1014-00004 · Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP · Discovery/Depositions

depo-summary-kevin-ng.docx DOCUMENT Litigation

42 / 168 ← → ✕

Contract analysis Extract to table

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

INTERNAL DEPOSITION SUMMARY

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

Matter: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. v. Lumicore Technologies, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00319-JRG (E.D. Tex.)

Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, marshall Division

Presiding Judge: The Honorable James R. Gilstrap

Prepared By: Omar Siddiqui, Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP

Reviewed By: Wendy Schultz, Lead Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP

Date: January 10, 2025

Distribution: Alan Ngo (Responsible Partner); Marcus Delgado (Billing Partner); Wendy Schultz (Lead Associate); Case File

Re: Deposition Summary of Kevin Ng, Lead Engineer, Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC — Deposition Taken January 7, 2025

I. DEPOSITION OVERVIEW

The deposition of Kevin Ng was taken on January 7, 2025, at the offices of Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 350 South Grand Avenue, 48th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071. Mr. Ng appeared in person as a fact witness in connection with his role as Lead Engineer at Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC, the firm retained by Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. ("OWS") to perform reverse-engineering teardown analyses of the accused Lumicore Technologies, Inc. ("Lumicore") products at issue in this litigation.

Examining Counsel (Plaintiff): Wendy Schultz, Calderwood & Harkness LLP, conducted the direct examination of the witness on behalf of OWS.

Examining Counsel (Defendant): Samantha Briggs, Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP ("HVC"), conducted the cross-examination of the witness on behalf of Lumicore.

Also Present: Omar Siddiqui, Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP; Rohan Iyer, Associate, Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP.

Court Reporter: Patricia Drummond, Certified Court Reporter, National Court Reporting Associates, Inc.

Videographer: James Kowalski, Apex Litigation Video Services.

The deposition lasted approximately six hours, inclusive of breaks. The transcript comprises approximately 287 pages. A total of twenty-seven exhibits were marked during the deposition, designated as Deposition Exhibits Ng-1 through Ng-27. The transcript has been ordered on an expedited basis, and a rough draft was received on January 9, 2025. This summary is based on the rough draft transcript and counsel's contemporaneous notes; citations to specific transcript pages will be confirmed upon receipt of the final certified transcript.

II. WITNESS BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS

A. Professional Background

Kevin Ng currently holds the position of Lead Engineer at Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC ("Benchmark"), located at 2244 Mission College Boulevard, Santa Clara, California 95054. Mr. Ng has approximately fourteen years of experience in the semiconductor analysis and failure-analysis industry, with particular expertise in reverse engineering, teardown analysis, and physical characterization of advanced photonic and electronic integrated circuits.

Mr. Ng holds a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Pacific Coast University (2008) and a Master of Science in Materials Science and Engineering from the Western Institute of Technology (2011). His graduate research focused on the characterization of silicon photonic waveguide structures using electron microscopy techniques, which is directly relevant to the analysis at issue in this case.

Prior to joining Benchmark in 2016, Mr. Ng was employed at Veritech Analytical Labs, Inc. in San Jose, California, where he served as a Senior Semiconductor Analyst from 2011 to 2016. At Veritech, he performed failure analysis and competitive benchmarking teardowns for several major semiconductor companies. He transitioned to Benchmark in August 2016 and was promoted to Lead Engineer in January 2019.

Mr. Ng's areas of specialization include photonic integrated circuit (PIC) analysis, silicon photonics device characterization, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), focused ion beam (FIB) cross-sectioning, and optical profilometry. He testified that he has personally completed or directly supervised over 200 product teardown and reverse-engineering projects over the course of his career, spanning a broad range of semiconductor devices including optical transceivers, photonic integrated circuits, RF components, MEMS devices, and advanced packaging assemblies.

With respect to prior testimony experience, Mr. Ng stated that he has been deposed three times previously in connection with patent litigation matters and has testified as a fact witness at trial in two prior patent cases: Clearpath Optics, Inc. v. Veritas Photonics Corp., No. 5:19-cv-01234 (N.D. Cal.), and Aethon Semiconductor Inc. v. LightGrid Technologies, LLC, No. 6:20-cv-00542 (W.D. Tex.). In both instances, Mr. Ng testified regarding the results of teardown analyses he conducted on accused products. He was not retained as an expert witness in either matter.

B. Role at Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC

Mr. Ng serves as the Lead Engineer responsible for directing teardown projects at Benchmark. His responsibilities include oversight of sample intake and chain-of-custody protocols, selection and implementation of analysis methodology, supervision of laboratory technicians performing physical analysis, quality review of analytical results, and authoring or co-authoring final teardown reports delivered to clients.

In connection with this litigation, Mr. Ng personally supervised the teardown analyses of all three accused Lumicore products: the LumiLink 400G-ZR+, the LumiLink 800G-DR8, and the LumiEdge 1600G-LR. He authored or co-authored each of the three teardown reports issued by Benchmark in connection with these analyses. Mr. Ng reports to Benchmark's Director of Engineering, Dr. Priya Raghavan, who also served as the internal peer reviewer on one of the three teardown reports, as discussed further below.

Mr. Ng's curriculum vitae was marked as Exhibit Ng-23 and was authenticated by the witness during the deposition.

III. ENGAGEMENT AND RETENTION BY OWS

A. Initial Retention

Mr. Ng testified that Benchmark was retained by Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. in November 2022 at the direction of Rebecca Tanaka, OWS's General Counsel. The stated purpose of the retention was to perform a reverse-engineering teardown of Lumicore Technologies, Inc.'s LumiLink 400G-ZR+ transceiver module in order to evaluate potential patent infringement. The engagement letter, dated November 3, 2022, was marked and authenticated as Exhibit Ng-1.

Mr. Ng confirmed that the initial engagement was coordinated through OWS's internal engineering team, specifically through Dr. Nikolai Petrov, Vice President of Engineering, Photonics Division. Dr. Petrov provided Benchmark with the product sample and initial technical guidance regarding which features of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ were of particular interest to OWS. Email correspondence between Mr. Ng and Dr. Petrov regarding the initial teardown scope was marked as Exhibit Ng-25.

Following OWS's retention of Calderwood & Harkness LLP as litigation counsel in March 2024, subsequent coordination of Benchmark's work was conducted through Calderwood & Harkness. Mr. Ng testified that the scope of Benchmark's engagement was expanded at that time to encompass further analysis of the previously completed teardowns and to coordinate the mapping of teardown findings to specific patent claim limitations in support of OWS's infringement contentions. Email correspondence between Mr. Ng and Wendy Schultz regarding the supplemental teardown scope for the 800G-DR8 and 1600G-LR was marked as Exhibit Ng-26.

Benchmark's engagement is structured on a standard hourly rate basis. Mr. Ng confirmed that the total estimated expert fee budget for the engagement is approximately $375,000, encompassing all three teardown projects, reporting, and deposition preparation. No portion of Benchmark's compensation is contingent on the outcome of this litigation.

B. Scope of Work

Three separate teardown projects were conducted by Benchmark in connection with this matter:

1. LumiLink 400G-ZR+ — This was the initial teardown project, completed on December 12, 2022. The teardown report was marked as Exhibit Ng-20.

2. LumiLink 800G-DR8 — This was a follow-on teardown project initiated after the Q1 2023 commercial launch of the 800G-DR8 product. The teardown was completed in approximately June 2023. The teardown report was marked as Exhibit Ng-21.

3. LumiEdge 1600G-LR — This was the third teardown project, initiated after the Q4 2023 commercial launch of the 1600G-LR product. The teardown was completed in approximately February 2024. The teardown report was marked as Exhibit Ng-22.

Each of the three teardown projects involved a comprehensive suite of analytical techniques, including physical disassembly of the transceiver module, optical microscopy and electron microscopy imaging of the internal components, cross-sectioning of specific structures of interest, chemical delayering to expose subsurface layers of the silicon photonic die, functional testing of optical performance characteristics where feasible, and detailed documentation and reporting of all observations and measurements.

Mr. Ng confirmed that he personally supervised all three teardown projects from intake through final report delivery and that he authored or co-authored each of the three teardown reports.

IV. CHAIN OF CUSTODY — ACCUSED PRODUCT SAMPLES

A. LumiLink 400G-ZR+ Sample

Mr. Ng testified that the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ sample was acquired by OWS's engineering team through a commercial purchase made in approximately October to November 2022. The sample was delivered to Benchmark's Santa Clara laboratory accompanied by a commercial invoice documenting the purchase and in what appeared to be the original Lumicore product packaging, although the outer packaging had been opened prior to arrival at Benchmark.

Upon receipt of the sample, Benchmark followed its standard intake protocol. The sample was photographed upon arrival, and the serial number and lot number printed on the module housing were recorded. A sample intake form was completed, and the sample was assigned an internal tracking number within Benchmark's laboratory information management system. The sample was then placed in Benchmark's secured evidence storage area, which is an access-controlled facility with logged entry. Only authorized Benchmark personnel with specific project assignments may access samples stored in the secured evidence area.

Mr. Ng confirmed that no alterations of any kind were made to the sample prior to the commencement of the formal teardown process. A chain-of-custody log was initiated at the time of intake and was maintained and updated at each subsequent stage of analysis, including disassembly, cross-sectioning, imaging, and storage of residual components following the completion of the teardown. Mr. Ng authenticated the chain-of-custody log for the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ sample, which was marked as Exhibit Ng-3.

B. LumiLink 800G-DR8 Sample

The LumiLink 800G-DR8 sample was acquired by OWS in early 2023, following the Q1 2023 commercial launch of the product. Mr. Ng testified that the same intake protocol was followed as with the 400G-ZR+ sample. The sample was received at Benchmark's laboratory accompanied by commercial documentation, and it was processed through Benchmark's standard intake, photography, serial number recording, and secured storage procedures. The chain-of-custody log for the LumiLink 800G-DR8 sample was maintained throughout the analysis and was authenticated by Mr. Ng as Exhibit Ng-8.

C. LumiEdge 1600G-LR Sample

The LumiEdge 1600G-LR sample was acquired by OWS following the Q4 2023 commercial launch of the product. The same intake protocol was followed. Mr. Ng confirmed the sample was received with commercial documentation, processed through standard intake procedures, and stored in the secured evidence area. The chain-of-custody log for the LumiEdge 1600G-LR sample was authenticated by Mr. Ng as Exhibit Ng-14.

D. Cross-Examination Highlights on Chain of Custody

During cross-examination, Samantha Briggs of HVC questioned whether OWS personnel or attorneys had handled or opened the accused product samples before delivering them to Benchmark. This line of questioning focused primarily on the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ sample.

Mr. Ng stated that, per the intake documentation, the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ outer packaging appeared to have been opened before the sample arrived at Benchmark. Mr. Ng explained that this was consistent with OWS's initial internal engineering inspection of the product in October 2022, which occurred prior to Benchmark's engagement in November 2022. However, Mr. Ng testified that the module itself — the transceiver unit within the outer packaging — showed no signs of physical modification, tampering, or disassembly when received by Benchmark. The housing seals were intact, and the module was consistent in appearance with a factory-condition product.

Mr. Ng confirmed that the 800G-DR8 and 1600G-LR samples, by contrast, arrived at Benchmark in sealed original packaging that had not been previously opened.

Ms. Briggs further probed whether Benchmark independently verified that the samples were authentic Lumicore products, rather than counterfeit or modified units. Mr. Ng stated that Benchmark confirmed the product identification of each sample through several means: serial number lookup against publicly available Lumicore product databases, comparison of exterior labeling and markings to Lumicore product data sheets available on Lumicore's website, and comparison of internal die markings observed during the teardown process to publicly available Lumicore die photographs published in industry teardown reports and conference presentations. In each case, the product identification was confirmed to be consistent with a genuine Lumicore product.

V. TEARDOWN METHODOLOGY

A. General Methodology

Mr. Ng described in detail Benchmark's standard teardown protocol for photonic integrated circuit (PIC) modules. He testified that the methodology is designed to systematically characterize the external and internal structures of the device under test while preserving the integrity of the analysis through comprehensive documentation at each stage. Benchmark's standard operating procedures for PIC teardown analysis were marked as Exhibit Ng-2 and authenticated by the witness.

The protocol consists of the following sequential steps:

1. Non-destructive external inspection and photography. The module is photographed from all angles using high-resolution macro imaging equipment. External dimensions, labeling, and markings are documented. This step establishes the baseline condition of the sample before any physical manipulation.

