of willful indifference to OWS's patent rights.
3.  Ascertain Bautista's awareness of OWS's broader patent portfolio. OWS holds 142 issued U.S. patents and has 58 pending applications. Bautista's awareness (or lack of awareness) of the scope of this portfolio bears on the reasonableness of Lumicore's response to the specific patent assertions at issue.
4.  Determine Bautista's role in Lumicore's February 28, 2023 written response to FairPoint. This response disputed infringement and questioned the validity of the asserted patents. Understanding who at Lumicore provided the factual basis for those positions, and what analysis (if any) supported the response, is relevant to the adequacy of Lumicore's pre-suit investigation.
5.  Identify all persons at Lumicore who reviewed OWS's patents or published applications, and the circumstances of such review. This is relevant both to the willfulness analysis and to the question of whether Lumicore's engineers were aware of OWS's patent claims during the product design phase.
6.  Understand Bautista's role in Lumicore's decision to retain Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP and the scope of the retention. We need to clarify whether HVC was retained solely for litigation defense, or also for pre-suit counseling and opinion work, as this distinction bears on the privilege analysis.
7.  Explore Bautista's knowledge of Melissa Chen's work on the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ design team. Chen was a member of the design team and may have consulted OWS published patent applications during the design phase. Her awareness is potentially imputable to Lumicore, and Bautista's knowledge of her activities is a key link in that chain.
C. Limitations and Areas of Caution
The following cautions should be borne in mind throughout the examination:
•  Aggressive privilege objections are expected. Bautista will be defended by Kate Rourke of Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP, who is both litigation counsel in this matter and was personally present at the April 20, 2023 licensing meeting. Rourke can be expected to interpose vigorous privilege objections on any question that touches the substance of attorney-client communications or work product. The examining attorney should be prepared for repeated instructions not to answer and should handle each one in accordance with the strategy set forth in Section XIII below.
•  Lumicore's stated position on the opinion letters. Per the meet-and-confer correspondence of October 14, 2024 (Schultz to Briggs), Lumicore has taken the position that the opinion-of-counsel letters referenced in the July 10, 2023 declination letter are fully protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, and that the reference to "competent legal opinions" in the declination letter does not constitute a waiver of privilege. We disagree, and the pending Motion to Compel (D.E. 38) addresses this issue. The deposition should develop the record in support of our position, but the examining attorney should not expend undue time arguing privilege at the deposition — that argument is best made to the Court.
•  Push to the boundary of permissible questioning on the fact of seeking opinions. It is well-established that the fact of seeking legal advice — who was consulted, when, and the general subject matter — is not itself privileged. The examining attorney should probe these factual matters aggressively, while being careful not to require disclosure of the substance of the legal advice. Where Rourke objects even to these fact questions, the objection should be noted as overbroad and preserved for the Court.
•  Avoid seeking Bautista's own legal conclusions. The focus of the examination should be on facts, actions taken, and documents received and sent — not on Bautista's legal opinions about infringement or validity. Questions framed in terms of legal conclusions are objectionable and waste time. Every question should be framed in terms of what Bautista did, what he knew, what he communicated, and what he directed others to do.
•  Efficiency is essential. The Bautista deposition has been designated as "limited" in the scheduling order due to Bautista's in-house counsel status. The seven-hour time limit must be respected. The examining attorney should be structured and disciplined, moving through the topic areas in the order presented in this outline and avoiding unnecessary tangents or argumentative exchanges with defending counsel.
II. BACKGROUND AND PREDICATE QUESTIONS
A. Personal Background
The following questions establish Bautista's identity, qualifications, and ability to understand and assess patent documents. These are foundational and should be covered efficiently but thoroughly.
1.  Please state your full name for the record.
2.  What is your current title at Lumicore Technologies, Inc.?
3.  Where did you attend law school, and when did you graduate?
4.  Where did you attend college or university for your undergraduate degree, what was your major, and when did you graduate?
5.  Do you hold any advanced technical degrees — for example, a degree in electrical engineering, physics, optics, or a related field?
6.  In what states are you admitted to practice law? Please list each state and the approximate year of your admission.
7.  Are you registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office? If so, when were you admitted to the patent bar?
8.  When did you join Lumicore Technologies, Inc.? What was your initial title when you joined?
9.  Prior to joining Lumicore, please describe your employment history. For each position, please identify the employer, your title, the approximate dates of your employment, and a general description of your responsibilities.
10.  In any of your prior positions — whether in-house or at a law firm — did you have experience with patent litigation or patent licensing? If so, please describe the nature and extent of that experience. Approximately how many patent matters have you been involved in over your career?
11.  Turning to your current role at Lumicore: please describe your responsibilities as General Counsel. What areas of law do you oversee?
12.  How many attorneys are in Lumicore's legal department? How many report directly to you?
13.  Does Lumicore's legal department include any attorneys who specialize in intellectual property matters? If so, please identify them by name and describe their responsibilities.
14.  Do you personally oversee intellectual property matters for Lumicore, or do you delegate those matters to others within the legal department?
15.  To whom do you report within Lumicore's organizational structure?
16.  Do you report directly to CEO Tom Kessler?
17.  In connection with intellectual property matters, do you regularly interact with CTO Dr. Sandra Michaud, VP of Product Development Dr. Eric Dalmqvist, or CFO Janet Moreno? Please describe the nature and frequency of those interactions.
B. Lumicore Corporate Background
The following questions establish foundational corporate facts that will be referenced throughout the deposition. The answers are expected to be largely uncontested, and this section should move quickly.
