PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
DEPOSITION OUTLINE
Dr. Sandra Michaud, Ph.D.
Chief Technology Officer, Lumicore Technologies, Inc.
Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. v. Lumicore Technologies, Inc. Case No. 2:24-cv-00319-JRG United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Before the Honorable J. Rodney Gilstrap
DISTRIBUTION: Alan Ngo, Marcus Delgado, Omar Siddiqui (internal Calderwood & Harkness case team only — do not distribute outside case team).
Right-click to update Table of Contents
I. PURPOSE AND STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES
A. Overview of Witness Significance
Dr. Sandra Michaud is the Chief Technology Officer of Lumicore Technologies, Inc. and has held that role since at least 2020. The precise start date in the CTO position should be confirmed during the deposition, as background investigation has produced some ambiguity regarding whether she was elevated from a VP of Engineering role or came into the company directly as CTO. Regardless of the exact date, there is no dispute that Dr. Michaud is the most senior technical executive at Lumicore and has been in that position throughout the entire relevant period for this case — spanning the design, development, and commercialization of all three accused product lines: the LumiLink 400G-ZR+, the LumiLink 800G-DR8, and the LumiEdge 1600G-LR.
Dr. Michaud reports directly to Lumicore's Chief Executive Officer, Thomas "Tom" Kessler. She oversees the Vice President of Product Development, Dr. Eric Dalmqvist, and through him, the entire engineering and product-development organization. As the most senior technical officer at the company, Dr. Michaud is expected to have direct, firsthand knowledge of the design architecture, technical decision-making process, and product-launch approvals for each of the accused products. She is also expected to have knowledge of Lumicore's competitive intelligence activities, patent monitoring programs, and patent-risk assessments — all of which are central to Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.'s ("OWS's") claims of literal infringement, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, and willful infringement.
Dr. Michaud is likely to serve as both a fact witness and a potential adverse witness at trial, currently scheduled for February 2, 2026. Additionally, she has been identified as a potential Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative for Lumicore on certain technical topics identified in OWS's deposition notice. To the extent she is later designated in that capacity, testimony obtained during this individual deposition will be valuable both for impeachment purposes and for establishing the factual predicates for OWS's infringement, willfulness, and damages theories.
B. Key Strategic Goals for This Deposition
The deposition of Dr. Michaud is a critical event in the discovery phase of this litigation. The following eight strategic goals should guide the examination:
1. Establish Awareness of OWS Patents. The first and most foundational goal is to obtain admissions — or at minimum, develop a detailed record — regarding Lumicore's knowledge of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.'s patent portfolio, with specific focus on the four asserted patents: U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847 (the "'847 Patent"); U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193 (the "'193 Patent"); U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562 (the "'562 Patent"); and U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015 (the "'015 Patent"). This inquiry must cover both the period before and after the FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC notice letters dated January 15, 2023 and May 15, 2023. Knowledge prior to the FairPoint letters is particularly valuable, as it would extend the timeline of Lumicore's awareness and strengthen the willful infringement theory.
2. Confirm Design Involvement. The examining attorney must pin down Dr. Michaud's personal role in the design and development of each accused product. This is particularly important for the LumiLink 400G-ZR+, which was launched in Q3 2022 and is the earliest accused product in the case. Dr. Michaud's role must be explored not only to establish her as a competent and knowledgeable witness on the technical features at issue, but also to support both the infringement and willful infringement theories — if the CTO personally oversaw the design of products that infringe, the jury can reasonably infer that infringement was not inadvertent.
3. Document Review of OWS Published Patent Applications. A critical element of the willful infringement case is establishing that Lumicore's engineering team, under Dr. Michaud's direction or with her knowledge, reviewed OWS's published patent applications — specifically Published Application No. 2018/0123456, which corresponds to the '193 Patent — during the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ design phase in 2021–2022. This line of questioning is supported by anticipated testimony from Melissa Chen, a former Lumicore engineer now employed at Veridian Photonics, Inc., who is expected to testify that the design team accessed and reviewed this published application during the design phase. Dr. Michaud's testimony must be obtained on this point to either corroborate or create impeachment material relative to Ms. Chen's anticipated testimony.