2. X-ray inspection of internal component layout. The sealed module is subjected to X-ray imaging to obtain a preliminary understanding of the internal component arrangement, interconnections, and die positioning without opening the device. This step allows the engineering team to plan the subsequent disassembly approach and identify areas of particular analytical interest.

3. Controlled disassembly. The module housing is carefully opened using precision tools. Components including the lid, heat sink, fiber-optic connectors, and any internal mounting hardware are removed in a controlled sequence. Each component is catalogued, photographed, and stored separately with traceable labeling.

4. Optical microscopy of exposed PIC die and associated electronics. Following disassembly, the exposed photonic integrated circuit die and any associated electronic integrated circuits (e.g., DSP chips, driver ICs, transimpedance amplifiers) are examined under optical microscopy at varying magnification levels. Initial observations of waveguide routing, grating structures, modulators, photodetectors, and other photonic components are recorded.

5. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) at multiple magnification levels. The PIC die and selected structures are imaged using SEM to obtain high-resolution surface topography images. SEM imaging is conducted at magnification levels ranging from approximately 50x to 100,000x, depending on the structures of interest. Dimensional measurements of specific features are taken using the SEM's calibrated measurement tools.

6. Focused ion beam (FIB) cross-sectioning of specific structures of interest. FIB milling is used to create precision cross-sections through targeted structures, including waveguide structures, grating couplers, and thermal management channels. Cross-sections are imaged using SEM to reveal the subsurface geometry and layer structure of the analyzed features.

7. Chemical delayering to expose subsurface layers of the silicon photonic die. Controlled chemical etching processes are employed to selectively remove specific material layers from the die surface, exposing underlying waveguide layers, metallization patterns, and other subsurface structures for further imaging and analysis.

8. Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) for material composition analysis. EDS is performed in conjunction with SEM imaging to determine the elemental composition of specific structures and materials within the device. This technique is used to confirm the material identity of waveguide cladding layers, thermal management channel walls, metallization, and other components.

9. Functional testing of optical performance characteristics. Where feasible on partially disassembled units, functional testing is performed to measure optical performance parameters such as insertion loss, coupling efficiency, polarization-dependent loss, and thermal dissipation characteristics. Mr. Ng noted that functional testing is not always possible depending on the extent of disassembly required and the specific structures under analysis, but Benchmark attempts to preserve functional testing capability for as long as possible during the teardown sequence.

10. Documentation and reporting. All observations, measurements, images, and analytical data are compiled into a comprehensive teardown report. The report includes annotated images identifying specific structures of interest, measurement data with uncertainty analysis, and a summary of key findings.

B. Equipment Used

Mr. Ng identified the specific analytical equipment used in the teardown analyses. Benchmark's SEM is a Meridian Instruments NanoVision S7000 field-emission scanning electron microscope with sub-10 nm resolution capability. The FIB system is a Meridian Instruments DualBeam 5200, which integrates focused ion beam milling with SEM imaging in a single instrument. Optical microscopy was performed using an Axiom Precision OM-9500 series optical microscope with both brightfield and darkfield imaging capabilities. X-ray inspection was conducted using an InspectTech XR-4000 micro-CT system. Optical profilometry was performed using a Northpoint Health IT optical profiler.

Mr. Ng confirmed that all analytical equipment is calibrated in accordance with Benchmark's ISO 17025-certified quality management system. Calibration records for the SEM and FIB equipment were marked as Exhibit Ng-24 and authenticated by the witness. Mr. Ng testified that calibration is performed on a regular schedule (quarterly for SEM measurement tools, annually for FIB milling parameters) and that all calibration records are maintained as part of Benchmark's quality assurance documentation.

C. Peer Review Process

Mr. Ng testified that each teardown report prepared by Benchmark undergoes internal peer review by at least one other senior engineer before it is issued to the client. The peer reviewer examines the report for completeness, accuracy of measurements, consistency of analytical findings, and conformity with Benchmark's standard reporting protocols.

Specifically, Mr. Ng confirmed that the December 12, 2022 teardown report on the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ was reviewed by Dr. Priya Raghavan, Benchmark's Director of Engineering, before delivery to OWS. The internal quality-review checklist for this report was marked as Exhibit Ng-27 and authenticated by the witness. The 800G-DR8 and 1600G-LR teardown reports were similarly peer reviewed, though Mr. Ng could not recall with certainty whether Dr. Raghavan or another senior engineer served as the peer reviewer for the latter two reports; he committed to confirming this information upon review of Benchmark's internal records.

D. Cross-Examination Highlights on Methodology

During cross-examination, Ms. Briggs questioned whether Benchmark's FIB cross-sectioning methodology could introduce artifacts — specifically, redeposition of milled material or curtaining effects — that might be misinterpreted as deliberate structural features of the analyzed device. Mr. Ng acknowledged the theoretical possibility that FIB milling can generate such artifacts, as is well-documented in the semiconductor analysis literature. However, he stated that Benchmark's protocol specifically addresses this risk by requiring comparison of FIB-prepared cross-sections to non-destructive X-ray images and optical microscopy images obtained earlier in the analysis sequence. If a structural feature is observed in the FIB cross-section and is also visible in the non-destructive imaging, the feature can be confirmed as part of the original, unmodified sample rather than an artifact of the preparation process. Mr. Ng testified that this cross-validation was performed for all structures of interest in the three accused products.

Ms. Briggs also questioned the resolution limits of SEM for identifying and measuring micro-channel dimensions, particularly in the context of the '562 Patent claims relating to micro-channel heat sink structures. Mr. Ng confirmed that the Meridian Instruments NanoVision S7000 SEM equipment used by Benchmark has sub-10 nm resolution at its highest magnification settings, which is more than adequate for characterizing micro-channels with hydraulic diameters in the range of 70–120 µm — the range relevant to the '562 Patent claims. Mr. Ng further stated that the measurement uncertainty associated with the SEM dimensional measurements is approximately ±5 µm, which was factored into the reported measurement ranges for the micro-channel dimensions.

VI. TEARDOWN FINDINGS — LUMILINK 400G-ZR+

A. Waveguide Multiplexer Structures ('847 Patent)

Mr. Ng testified that the teardown analysis of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ revealed the presence of a multi-channel silicon photonic waveguide multiplexer on the PIC die. This structure functions to combine multiple optical signals of different wavelengths onto a single output waveguide. Mr. Ng described the observed structure as comprising arrayed waveguide elements, slab coupler regions, and phase-shifted waveguide arrays — all of which are characteristic of an arrayed waveguide grating (AWG) type multiplexer architecture.

Mr. Ng confirmed that the observed waveguide multiplexer structure exhibits low insertion loss characteristics consistent with the claimed invention described in U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847 (the "'847 Patent"). Specifically, Mr. Ng testified that the observed structures correspond to the claim limitations of Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, and 14 of the '847 Patent, as mapped in OWS's infringement claim charts.

SEM images of the waveguide multiplexer structure were marked as Exhibits Ng-4 and Ng-5. Exhibit Ng-4 is a wide-field SEM image showing the overall layout of the multiplexer on the PIC die, including the input and output waveguide arrays, the slab coupler regions at either end of the arrayed waveguide section, and the phase-shifted waveguide array connecting the two slab couplers. Exhibit Ng-5 is a higher-magnification SEM image focused on the slab coupler region, showing the interface between the free-propagation region and the individual waveguide channels.

Mr. Ng testified that he mapped specific observed features of the waveguide multiplexer structure to corresponding claim limitations in the infringement claim chart for the '847 Patent. This mapping was performed in coordination with OWS's technical expert, Dr. Caroline Ashford, and OWS's litigation counsel at Calderwood & Harkness LLP.

B. Coherent Optical Transceiver on Silicon Substrate ('193 Patent)

Mr. Ng identified a coherent optical transceiver integrated on a silicon substrate within the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ module. He described the transceiver architecture as incorporating high-bandwidth coherent detection and modulation components on a single silicon die. The coherent detection module includes a 90-degree optical hybrid, balanced photodetector pairs for in-phase and quadrature detection channels, and associated waveguide routing on the silicon photonic platform. The modulation module includes Mach-Zehnder modulator structures with traveling-wave electrode configurations.

Mr. Ng testified that the features observed in the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ coherent transceiver map to the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193 (the "'193 Patent"), specifically Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 15, and 18. Mr. Ng noted that with respect to Claims 3 and 7, the coherent detection module in the 400G-ZR+ uses a structural implementation that, while functionally equivalent to the claimed "coherent detection module" described in those claims, may exhibit certain architectural details that differ from the literal claim language. Mr. Ng stated he was aware that this observation is relevant to OWS's doctrine of equivalents contentions for Claims 3 and 7, though he deferred to Dr. Ashford for the expert opinion on that issue.

Exhibits Ng-6 and Ng-7 were marked in connection with the '193 Patent findings. Exhibit Ng-6 is an optical microscopy image of the coherent transceiver die in the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ module, showing the overall die layout with the coherent detection and modulation functional blocks identified by annotation. Exhibit Ng-7 is an annotated SEM image focused on the coherent detection module, with specific structural features labeled and cross-referenced to corresponding claim limitations.

C. Micro-Channel Heat Sink Structures ('562 Patent)

Mr. Ng confirmed the presence of embedded micro-channel heat sink structures within the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ PIC assembly. These structures were revealed through FIB cross-sectioning of the photonic integrated circuit packaging and substrate assembly.

FIB cross-section images were marked as Exhibits Ng-9 and Ng-10. Exhibit Ng-9 shows a cross-sectional view of the micro-channel heat sink structure taken perpendicular to the channel axis, revealing the channel profile and surrounding substrate material. Exhibit Ng-10 provides a second cross-sectional view from a different angle, confirming the three-dimensional channel geometry and the relationship between the micro-channels and the overlying PIC die.

Mr. Ng testified that the micro-channels have hydraulic diameters measured at approximately 85–120 µm, based on SEM measurements taken on the FIB-prepared cross-sections. The measurement uncertainty associated with these values is ±5 µm. The channels were observed to be integrated directly into the photonic integrated circuit packaging and substrate, rather than being part of a separate, externally attached heat sink component. Mr. Ng stated that the micro-channels appeared to function as embedded heat dissipation pathways, consistent with the thermal management method claimed in U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562 (the "'562 Patent"), Claims 1, 4, 6, and 11.

EDS analysis was performed on the micro-channel walls and surrounding substrate material. The results confirmed that the channel walls are composed of materials consistent with thermal management applications, including copper and silicon-based composite materials commonly used in high-thermal-conductivity packaging substrates.

Mr. Ng stated that the December 12, 2022 teardown report (Exhibit Ng-20) specifically confirmed the "use of accused waveguide multiplexer structures and thermal management micro-channels" in the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ module. Mr. Ng authenticated this conclusion during his testimony, confirming that it accurately reflects the observations and measurements made during the teardown process.

D. Summary of 400G-ZR+ Findings

Mr. Ng's overall conclusion with respect to the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ is that the module contains physical structures that correspond to the claim limitations of the '847 Patent (Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 14), the '193 Patent (Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 15, 18), and the '562 Patent (Claims 1, 4, 6, 11), as mapped in OWS's infringement contentions. The '015 Patent was not asserted against the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ product, and accordingly the teardown report did not focus on grating coupler structures for this product.

VII. TEARDOWN FINDINGS — LUMILINK 800G-DR8

A. Waveguide Multiplexer Structures ('847 Patent)

Mr. Ng testified that the teardown analysis of the LumiLink 800G-DR8 revealed a multi-channel waveguide multiplexer architecture similar to that observed in the 400G-ZR+. The 800G-DR8 multiplexer incorporates additional channels relative to the 400G-ZR+ design in order to support the higher aggregate bandwidth of the 800G platform. Despite the increased channel count, the fundamental waveguide multiplexer architecture — including arrayed waveguide elements, slab coupler regions, and phase-shifted waveguide arrays — is consistent with the structure observed in the 400G-ZR+.

Mr. Ng confirmed that the observed waveguide multiplexer structure in the 800G-DR8 maps to Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, and 14 of the '847 Patent, as set forth in OWS's infringement claim charts. Annotated images of the waveguide multiplexer structure were marked as Exhibits Ng-11 and Ng-12. Exhibit Ng-11 is an SEM image showing the overall multiplexer layout on the 800G-DR8 PIC die. Exhibit Ng-12 is an annotated SEM image providing a detailed view of the waveguide array structure, with individual waveguide channels and the phase-shift elements clearly resolved.