1.  Lumicore Technologies, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware — is that correct?
2.  And Lumicore's corporate headquarters is located at 9200 Spectrum Boulevard, Building C, Austin, Texas 78759 — is that correct?
3.  Does Lumicore also maintain a facility at 2700 Earl Campbell Parkway, Suite 150, Tyler, Texas 75701? What is the function of that facility? Is it a sales office and technical support center?
4.  Lumicore conducted its initial public offering on the Nasdaq exchange in March 2022 at an offering price of twenty-four dollars per share — is that correct?
5.  Silverstone Capital Markets LLC served as the lead underwriter for that IPO — is that correct?
6.  For fiscal year 2023, Lumicore reported total revenue of approximately $312.6 million — is that consistent with your understanding?
7.  I'd like to discuss Lumicore's product lines at issue in this litigation. Lumicore manufactures and sells the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ silicon-photonic transceiver — is that correct? When was that product first commercially launched?
8.  Lumicore also manufactures and sells the LumiLink 800G-DR8 silicon-photonic transceiver — correct? And when was that product first commercially launched?
9.  And Lumicore manufactures and sells the LumiEdge 1600G-LR silicon-photonic transceiver — correct? When was that product first commercially launched?
10.  For the record, I'd like to confirm that these three products — the LumiLink 400G-ZR+, the LumiLink 800G-DR8, and the LumiEdge 1600G-LR — are the products accused of infringement in this lawsuit. Is that consistent with your understanding?
11.  Brennan Kellogg & Associates LLP serves as Lumicore's independent auditor — is that correct?
C. Bautista's IP Responsibilities
The following questions are designed to establish Bautista's specific role in intellectual property matters at Lumicore, which is critical context for the questions that follow about how Lumicore handled the FairPoint notice letters.
1.  Mr. Bautista, what role do you personally play in freedom-to-operate analyses for new Lumicore products? Are you consulted before a new product is launched to assess whether the product may implicate third-party patent rights?
2.  Does Lumicore have a formal process for conducting freedom-to-operate analyses before launching new products? If so, please describe that process. Who is responsible for initiating it, and who is responsible for carrying it out?
3.  Does Lumicore have a process for monitoring competitor patents and published patent applications? For example, does Lumicore maintain any kind of patent watch service or periodic review of newly issued patents in its technology areas?
4.  If such a monitoring process exists, is your office involved in it? Who within Lumicore is responsible for that monitoring?
5.  Does your office maintain a database, log, or tracking system for recording third-party intellectual property notices received by Lumicore — such as licensing letters, cease-and-desist letters, or infringement allegations?
6.  Prior to receiving the FairPoint Licensing Group letter in January 2023, had you or anyone in your legal department ever reviewed any patent or published patent application owned by or assigned to Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.? If yes, please identify which patents or applications were reviewed, when the review took place, and in what context.
7.  Prior to January 2023, were you aware of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. as a company? Were you aware that OWS was a competitor of Lumicore in the silicon-photonics transceiver market?
III. FAIRPOINT FIRST LICENSING LETTER (JANUARY 15, 2023)
A. Receipt and Initial Handling
This section addresses the first formal notice of patent infringement that Lumicore received. The goal is to establish a complete chronological account of how the letter was received, who reviewed it, and what actions were taken in response.
1.  I am going to mark for identification as Exhibit 1 a letter dated January 15, 2023, from Angela Reeves, Managing Director, FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC, addressed to Raymond Bautista, General Counsel, Lumicore Technologies, Inc. Please take a moment to review this document.
2.  Mr. Bautista, have you seen this letter before?
3.  Do you recall receiving this letter? On or about what date did you receive it?
4.  This letter was sent by Angela Reeves, Managing Director of FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC, on behalf of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. — is that your understanding?
5.  Directing your attention to page one of the letter, the letter identifies three patents: U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847, referred to as the '847 Patent; U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193, referred to as the '193 Patent; and U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562, referred to as the '562 Patent. Do you see those patent numbers identified in the letter?
6.  The letter identifies the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ as a product that FairPoint and OWS believe infringes one or more of these patents — is that correct?
7.  What did you do upon receiving this letter? Please describe your actions step by step.
8.  Did you share the letter with anyone within Lumicore? If so, with whom, and when?
9.  Did you forward the letter to outside counsel? If so, to which firm and to which attorney? When did you forward it?
10.  Between the date you received the letter and the date you forwarded it to outside counsel, approximately how many days elapsed?
11.  Did you personally review the patents identified in the letter — that is, did you obtain and read the patent documents themselves? If so, when did you do so, and how thoroughly did you review them?
12.  Did you share the letter with Tom Kessler, Lumicore's CEO? If so, when?
13.  Did you share the letter with Dr. Sandra Michaud, Lumicore's CTO? If so, when?
14.  Did you share the letter with Dr. Eric Dalmqvist, Lumicore's VP of Product Development? If so, when?
15.  Did you share the letter with Janet Moreno, Lumicore's CFO? If so, when?
16.  Did you share the letter with any other individual at Lumicore? If so, please identify each person by name and title.
17.  Did you discuss the letter with any member of Lumicore's Board of Directors? If so, with whom, and when?
18.  Did you instruct any Lumicore employee to review the patents identified in the letter? If so, whom did you instruct, and what specifically did you ask them to do?
B. Outside Counsel Engagement
This section explores the engagement of Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP and any other firms in response to the January 2023 FairPoint letter. The facts surrounding the engagement — who was retained, when, and for what purpose — are not privileged and should be pursued.