4. Probe Prior-Art and Non-Infringement Positions. The examining attorney should explore Dr. Michaud's technical basis, if any, for Lumicore's non-infringement and invalidity contentions. Specifically, the deposition should identify what prior art Dr. Michaud was aware of, when she became aware of it, and whether any of the cited prior art was used as a design input during the development of the accused products. This line of questioning serves the dual purpose of testing the strength of Lumicore's invalidity defenses and of demonstrating that Dr. Michaud's team was familiar with the relevant technical landscape — making it less plausible that they were unaware of OWS's patents.
5. Explore Communications with Key Witnesses. The deposition must probe Dr. Michaud's communications with three critical individuals: Melissa Chen (former Lumicore engineer, now at Veridian Photonics, Inc.), Dr. Eric Dalmqvist (VP of Product Development), and Raymond Bautista (General Counsel). Communications with Ms. Chen are relevant to establish the design team's review of OWS publications. Communications with Dr. Dalmqvist are relevant to the chain of command and technical decision-making for each accused product. Communications with Mr. Bautista are relevant to patent awareness and the decision to decline a license — though privilege objections are expected on the substance of legal advice, the fact of such communications, their timing, and their general subject matter are all proper areas of inquiry.
6. Lock In Testimony on Non-Infringing Alternatives. An important goal is to determine whether Dr. Michaud can identify any specific non-infringing alternative designs for the accused products and, if so, to obtain sufficient detail to evaluate those alternatives at summary judgment and trial. If she cannot identify alternatives — which is the expected outcome based on Lumicore's deficient 30(b)(6) testimony on Topic 14 — that inability should be locked in on the record to limit Lumicore's ability to later introduce alternative designs or argue that alternatives were readily available.
7. Support Willful Infringement Theory. Taken together, the foregoing goals are designed to build the evidentiary record for willful infringement under Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. 93 (2016). The key elements of the Halo theory are: subjective knowledge of the OWS patents; continued product development and launches after notice; and the absence of good-faith design-around efforts. Dr. Michaud's testimony is central to each of these elements, given her role as CTO and the most senior technical decision-maker at Lumicore.
8. Preserve Impeachment Material. Finally, the deposition should obtain testimony on the technical features and design architecture of the accused products in sufficient detail that any changes in Dr. Michaud's testimony at trial can be effectively impeached. If Dr. Michaud takes a position at deposition regarding, for example, the nature of the waveguide multiplexer in the LumiLink 400G-ZR+, and later changes that position in a trial declaration or live testimony, the deposition transcript will provide the basis for a devastating cross-examination.
C. Time Allocation Strategy
The following time allocations are recommended for the seven hours of on-the-record examination permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1). These are approximate and should be adjusted as circumstances warrant during the deposition itself:
The LumiLink 400G-ZR+ design and development section receives the most time because it is the earliest product, the primary target of the willful infringement theory (given the timeline of design activity and the published-application review), and the product for which the factual record is most developed. The LumiEdge 1600G-LR, while critical for willfulness (it was launched after all notice letters and the license declination), has fewer technical claim-mapping issues and can be addressed more efficiently by establishing its derivation from the 400G-ZR+ and 800G-DR8 platforms.
II. WITNESS BACKGROUND AND FOUNDATION
A. Educational Background
Begin the deposition by establishing Dr. Michaud's educational credentials. This serves multiple purposes: it places her as a technical expert in the field, it establishes that she has the training and knowledge to understand patent disclosures and claims in the relevant technology area, and it may reveal connections to OWS, Solara Optics, or other relevant entities.
The following questions should be covered:
• Confirm all degrees held, including undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral degrees. Based on preliminary investigation, Dr. Michaud is believed to hold a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, photonics, or a related field. Confirm the specific discipline.
• Confirm the universities attended and dates of attendance for each degree.
• Confirm the topic of her doctoral thesis. Probe specifically whether the thesis was related to silicon photonics, waveguide design, optical transceivers, or thermal management of photonic integrated circuits. Each of these subjects is directly relevant to the asserted patent subject matter, and a thesis on any of these topics would further demonstrate that Dr. Michaud possessed the technical sophistication to appreciate the significance of OWS's patents when she encountered them.