B. Coherent Optical Transceiver on Silicon Substrate ('193 Patent)

Mr. Ng identified a coherent optical transceiver integrated on a silicon substrate within the LumiLink 800G-DR8 module. He testified that the 800G-DR8 uses an enhanced version of the coherent transceiver architecture observed in the 400G-ZR+, with modifications to support the higher data rate and additional channel parallelism required by the 800G specification. The core functional components — coherent detection module with 90-degree optical hybrid, balanced photodetectors, Mach-Zehnder modulators — are present in the 800G-DR8 in substantially similar form.

The observed coherent transceiver structure in the 800G-DR8 maps to Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 15, and 18 of the '193 Patent, consistent with OWS's infringement contentions.

C. Micro-Channel Heat Sink Structures ('562 Patent)

Mr. Ng confirmed that micro-channel heat sink structures are present in the LumiLink 800G-DR8 PIC assembly. FIB cross-sectioning revealed embedded micro-channels with hydraulic diameters measured in the range of approximately 70–110 µm, with the same ±5 µm measurement uncertainty as reported for the 400G-ZR+ measurements. The measured range for the 800G-DR8 channels is slightly narrower and includes somewhat smaller channel dimensions compared to the 400G-ZR+, which Mr. Ng attributed to design optimization for the higher power density of the 800G platform.

The micro-channel structures in the 800G-DR8 map to Claims 1, 4, 6, and 11 of the '562 Patent. FIB cross-section images were marked as Exhibit Ng-13.

D. Polarization-Diverse Grating Coupler ('015 Patent)

Mr. Ng identified a grating coupler structure on the 800G-DR8 PIC die that is capable of coupling light of two orthogonal polarization states — specifically, the transverse electric (TE) mode and the transverse magnetic (TM) mode. Mr. Ng described the structure as a grating coupler with polarization-splitting functionality, meaning that it can receive an incoming optical fiber mode containing both TE and TM polarization components and route these components to separate waveguide outputs for independent processing by the coherent receiver.

Mr. Ng testified that the grating coupler structure was observed at multiple SEM magnification levels and that it exhibits a two-dimensional periodic grating pattern on its surface. The specific grating geometry was characterized by SEM measurement, and Mr. Ng provided dimensional data for the grating period, duty cycle, and etch depth, as recorded in the 800G-DR8 teardown report (Exhibit Ng-21).

The observed polarization-diverse grating coupler structure maps to Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015 (the "'015 Patent"). Mr. Ng noted that with respect to Claim 12, which recites a "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating" limitation, the specific grating geometry in the 800G-DR8 uses a structure that may differ in certain dimensional details from the literal claim language. However, Mr. Ng testified that the grating performs the same polarization-diverse coupling function described in the claim — coupling light of orthogonal polarization states with high efficiency and directing them to separate output waveguides. Mr. Ng stated he was aware that this observation is relevant to OWS's doctrine of equivalents contention for Claim 12, but he deferred to Dr. Ashford for the legal and technical expert opinion on that issue.

SEM images of the grating coupler were marked as Exhibits Ng-15 and Ng-16. Exhibit Ng-15 is a wide-field SEM image showing the grating coupler structure in the context of the surrounding photonic circuit layout. Exhibit Ng-16 is a high-magnification SEM image providing a detailed view of the grating pattern, with the two-dimensional periodic structure clearly visible and dimensional measurements annotated.

E. Summary of 800G-DR8 Findings

Mr. Ng's overall conclusion with respect to the LumiLink 800G-DR8 is that the module contains physical structures corresponding to the claim limitations of all four asserted patents: the '847 Patent (Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 14), the '193 Patent (Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 15, 18), the '562 Patent (Claims 1, 4, 6, 11), and the '015 Patent (Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 16). The 800G-DR8 is the only accused product against which all four asserted patents are asserted.

VIII. TEARDOWN FINDINGS — LUMIEDGE 1600G-LR

A. Coherent Optical Transceiver on Silicon Substrate ('193 Patent)

Mr. Ng identified a coherent optical transceiver integrated on a silicon substrate within the LumiEdge 1600G-LR module. The architecture is similar to that observed in the 400G-ZR+ and 800G-DR8 products but has been further scaled to support 1600G operation with additional parallelism and higher per-channel baud rates. Mr. Ng testified that the fundamental coherent transceiver building blocks — 90-degree optical hybrid, balanced photodetector pairs, Mach-Zehnder modulators — are present on the 1600G-LR silicon photonic die.

The observed coherent transceiver structure maps to Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 15, and 18 of the '193 Patent. Annotated images were marked as Exhibits Ng-17 and Ng-18. Exhibit Ng-17 is an optical microscopy image of the coherent transceiver die in the LumiEdge 1600G-LR module, showing the overall die layout. Exhibit Ng-18 is an SEM image providing a detailed view of specific transceiver structures on the die, with annotations cross-referencing the infringement claim chart.

B. Polarization-Diverse Grating Coupler ('015 Patent)

Mr. Ng identified a polarization-diverse grating coupler structure on the 1600G-LR PIC die, similar in architecture and functionality to the grating coupler observed in the 800G-DR8 product. The grating coupler in the 1600G-LR is capable of coupling light of both TE and TM polarization states, directing these components to separate output waveguides.

The observed grating coupler structure maps to Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, and 16 of the '015 Patent. An SEM image of the grating coupler was marked as Exhibit Ng-19.

C. Products Not Accused Under '847 and '562 for LumiEdge 1600G-LR

Mr. Ng noted during his testimony that the LumiEdge 1600G-LR is not accused of infringing the '847 Patent or the '562 Patent in this litigation. Accordingly, Benchmark's teardown report for the 1600G-LR did not focus on detailed analysis or claim-limitation mapping of waveguide multiplexer structures or micro-channel heat sink structures for this particular product. While Mr. Ng stated that some thermal management features were observed in the 1600G-LR assembly during the general disassembly and inspection process, these were not characterized in detail because they were outside the scope of the analysis requested for this product.

D. Summary of 1600G-LR Findings

Mr. Ng's overall conclusion with respect to the LumiEdge 1600G-LR is that the module contains physical structures corresponding to the claim limitations of the '193 Patent (Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 15, 18) and the '015 Patent (Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 16), which are the two patents asserted against this product.

IX. CLAIM-LIMITATION MAPPING — CROSS-REFERENCE TO INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS

Mr. Ng testified that he worked with OWS's litigation counsel at Calderwood & Harkness LLP and with Dr. Caroline Ashford, OWS's retained technical and infringement expert (Professor of Electrical Engineering and Photonics at the Northfield Institute of Technology), to map the teardown findings from all three accused products to specific claim limitations in OWS's Patent Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions, which were served on September 16, 2024.

Mr. Ng confirmed that the annotated photographs, SEM images, FIB cross-section images, and measurement data from his teardown reports were incorporated into the infringement claim charts prepared for each of the four asserted patents. Specifically:

• '847 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847), Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, and 14 — Asserted against the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and the LumiLink 800G-DR8. Teardown findings from both products' waveguide multiplexer structures were incorporated into the claim charts.

• '193 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193), Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 15, and 18 — Asserted against all three accused products: LumiLink 400G-ZR+, LumiLink 800G-DR8, and LumiEdge 1600G-LR. Teardown findings from the coherent optical transceiver structures in all three products were incorporated into the claim charts.

• '562 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562), Claims 1, 4, 6, and 11 — Asserted against the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and the LumiLink 800G-DR8. Teardown findings from the micro-channel heat sink structures in both products were incorporated into the claim charts.

• '015 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015), Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, and 16 — Asserted against the LumiLink 800G-DR8 and the LumiEdge 1600G-LR. Teardown findings from the polarization-diverse grating coupler structures in both products were incorporated into the claim charts.

Mr. Ng stated that for each claim limitation in the asserted claims, he was able to identify a corresponding physical structure or functional characteristic in the accused product that matched the limitation, based on his observations and measurements during the teardown process. Mr. Ng emphasized that this mapping was performed in his capacity as a reverse-engineering engineer documenting physical findings and is not intended as a legal conclusion regarding infringement. The legal analysis of whether the observed structures satisfy the claim limitations under the applicable claim construction is addressed by Dr. Ashford in her expert infringement opinion.

X. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL

A. Scope of Ng's Opinions

During cross-examination, Ms. Briggs clarified the nature and scope of Mr. Ng's testimony. She established that Mr. Ng is testifying in this case as a fact witness — specifically, as the percipient engineer who conducted and supervised the teardown analyses of the three accused products — and not as a retained expert witness rendering legal or technical opinions on issues of infringement, claim construction, or patent validity.

Mr. Ng confirmed this characterization. He stated that he is not offering opinions on claim construction, infringement, or validity. His testimony is limited to describing what he physically observed and measured during the teardown process and explaining how those observations relate to the structures described in the patent claims at a factual, descriptive level. Mr. Ng acknowledged that the ultimate determination of whether the observed structures satisfy the claim limitations of the asserted patents is a matter for the technical expert (Dr. Ashford) and for the Court and jury.

B. Potential Biases

Ms. Briggs questioned whether Benchmark's compensation in connection with this engagement is contingent in any way on the outcome of the litigation. Mr. Ng stated unequivocally that Benchmark's fees are calculated on an hourly basis at standard rates and are in no way contingent on any litigation outcome, verdict, or settlement. This is consistent with Benchmark's standard engagement terms as documented in the engagement letter (Exhibit Ng-1).

Ms. Briggs noted that Benchmark was retained by OWS, the plaintiff in this case, and asked whether Benchmark performed any analysis or reached any findings suggesting that the accused products do not infringe the asserted patents. Mr. Ng stated that Benchmark's assignment was to analyze the products and report what structures were found, not to reach legal conclusions about infringement or non-infringement. He testified that Benchmark's teardown reports document the physical structures observed and the measurements taken, and that Benchmark did not undertake to evaluate whether any observed structures might support a non-infringement defense or fall outside the scope of the patent claims.

Ms. Briggs asked whether Mr. Ng had any communications with OWS personnel or Calderwood & Harkness attorneys directing him to look for specific features in the accused products. Mr. Ng acknowledged that he received technical guidance from OWS's engineering team — specifically from Dr. Nikolai Petrov, Vice President of Engineering, Photonics Division — regarding which features of the accused products were of particular interest to OWS. This guidance was provided at the outset of the initial 400G-ZR+ teardown engagement in November 2022, as reflected in the email correspondence marked as Exhibit Ng-25. Mr. Ng further acknowledged that, after Calderwood & Harkness was engaged as litigation counsel in March 2024, he received guidance from C&H attorneys, including Wendy Schultz, regarding which patent claim limitations to focus the analysis on for the purposes of the infringement contentions. This is reflected in the email correspondence marked as Exhibit Ng-26.

Mr. Ng stated, however, that while he received guidance on which features and claim limitations were of interest, the observations and measurements themselves were independently performed by Benchmark's engineering team using standard analytical techniques. Benchmark did not receive instructions on what results to find or how to characterize the observed structures.

C. Challenges to Specific Findings

Ms. Briggs challenged several specific aspects of Mr. Ng's teardown findings during cross-examination.

First, with respect to the micro-channel heat sink structures observed in the 400G-ZR+ and 800G-DR8, Ms. Briggs questioned whether these structures could be standard industry thermal management features that are widely used across the semiconductor industry and are not unique to the technology claimed in the '562 Patent. Mr. Ng responded that his role was to document the structures as observed and to provide accurate dimensional and compositional data. He stated that he did not form an opinion, and was not asked to form an opinion, on whether the micro-channel structures are unique to any particular patent or represent widely known techniques in the semiconductor thermal management field. Mr. Ng stated that this question is within the province of the technical experts retained by both parties.

Second, Ms. Briggs questioned the measurement precision of the micro-channel hydraulic diameters. She noted that the reported ranges — 85–120 µm for the 400G-ZR+ and 70–110 µm for the 800G-DR8 — represent a spread of 35–40 µm, and asked whether this variability undermines the reliability of the measurements. Mr. Ng explained that the variability reflects genuine physical variation in the channel dimensions across different regions of the micro-channel array, rather than measurement imprecision. He confirmed that the individual measurements were taken using calibrated SEM measurement tools with a measurement uncertainty margin of ±5 µm, which is substantially smaller than the observed dimensional range. The spread in the reported hydraulic diameter values reflects the fact that the micro-channels are not perfectly uniform in cross-section throughout the array, which is typical for micro-channel structures fabricated using semiconductor processing techniques.