1.  When did you first contact outside counsel regarding the FairPoint letter? Please be as specific as you can about the date.
2.  Which firm did you contact? Was it Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP?
3.  Who at Hawthorne Vega & Cruz did you contact? Was it Kate Rourke?
4.  Was Hawthorne Vega & Cruz already engaged by Lumicore on other matters at the time you received the FairPoint letter? If so, what was the general nature of those other matters? I'm not asking for the substance of any legal advice — just the general subject area.
5.  What was the scope of HVC's engagement in response to the January 2023 FairPoint letter? Was HVC engaged solely to assist in responding to the licensing inquiry? Or was HVC also engaged to prepare an opinion of counsel regarding non-infringement or invalidity of the asserted patents?
6.  Were any firms other than Hawthorne Vega & Cruz engaged in connection with the FairPoint letter? Were any firms engaged specifically to provide opinions of counsel?
7.  Who at Lumicore authorized the engagement of HVC for this matter? Was Board approval required for the engagement, and if so, was it obtained?
C. Internal Response and Analysis
This section explores what Lumicore did internally — apart from engaging outside counsel — in response to the first FairPoint letter. The focus is on whether any substantive technical evaluation of the infringement allegations was conducted.
1.  Did you or anyone at Lumicore commission an internal technical review of whether the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ product practices the claims of any of the patents identified in the FairPoint letter?
2.  If yes, who conducted the review? When was it conducted?
3.  I'm not asking you for the conclusions of any privileged analysis, but I am asking whether such a review was performed. Can you confirm whether it was?
4.  Were any Lumicore engineers specifically asked to compare the design of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ to the claims of the '847 Patent, the '193 Patent, or the '562 Patent?
5.  Was any design-around analysis initiated after receipt of the January 2023 FairPoint letter? That is, did anyone at Lumicore study whether the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ could be redesigned to avoid the claims of these patents?
6.  If no design-around analysis was initiated, was there a reason why not?
IV. LUMICORE'S FEBRUARY 28, 2023 RESPONSE
A. Drafting and Authorization
This section examines Lumicore's written response to the first FairPoint letter. The response was sent on behalf of Lumicore through outside counsel and disputes both infringement and validity. Understanding who at Lumicore participated in formulating that response, and on what factual basis, is critical.
1.  I am going to mark for identification as Exhibit 2 a letter dated February 28, 2023, from Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP to FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC, sent on behalf of Lumicore Technologies, Inc. Please take a moment to review this document.
2.  Mr. Bautista, have you seen this letter before?
3.  Were you involved in drafting this response? Please describe the nature of your involvement.
4.  Were you involved in reviewing the response before it was sent?
5.  Directing your attention to the letter, it states that the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ does not infringe the asserted patents and it questions the validity of those patents. Who at Lumicore provided the factual basis for these positions? Did you consult with Dr. Sandra Michaud? Dr. Eric Dalmqvist? Any member of Lumicore's engineering staff?
6.  Before authorizing this response, did you review any technical analysis or comparison of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ product to the claims of the asserted patents?
7.  Before authorizing this response, did you review any prior-art analysis relating to the validity of the asserted patents?
8.  Was this response reviewed and approved by you before it was sent?
9.  Was the response reviewed or approved by anyone else at Lumicore before it was sent — for example, CEO Tom Kessler?
10.  At this point in time — February 2023 — had Lumicore already obtained any opinion-of-counsel letters regarding non-infringement or invalidity of the asserted patents? Or had any such opinions been commissioned but not yet completed?
V. APRIL 20, 2023 IN-PERSON LICENSING MEETING
A. Meeting Background and Attendance
This section addresses the in-person licensing meeting that took place in Austin, Texas on April 20, 2023. The examining attorney should use this section to establish Bautista's firsthand knowledge of the meeting and what was discussed.
1.  Did you attend an in-person meeting on April 20, 2023 relating to the FairPoint/OWS patent licensing matter?
2.  Where did the meeting take place?
3.  Who attended the meeting? Please identify each attendee by name, title, and affiliation.
4.  I'd like to confirm the following attendees: Angela Reeves of FairPoint Licensing Group, Rebecca Tanaka as General Counsel of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp., yourself as General Counsel of Lumicore Technologies, and Kate Rourke of Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP. Is that correct?
5.  Were any other individuals from Lumicore present at the meeting, either in person or by telephone or videoconference?
6.  Were any other individuals from OWS or FairPoint present at the meeting, either in person or by telephone or videoconference?
7.  Who proposed the meeting? Was it Lumicore's idea, OWS or FairPoint's idea, or was it mutually agreed upon?
8.  Specifically, where did the meeting take place? Was it at HVC's offices? At another location?
B. Substance of the Meeting
This section addresses the substance of what was discussed at the April 20, 2023 meeting. The examining attorney should expect resistance from defending counsel on questions that touch the substance of legal advice communicated at the meeting, but should press for non-privileged factual information about what was presented and discussed.
1.  What topics were discussed at the meeting?
2.  Did Angela Reeves or Rebecca Tanaka present any materials at the meeting? For example, did they present claim charts, product analyses, or other technical documents?
3.  If claim charts were presented, did those claim charts compare claims of the asserted patents to specific features of Lumicore's accused products?
4.  Did you or Kate Rourke present any materials at the meeting on behalf of Lumicore?
5.  Did OWS or FairPoint propose specific licensing terms at the meeting — for example, a royalty rate, a lump-sum payment, or a running royalty structure?