• Confirm any post-doctoral research positions, fellowships, or visiting appointments at universities or research institutions. Ascertain whether any such positions involved research in the fields covered by the asserted patents.
B. Employment History
Following the educational background, establish a chronological employment history, with particular emphasis on positions in the semiconductor, photonics, or optical communications industries. The following specific areas of inquiry should be addressed:
• Obtain a complete chronological list of employers prior to Lumicore Technologies, Inc., with dates, titles, and a general description of responsibilities at each position.
• For each prior employer in the semiconductor, photonics, or optical communications industries, probe the nature of the work performed and whether it related to the technology at issue in this case — silicon photonic waveguides, optical transceivers, thermal management of photonic integrated circuits, or grating couplers.
• Specific inquiry — Solara Optics, Inc.: Ask directly whether Dr. Michaud ever worked at, consulted for, or performed any work on behalf of Solara Optics, Inc. Solara Optics is the predecessor entity from which OWS acquired the '562 Patent and 11 other patents pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement dated June 15, 2018, for $34.5 million. If Dr. Michaud had any connection to Solara Optics, it could be relevant to her knowledge of the '562 Patent and its technology, and potentially to issues of conception and prior art.
• Specific inquiry — Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.: Ask directly whether Dr. Michaud ever worked at, consulted for, or performed any work on behalf of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. While there is no current indication of such a relationship, the question should be asked to foreclose any ambiguity.
• Confirm the date Dr. Michaud joined Lumicore Technologies, Inc. Confirm all positions held at Lumicore, including her current title as Chief Technology Officer, the date she assumed the CTO role, her reporting relationship to CEO Tom Kessler, and her supervisory relationship over Dr. Eric Dalmqvist, Vice President of Product Development.
C. Current Responsibilities at Lumicore
After establishing the employment history, probe the scope and nature of Dr. Michaud's current responsibilities as CTO. This section is important for establishing that Dr. Michaud has the authority and involvement to possess knowledge of the technical, strategic, and competitive matters that will be the subject of the remainder of the deposition. The following areas should be covered:
• Scope of CTO role: Confirm that her role encompasses oversight of research and development, product development, engineering, and technology strategy for Lumicore as a whole.
• Organization size: Establish the number of engineers reporting to her, both directly and indirectly. Note that Lumicore has approximately 870 employees total; obtain the size of the engineering and R&D organization relative to that total.
• Decision-making authority: Confirm her decision-making authority regarding product design, technology selection, architecture decisions, and go/no-go approvals for product launches. This is critical for the willfulness analysis — if Dr. Michaud had authority to stop or modify a product launch and chose not to do so despite awareness of OWS's patents, that is powerful willfulness evidence.
• Patent prosecution and review: Probe her involvement in Lumicore's own patent prosecution activities. Does she review invention disclosures from Lumicore engineers? Does she participate in the decision of which inventions to file as patent applications? Does she review competitor patents or published applications as part of her role?
• Competitive intelligence: Establish her involvement in competitive intelligence activities and competitor patent monitoring. If Lumicore has a formal competitive intelligence program, determine Dr. Michaud's role in that program and whether OWS's patents or published applications were ever the subject of monitoring or analysis.
• Licensing discussions: Probe her involvement, if any, in licensing discussions or decisions, including but not limited to the FairPoint Licensing Group correspondence and the April 20, 2023 in-person licensing meeting. Even if her involvement was limited to providing technical input to the legal team, that involvement is relevant to the willfulness analysis.
D. Publications, Patents, and Industry Involvement
Complete the background section by establishing Dr. Michaud's publications, patents, and industry activities. This information has multiple uses: it demonstrates her technical expertise and engagement with the relevant field; it may reveal publications or presentations that discuss or reference OWS technology; and it may identify industry events where she encountered OWS representatives or technology.
• Patents: Identify all patents on which Dr. Michaud is a named inventor, whether assigned to Lumicore or to prior employers. Of particular interest are any patents related to silicon photonic waveguides, optical transceivers, thermal management of photonic integrated circuits, or grating couplers. Additionally, identify any Lumicore patents in the same technology space as the asserted OWS patents — overlapping patent filings could demonstrate knowledge of the relevant prior art landscape.