Third, Ms. Briggs asked about the grating coupler structure identified in the LumiLink 800G-DR8 and questioned whether Mr. Ng could confirm that it satisfies the specific definition of a "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating" as that term appears in Claim 12 of the '015 Patent. Mr. Ng stated that the grating coupler exhibits a two-dimensional periodic pattern that was characterized by SEM imaging, and that the grating period measurements are documented in the teardown report. However, Mr. Ng deferred to Dr. Ashford's expert opinion on the question of whether the observed structure meets the "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating" limitation literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, as this determination depends on the claim construction adopted by the Court and a technical analysis that is beyond the scope of his fact testimony.

D. Prior Art Awareness

Ms. Briggs asked whether Mr. Ng was familiar with any of the twenty-three prior-art references cited in Lumicore's P.R. 3-3 Invalidity Contentions, which were served on October 14, 2024. Mr. Ng stated that he had not reviewed the invalidity contentions or any of the cited prior-art references. He confirmed that he was not asked by OWS or by Calderwood & Harkness to evaluate prior art as part of his engagement, and that Benchmark's scope of work was limited to the physical teardown analysis and documentation of the accused products.

XI. EXHIBITS MARKED DURING DEPOSITION

The following twenty-seven exhibits were marked during the deposition of Kevin Ng on January 7, 2025:

XII. KEY TAKEAWAYS AND ASSESSMENTS

A. Strengths of Ng's Testimony

Mr. Ng was clear, methodical, and well-prepared throughout the approximately six-hour deposition. He presented as a highly credible fact witness with extensive experience in semiconductor reverse engineering and teardown analysis. His testimony was precise and consistent, and he demonstrated a thorough command of the technical details of each teardown without overreaching into areas outside the scope of his expertise or engagement.

The chain-of-custody documentation for all three accused product samples was thorough and well-maintained. Mr. Ng authenticated the chain-of-custody logs for each sample (Exhibits Ng-3, Ng-8, and Ng-14) and described Benchmark's standard intake, storage, and handling protocols in detail. The chain-of-custody documentation is unlikely to be successfully challenged at trial, particularly for the 800G-DR8 and 1600G-LR samples, which arrived at Benchmark in sealed original packaging.

Mr. Ng's identification of specific physical structures in each accused product corresponding to each asserted claim limitation provides powerful corroborative evidence for Dr. Ashford's expert infringement opinions. The annotated SEM images, FIB cross-sections, and optical microscopy images generated by Benchmark's analysis form the evidentiary foundation for the infringement claim charts and will be central to the presentation of OWS's infringement case at trial.

Mr. Ng's testimony regarding the micro-channel heat sink structures in the context of the '562 Patent was particularly strong. The FIB cross-section images (Exhibits Ng-9, Ng-10, and Ng-13) are compelling visual evidence of the embedded micro-channel structures, and the measurement precision — ±5 µm uncertainty on hydraulic diameter measurements in the 70–120 µm range — is more than adequate to support OWS's position that the accused structures fall within the scope of the '562 Patent claims.

Additionally, Mr. Ng's confirmation of the December 12, 2022 teardown report — which specifically documents the "use of accused waveguide multiplexer structures and thermal management micro-channels" in the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ — directly supports the timeline of OWS's pre-suit investigation. This finding is relevant to establishing the factual basis for FairPoint Licensing Group's January 15, 2023 notice letter to Lumicore, which served as the pre-suit notification of potential infringement and triggers the willfulness analysis from that date forward.

B. Potential Vulnerabilities

Several potential vulnerabilities in Mr. Ng's testimony should be noted and addressed in advance of trial:

Chain of custody for the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ sample. The LumiLink 400G-ZR+ sample packaging had been opened by OWS personnel before delivery to Benchmark, as OWS's engineering team conducted an initial internal inspection of the product in October 2022, approximately one month before Benchmark was engaged. Although Mr. Ng testified that the module itself showed no signs of modification, tampering, or disassembly, and that the module was consistent in appearance with a factory-condition product, defense counsel may argue that this gap in the chain of custody raises questions about the authenticity and integrity of the sample analyzed by Benchmark.

Mitigation: This potential vulnerability can be addressed through multiple avenues. First, Mr. Ng's intake documentation, including serial number verification and comparison to Lumicore's publicly available product data sheets, confirms the authenticity of the sample. Second, the internal die markings observed during the teardown were consistent with publicly available Lumicore die photographs. Third, Dr. Nikolai Petrov, OWS's Vice President of Engineering, Photonics Division, can provide declaration or deposition testimony regarding the circumstances of the initial October 2022 inspection and confirming that the module was not altered, disassembled, or modified during that inspection. Coordination with Dr. Petrov on this point is identified as a follow-up action item below.

Limitation to fact testimony. Mr. Ng deferred to Dr. Ashford on all questions regarding whether the observed structures in the accused products satisfy the claim constructions adopted by the Court. His testimony is purely observational and factual in nature, which limits his direct utility on contested legal issues such as claim construction and the application of the doctrine of equivalents. However, this same limitation also insulates Mr. Ng from Daubert challenges, since he is testifying as a fact witness regarding his personal observations and measurements rather than as an expert offering opinions subject to the Daubert reliability framework.

Micro-channel structures as standard industry features. Defense counsel's line of questioning during cross-examination — suggesting that the micro-channel heat sink structures observed in the 400G-ZR+ and 800G-DR8 could be standard industry thermal management features rather than structures unique to the '562 Patent — could resonate with the jury if Lumicore's technical expert, Dr. Rajesh Sundaram (Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Pacific Western University), develops this theme in his validity and non-infringement opinions.

Mitigation: Dr. Ashford's expert infringement report, due June 15, 2025, will specifically address the distinction between the micro-channel architecture claimed in the '562 Patent and generic industry thermal management solutions. Dr. Ashford's report is expected to demonstrate that the specific configuration of the micro-channels — including their integration directly into the PIC packaging/substrate, their dimensional characteristics, and their spatial relationship to the photonic circuit elements — corresponds to the claimed invention and is distinguishable from conventional thermal management approaches.

C. Impact on Case Strategy

Mr. Ng's deposition testimony has several significant implications for OWS's overall case strategy going forward:

Partial summary judgment on '562 Patent infringement. Mr. Ng's testimony strongly supports pursuing partial summary judgment on infringement of the '562 Patent, specifically Claims 1, 4, and 6, for the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and LumiLink 800G-DR8. The physical evidence of embedded micro-channel heat sink structures in both products is unambiguous, the dimensional measurements are precise and well-documented, and the FIB cross-section images provide compelling visual proof. If the Court's claim construction of the disputed terms in the '562 Patent claims aligns with OWS's proposed constructions, the physical evidence from Mr. Ng's teardowns may be sufficient to establish literal infringement as a matter of law, leaving validity as the only contested issue for trial on these claims.

Doctrine of equivalents — '015 Patent, Claim 12. Mr. Ng's observations regarding the grating coupler structures in the LumiLink 800G-DR8 and LumiEdge 1600G-LR support OWS's doctrine of equivalents theory for Claim 12 of the '015 Patent. Mr. Ng described the grating coupler as performing the same polarization-diverse coupling function as the claimed "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating," even though certain dimensional details of the observed grating geometry may differ from the literal claim language. This factual foundation supports Dr. Ashford's anticipated expert opinion that the accused grating coupler performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result as the claimed structure.

Doctrine of equivalents — '193 Patent, Claims 3 and 7. Similarly, Mr. Ng's testimony regarding the coherent detection module architecture in the accused products supports OWS's doctrine of equivalents contentions for Claims 3 and 7 of the '193 Patent. Mr. Ng observed that the coherent detection module in the accused products uses a structural implementation that is functionally equivalent to the claimed "coherent detection module," even though certain architectural details differ from the literal claim language. This factual observation will be developed further in Dr. Ashford's expert infringement analysis.

XIII. FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS

The following action items have been identified based on the deposition of Kevin Ng:

• [ ] Trial witness preparation. Prepare Mr. Ng for potential trial testimony, anticipated to be presented live or by video deposition. Coordinate with Wendy Schultz on the witness preparation timeline, with preparation sessions anticipated in approximately January 2026 in advance of the currently scheduled trial date.

• [ ] Exhibit cataloguing. Confirm that all twenty-seven deposition exhibits (Ng-1 through Ng-27) are properly catalogued in the firm's document management system and cross-referenced to the trial exhibit list. The Benchmark teardown reports and associated photographs are anticipated to be designated as Trial Exhibits P-049 through P-112 in OWS's trial exhibit list.

• [ ] Coordination with Dr. Ashford. Coordinate with Dr. Caroline Ashford to ensure that her expert infringement report, due June 15, 2025, incorporates and specifically cites Mr. Ng's teardown data, SEM and FIB images, and measurement results. The annotated images from the teardown reports should be cross-referenced in Dr. Ashford's claim charts with appropriate citations to the Benchmark reports and Ng deposition testimony.

• [ ] Dr. Petrov declaration/deposition. Follow up with Dr. Nikolai Petrov, OWS Vice President of Engineering, Photonics Division, regarding a potential declaration or deposition testimony to address the chain-of-custody gap on the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ sample. Specifically, Dr. Petrov should testify regarding the circumstances of OWS's initial October 2022 internal engineering inspection of the 400G-ZR+ module and confirm that the module was not altered, disassembled, or modified during that inspection.

• [ ] Transcript errata review. Review Mr. Ng's deposition transcript for any errata or corrections when the final certified transcript is received from the court reporter. The deadline for submission of an errata sheet under the applicable Eastern District of Texas local rules should be calendared and communicated to Mr. Ng.

• [ ] Deposition designations. Evaluate whether any portions of Mr. Ng's deposition testimony should be designated for trial presentation in the event Mr. Ng is unavailable to testify live. Begin the deposition designation process for inclusion in the deposition designation and counter-designation chart, which is anticipated to be due in approximately January 2026 under the Court's pretrial order.

• [ ] Supplemental teardown analysis. Assess whether supplemental teardown analysis is warranted based on Lumicore's recently produced design files, including RTL schematics and photonic-IC layout files designated as Highly Confidential — Source Code under the Protective Order. If the design files reveal additional structural details relevant to the infringement contentions — or if they suggest modifications to the accused product architectures not captured in the existing teardown reports — coordinate with Mr. Ng on the feasibility, scope, and timing of supplemental analysis.

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT. Prepared by Calderwood & Harkness LLP in connection with its representation of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. in Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. v. Lumicore Technologies, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00319-JRG (E.D. Tex.). This memorandum constitutes attorney work product and is protected from disclosure under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3) and applicable state law equivalents. This document is prepared in anticipation of litigation and reflects the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories of attorneys. Not to be disclosed to any person or entity without the prior authorization of counsel.