6.  Did Lumicore express any willingness to negotiate a license at this meeting?
7.  Did Lumicore make any counter-proposal or suggest alternative terms?
8.  I'd like to direct your attention to the testimony of Angela Reeves, who stated at her deposition that Lumicore's representatives at the April 20, 2023 meeting showed "no interest in negotiating." Do you agree with that characterization? If not, please explain how you would characterize Lumicore's position at the meeting.
9.  What was the outcome of the meeting? Were any follow-up steps agreed upon? Was a further meeting scheduled?
10.  After the meeting, did you report back to Lumicore's management about what had occurred at the meeting? If so, to whom did you report? When?
11.  Did you provide a written summary or report of the meeting to anyone at Lumicore?
12.  After the meeting, did you report to Lumicore's Board of Directors about the meeting or the status of the OWS patent matter? If so, when and in what form?
VI. FAIRPOINT SECOND LICENSING LETTER (MAY 15, 2023)
A. Receipt and Response
This section addresses the second FairPoint letter, which expanded the scope of the patent assertions both in terms of the patents identified and the accused products.
1.  I am going to mark for identification as Exhibit 3 a letter dated May 15, 2023, from FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC, addressed to Lumicore Technologies, Inc. Please take a moment to review this document.
2.  Mr. Bautista, have you seen this letter before?
3.  Do you recall receiving this letter? On or about what date did you receive it?
4.  Directing your attention to the letter, it identifies an additional patent not included in the January 2023 letter — U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015, referred to as the '015 Patent, entitled "Polarization-Diverse Grating Coupler for Silicon Photonic Transceivers," issued August 2, 2022. Do you see that?
5.  The letter also expands the list of accused products to include the LumiLink 800G-DR8. Is that correct?
6.  What steps did you take upon receiving this letter? Did you follow the same process you followed upon receiving the January 2023 letter — that is, forwarding it to the same individuals internally and to outside counsel?
7.  Did you forward this letter to Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP? If so, when?
8.  Did you forward this letter to CEO Tom Kessler, CTO Dr. Sandra Michaud, VP of Product Development Dr. Eric Dalmqvist, CFO Janet Moreno, or any other individual at Lumicore?
9.  Did you request that HVC or any other firm provide a specific opinion on the '015 Patent and its applicability to the LumiLink 800G-DR8?
10.  Was any additional internal technical review conducted at Lumicore regarding the LumiLink 800G-DR8 and the '015 Patent after receipt of this letter?
11.  Was any design-around analysis initiated in response to this second letter?
VII. LUMICORE'S JULY 10, 2023 DECLINATION LETTER — "COMPETENT LEGAL OPINIONS"
A. The Declination Decision
This section addresses Lumicore's decision to decline to take a license, as communicated in the July 10, 2023 letter. The goal is to establish who was involved in the decision, what factors were considered, and how the decision was reached.
1.  I am going to mark for identification as Exhibit 4 a letter dated July 10, 2023, from Lumicore Technologies, Inc. to FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC, declining to take a license to the asserted OWS patents. Please take a moment to review this document.
2.  Mr. Bautista, have you seen this letter before?
3.  Were you involved in the decision to decline a license?
4.  Who made the final decision to decline — was it you alone, or was the decision made in consultation with CEO Tom Kessler, the Board of Directors, or others?
5.  What factors informed the decision to decline the license? I'm not asking you to reveal any legal advice you received. I'm asking about the business factors and other non-privileged considerations that went into the decision. For example, were cost-of-license estimates prepared? Were market-position analyses conducted? Were revenue projections for the accused products considered?
6.  Was the decision to decline the license discussed at a Board meeting? If so, when?
B. The "Competent Legal Opinions" Reference — Key Line of Questioning for Motion to Compel
This is the most critical section of the deposition. The July 10, 2023 declination letter contains the statement that Lumicore "has obtained competent legal opinions that its products do not infringe." This language is the foundation for OWS's argument that Lumicore has placed advice of counsel at issue and has waived privilege over the opinion letters. The examining attorney must develop a thorough factual record on every aspect of the opinion letters — who, when, what scope — while preserving objections at each privilege instruction.
1.  Directing your attention to the July 10, 2023 letter, Exhibit 4, I'd like to draw your attention to the following language. The letter states — and I'm reading from page two, second paragraph — that Lumicore "has obtained competent legal opinions that its products do not infringe the patents identified in your correspondence." Do you see that language?
2.  You were involved in drafting or reviewing this letter before it was sent — correct?
3.  When the letter refers to "competent legal opinions," it is referring to one or more written opinion-of-counsel letters — is that correct?
4.  How many opinion-of-counsel letters were obtained?
5.  Who authored the opinions? Please identify the attorney or attorneys and their firm or firms.
6.  When were the opinions first requested? Please provide the approximate date.
7.  When were the opinions delivered to Lumicore? Please provide the approximate date for each opinion.
8.  What was the scope of each opinion? Specifically: did the opinions address all four of the asserted patents — the '847 Patent, the '193 Patent, the '562 Patent, and the '015 Patent — or only some of them?
9.  Did the opinions address non-infringement, invalidity, or both?
10.  Were the opinions provided by Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP — specifically by Kate Rourke or other attorneys at HVC — or by a separate firm retained specifically for opinion work?
11.  Who at Lumicore received and reviewed the opinions? Did you review them personally?
12.  Did CEO Tom Kessler review the opinions? Did CTO Dr. Sandra Michaud review them? Did any member of the Board of Directors review them?