• Publications: Identify published papers or conference presentations authored or co-authored by Dr. Michaud, particularly in the fields of silicon photonics or optical transceivers. Obtain titles, publication venues, dates, and co-authors.
• Standards body membership: Determine whether Dr. Michaud is a member of or participant in any industry standards bodies, including but not limited to the Optical Internetworking Forum (OIF), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), or Multi-Source Agreement (MSA) groups such as the 400G-ZR MSA or QSFP-DD MSA. Standards body participation may be relevant to whether the patented features are required for standards compliance.
• Conference attendance and speaking engagements: Identify any speaking engagements at major industry conferences, including OFC (Optical Fiber Communication Conference), ECOC (European Conference on Optical Communication), or Photonics West. Obtain dates, topics, and particularly any statements made about OWS, OWS's products, or competing technologies in the silicon photonics transceiver space.
III. KNOWLEDGE OF OPTIWAVE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP. AND ITS PATENT PORTFOLIO
A. General Knowledge of OWS as a Competitor
This section establishes the foundation for the willful infringement theory by demonstrating that Dr. Michaud and Lumicore were well aware of OWS as a significant competitor in the silicon photonics transceiver market — and, by extension, were aware of or should have been aware of OWS's patent activities.
Begin with general awareness questions:
• When did Dr. Michaud first become aware of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. as a company? In what context did she first learn of OWS?
• What is her understanding of OWS's market position? OWS is the third-largest U.S. supplier of silicon-photonics transceiver modules for hyperscale data centers, with FY 2023 revenue of $487.3 million and a portfolio of 142 issued U.S. patents and 58 pending applications. Confirm whether Dr. Michaud is aware of these facts or has a different understanding of OWS's market position.
• What is Dr. Michaud's understanding of OWS's product lines, with particular emphasis on the OWS-400ZR, OWS-800XR, and OWS-1600DR transceiver module families? These are OWS's products that compete directly with Lumicore's accused product lines.
• Has Dr. Michaud been involved in, directed, or been made aware of any competitive analyses, benchmarking studies, or teardowns of OWS products? Teardown analysis of a competitor's products — a common practice in the semiconductor industry — would demonstrate detailed knowledge of OWS's technology and, potentially, of the patented features at issue.
• Has Dr. Michaud ever communicated directly with any OWS personnel? Specifically, has she communicated with Dr. Jian-Wei Huang (OWS's CTO), Dr. Nikolai Petrov (OWS's VP of Engineering), or Dr. Priya Ramaswamy (OWS's CEO)?
• Has Dr. Michaud attended any industry events, conferences, trade shows, or technical symposia where OWS products or technology were discussed, presented, or demonstrated? If so, obtain dates, events, and the substance of what was presented.
B. Knowledge of the Four Asserted Patents
This is one of the most critical sections of the deposition. Walk through each of the four asserted patents individually, establishing Dr. Michaud's knowledge of and exposure to each patent. For each patent, the following areas should be covered: when she first became aware of the patent; whether she has read the patent (and if so, when, how many times, and in what context); whether she discussed the patent with any Lumicore employee or outside counsel; and whether she performed or directed any technical assessment or evaluation of the patent.
1. U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847 (the "'847 Patent")
• Title: "Multi-Channel Silicon Photonic Waveguide Multiplexer with Low Insertion Loss"
• Filed: September 14, 2016
• Issued: March 19, 2019
• Original Assignee: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.
Begin by presenting the certified copy of the '847 Patent (Exhibit A to the Complaint) and asking Dr. Michaud whether she has seen this document before.
• When did Dr. Michaud first become aware of this patent? Was it before or after the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ design phase? Was it before or after the FairPoint licensing letters?
• Has she read the patent? If so, when did she first read it, how many times has she read it, and in what context (e.g., competitive intelligence review, patent landscape analysis, response to the FairPoint letter, litigation preparation)?
• Did she discuss this patent with any Lumicore employee? If so, with whom, when, and what was the substance of those discussions?
• Did she discuss this patent with any outside counsel, including attorneys at Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP? (Expect privilege objections — focus on the fact of the discussion, not the substance of legal advice.)
• Has she performed, directed, or reviewed any technical assessment or evaluation of this patent? If so, what were the conclusions of that assessment?