Matter No. 1014-00004	Document No. 77 (per matter document inventory)
Exhibit No.	Description
Ng-1	Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC engagement letter with Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. (November 3, 2022)
Ng-2	Benchmark standard operating procedures for PIC teardown analysis
Ng-3	Chain-of-custody log — LumiLink 400G-ZR+ sample
Ng-4	SEM image — waveguide multiplexer structure, LumiLink 400G-ZR+
Ng-5	SEM image — slab coupler region, LumiLink 400G-ZR+
Ng-6	Optical microscopy image — coherent transceiver die, LumiLink 400G-ZR+
Ng-7	Annotated SEM image — coherent detection module, LumiLink 400G-ZR+
Ng-8	Chain-of-custody log — LumiLink 800G-DR8 sample
Ng-9	FIB cross-section image — micro-channel heat sink, LumiLink 400G-ZR+
Ng-10	FIB cross-section image — micro-channel heat sink (second angle), LumiLink 400G-ZR+
Ng-11	SEM image — waveguide multiplexer structure, LumiLink 800G-DR8
Ng-12	Annotated SEM image — waveguide array detail, LumiLink 800G-DR8
Ng-13	FIB cross-section image — micro-channel heat sink, LumiLink 800G-DR8
Ng-14	Chain-of-custody log — LumiEdge 1600G-LR sample
Ng-15	SEM image — grating coupler structure, LumiLink 800G-DR8
Ng-16	High-magnification SEM image — grating coupler detail, LumiLink 800G-DR8
Ng-17	Optical microscopy image — coherent transceiver die, LumiEdge 1600G-LR
Ng-18	SEM image — coherent transceiver die detail, LumiEdge 1600G-LR
Ng-19	SEM image — grating coupler structure, LumiEdge 1