13.  Did anyone at Lumicore rely on these opinions in making business decisions? For example, did anyone rely on the opinions in deciding to continue selling the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ or the LumiLink 800G-DR8 after receiving the FairPoint letters?
14.  Did anyone at Lumicore rely on the opinions in deciding to proceed with the launch of the LumiEdge 1600G-LR in Q4 2023?
15.  I want to be very precise about this next question. Is Lumicore asserting — or does Lumicore intend to assert — an advice-of-counsel defense to Optiwave's claim of willful infringement in this litigation?
16.  To be clear, I am asking whether Lumicore will contend at trial that it relied on the advice of counsel in forming its belief that its products do not infringe — that is, whether Lumicore will invoke these opinion letters as a defense to willful infringement.
17.  I note that Lumicore's Answer and Counterclaims, filed on June 17, 2024, at Docket Entry 12, assert defenses of non-infringement and invalidity but do not explicitly plead an advice-of-counsel defense. Is it your understanding that Lumicore may nonetheless assert such a defense at trial?
18.  Has Lumicore produced the opinion-of-counsel letters referenced in the July 10, 2023 declination letter in discovery in this case?
19.  If the opinion letters have not been produced, on what basis does Lumicore refuse to produce them?
20.  Is it Lumicore's position that the opinion letters are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine? Is that the basis for the refusal to produce?
C. Preserving the Record for the Motion to Compel
At each point in Section VII.B where defending counsel Kate Rourke interposes a privilege objection and instructs the witness not to answer, the examining attorney should make a clear record as follows:
•  State the question clearly and completely for the record.
•  Note the objection and the instruction not to answer. Request that defending counsel state the specific basis for the objection (attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, or both).
•  State for the record that the question is being asked to develop the factual record in support of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.'s pending Motion to Compel Production of Opinion-of-Counsel Letters, filed at Docket Entry 38 in this action.
•  State that Optiwave does not concede the propriety of the instruction not to answer and reserves the right to seek a ruling from the Court compelling an answer.
•  Move on to the next question. Do not engage in extended argument with defending counsel at the deposition. The record will speak for itself.
VIII. POST-DECLINATION CONDUCT AND LUMIEDGE 1600G-LR LAUNCH (Q4 2023)
A. Continued Sales of Existing Accused Products
This section addresses what Lumicore did — or failed to do — after declining the license on July 10, 2023. The focus is on whether Lumicore took any steps at all to address OWS's infringement allegations with respect to the existing accused products.
1.  After Lumicore declined the license on July 10, 2023, did Lumicore take any steps to modify the design of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ to address OWS's infringement allegations?
2.  After the declination, did Lumicore take any steps to modify the design of the LumiLink 800G-DR8 to address OWS's infringement allegations?
3.  Did you commission any design-around study for either the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ or the LumiLink 800G-DR8 at any point after July 10, 2023?
4.  After July 10, 2023, did you communicate to anyone in Lumicore's engineering or product development organization that OWS had asserted patents covering the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and the LumiLink 800G-DR8? If not, why not?
5.  Did Lumicore continue to manufacture and sell the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and the LumiLink 800G-DR8 without modification after July 10, 2023?
B. LumiEdge 1600G-LR Launch — Critical for Willful Infringement
This is a critical section of the deposition because the LumiEdge 1600G-LR was launched in Q4 2023 — after Lumicore had received both FairPoint notice letters, participated in the in-person licensing meeting, and formally declined to take a license. The launch of a new accused product under these circumstances is powerful evidence of willful infringement.
1.  When did you first learn that Lumicore was developing the LumiEdge 1600G-LR product?
2.  Were you involved in any pre-launch review or approval process for the LumiEdge 1600G-LR?
3.  Was any freedom-to-operate analysis conducted for the LumiEdge 1600G-LR before its launch? Specifically, was the LumiEdge 1600G-LR evaluated against any of OWS's patents — including the '193 Patent and the '015 Patent — prior to launch?
4.  Did you take any action to assess the risk that the LumiEdge 1600G-LR might infringe OWS's patents before the product was launched?
5.  Did anyone at Lumicore take such action, to your knowledge?
6.  I'd like to ask you directly: was any formal design-around analysis commissioned before the LumiEdge 1600G-LR launch?
7.  Who made the decision to proceed with the launch of the LumiEdge 1600G-LR? Was that decision made at the executive level? Was you consulted?
8.  Did you provide any input into the decision to launch the LumiEdge 1600G-LR?
9.  Were you aware that the LumiEdge 1600G-LR was scheduled for launch in Q4 2023 — which is after both FairPoint letters, after the April 20, 2023 in-person meeting, and after Lumicore's July 10, 2023 declination?
10.  As General Counsel, did you flag any concern about launching a new product in the same technology area while OWS had outstanding patent infringement allegations? If you did not, can you explain why?
11.  Lumicore's fiscal year 2023 revenue attributable to the LumiEdge 1600G-LR was approximately $41.7 million. Were you aware of the revenue projections for this product at the time of its launch?
12.  Were those revenue projections discussed in connection with the decision to launch the product, and if so, were you party to those discussions?
IX. MELISSA CHEN — PATENT AWARENESS WITHIN LUMICORE ENGINEERING
A. Background on Chen
This section explores Bautista's knowledge of Melissa Chen and her role at Lumicore, laying the foundation for questions about engineering-level awareness of OWS's patent portfolio.