2. U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193 (the "'193 Patent")
• Title: "High-Bandwidth Coherent Optical Transceiver Integrated on Silicon Substrate"
• Filed: April 7, 2017
• Issued: January 12, 2021
• Original Assignee: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.
• Note: This patent shares common Provisional Application No. 62/499,117 with the '015 Patent.
• Published Application No. 2018/0123456 — this is a critical exhibit and is expected to be the subject of the most contested testimony in the deposition.
Present the certified copy of the '193 Patent (Exhibit B to the Complaint) and ask Dr. Michaud whether she has seen this document before.
• When did Dr. Michaud first become aware of this patent or its published application? This question should be asked with particular care and precision. The published application (No. 2018/0123456) was publicly available well before the '193 Patent issued on January 12, 2021. The LumiLink 400G-ZR+ design phase occurred in 2021–2022. Melissa Chen is expected to testify that the design team accessed and reviewed this published application during the design phase. If Dr. Michaud admits awareness of the published application during the design phase, this is powerful evidence for willful infringement — it would demonstrate that Lumicore designed the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ with knowledge of the very patent application that matured into one of the asserted patents.
• Has she read the patent or the published application? If so, when, how many times, and in what context?
• Did she discuss this patent or published application with any member of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ design team? Specifically, did she discuss it with Melissa Chen?
• The examining attorney should present Published Application No. 2018/0123456 as an exhibit and walk Dr. Michaud through it in detail. Identify specific claim elements and technical disclosures that correspond to features of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+.
3. U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562 (the "'562 Patent")
• Title: "Method for Thermal Management of Photonic Integrated Circuits Using Embedded Micro-Channel Heat Sinks"
• Filed: November 22, 2014
• Issued: June 13, 2017
• Original Assignee: Solara Optics, Inc.
• Current Assignee: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. (acquired via Asset Purchase Agreement dated June 15, 2018, as part of a portfolio of 12 patents, for $34.5 million)
• Note: This patent has a continuation relationship with the '847 Patent and is in the same patent family.
Present the certified copy of the '562 Patent (Exhibit C to the Complaint) and ask Dr. Michaud whether she has seen this document before.
• When did Dr. Michaud first become aware of this patent?
• Was she aware that OWS acquired this patent from Solara Optics, Inc.? If so, when did she learn of this acquisition?
• Given the earlier inquiry regarding whether Dr. Michaud ever worked at or consulted for Solara Optics, if any connection exists, probe the nature and extent of her knowledge of the '562 Patent prior to OWS's acquisition of it.
• Has she read the patent? If so, when, how many times, and in what context?
• Did she discuss this patent with any Lumicore employee or outside counsel?
4. U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015 (the "'015 Patent")
• Title: "Polarization-Diverse Grating Coupler for Silicon Photonic Transceivers"
• Filed: August 30, 2019
• Issued: August 2, 2022
• Original Assignee: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.
• Note: This patent was added in FairPoint's second licensing letter dated May 15, 2023.
Present the certified copy of the '015 Patent (Exhibit D to the Complaint) and ask Dr. Michaud whether she has seen this document before.
• When did Dr. Michaud first become aware of this patent? Was her first awareness triggered by FairPoint's May 15, 2023 letter, or did she learn of it earlier?
• Has she read the patent? If so, when, how many times, and in what context?
• This patent is the subject of Lumicore's prior-conception defense (discussed further in Section VIII below). Probe Dr. Michaud's knowledge of Lumicore's internal design documents dated 2016–2017 that are cited in the invalidity contentions, and whether she believes those documents predate the '015 Patent's priority date.
C. Knowledge of FairPoint Licensing Group Communications
This section is critical for establishing the timeline of notice, which is central to the willful infringement theory. The goal is to establish that Dr. Michaud — as the CTO and most senior technical executive — was informed of the licensing correspondence, understood the patents at issue, and either failed to take appropriate steps to avoid infringement or affirmatively participated in the decision to continue accused product activities.
• Was Dr. Michaud aware that FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC (OWS's licensing agent, managed by Angela Reeves) sent a licensing and notice letter to Lumicore's General Counsel, Raymond Bautista, on January 15, 2023? This letter identified the '847 Patent, the '193 Patent, and the '562 Patent as patents believed to be infringed by Lumicore's products.