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
INTERNAL DEPOSITION SUMMARY
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
Matter: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. v. Lumicore Technologies, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00319-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, marshall Division
Presiding Judge: The Honorable James R. Gilstrap
Prepared By: Omar Siddiqui, Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
Reviewed By: Wendy Schultz, Lead Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
Date: January 10, 2025
Distribution: Alan Ngo (Responsible Partner); Marcus Delgado (Billing Partner); Wendy Schultz (Lead Associate); Case File
Re: Deposition Summary of Kevin Ng, Lead Engineer, Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC — Deposition Taken January 7, 2025
I. DEPOSITION OVERVIEW
The deposition of Kevin Ng was taken on January 7, 2025, at the offices of Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 350 South Grand Avenue, 48th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071. Mr. Ng appeared in person as a fact witness in connection with his role as Lead Engineer at Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC, the firm retained by Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. ("OWS") to perform reverse-engineering teardown analyses of the accused Lumicore Technologies, Inc. ("Lumicore") products at issue in this litigation.
Examining Counsel (Plaintiff): Wendy Schultz, Calderwood & Harkness LLP, conducted the direct examination of the witness on behalf of OWS.
Examining Counsel (Defendant): Samantha Briggs, Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP ("HVC"), conducted the cross-examination of the witness on behalf of Lumicore.
Also Present: Omar Siddiqui, Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP; Rohan Iyer, Associate, Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP.
Court Reporter: Patricia Drummond, Certified Court Reporter, National Court Reporting Associates, Inc.
Videographer: James Kowalski, Apex Litigation Video Services.
The deposition lasted approximately six hours, inclusive of breaks. The transcript comprises approximately 287 pages. A total of twenty-seven exhibits were marked during the deposition, designated as Deposition Exhibits Ng-1 through Ng-27. The transcript has been ordered on an expedited basis, and a rough draft was received on January 9, 2025. This summary is based on the rough draft transcript and counsel's contemporaneous notes; citations to specific transcript pages will be confirmed upon receipt of the final certified transcript.
II. WITNESS BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
A. Professional Background
Kevin Ng currently holds the position of Lead Engineer at Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC ("Benchmark"), located at 2244 Mission College Boulevard, Santa Clara, California 95054. Mr. Ng has approximately fourteen years of experience in the semiconductor analysis and failure-analysis industry, with particular expertise in reverse engineering, teardown analysis, and physical characterization of advanced photonic and electronic integrated circuits.
Mr. Ng holds a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Pacific Coast University (2008) and a Master of Science in Materials Science and Engineering from the Western Institute of Technology (2011). His graduate research focused on the characterization of silicon photonic waveguide structures using electron microscopy techniques, which is directly relevant to the analysis at issue in this case.
Prior to joining Benchmark in 2016, Mr. Ng was employed at Veritech Analytical Labs, Inc. in San Jose, California, where he served as a Senior Semiconductor Analyst from 2011 to 2016. At Veritech, he performed failure analysis and competitive benchmarking teardowns for several major semiconductor companies. He transitioned to Benchmark in August 2016 and was promoted to Lead Engineer in January 2019.
Mr. Ng's areas of specialization include photonic integrated circuit (PIC) analysis, silicon photonics device characterization, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), focused ion beam (FIB) cross-sectioning, and optical profilometry. He testified that he has personally completed or directly supervised over 200 product teardown and reverse-engineering projects over the course of his career, spanning a broad range of semiconductor devices including optical transceivers, photonic integrated circuits, RF components, MEMS devices, and advanced packaging assemblies.
With respect to prior testimony experience, Mr. Ng stated that he has been deposed three times previously in connection with patent litigation matters and has testified as a fact witness at trial in two prior patent cases: Clearpath Optics, Inc. v. Veritas Photonics Corp., No. 5:19-cv-01234 (N.D. Cal.), and Aethon Semiconductor Inc. v. LightGrid Technologies, LLC, No. 6:20-cv-00542 (W.D. Tex.). In both instances, Mr. Ng testified regarding the results of teardown analyses he conducted on accused products. He was not retained as an expert witness in either matter.
B. Role at Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC
Mr. Ng serves as the Lead Engineer responsible for directing teardown projects at Benchmark. His responsibilities include oversight of sample intake and chain-of-custody protocols, selection and implementation of analysis methodology, supervision of laboratory technicians performing physical analysis, quality review of analytical results, and authoring or co-authoring final teardown reports delivered to clients.
In connection with this litigation, Mr. Ng personally supervised the teardown analyses of all three accused Lumicore products: the LumiLink 400G-ZR+, the LumiLink 800G-DR8, and the LumiEdge 1600G-LR. He authored or co-authored each of the three teardown reports issued by Benchmark in connection with these analyses. Mr. Ng reports to Benchmark's Director of Engineering, Dr. Priya Raghavan, who also served as the internal peer reviewer on one of the three teardown reports, as discussed further below.
Mr. Ng's curriculum vitae was marked as Exhibit Ng-23 and was authenticated by the witness during the deposition.
III. ENGAGEMENT AND RETENTION BY OWS
A. Initial Retention
Mr. Ng testified that Benchmark was retained by Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. in November 2022 at the direction of Rebecca Tanaka, OWS's General Counsel. The stated purpose of the retention was to perform a reverse-engineering teardown of Lumicore Technologies, Inc.'s LumiLink 400G-ZR+ transceiver module in order to evaluate potential patent infringement. The engagement letter, dated November 3, 2022, was marked and authenticated as Exhibit Ng-1.
Mr. Ng confirmed that the initial engagement was coordinated through OWS's internal engineering team, specifically through Dr. Nikolai Petrov, Vice President of Engineering, Photonics Division. Dr. Petrov provided Benchmark with the product sample and initial technical guidance regarding which features of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ were of particular interest to OWS. Email correspondence between Mr. Ng and Dr. Petrov regarding the initial teardown scope was marked as Exhibit Ng-25.
Following OWS's retention of Calderwood & Harkness LLP as litigation counsel in March 2024, subsequent coordination of Benchmark's work was conducted through Calderwood & Harkness. Mr. Ng testified that the scope of Benchmark's engagement was expanded at that time to encompass further analysis of the previously completed teardowns and to coordinate the mapping of teardown findings to specific patent claim limitations in support of OWS's infringement contentions. Email correspondence between Mr. Ng and Wendy Schultz regarding the supplemental teardown scope for the 800G-DR8 and 1600G-LR was marked as Exhibit Ng-26.
Benchmark's engagement is structured on a standard hourly rate basis. Mr. Ng confirmed that the total estimated expert fee budget for the engagement is approximately $375,000, encompassing all three teardown projects, reporting, and deposition preparation. No portion of Benchmark's compensation is contingent on the outcome of this litigation.
B. Scope of Work
Three separate teardown projects were conducted by Benchmark in connection with this matter:
1.  LumiLink 400G-ZR+ — This was the initial teardown project, completed on December 12, 2022. The teardown report was marked as Exhibit Ng-20.
2.  LumiLink 800G-DR8 — This was a follow-on teardown project initiated after the Q1 2023 commercial launch of the 800G-DR8 product. The teardown was completed in approximately June 2023. The teardown report was marked as Exhibit Ng-21.
3.  LumiEdge 1600G-LR — This was the third teardown project, initiated after the Q4 2023 commercial launch of the 1600G-LR product. The teardown was completed in approximately February 2024. The teardown report was marked as Exhibit Ng-22.
Each of the three teardown projects involved a comprehensive suite of analytical techniques, including physical disassembly of the transceiver module, optical microscopy and electron microscopy imaging of the internal components, cross-sectioning of specific structures of interest, chemical delayering to expose subsurface layers of the silicon photonic die, functional testing of optical performance characteristics where feasible, and detailed documentation and reporting of all observations and measurements.
Mr. Ng confirmed that he personally supervised all three teardown projects from intake through final report delivery and that he authored or co-authored each of the three teardown reports.
IV. CHAIN OF CUSTODY — ACCUSED PRODUCT SAMPLES
A. LumiLink 400G-ZR+ Sample
Mr. Ng testified that the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ sample was acquired by OWS's engineering team through a commercial purchase made in approximately October to November 2022. The sample was delivered to Benchmark's Santa Clara laboratory accompanied by a commercial invoice documenting the purchase and in what appeared to be the original Lumicore product packaging, although the outer packaging had been opened prior to arrival at Benchmark.
Upon receipt of the sample, Benchmark followed its standard intake protocol. The sample was photographed upon arrival, and the serial number and lot number printed on the module housing were recorded. A sample intake form was completed, and the sample was assigned an internal tracking number within Benchmark's laboratory information management system. The sample was then placed in Benchmark's secured evidence storage area, which is an access-controlled facility with logged entry. Only authorized Benchmark personnel with specific project assignments may access samples stored in the secured evidence area.
Mr. Ng confirmed that no alterations of any kind were made to the sample prior to the commencement of the formal teardown process. A chain-of-custody log was initiated at the time of intake and was maintained and updated at each subsequent stage of analysis, including disassembly, cross-sectioning, imaging, and storage of residual components following the completion of the teardown. Mr. Ng authenticated the chain-of-custody log for the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ sample, which was marked as Exhibit Ng-3.
B. LumiLink 800G-DR8 Sample
The LumiLink 800G-DR8 sample was acquired by OWS in early 2023, following the Q1 2023 commercial launch of the product. Mr. Ng testified that the same intake protocol was followed as with the 400G-ZR+ sample. The sample was received at Benchmark's laboratory accompanied by commercial documentation, and it was processed through Benchmark's standard intake, photography, serial number recording, and secured storage procedures. The chain-of-custody log for the LumiLink 800G-DR8 sample was maintained throughout the analysis and was authenticated by Mr. Ng as Exhibit Ng-8.
C. LumiEdge 1600G-LR Sample
The LumiEdge 1600G-LR sample was acquired by OWS following the Q4 2023 commercial launch of the product. The same intake protocol was followed. Mr. Ng confirmed the sample was received with commercial documentation, processed through standard intake procedures, and stored in the secured evidence area. The chain-of-custody log for the LumiEdge 1600G-LR sample was authenticated by Mr. Ng as Exhibit Ng-14.
D. Cross-Examination Highlights on Chain of Custody
During cross-examination, Samantha Briggs of HVC questioned whether OWS personnel or attorneys had handled or opened the accused product samples before delivering them to Benchmark. This line of questioning focused primarily on the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ sample.
Mr. Ng stated that, per the intake documentation, the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ outer packaging appeared to have been opened before the sample arrived at Benchmark. Mr. Ng explained that this was consistent with OWS's initial internal engineering inspection of the product in October 2022, which occurred prior to Benchmark's engagement in November 2022. However, Mr. Ng testified that the module itself — the transceiver unit within the outer packaging — showed no signs of physical modification, tampering, or disassembly when received by Benchmark. The housing seals were intact, and the module was consistent in appearance with a factory-condition product.
Mr. Ng confirmed that the 800G-DR8 and 1600G-LR samples, by contrast, arrived at Benchmark in sealed original packaging that had not been previously opened.
Ms. Briggs further probed whether Benchmark independently verified that the samples were authentic Lumicore products, rather than counterfeit or modified units. Mr. Ng stated that Benchmark confirmed the product identification of each sample through several means: serial number lookup against publicly available Lumicore product databases, comparison of exterior labeling and markings to Lumicore product data sheets available on Lumicore's website, and comparison of internal die markings observed during the teardown process to publicly available Lumicore die photographs published in industry teardown reports and conference presentations. In each case, the product identification was confirmed to be consistent with a genuine Lumicore product.
V. TEARDOWN METHODOLOGY
A. General Methodology
Mr. Ng described in detail Benchmark's standard teardown protocol for photonic integrated circuit (PIC) modules. He testified that the methodology is designed to systematically characterize the external and internal structures of the device under test while preserving the integrity of the analysis through comprehensive documentation at each stage. Benchmark's standard operating procedures for PIC teardown analysis were marked as Exhibit Ng-2 and authenticated by the witness.
The protocol consists of the following sequential steps:
1.  Non-destructive external inspection and photography. The module is photographed from all angles using high-resolution macro imaging equipment. External dimensions, labeling, and markings are documented. This step establishes the baseline condition of the sample before any physical manipulation.
2.  X-ray inspection of internal component layout. The sealed module is subjected to X-ray imaging to obtain a preliminary understanding of the internal component arrangement, interconnections, and die positioning without opening the device. This step allows the engineering team to plan the subsequent disassembly approach and identify areas of particular analytical interest.
3.  Controlled disassembly. The module housing is carefully opened using precision tools. Components including the lid, heat sink, fiber-optic connectors, and any internal mounting hardware are removed in a controlled sequence. Each component is catalogued, photographed, and stored separately with traceable labeling.
4.  Optical microscopy of exposed PIC die and associated electronics. Following disassembly, the exposed photonic integrated circuit die and any associated electronic integrated circuits (e.g., DSP chips, driver ICs, transimpedance amplifiers) are examined under optical microscopy at varying magnification levels. Initial observations of waveguide routing, grating structures, modulators, photodetectors, and other photonic components are recorded.
5.  Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) at multiple magnification levels. The PIC die and selected structures are imaged using SEM to obtain high-resolution surface topography images. SEM imaging is conducted at magnification levels ranging from approximately 50x to 100,000x, depending on the structures of interest. Dimensional measurements of specific features are taken using the SEM's calibrated measurement tools.
6.  Focused ion beam (FIB) cross-sectioning of specific structures of interest. FIB milling is used to create precision cross-sections through targeted structures, including waveguide structures, grating couplers, and thermal management channels. Cross-sections are imaged using SEM to reveal the subsurface geometry and layer structure of the analyzed features.
7.  Chemical delayering to expose subsurface layers of the silicon photonic die. Controlled chemical etching processes are employed to selectively remove specific material layers from the die surface, exposing underlying waveguide layers, metallization patterns, and other subsurface structures for further imaging and analysis.
8.  Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) for material composition analysis. EDS is performed in conjunction with SEM imaging to determine the elemental composition of specific structures and materials within the device. This technique is used to confirm the material identity of waveguide cladding layers, thermal management channel walls, metallization, and other components.
9.  Functional testing of optical performance characteristics. Where feasible on partially disassembled units, functional testing is performed to measure optical performance parameters such as insertion loss, coupling efficiency, polarization-dependent loss, and thermal dissipation characteristics. Mr. Ng noted that functional testing is not always possible depending on the extent of disassembly required and the specific structures under analysis, but Benchmark attempts to preserve functional testing capability for as long as possible during the teardown sequence.
10.  Documentation and reporting. All observations, measurements, images, and analytical data are compiled into a comprehensive teardown report. The report includes annotated images identifying specific structures of interest, measurement data with uncertainty analysis, and a summary of key findings.
B. Equipment Used
Mr. Ng identified the specific analytical equipment used in the teardown analyses. Benchmark's SEM is a Meridian Instruments NanoVision S7000 field-emission scanning electron microscope with sub-10 nm resolution capability. The FIB system is a Meridian Instruments DualBeam 5200, which integrates focused ion beam milling with SEM imaging in a single instrument. Optical microscopy was performed using an Axiom Precision OM-9500 series optical microscope with both brightfield and darkfield imaging capabilities. X-ray inspection was conducted using an InspectTech XR-4000 micro-CT system. Optical profilometry was performed using a Northpoint Health IT optical profiler.
Mr. Ng confirmed that all analytical equipment is calibrated in accordance with Benchmark's ISO 17025-certified quality management system. Calibration records for the SEM and FIB equipment were marked as Exhibit Ng-24 and authenticated by the witness. Mr. Ng testified that calibration is performed on a regular schedule (quarterly for SEM measurement tools, annually for FIB milling parameters) and that all calibration records are maintained as part of Benchmark's quality assurance documentation.
C. Peer Review Process
Mr. Ng testified that each teardown report prepared by Benchmark undergoes internal peer review by at least one other senior engineer before it is issued to the client. The peer reviewer examines the report for completeness, accuracy of measurements, consistency of analytical findings, and conformity with Benchmark's standard reporting protocols.