1.  Mr. Bautista, do you know an individual named Melissa Chen?
2.  What is your understanding of Ms. Chen's role at Lumicore?
3.  Was Ms. Chen a member of the design team for the LumiLink 400G-ZR+?
4.  Is Ms. Chen still employed by Lumicore?
5.  If not, when did she leave the company?
6.  Under what circumstances did she leave? Did she resign, or was she terminated?
7.  Do you know where Ms. Chen is currently employed?
8.  Is it your understanding that Ms. Chen is now employed by Veridian Photonics, Inc.?
B. Chen's Knowledge of OWS Patents
This section is designed to establish that Lumicore engineers — including members of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ design team — were aware of OWS's patent portfolio during the product design phase, potentially predating the FairPoint letters.
1.  Are you aware that members of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ design team reviewed published patent applications owned by or assigned to Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. during the product design phase in 2021 and 2022?
2.  Specifically, are you aware that Lumicore engineers accessed Published Application No. 2018/0123456, which corresponds to the '193 Patent — one of the patents asserted in the FairPoint letters?
3.  If you are aware of this, when did you first learn about it? Was it before or after you received the FairPoint letters?
4.  Did you ever discuss OWS's patents or published patent applications with Melissa Chen?
5.  Was the review of competitor patent applications a standard part of Lumicore's product design process? Is it something that Lumicore engineers routinely do?
6.  To your knowledge, did the engineering team's review of OWS's published patent applications inform any design decisions for the LumiLink 400G-ZR+? For example, were any design features adopted or avoided based on what the engineers saw in OWS's published applications?
7.  I'd like to note for the record that Dr. Sandra Michaud, Lumicore's CTO, testified at her deposition on November 19, 2024 that she reviewed OWS Published Application No. 2018/0123456 during the LumiLink design phase but denied knowledge of the issued patents until the FairPoint letter. Were you aware, prior to today, that Dr. Michaud had reviewed that published application during the design phase?
8.  When did you first learn that Lumicore engineers had been aware of OWS's published patent applications during the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ design phase?
X. LUMICORE'S ENGAGEMENT OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL
A. Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP
This section develops additional detail on the engagement of HVC, including the timing and scope of the engagement and any other firms that may have been retained.
1.  When was Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP first retained in connection with OWS's patent assertions or the FairPoint licensing correspondence? Please provide the approximate date.
2.  Was HVC retained before or after you received the January 15, 2023 FairPoint letter?
3.  What was the initial scope of HVC's engagement? Was it limited to responding to the FairPoint letter, or did it also encompass providing non-infringement or invalidity opinions, or both?
4.  Was HVC's engagement later expanded to include litigation defense when OWS filed the complaint on April 22, 2024?
5.  Other than Hawthorne Vega & Cruz, were any other firms engaged in connection with the FairPoint/OWS patent matter? If so, please identify each firm and the general scope of its engagement.
6.  Were any firms engaged specifically to provide non-infringement or invalidity opinion letters?
7.  Has Lumicore retained Marlowe Asset Management Patent Analytics, Inc. for prior-art searching in connection with this matter? If so, when was Marlowe Asset Management engaged, and who at Lumicore authorized the retention?
B. Privilege Log Questions
This section addresses the privilege log that Lumicore produced in discovery, with the specific goal of tying the opinion letters to entries on the log.
1.  Mr. Bautista, are you familiar with the privilege log that Lumicore produced in this litigation?
2.  Have you personally reviewed any of the documents listed on Lumicore's privilege log?
3.  Are the opinion-of-counsel letters referenced in the July 10, 2023 declination letter included on Lumicore's privilege log?
4.  If yes, can you identify the specific entries on the privilege log that correspond to the opinion letters? Can you provide the log entry numbers?
5.  Does the privilege log identify the author and recipient of each opinion letter?
XI. PRE-SUIT LICENSING HISTORY — OTHER IP MATTERS
A. Lumicore's Licensing Practices
This section explores Lumicore's broader approach to patent licensing and IP risk management. The purpose is to provide context for Lumicore's handling of the OWS matter and to assess whether Lumicore treated the FairPoint letters differently from other licensing inquiries.
1.  Has Lumicore ever licensed any third-party patents for use in its silicon-photonics products? If so, please identify the licensor and the approximate date of the license, to the extent you recall, without disclosing the terms.
2.  Has Lumicore ever received patent licensing inquiries or infringement notices from any party other than OWS or FairPoint? If so, approximately how many such notices has Lumicore received?
3.  For each such notice, in general terms, how was it handled? Did Lumicore take a license, decline, or resolve the matter in some other way?
4.  Does Lumicore have a formal process or written policy for evaluating incoming patent assertions? If so, please describe it.
5.  Does Lumicore's Board of Directors have oversight of intellectual property risk management? For example, does the Board receive regular reports on patent litigation, licensing, or IP-related risks?
6.  Was the OWS patent matter specifically reported to the Board? If so, when, and by whom?
XII. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION AND AUTHENTICATION
A. Key Exhibits to Use
The following exhibits should be prepared in advance and marked in the order listed. The examining attorney should have multiple copies available: one for the witness, one for defending counsel, and one for the record.
1.  Exhibit 1: FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC letter dated January 15, 2023, addressed to Raymond Bautista, General Counsel, Lumicore Technologies, Inc. (first notice letter identifying the '847 Patent, '193 Patent, and '562 Patent; accusing the LumiLink 400G-ZR+).
2.  Exhibit 2: Lumicore's response letter dated February 28, 2023, sent via Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP (disputing infringement and questioning validity).
3.  Exhibit 3: FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC second letter dated May 15, 2023 (adding the '015 Patent; expanding accused products to include the LumiLink 800G-DR8).