• If she was aware, by whom was she informed and when? Did she learn of it from Raymond Bautista? From Dr. Eric Dalmqvist? From CEO Tom Kessler? From someone else? Obtain the date and manner of notification.
• Did she review the FairPoint letter itself? Did she review the patents identified in the letter?
• Was she aware that Lumicore, through its outside counsel at Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP, sent a response on February 28, 2023, disputing infringement and questioning the validity of the asserted patents?
• Was Dr. Michaud involved in preparing or reviewing Lumicore's response? Specifically, did she provide any technical input for the response? Did she review any claim charts, technical analyses, or other materials prepared in connection with the response?
• Was she aware of the in-person licensing meeting that took place on April 20, 2023, in Austin, Texas, between Angela Reeves (FairPoint), Rebecca Tanaka (OWS General Counsel), Raymond Bautista (Lumicore General Counsel), and Kate Rourke (Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP)?
• Did Dr. Michaud attend this meeting? If not, did she contribute to preparation for the meeting? Did she receive a debrief or summary after the meeting?
• Was she aware of FairPoint's second licensing letter dated May 15, 2023, which added the '015 Patent to the list of asserted patents and expanded the accused products to include the LumiLink 800G-DR8?
• Was she involved in Lumicore's July 10, 2023 decision to decline to take a license, in which Lumicore stated it had obtained "competent legal opinions" that its products do not infringe?
• Did she participate in or contribute to the procurement of those "competent legal opinions"? Did she provide technical input for the preparation of those opinions? Did she review any drafts of those opinions? (Expect privilege objections from defense counsel. The examining attorney should focus questions on Dr. Michaud's factual involvement — whether she provided technical information, whether she reviewed technical analyses, whether she was asked to evaluate any technical claims — rather than seeking the content of legal advice. Note that the question of whether Lumicore has waived privilege over these opinions by citing them as a basis for its licensing declination is the subject of OWS's pending Motion to Compel at D.E. 38, filed October 21, 2024.)
D. Patent Monitoring and Competitive intelligence Programs
• Does Lumicore have a formal patent monitoring or competitive intelligence program? If so, who runs or administers the program? When was it established?
• Were OWS patents or published applications included in any monitoring reports or alerts generated by such a program?
• Were published patent applications from OWS tracked as part of Lumicore's competitive intelligence activities?
• Request that Dr. Michaud identify specific monitoring reports, competitor patent alerts, or internal memoranda that reference OWS patents or published applications. Tie these requests to the document requests served in OWS's First Set of Requests for Production to Lumicore (served August 26, 2024), and note for the record any documents responsive to those requests that have not yet been produced.
• If Lumicore does not have a formal program, probe whether any informal or ad hoc monitoring of competitor patents occurs, and whether OWS was the subject of any such informal monitoring.
IV. LUMILINK 400G-ZR+ DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
A. Project Overview and Michaud's Role
The LumiLink 400G-ZR+ is the earliest of the three accused products and is the most critical for the willful infringement theory. This section should be the most detailed and receive the most time during the deposition.
• When did development of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ begin? Obtain the approximate date that the project was initiated, the date formal development commenced, and any intermediate milestones (concept phase, design phase, prototyping, verification, production).
• Confirm the product launch date: Q3 2022.
• Confirm the product's commercial significance: FY 2023 revenue of $94.8 million, per Lumicore's segment disclosures.
• Confirm that the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ is accused of infringing the '847 Patent, the '193 Patent, and the '562 Patent.
• What was Dr. Michaud's specific role in the design and development of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+? Was she a decision-maker? An approver of design milestones? A hands-on participant in design work? Or did she delegate the project to subordinates and provide oversight at a higher level?
• Establish the reporting chain for this product: from Dr. Michaud to Dr. Eric Dalmqvist (VP of Product Development) to the engineering team. Did Dr. Dalmqvist have day-to-day management of the project? Did Dr. Michaud participate in regular design reviews or status meetings?
• Identify the key engineers on the design team. Obtain names, titles, and the dates and nature of their involvement in the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ project.
• Specifically: Was Melissa Chen a member of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ design team? What was her role? What specific technical areas did she work on? What time period did she work on the project? Did she report to Dr. Dalmqvist, or did she report to another manager within Dr. Michaud's organization?