Specifically, Mr. Ng confirmed that the December 12, 2022 teardown report on the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ was reviewed by Dr. Priya Raghavan, Benchmark's Director of Engineering, before delivery to OWS. The internal quality-review checklist for this report was marked as Exhibit Ng-27 and authenticated by the witness. The 800G-DR8 and 1600G-LR teardown reports were similarly peer reviewed, though Mr. Ng could not recall with certainty whether Dr. Raghavan or another senior engineer served as the peer reviewer for the latter two reports; he committed to confirming this information upon review of Benchmark's internal records.
D. Cross-Examination Highlights on Methodology
During cross-examination, Ms. Briggs questioned whether Benchmark's FIB cross-sectioning methodology could introduce artifacts — specifically, redeposition of milled material or curtaining effects — that might be misinterpreted as deliberate structural features of the analyzed device. Mr. Ng acknowledged the theoretical possibility that FIB milling can generate such artifacts, as is well-documented in the semiconductor analysis literature. However, he stated that Benchmark's protocol specifically addresses this risk by requiring comparison of FIB-prepared cross-sections to non-destructive X-ray images and optical microscopy images obtained earlier in the analysis sequence. If a structural feature is observed in the FIB cross-section and is also visible in the non-destructive imaging, the feature can be confirmed as part of the original, unmodified sample rather than an artifact of the preparation process. Mr. Ng testified that this cross-validation was performed for all structures of interest in the three accused products.
Ms. Briggs also questioned the resolution limits of SEM for identifying and measuring micro-channel dimensions, particularly in the context of the '562 Patent claims relating to micro-channel heat sink structures. Mr. Ng confirmed that the Meridian Instruments NanoVision S7000 SEM equipment used by Benchmark has sub-10 nm resolution at its highest magnification settings, which is more than adequate for characterizing micro-channels with hydraulic diameters in the range of 70–120 µm — the range relevant to the '562 Patent claims. Mr. Ng further stated that the measurement uncertainty associated with the SEM dimensional measurements is approximately ±5 µm, which was factored into the reported measurement ranges for the micro-channel dimensions.
VI. TEARDOWN FINDINGS — LUMILINK 400G-ZR+
A. Waveguide Multiplexer Structures ('847 Patent)
Mr. Ng testified that the teardown analysis of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ revealed the presence of a multi-channel silicon photonic waveguide multiplexer on the PIC die. This structure functions to combine multiple optical signals of different wavelengths onto a single output waveguide. Mr. Ng described the observed structure as comprising arrayed waveguide elements, slab coupler regions, and phase-shifted waveguide arrays — all of which are characteristic of an arrayed waveguide grating (AWG) type multiplexer architecture.
Mr. Ng confirmed that the observed waveguide multiplexer structure exhibits low insertion loss characteristics consistent with the claimed invention described in U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847 (the "'847 Patent"). Specifically, Mr. Ng testified that the observed structures correspond to the claim limitations of Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, and 14 of the '847 Patent, as mapped in OWS's infringement claim charts.
SEM images of the waveguide multiplexer structure were marked as Exhibits Ng-4 and Ng-5. Exhibit Ng-4 is a wide-field SEM image showing the overall layout of the multiplexer on the PIC die, including the input and output waveguide arrays, the slab coupler regions at either end of the arrayed waveguide section, and the phase-shifted waveguide array connecting the two slab couplers. Exhibit Ng-5 is a higher-magnification SEM image focused on the slab coupler region, showing the interface between the free-propagation region and the individual waveguide channels.
Mr. Ng testified that he mapped specific observed features of the waveguide multiplexer structure to corresponding claim limitations in the infringement claim chart for the '847 Patent. This mapping was performed in coordination with OWS's technical expert, Dr. Caroline Ashford, and OWS's litigation counsel at Calderwood & Harkness LLP.
B. Coherent Optical Transceiver on Silicon Substrate ('193 Patent)
Mr. Ng identified a coherent optical transceiver integrated on a silicon substrate within the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ module. He described the transceiver architecture as incorporating high-bandwidth coherent detection and modulation components on a single silicon die. The coherent detection module includes a 90-degree optical hybrid, balanced photodetector pairs for in-phase and quadrature detection channels, and associated waveguide routing on the silicon photonic platform. The modulation module includes Mach-Zehnder modulator structures with traveling-wave electrode configurations.
Mr. Ng testified that the features observed in the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ coherent transceiver map to the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193 (the "'193 Patent"), specifically Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 15, and 18. Mr. Ng noted that with respect to Claims 3 and 7, the coherent detection module in the 400G-ZR+ uses a structural implementation that, while functionally equivalent to the claimed "coherent detection module" described in those claims, may exhibit certain architectural details that differ from the literal claim language. Mr. Ng stated he was aware that this observation is relevant to OWS's doctrine of equivalents contentions for Claims 3 and 7, though he deferred to Dr. Ashford for the expert opinion on that issue.
Exhibits Ng-6 and Ng-7 were marked in connection with the '193 Patent findings. Exhibit Ng-6 is an optical microscopy image of the coherent transceiver die in the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ module, showing the overall die layout with the coherent detection and modulation functional blocks identified by annotation. Exhibit Ng-7 is an annotated SEM image focused on the coherent detection module, with specific structural features labeled and cross-referenced to corresponding claim limitations.
C. Micro-Channel Heat Sink Structures ('562 Patent)
Mr. Ng confirmed the presence of embedded micro-channel heat sink structures within the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ PIC assembly. These structures were revealed through FIB cross-sectioning of the photonic integrated circuit packaging and substrate assembly.
FIB cross-section images were marked as Exhibits Ng-9 and Ng-10. Exhibit Ng-9 shows a cross-sectional view of the micro-channel heat sink structure taken perpendicular to the channel axis, revealing the channel profile and surrounding substrate material. Exhibit Ng-10 provides a second cross-sectional view from a different angle, confirming the three-dimensional channel geometry and the relationship between the micro-channels and the overlying PIC die.
Mr. Ng testified that the micro-channels have hydraulic diameters measured at approximately 85–120 µm, based on SEM measurements taken on the FIB-prepared cross-sections. The measurement uncertainty associated with these values is ±5 µm. The channels were observed to be integrated directly into the photonic integrated circuit packaging and substrate, rather than being part of a separate, externally attached heat sink component. Mr. Ng stated that the micro-channels appeared to function as embedded heat dissipation pathways, consistent with the thermal management method claimed in U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562 (the "'562 Patent"), Claims 1, 4, 6, and 11.
EDS analysis was performed on the micro-channel walls and surrounding substrate material. The results confirmed that the channel walls are composed of materials consistent with thermal management applications, including copper and silicon-based composite materials commonly used in high-thermal-conductivity packaging substrates.
Mr. Ng stated that the December 12, 2022 teardown report (Exhibit Ng-20) specifically confirmed the "use of accused waveguide multiplexer structures and thermal management micro-channels" in the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ module. Mr. Ng authenticated this conclusion during his testimony, confirming that it accurately reflects the observations and measurements made during the teardown process.
D. Summary of 400G-ZR+ Findings
Mr. Ng's overall conclusion with respect to the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ is that the module contains physical structures that correspond to the claim limitations of the '847 Patent (Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 14), the '193 Patent (Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 15, 18), and the '562 Patent (Claims 1, 4, 6, 11), as mapped in OWS's infringement contentions. The '015 Patent was not asserted against the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ product, and accordingly the teardown report did not focus on grating coupler structures for this product.
VII. TEARDOWN FINDINGS — LUMILINK 800G-DR8
A. Waveguide Multiplexer Structures ('847 Patent)
Mr. Ng testified that the teardown analysis of the LumiLink 800G-DR8 revealed a multi-channel waveguide multiplexer architecture similar to that observed in the 400G-ZR+. The 800G-DR8 multiplexer incorporates additional channels relative to the 400G-ZR+ design in order to support the higher aggregate bandwidth of the 800G platform. Despite the increased channel count, the fundamental waveguide multiplexer architecture — including arrayed waveguide elements, slab coupler regions, and phase-shifted waveguide arrays — is consistent with the structure observed in the 400G-ZR+.
Mr. Ng confirmed that the observed waveguide multiplexer structure in the 800G-DR8 maps to Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, and 14 of the '847 Patent, as set forth in OWS's infringement claim charts. Annotated images of the waveguide multiplexer structure were marked as Exhibits Ng-11 and Ng-12. Exhibit Ng-11 is an SEM image showing the overall multiplexer layout on the 800G-DR8 PIC die. Exhibit Ng-12 is an annotated SEM image providing a detailed view of the waveguide array structure, with individual waveguide channels and the phase-shift elements clearly resolved.
B. Coherent Optical Transceiver on Silicon Substrate ('193 Patent)
Mr. Ng identified a coherent optical transceiver integrated on a silicon substrate within the LumiLink 800G-DR8 module. He testified that the 800G-DR8 uses an enhanced version of the coherent transceiver architecture observed in the 400G-ZR+, with modifications to support the higher data rate and additional channel parallelism required by the 800G specification. The core functional components — coherent detection module with 90-degree optical hybrid, balanced photodetectors, Mach-Zehnder modulators — are present in the 800G-DR8 in substantially similar form.
The observed coherent transceiver structure in the 800G-DR8 maps to Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 15, and 18 of the '193 Patent, consistent with OWS's infringement contentions.
C. Micro-Channel Heat Sink Structures ('562 Patent)
Mr. Ng confirmed that micro-channel heat sink structures are present in the LumiLink 800G-DR8 PIC assembly. FIB cross-sectioning revealed embedded micro-channels with hydraulic diameters measured in the range of approximately 70–110 µm, with the same ±5 µm measurement uncertainty as reported for the 400G-ZR+ measurements. The measured range for the 800G-DR8 channels is slightly narrower and includes somewhat smaller channel dimensions compared to the 400G-ZR+, which Mr. Ng attributed to design optimization for the higher power density of the 800G platform.
The micro-channel structures in the 800G-DR8 map to Claims 1, 4, 6, and 11 of the '562 Patent. FIB cross-section images were marked as Exhibit Ng-13.
D. Polarization-Diverse Grating Coupler ('015 Patent)
Mr. Ng identified a grating coupler structure on the 800G-DR8 PIC die that is capable of coupling light of two orthogonal polarization states — specifically, the transverse electric (TE) mode and the transverse magnetic (TM) mode. Mr. Ng described the structure as a grating coupler with polarization-splitting functionality, meaning that it can receive an incoming optical fiber mode containing both TE and TM polarization components and route these components to separate waveguide outputs for independent processing by the coherent receiver.
Mr. Ng testified that the grating coupler structure was observed at multiple SEM magnification levels and that it exhibits a two-dimensional periodic grating pattern on its surface. The specific grating geometry was characterized by SEM measurement, and Mr. Ng provided dimensional data for the grating period, duty cycle, and etch depth, as recorded in the 800G-DR8 teardown report (Exhibit Ng-21).
The observed polarization-diverse grating coupler structure maps to Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015 (the "'015 Patent"). Mr. Ng noted that with respect to Claim 12, which recites a "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating" limitation, the specific grating geometry in the 800G-DR8 uses a structure that may differ in certain dimensional details from the literal claim language. However, Mr. Ng testified that the grating performs the same polarization-diverse coupling function described in the claim — coupling light of orthogonal polarization states with high efficiency and directing them to separate output waveguides. Mr. Ng stated he was aware that this observation is relevant to OWS's doctrine of equivalents contention for Claim 12, but he deferred to Dr. Ashford for the legal and technical expert opinion on that issue.
SEM images of the grating coupler were marked as Exhibits Ng-15 and Ng-16. Exhibit Ng-15 is a wide-field SEM image showing the grating coupler structure in the context of the surrounding photonic circuit layout. Exhibit Ng-16 is a high-magnification SEM image providing a detailed view of the grating pattern, with the two-dimensional periodic structure clearly visible and dimensional measurements annotated.
E. Summary of 800G-DR8 Findings
Mr. Ng's overall conclusion with respect to the LumiLink 800G-DR8 is that the module contains physical structures corresponding to the claim limitations of all four asserted patents: the '847 Patent (Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 14), the '193 Patent (Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 15, 18), the '562 Patent (Claims 1, 4, 6, 11), and the '015 Patent (Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 16). The 800G-DR8 is the only accused product against which all four asserted patents are asserted.
VIII. TEARDOWN FINDINGS — LUMIEDGE 1600G-LR
A. Coherent Optical Transceiver on Silicon Substrate ('193 Patent)
Mr. Ng identified a coherent optical transceiver integrated on a silicon substrate within the LumiEdge 1600G-LR module. The architecture is similar to that observed in the 400G-ZR+ and 800G-DR8 products but has been further scaled to support 1600G operation with additional parallelism and higher per-channel baud rates. Mr. Ng testified that the fundamental coherent transceiver building blocks — 90-degree optical hybrid, balanced photodetector pairs, Mach-Zehnder modulators — are present on the 1600G-LR silicon photonic die.
The observed coherent transceiver structure maps to Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 15, and 18 of the '193 Patent. Annotated images were marked as Exhibits Ng-17 and Ng-18. Exhibit Ng-17 is an optical microscopy image of the coherent transceiver die in the LumiEdge 1600G-LR module, showing the overall die layout. Exhibit Ng-18 is an SEM image providing a detailed view of specific transceiver structures on the die, with annotations cross-referencing the infringement claim chart.
B. Polarization-Diverse Grating Coupler ('015 Patent)
Mr. Ng identified a polarization-diverse grating coupler structure on the 1600G-LR PIC die, similar in architecture and functionality to the grating coupler observed in the 800G-DR8 product. The grating coupler in the 1600G-LR is capable of coupling light of both TE and TM polarization states, directing these components to separate output waveguides.
The observed grating coupler structure maps to Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, and 16 of the '015 Patent. An SEM image of the grating coupler was marked as Exhibit Ng-19.
C. Products Not Accused Under '847 and '562 for LumiEdge 1600G-LR
Mr. Ng noted during his testimony that the LumiEdge 1600G-LR is not accused of infringing the '847 Patent or the '562 Patent in this litigation. Accordingly, Benchmark's teardown report for the 1600G-LR did not focus on detailed analysis or claim-limitation mapping of waveguide multiplexer structures or micro-channel heat sink structures for this particular product. While Mr. Ng stated that some thermal management features were observed in the 1600G-LR assembly during the general disassembly and inspection process, these were not characterized in detail because they were outside the scope of the analysis requested for this product.
D. Summary of 1600G-LR Findings
Mr. Ng's overall conclusion with respect to the LumiEdge 1600G-LR is that the module contains physical structures corresponding to the claim limitations of the '193 Patent (Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 15, 18) and the '015 Patent (Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 16), which are the two patents asserted against this product.
IX. CLAIM-LIMITATION MAPPING — CROSS-REFERENCE TO INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
Mr. Ng testified that he worked with OWS's litigation counsel at Calderwood & Harkness LLP and with Dr. Caroline Ashford, OWS's retained technical and infringement expert (Professor of Electrical Engineering and Photonics at the Northfield Institute of Technology), to map the teardown findings from all three accused products to specific claim limitations in OWS's Patent Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions, which were served on September 16, 2024.
Mr. Ng confirmed that the annotated photographs, SEM images, FIB cross-section images, and measurement data from his teardown reports were incorporated into the infringement claim charts prepared for each of the four asserted patents. Specifically:
•  '847 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847), Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, and 14 — Asserted against the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and the LumiLink 800G-DR8. Teardown findings from both products' waveguide multiplexer structures were incorporated into the claim charts.
•  '193 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193), Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 15, and 18 — Asserted against all three accused products: LumiLink 400G-ZR+, LumiLink 800G-DR8, and LumiEdge 1600G-LR. Teardown findings from the coherent optical transceiver structures in all three products were incorporated into the claim charts.
•  '562 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562), Claims 1, 4, 6, and 11 — Asserted against the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and the LumiLink 800G-DR8. Teardown findings from the micro-channel heat sink structures in both products were incorporated into the claim charts.
•  '015 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015), Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, and 16 — Asserted against the LumiLink 800G-DR8 and the LumiEdge 1600G-LR. Teardown findings from the polarization-diverse grating coupler structures in both products were incorporated into the claim charts.
Mr. Ng stated that for each claim limitation in the asserted claims, he was able to identify a corresponding physical structure or functional characteristic in the accused product that matched the limitation, based on his observations and measurements during the teardown process. Mr. Ng emphasized that this mapping was performed in his capacity as a reverse-engineering engineer documenting physical findings and is not intended as a legal conclusion regarding infringement. The legal analysis of whether the observed structures satisfy the claim limitations under the applicable claim construction is addressed by Dr. Ashford in her expert infringement opinion.
X. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL
A. Scope of Ng's Opinions