4.  Exhibit 4: Lumicore's July 10, 2023 declination letter (containing the critical "competent legal opinions" language).
5.  Exhibit 5 and following: Any internal Lumicore communications forwarding or discussing the FairPoint letters. These documents are to be identified from Lumicore's document production, which comprises approximately 147,000 documents totaling approximately 980,000 pages. Specific documents should be identified by Bates number prior to the deposition during pre-deposition exhibit preparation.
6.  Exhibit (TBD): Relevant entries from Lumicore's privilege log, to be used in connection with the Section VII.B line of questioning regarding the opinion letters.
7.  Exhibit (TBD): OWS Published Application No. 2018/0123456 (corresponding to the '193 Patent), to be used in connection with the Section IX questioning regarding Melissa Chen and engineering awareness.
8.  Exhibit (TBD): Excerpts from the deposition transcript of Dr. Sandra Michaud, taken November 19, 2024, to be used for impeachment or corroboration in connection with questions about engineering awareness of OWS published applications.
9.  Exhibit (TBD): Excerpts from the deposition transcript of Angela Reeves, taken December 10, 2024, to be used for confrontation regarding the characterization of the April 20, 2023 meeting. Note: The Reeves deposition is scheduled after the Bautista deposition. If it has already been taken by the deposition date, excerpts should be prepared. If it has not yet been taken, this exhibit will not be available, and the confrontation question should be deferred or based on anticipated testimony.
B. Document Requests at Deposition
Throughout the deposition, the examining attorney should be alert for any reference by Bautista to documents that have not been produced by Lumicore. If Bautista references any such documents — whether internal memoranda, emails, presentations, analyses, or any other document — the examining attorney should:
•  Make a clear record on the transcript identifying the document referenced.
•  Request that the document be produced.
•  If the document is claimed as privileged, request that it be added to the privilege log if it is not already listed.
•  Follow up with a formal supplemental production request or, if necessary, a subpoena duces tecum.
XIII. ANTICIPATED OBJECTIONS AND STRATEGIES
A. Privilege Objections
1.  Kate Rourke can be expected to object and instruct the witness not to answer any question that she characterizes as seeking the substance of attorney-client communications or work product. This is the most significant anticipated obstacle during the deposition.
2.  Strategy: Do not engage in extended colloquy or argument with Rourke at the deposition over individual privilege instructions. This wastes time and does not generate useful testimony. Instead, for each instruction not to answer:
(a) State the question clearly and completely for the record.
(b) Note the objection and instruction not to answer.
(c) Request that defending counsel state the specific privilege invoked (attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, or both).
(d) State for the record that the question is being asked to develop the factual record in support of OWS's pending Motion to Compel Production of Opinion-of-Counsel Letters, D.E. 38.
(e) State that OWS does not concede the propriety of the instruction not to answer and reserves the right to seek a court order compelling an answer.
(f) Move on to the next question.
3.  Focus on permitted facts. The following categories of information are generally not protected by the attorney-client privilege and should be pursued aggressively:
•  The identity of counsel consulted.
•  The dates of communications.
•  The general subject matter of the engagement (e.g., "non-infringement opinion").
•  The fact that an opinion was requested, the fact that an opinion was received.
•  Who at Lumicore reviewed the opinion.
•  Whether anyone at Lumicore relied on the opinion in making business decisions.
4.  Where Rourke objects even to questions about the existence or timing of a communication, the examining attorney should note the objection as overbroad and state on the record that the fact of a communication is not privileged, only its substance. Then move on.
B. "I Don't Recall" Responses
1.  If Bautista testifies that he does not recall a particular fact, the examining attorney should use documents to refresh his recollection. Show the relevant exhibit, direct his attention to the pertinent passage, and then re-ask the question.
2.  Where documents are not available to refresh recollection, the examining attorney should pin down what Bautista does recall, even if his recollection is incomplete. Partial admissions are useful.
3.  The examining attorney should also establish what documents Bautista reviewed in preparation for his deposition. Ask:
•  Did you review any documents in preparation for your deposition today?
•  What documents did you review?
•  Who selected those documents for your review?
•  Did you review any of the FairPoint letters?
•  Did you review the July 10, 2023 declination letter?
•  Did you review any opinion-of-counsel letters?
•  Did you review Lumicore's privilege log?
•  Did you review any deposition transcripts from this case?
C. Scope Objections
1.  Defending counsel may object that questions about Lumicore's pre-suit licensing history (Section XI) or about Lumicore's broader IP practices fall outside the scope of the deposition notice.
2.  Response: The deposition notice for Raymond Bautista covers his role as General Counsel in all matters related to OWS's patents and the pre-suit licensing correspondence, which is directly relevant to OWS's claims of willful infringement and to the pending Motion to Compel. The deposition notice is broadly worded and encompasses the topics covered in Section XI. If Rourke instructs the witness not to answer on scope grounds, note the objection and the instruction, state that the question falls within the scope of the notice, and move on.
XIV. DEPOSITION CLOSING CHECKLIST
A. Confirm Key Admissions Obtained
Before concluding the deposition, the examining attorney should consult the following checklist and, where necessary, circle back to confirm any admissions that have not yet been clearly obtained:
•  [ ] Bautista personally received the January 15, 2023 FairPoint letter identifying the '847 Patent, '193 Patent, and '562 Patent and accusing the LumiLink 400G-ZR+.
•  [ ] The January 15, 2023 letter was forwarded to outside counsel within approximately three business days of receipt.