B. Technical Architecture — Waveguide Multiplexer
This subsection addresses the technical features of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ that are relevant to the '847 Patent. The goal is to obtain Dr. Michaud's testimony on the design and function of the optical waveguide multiplexer used in the product, and to tie that testimony to the disputed claim construction terms.
• Ask Dr. Michaud to describe, in her own words, the optical waveguide multiplexer used in the LumiLink 400G-ZR+.
• How does the multiplexer combine multiple optical signals of different wavelengths? What is the operating principle?
• Does the multiplexer use an arrayed waveguide grating (AWG)? A slab coupler? A phase-shifted waveguide array? Some combination of these elements? A different architecture altogether?
• How was the multiplexer architecture selected? Were alternative multiplexer architectures considered during the design phase? If so, what were the alternatives, and why were they rejected?
• Tie to disputed claim construction: The term "waveguide multiplexer" is the subject of a disputed claim construction. OWS proposes the construction "an optical device that combines multiple optical signals of different wavelengths onto a single waveguide." Lumicore proposes the narrower construction "an arrayed waveguide grating that combines optical signals using a slab coupler and phase-shifted waveguide array." Dr. Michaud's testimony regarding the actual design of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ multiplexer is critical — if the accused product uses a waveguide multiplexer that falls within OWS's proposed construction but outside Lumicore's proposed construction, her testimony will support OWS's position at the Markman hearing and beyond.
• What insertion-loss specifications were achieved for the waveguide multiplexer in the LumiLink 400G-ZR+? How do those specifications compare to the insertion-loss specifications described in OWS's '847 Patent?
C. Technical Architecture — Coherent Optical Transceiver Integration
This subsection addresses the technical features of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ relevant to the '193 Patent. The goal is to obtain testimony on the coherent optical transceiver design and its integration on a silicon substrate.
• Ask Dr. Michaud to describe the coherent optical transceiver design in the LumiLink 400G-ZR+.
• Is the coherent optical transceiver integrated on a silicon substrate? If so, describe the nature of the integration.
• Tie to disputed claim construction: The term "integrated on a silicon substrate" is the subject of a disputed claim construction. OWS proposes "formed on or within a silicon-based wafer using semiconductor fabrication processes." Lumicore proposes the narrower construction "monolithically fabricated on a single silicon die without hybrid bonding or heterogeneous integration." Dr. Michaud's testimony on how the transceiver is fabricated — whether monolithically or through hybrid bonding or heterogeneous integration — is critical to the infringement analysis.
• Does the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ use hybrid bonding or heterogeneous integration in its transceiver design? If so, describe the nature and extent of such bonding or integration. What components are bonded or integrated? What is the fabrication process?
• Does the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ include a "coherent detection module" as that term is used in the '193 Patent? If Dr. Michaud contends that the product does not include such a module, describe the functional element that performs coherent detection.
• Tie to doctrine of equivalents: OWS has asserted infringement of Claims 3 and 7 of the '193 Patent under the doctrine of equivalents. Even if the literal claim limitation is not met, the examining attorney should probe whether the accused element performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result as the claimed "coherent detection module." Obtain Dr. Michaud's testimony on the function performed by the accused element, the manner in which it performs that function, and the result achieved.
D. Technical Architecture — Thermal Management / Micro-Channel Heat Sinks
This subsection addresses the technical features of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ relevant to the '562 Patent. The goal is to obtain testimony on the thermal management system, with particular focus on whether the product uses embedded micro-channel heat sinks.
• Ask Dr. Michaud to describe the thermal management system in the LumiLink 400G-ZR+.
• Does the product use embedded micro-channel heat sinks? If Dr. Michaud contends that it does not, describe the thermal management approach that is used instead.
• What is the hydraulic diameter of the channels in the thermal management system? This is critical for the claim construction dispute.
• Tie to disputed claim construction: The term "micro-channel heat sink" is the subject of a disputed claim construction. OWS proposes "a heat-dissipating structure containing channels with a hydraulic diameter of less than 1 mm." Lumicore proposes the narrower construction "a closed-loop liquid-cooling system with channels having a hydraulic diameter between 10 µm and 200 µm." Dr. Michaud's testimony regarding the actual hydraulic diameter of the channels and whether the system uses a closed-loop liquid-cooling approach is critical.