During cross-examination, Ms. Briggs clarified the nature and scope of Mr. Ng's testimony. She established that Mr. Ng is testifying in this case as a fact witness — specifically, as the percipient engineer who conducted and supervised the teardown analyses of the three accused products — and not as a retained expert witness rendering legal or technical opinions on issues of infringement, claim construction, or patent validity.
Mr. Ng confirmed this characterization. He stated that he is not offering opinions on claim construction, infringement, or validity. His testimony is limited to describing what he physically observed and measured during the teardown process and explaining how those observations relate to the structures described in the patent claims at a factual, descriptive level. Mr. Ng acknowledged that the ultimate determination of whether the observed structures satisfy the claim limitations of the asserted patents is a matter for the technical expert (Dr. Ashford) and for the Court and jury.
B. Potential Biases
Ms. Briggs questioned whether Benchmark's compensation in connection with this engagement is contingent in any way on the outcome of the litigation. Mr. Ng stated unequivocally that Benchmark's fees are calculated on an hourly basis at standard rates and are in no way contingent on any litigation outcome, verdict, or settlement. This is consistent with Benchmark's standard engagement terms as documented in the engagement letter (Exhibit Ng-1).
Ms. Briggs noted that Benchmark was retained by OWS, the plaintiff in this case, and asked whether Benchmark performed any analysis or reached any findings suggesting that the accused products do not infringe the asserted patents. Mr. Ng stated that Benchmark's assignment was to analyze the products and report what structures were found, not to reach legal conclusions about infringement or non-infringement. He testified that Benchmark's teardown reports document the physical structures observed and the measurements taken, and that Benchmark did not undertake to evaluate whether any observed structures might support a non-infringement defense or fall outside the scope of the patent claims.
Ms. Briggs asked whether Mr. Ng had any communications with OWS personnel or Calderwood & Harkness attorneys directing him to look for specific features in the accused products. Mr. Ng acknowledged that he received technical guidance from OWS's engineering team — specifically from Dr. Nikolai Petrov, Vice President of Engineering, Photonics Division — regarding which features of the accused products were of particular interest to OWS. This guidance was provided at the outset of the initial 400G-ZR+ teardown engagement in November 2022, as reflected in the email correspondence marked as Exhibit Ng-25. Mr. Ng further acknowledged that, after Calderwood & Harkness was engaged as litigation counsel in March 2024, he received guidance from C&H attorneys, including Wendy Schultz, regarding which patent claim limitations to focus the analysis on for the purposes of the infringement contentions. This is reflected in the email correspondence marked as Exhibit Ng-26.
Mr. Ng stated, however, that while he received guidance on which features and claim limitations were of interest, the observations and measurements themselves were independently performed by Benchmark's engineering team using standard analytical techniques. Benchmark did not receive instructions on what results to find or how to characterize the observed structures.
C. Challenges to Specific Findings
Ms. Briggs challenged several specific aspects of Mr. Ng's teardown findings during cross-examination.
First, with respect to the micro-channel heat sink structures observed in the 400G-ZR+ and 800G-DR8, Ms. Briggs questioned whether these structures could be standard industry thermal management features that are widely used across the semiconductor industry and are not unique to the technology claimed in the '562 Patent. Mr. Ng responded that his role was to document the structures as observed and to provide accurate dimensional and compositional data. He stated that he did not form an opinion, and was not asked to form an opinion, on whether the micro-channel structures are unique to any particular patent or represent widely known techniques in the semiconductor thermal management field. Mr. Ng stated that this question is within the province of the technical experts retained by both parties.
Second, Ms. Briggs questioned the measurement precision of the micro-channel hydraulic diameters. She noted that the reported ranges — 85–120 µm for the 400G-ZR+ and 70–110 µm for the 800G-DR8 — represent a spread of 35–40 µm, and asked whether this variability undermines the reliability of the measurements. Mr. Ng explained that the variability reflects genuine physical variation in the channel dimensions across different regions of the micro-channel array, rather than measurement imprecision. He confirmed that the individual measurements were taken using calibrated SEM measurement tools with a measurement uncertainty margin of ±5 µm, which is substantially smaller than the observed dimensional range. The spread in the reported hydraulic diameter values reflects the fact that the micro-channels are not perfectly uniform in cross-section throughout the array, which is typical for micro-channel structures fabricated using semiconductor processing techniques.
Third, Ms. Briggs asked about the grating coupler structure identified in the LumiLink 800G-DR8 and questioned whether Mr. Ng could confirm that it satisfies the specific definition of a "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating" as that term appears in Claim 12 of the '015 Patent. Mr. Ng stated that the grating coupler exhibits a two-dimensional periodic pattern that was characterized by SEM imaging, and that the grating period measurements are documented in the teardown report. However, Mr. Ng deferred to Dr. Ashford's expert opinion on the question of whether the observed structure meets the "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating" limitation literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, as this determination depends on the claim construction adopted by the Court and a technical analysis that is beyond the scope of his fact testimony.
D. Prior Art Awareness
Ms. Briggs asked whether Mr. Ng was familiar with any of the twenty-three prior-art references cited in Lumicore's P.R. 3-3 Invalidity Contentions, which were served on October 14, 2024. Mr. Ng stated that he had not reviewed the invalidity contentions or any of the cited prior-art references. He confirmed that he was not asked by OWS or by Calderwood & Harkness to evaluate prior art as part of his engagement, and that Benchmark's scope of work was limited to the physical teardown analysis and documentation of the accused products.
XI. EXHIBITS MARKED DURING DEPOSITION
The following twenty-seven exhibits were marked during the deposition of Kevin Ng on January 7, 2025:
XII. KEY TAKEAWAYS AND ASSESSMENTS
A. Strengths of Ng's Testimony
Mr. Ng was clear, methodical, and well-prepared throughout the approximately six-hour deposition. He presented as a highly credible fact witness with extensive experience in semiconductor reverse engineering and teardown analysis. His testimony was precise and consistent, and he demonstrated a thorough command of the technical details of each teardown without overreaching into areas outside the scope of his expertise or engagement.
The chain-of-custody documentation for all three accused product samples was thorough and well-maintained. Mr. Ng authenticated the chain-of-custody logs for each sample (Exhibits Ng-3, Ng-8, and Ng-14) and described Benchmark's standard intake, storage, and handling protocols in detail. The chain-of-custody documentation is unlikely to be successfully challenged at trial, particularly for the 800G-DR8 and 1600G-LR samples, which arrived at Benchmark in sealed original packaging.
Mr. Ng's identification of specific physical structures in each accused product corresponding to each asserted claim limitation provides powerful corroborative evidence for Dr. Ashford's expert infringement opinions. The annotated SEM images, FIB cross-sections, and optical microscopy images generated by Benchmark's analysis form the evidentiary foundation for the infringement claim charts and will be central to the presentation of OWS's infringement case at trial.
Mr. Ng's testimony regarding the micro-channel heat sink structures in the context of the '562 Patent was particularly strong. The FIB cross-section images (Exhibits Ng-9, Ng-10, and Ng-13) are compelling visual evidence of the embedded micro-channel structures, and the measurement precision — ±5 µm uncertainty on hydraulic diameter measurements in the 70–120 µm range — is more than adequate to support OWS's position that the accused structures fall within the scope of the '562 Patent claims.
Additionally, Mr. Ng's confirmation of the December 12, 2022 teardown report — which specifically documents the "use of accused waveguide multiplexer structures and thermal management micro-channels" in the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ — directly supports the timeline of OWS's pre-suit investigation. This finding is relevant to establishing the factual basis for FairPoint Licensing Group's January 15, 2023 notice letter to Lumicore, which served as the pre-suit notification of potential infringement and triggers the willfulness analysis from that date forward.
B. Potential Vulnerabilities
Several potential vulnerabilities in Mr. Ng's testimony should be noted and addressed in advance of trial:
Chain of custody for the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ sample. The LumiLink 400G-ZR+ sample packaging had been opened by OWS personnel before delivery to Benchmark, as OWS's engineering team conducted an initial internal inspection of the product in October 2022, approximately one month before Benchmark was engaged. Although Mr. Ng testified that the module itself showed no signs of modification, tampering, or disassembly, and that the module was consistent in appearance with a factory-condition product, defense counsel may argue that this gap in the chain of custody raises questions about the authenticity and integrity of the sample analyzed by Benchmark.
Mitigation: This potential vulnerability can be addressed through multiple avenues. First, Mr. Ng's intake documentation, including serial number verification and comparison to Lumicore's publicly available product data sheets, confirms the authenticity of the sample. Second, the internal die markings observed during the teardown were consistent with publicly available Lumicore die photographs. Third, Dr. Nikolai Petrov, OWS's Vice President of Engineering, Photonics Division, can provide declaration or deposition testimony regarding the circumstances of the initial October 2022 inspection and confirming that the module was not altered, disassembled, or modified during that inspection. Coordination with Dr. Petrov on this point is identified as a follow-up action item below.
Limitation to fact testimony. Mr. Ng deferred to Dr. Ashford on all questions regarding whether the observed structures in the accused products satisfy the claim constructions adopted by the Court. His testimony is purely observational and factual in nature, which limits his direct utility on contested legal issues such as claim construction and the application of the doctrine of equivalents. However, this same limitation also insulates Mr. Ng from Daubert challenges, since he is testifying as a fact witness regarding his personal observations and measurements rather than as an expert offering opinions subject to the Daubert reliability framework.
Micro-channel structures as standard industry features. Defense counsel's line of questioning during cross-examination — suggesting that the micro-channel heat sink structures observed in the 400G-ZR+ and 800G-DR8 could be standard industry thermal management features rather than structures unique to the '562 Patent — could resonate with the jury if Lumicore's technical expert, Dr. Rajesh Sundaram (Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Pacific Western University), develops this theme in his validity and non-infringement opinions.
Mitigation: Dr. Ashford's expert infringement report, due June 15, 2025, will specifically address the distinction between the micro-channel architecture claimed in the '562 Patent and generic industry thermal management solutions. Dr. Ashford's report is expected to demonstrate that the specific configuration of the micro-channels — including their integration directly into the PIC packaging/substrate, their dimensional characteristics, and their spatial relationship to the photonic circuit elements — corresponds to the claimed invention and is distinguishable from conventional thermal management approaches.
C. Impact on Case Strategy
Mr. Ng's deposition testimony has several significant implications for OWS's overall case strategy going forward:
Partial summary judgment on '562 Patent infringement. Mr. Ng's testimony strongly supports pursuing partial summary judgment on infringement of the '562 Patent, specifically Claims 1, 4, and 6, for the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and LumiLink 800G-DR8. The physical evidence of embedded micro-channel heat sink structures in both products is unambiguous, the dimensional measurements are precise and well-documented, and the FIB cross-section images provide compelling visual proof. If the Court's claim construction of the disputed terms in the '562 Patent claims aligns with OWS's proposed constructions, the physical evidence from Mr. Ng's teardowns may be sufficient to establish literal infringement as a matter of law, leaving validity as the only contested issue for trial on these claims.
Doctrine of equivalents — '015 Patent, Claim 12. Mr. Ng's observations regarding the grating coupler structures in the LumiLink 800G-DR8 and LumiEdge 1600G-LR support OWS's doctrine of equivalents theory for Claim 12 of the '015 Patent. Mr. Ng described the grating coupler as performing the same polarization-diverse coupling function as the claimed "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating," even though certain dimensional details of the observed grating geometry may differ from the literal claim language. This factual foundation supports Dr. Ashford's anticipated expert opinion that the accused grating coupler performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result as the claimed structure.
Doctrine of equivalents — '193 Patent, Claims 3 and 7. Similarly, Mr. Ng's testimony regarding the coherent detection module architecture in the accused products supports OWS's doctrine of equivalents contentions for Claims 3 and 7 of the '193 Patent. Mr. Ng observed that the coherent detection module in the accused products uses a structural implementation that is functionally equivalent to the claimed "coherent detection module," even though certain architectural details differ from the literal claim language. This factual observation will be developed further in Dr. Ashford's expert infringement analysis.
XIII. FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS
The following action items have been identified based on the deposition of Kevin Ng:
•  [ ] Trial witness preparation. Prepare Mr. Ng for potential trial testimony, anticipated to be presented live or by video deposition. Coordinate with Wendy Schultz on the witness preparation timeline, with preparation sessions anticipated in approximately January 2026 in advance of the currently scheduled trial date.
•  [ ] Exhibit cataloguing. Confirm that all twenty-seven deposition exhibits (Ng-1 through Ng-27) are properly catalogued in the firm's document management system and cross-referenced to the trial exhibit list. The Benchmark teardown reports and associated photographs are anticipated to be designated as Trial Exhibits P-049 through P-112 in OWS's trial exhibit list.
•  [ ] Coordination with Dr. Ashford. Coordinate with Dr. Caroline Ashford to ensure that her expert infringement report, due June 15, 2025, incorporates and specifically cites Mr. Ng's teardown data, SEM and FIB images, and measurement results. The annotated images from the teardown reports should be cross-referenced in Dr. Ashford's claim charts with appropriate citations to the Benchmark reports and Ng deposition testimony.
•  [ ] Dr. Petrov declaration/deposition. Follow up with Dr. Nikolai Petrov, OWS Vice President of Engineering, Photonics Division, regarding a potential declaration or deposition testimony to address the chain-of-custody gap on the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ sample. Specifically, Dr. Petrov should testify regarding the circumstances of OWS's initial October 2022 internal engineering inspection of the 400G-ZR+ module and confirm that the module was not altered, disassembled, or modified during that inspection.
•  [ ] Transcript errata review. Review Mr. Ng's deposition transcript for any errata or corrections when the final certified transcript is received from the court reporter. The deadline for submission of an errata sheet under the applicable Eastern District of Texas local rules should be calendared and communicated to Mr. Ng.
•  [ ] Deposition designations. Evaluate whether any portions of Mr. Ng's deposition testimony should be designated for trial presentation in the event Mr. Ng is unavailable to testify live. Begin the deposition designation process for inclusion in the deposition designation and counter-designation chart, which is anticipated to be due in approximately January 2026 under the Court's pretrial order.
•  [ ] Supplemental teardown analysis. Assess whether supplemental teardown analysis is warranted based on Lumicore's recently produced design files, including RTL schematics and photonic-IC layout files designated as Highly Confidential — Source Code under the Protective Order. If the design files reveal additional structural details relevant to the infringement contentions — or if they suggest modifications to the accused product architectures not captured in the existing teardown reports — coordinate with Mr. Ng on the feasibility, scope, and timing of supplemental analysis.
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT. Prepared by Calderwood & Harkness LLP in connection with its representation of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. in Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. v. Lumicore Technologies, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00319-JRG (E.D. Tex.). This memorandum constitutes attorney work product and is protected from disclosure under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3) and applicable state law equivalents. This document is prepared in anticipation of litigation and reflects the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories of attorneys. Not to be disclosed to any person or entity without the prior authorization of counsel.
Matter No. 1014-00004 | Document No. 77 (per matter document inventory)
Exhibit No. | Description
Ng-1 | Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC engagement letter with Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. (November 3, 2022)
Ng-2 | Benchmark standard operating procedures for PIC teardown analysis
Ng-3 | Chain-of-custody log — LumiLink 400G-ZR+ sample
Ng-4 | SEM image — waveguide multiplexer structure, LumiLink 400G-ZR+
Ng-5 | SEM image — slab coupler region, LumiLink 400G-ZR+
Ng-6 | Optical microscopy image — coherent transceiver die, LumiLink 400G-ZR+
Ng-7 | Annotated SEM image — coherent detection module, LumiLink 400G-ZR+
Ng-8 | Chain-of-custody log — LumiLink 800G-DR8 sample
Ng-9 | FIB cross-section image — micro-channel heat sink, LumiLink 400G-ZR+
Ng-10 | FIB cross-section image — micro-channel heat sink (second angle), LumiLink 400G-ZR+
Ng-11 | SEM image — waveguide multiplexer structure, LumiLink 800G-DR8
Ng-12 | Annotated SEM image — waveguide array detail, LumiLink 800G-DR8
Ng-13 | FIB cross-section image — micro-channel heat sink, LumiLink 800G-DR8
Ng-14 | Chain-of-custody log — LumiEdge 1600G-LR sample
Ng-15 | SEM image — grating coupler structure, LumiLink 800G-DR8
Ng-16 | High-magnification SEM image — grating coupler detail, LumiLink 800G-DR8
Ng-17 | Optical microscopy image — coherent transceiver die, LumiEdge 1600G-LR
Ng-18 | SEM image — coherent transceiver die detail, LumiEdge 1600G-LR
Ng-19 | SEM image — grating coupler structure, LumiEdge 1