•  [ ] Bautista attended the April 20, 2023 in-person licensing meeting in Austin, Texas, along with Angela Reeves (FairPoint), Rebecca Tanaka (OWS), and Kate Rourke (HVC).
•  [ ] Bautista received the May 15, 2023 FairPoint supplemental letter adding the '015 Patent and the LumiLink 800G-DR8.
•  [ ] Bautista was involved in the decision reflected in the July 10, 2023 declination letter.
•  [ ] The July 10, 2023 declination letter contains language stating that Lumicore "has obtained competent legal opinions" that its products do not infringe.
•  [ ] Bautista is aware of the existence of the opinion-of-counsel letters referenced in the July 10, 2023 letter.
•  [ ] No formal design-around analysis was commissioned before the launch of the LumiEdge 1600G-LR in Q4 2023.
•  [ ] Bautista was aware — or should have been aware — that Lumicore engineers reviewed OWS published patent applications during the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ design phase.
The examining attorney should note which admissions were obtained, which were refused, and which were subject to privilege objections, for use in the post-deposition summary memorandum.
B. Preserve Right to Reconvene
Before closing the deposition, the examining attorney should make the following statements on the record:
1.  Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. reserves the right to reconvene the deposition of Raymond Bautista in the event the Court grants OWS's pending Motion to Compel Production of Opinion-of-Counsel Letters (D.E. 38), as the Court's ruling may require additional questioning on the substance of the opinion letters and the circumstances of Lumicore's reliance on them.
2.  Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. further reserves the right to reconvene this deposition in the event that supplemental document productions by Lumicore reveal additional relevant facts warranting further examination of Mr. Bautista.
C. Transcript and Exhibit Handling
The following administrative steps should be taken upon conclusion of the deposition:
1.  Order an expedited transcript from the court reporter. Estimated delivery time is five business days.
2.  Ensure that all exhibits used during the deposition are marked and attached to the transcript.
3.  Designate the entire deposition transcript as "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only" under the Protective Order entered in this case, given the likelihood that testimony will touch on privilege-adjacent communications, financial data, and other sensitive business information. This designation is without prejudice to either party's right to challenge the designation.
4.  A comprehensive deposition summary should be prepared for the case file within three business days of receipt of the transcript. This assignment is designated to Omar Siddiqui.
XV. POST-DEPOSITION FOLLOW-UP ITEMS
The following follow-up tasks should be initiated promptly after the conclusion of the Bautista deposition:
1.  Deposition Summary Memorandum. Target completion: December 6, 2024. The memorandum should highlight: (a) all key admissions obtained, with transcript citations; (b) all refusals to answer based on privilege objections or instructions from defending counsel, with transcript citations; (c) any testimony that is inconsistent with Lumicore's prior discovery responses or with testimony from other witnesses; and (d) an assessment of how the testimony supports or weakens OWS's positions on (i) the pending Motion to Compel and (ii) willful infringement. The memorandum should be distributed to the full OWS trial team.
2.  Assessment of Impact on Motion to Compel (D.E. 38). Following the deposition, the team should assess whether Bautista's testimony strengthens or weakens OWS's Motion to Compel. The Reply brief in support of the Motion was filed on November 18, 2024. If the Bautista deposition yields significant new evidence — for example, an admission that Lumicore relied on the opinion letters in making business decisions — the team should consider whether a supplemental filing is permitted under the Local Rules and, if so, prepare one promptly. The team should also coordinate with Alan Ngo regarding whether the Court has scheduled oral argument on the Motion to Compel and whether deposition excerpts should be prepared as exhibits for argument.
3.  Cross-Reference with Other Depositions. Bautista's testimony should be carefully cross-referenced with: (a) the deposition testimony of Dr. Sandra Michaud, taken November 19, 2024, particularly regarding engineering awareness of OWS published patent applications; and (b) the deposition testimony of Angela Reeves, scheduled for December 10, 2024. Because the Reeves deposition is after the Bautista deposition, any testimony elicited from Bautista regarding the April 20, 2023 meeting and the characterization of Lumicore's negotiating posture should be used to refine the line of questioning for the Reeves examination.
4.  New Documents and Witnesses. Identify any documents or witnesses referenced by Bautista during his testimony that have not yet been produced or deposed. For each new document referenced, issue a supplemental production request. For each new witness identified, assess whether a subpoena for deposition or trial testimony is warranted and prepare accordingly.
5.  Willful Infringement Theory Assessment. Evaluate whether Bautista's testimony supports or undermines the willful infringement theory. Specifically, update the internal Timeline of Notice and Willfulness Evidence to incorporate key dates, admissions, and facts established through the Bautista deposition. Assess whether the timeline is sufficiently developed to support a motion for partial summary judgment on willfulness or, alternatively, whether additional discovery is needed.
6.  Supplemental Interrogatories. Based on Bautista's responses — or non-responses — assess whether supplemental interrogatories to Lumicore are warranted. In particular, if Bautista was unable to answer questions about the scope of outside counsel engagements or the identity of persons who reviewed the opinion letters, targeted interrogatories may be appropriate to fill those gaps. Confer with Alan Ngo before serving any supplemental interrogatories.
7.  Client Report. Report key findings from the Bautista deposition to Rebecca Tanaka (OWS General Counsel) and Alan Ngo (Responsible Partner) within forty-eight hours of the deposition. The report should be oral initially, followed by a written summary upon completion of the deposition summary memorandum. The oral report should cover the most significant admissions, any surprises, and a preliminary assessment of th