• How was the thermal management design selected? Were alternative thermal management approaches considered during the design phase? If so, what were the alternatives, and why were they rejected?
• Cross-reference with Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC teardown report: The December 12, 2022 teardown report prepared by Kevin Ng of Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC confirmed the use of accused waveguide multiplexer structures and thermal management micro-channels in the LumiLink 400G-ZR+. Present relevant sections of the teardown report to Dr. Michaud and ask whether she has reviewed this report and whether she agrees with its findings.
E. Design Inputs and Prior Art Awareness During Development
This subsection is critical for both the infringement and willful infringement theories. The goal is to establish what design inputs — including published patents, patent applications, technical papers, and competitor products — were reviewed by the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ design team during the development process.
• What prior art, published papers, patents, or competitor products did the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ design team review during the development of the product?
• Specifically: Did the design team review OWS's published patent application No. 2018/0123456, which corresponds to the '193 Patent?
• If the answer is yes:
• Who on the team reviewed it? Obtain specific names.
• When was it reviewed? Obtain specific dates or date ranges.
• What was the purpose of the review?
• What conclusions were drawn from the review?
• Were any design decisions influenced by or made in response to the review?
• Was Dr. Michaud personally informed of the review and its findings?
• Were any written summaries, memoranda, or notes prepared in connection with the review?
• If the answer is no or "I don't recall":
• Refresh recollection with documents from discovery production, if available.
• Note for the record that Melissa Chen (former Lumicore engineer, now at Veridian Photonics, Inc.) is expected to testify that the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ design team accessed and reviewed this published application during the design phase in 2021–2022.
• Ask whether Dr. Michaud has any reason to dispute such testimony.
• Did the design team review any other OWS patent specifications, claims, or technical disclosures during the development of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+?
• Did the design team review any publications or patents from Solara Optics, Inc., the original assignee of the '562 Patent?
• Lumicore's invalidity contentions, served October 14, 2024, cite 23 prior-art references. Was Dr. Michaud aware of any of the following references during the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ design phase:
• Takahashi et al., "Dense WDM Silicon Photonic MUX," published in IEEE Photonics Technology Letters in March 2014 — cited in Lumicore's invalidity contentions for anticipation of the '847 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
• U.S. Patent No. 8,412,007 to Bergmann, issued April 2, 2013 — cited in Lumicore's invalidity contentions for obviousness of the '562 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
• PCT Application No. PCT/EP2015/071234 to Simonsen, published September 17, 2015 — cited in Lumicore's invalidity contentions for obviousness of the '847 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
• Dr. Li Wei, "Thermal Solutions for PICs," OFC 2013 conference paper, March 2013 — cited in Lumicore's invalidity contentions for anticipation of the '562 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
• Were any of these references used as design references, design inputs, or sources of inspiration for the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ design team?
• If Dr. Michaud was aware of these prior-art references during the design phase, probe why she was not similarly aware of OWS's patents in the same technology space — references in the same field of art should have led a person of ordinary skill to the OWS patent portfolio.
F. Communications with Melissa Chen Regarding Design and Patents
Melissa Chen is a critical witness for OWS's case. Her anticipated testimony regarding the design team's review of OWS's published patent application is a key element of the willful infringement theory. This subsection probes Dr. Michaud's communications with Ms. Chen to corroborate, expand upon, or create impeachment material relative to Ms. Chen's expected testimony.
• Confirm that Melissa Chen was an employee of Lumicore Technologies, Inc. Obtain the dates of her employment, her title or titles during her tenure, and her responsibilities.
• Confirm that she worked on the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ design team. What was her specific role on the team? What technical areas was she responsible for?
• What were Dr. Michaud's communications with Ms. Chen regarding the following topics:
• The design approach and architecture selection for the LumiLink 400G-ZR+.
• Competitor patent review or patent landscape analysis.
• Specific OWS published applications or patents.
• Any discussion of the risk of patent infringement.
• When did Ms. Chen leave Lumicore? What was the stated reason for her departure? She is now employed at Veridian Photonics, Inc.