depo-summary-reeves.docx

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

depo-summary-reeves.docx DOCUMENT Litigation

44 / 168 ← → ✕

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 48th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 555-9400 Facsimile: (213) 555-9401

INTERNAL DEPOSITION SUMMARY / DIGEST

DEPOSITION OF ANGELA REEVES Managing Director, FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC

Right-click to update Table of Contents

I. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS OF DEPONENT

A. Professional Background

Angela Reeves testified that she is the Managing Director of FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC, a patent licensing advisory firm located at 500 Sansome Street, Suite 1400, San Francisco, California 94111. Reeves stated that she has served in the Managing Director role since 2017, when FairPoint was founded. In that capacity, she oversees the firm's licensing strategy engagements, manages client relationships, and leads in-person licensing negotiations on behalf of FairPoint's clients.

Prior to founding FairPoint, Reeves held positions in intellectual property licensing and business development at two semiconductor companies over a period of approximately twelve years of combined experience. She described her earlier career as having provided her with substantial exposure to patent portfolio management, licensing negotiations, and the technical landscape of the semiconductor and photonics industries. Reeves did not identify the specific companies by name during the deposition, though she indicated that both were publicly traded U.S.-based semiconductor firms with significant patent portfolios.

Reeves holds a Master of Business Administration degree and an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering. She testified that her educational background, combined with her professional experience, enables her to understand and communicate the technical substance of patent claims in the context of licensing negotiations, though she acknowledged that she is not a patent attorney, registered patent agent, or technical expert and does not render legal opinions on infringement or validity.

Reeves stated that over the course of her career, she has been personally involved in over sixty patent licensing campaigns across the semiconductor, networking, and photonics industries. She described these campaigns as ranging from single-patent licensing efforts to multi-patent portfolio campaigns involving dozens of target companies and resulting in negotiated licenses, cross-licenses, and, in some cases, recommendations that the client pursue litigation.

B. Engagement by Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.

Reeves testified that FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC was initially retained by Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. ("OWS") in approximately September 2022 to evaluate and pursue licensing opportunities for OWS's silicon-photonics patent portfolio. The engagement was formalized through a written engagement letter, which was marked during the deposition as Reeves Deposition Exhibit 7. Portions of the engagement letter were designated Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only pursuant to the Protective Order entered in this case, and accordingly, the specific financial terms of the engagement are not summarized in detail in this memorandum.

Reeves confirmed that OWS's General Counsel, Rebecca Tanaka, was her primary point of contact at OWS throughout the duration of the engagement. Reeves stated that she communicated regularly with Ms. Tanaka by telephone, email, and videoconference, and that all strategic decisions regarding the licensing campaign — including the selection of licensing targets, the timing and content of licensing letters, and the decision to recommend litigation — were made in consultation with Ms. Tanaka.

FairPoint's engagement scope encompassed the following activities: (i) identifying potential licensees based on analysis of the competitive landscape and OWS's patent claims; (ii) preparing and sending licensing outreach letters to identified targets; (iii) conducting in-person licensing meetings with target companies and their counsel; and (iv) advising OWS on royalty-rate expectations and licensing strategy. Reeves stated that the engagement was structured to enable FairPoint to act as the primary interface with licensing targets, with OWS providing technical support and ultimate decision-making authority.

Reeves further stated that OWS's Chief Technology Officer, Dr. Jian-Wei Huang, and the Vice President of Engineering for the Photonics Division, Dr. Nikolai Petrov, provided technical support and detailed explanations of the patented technologies to FairPoint's licensing team. Reeves described the collaboration as essential to ensuring that the licensing outreach was grounded in a sound technical understanding of the relevant patent claims and the accused products.

With respect to compensation, Reeves confirmed that FairPoint was compensated on a combination of a retainer fee and a success-based fee structure. As noted above, the specific financial terms of the engagement are subject to the Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only designation and are not reproduced here. Reeves stated that the compensation structure was consistent with industry norms for patent licensing advisory engagements.

C. Knowledge of Asserted Patents

Reeves confirmed that she was familiar with all four patents asserted in this litigation and that she had reviewed each patent in detail prior to preparing the first licensing letter to Lumicore. The four asserted patents are as follows:

1. U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847 (the '847 Patent) — Entitled "Multi-Channel Silicon Photonic Waveguide Multiplexer with Low Insertion Loss." Filed September 14, 2016. Issued March 19, 2019. The original assignee is Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.

2. U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193 (the '193 Patent) — Entitled "High-Bandwidth Coherent Optical Transceiver Integrated on Silicon Substrate." Filed April 7, 2017. Issued January 12, 2021. The original assignee is Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.

3. U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562 (the '562 Patent) — Entitled "Method for Thermal Management of Photonic Integrated Circuits Using Embedded Micro-Channel Heat Sinks." Filed November 22, 2014. Issued June 13, 2017. Originally assigned to Solara Optics, Inc. Acquired by OWS via an Asset Purchase Agreement dated June 15, 2018, for $34.5 million as part of a portfolio of twelve patents.

4. U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015 (the '015 Patent) — Entitled "Polarization-Diverse Grating Coupler for Silicon Photonic Transceivers." Filed August 30, 2019. Issued August 2, 2022. The original assignee is Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.

Reeves testified that, in addition to reviewing each patent, she also reviewed the teardown report prepared by Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC, on the Lumicore LumiLink 400G-ZR+ transceiver module. The Benchmark teardown report was dated December 12, 2022, and was delivered to FairPoint by Benchmark's Lead Engineer, Kevin Ng. Reeves stated that her review of both the patents and the teardown report was essential to the preparation of the first licensing letter, as it enabled FairPoint to identify specific claim limitations and corresponding structures in the accused product.

II. IDENTIFICATION OF LUMICORE AS LICENSING TARGET

A. How Lumicore Was Identified

Reeves testified that in approximately October 2022, OWS's internal engineering team identified potential infringement of OWS patents by Lumicore Technologies, Inc.'s LumiLink 400G-ZR+ transceiver module, which had launched commercially in the third quarter of 2022. Reeves stated that the identification was based on the engineering team's review of publicly available product specifications and marketing materials for the LumiLink 400G-ZR+, as well as the team's knowledge of OWS's own patented technologies in the silicon-photonics space.

The identification was referred by Rebecca Tanaka, OWS's General Counsel, to FairPoint for further evaluation and potential inclusion in the licensing campaign. Reeves stated that she discussed the referral with Ms. Tanaka and agreed that a detailed technical analysis of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ product was warranted before proceeding with any licensing outreach.

In November 2022, at FairPoint's recommendation, OWS retained Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC, to perform a physical teardown and reverse engineering of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ product. Benchmark is located at 2244 Mission College Boulevard, Santa Clara, California 95054, and specializes in semiconductor product teardowns and failure analysis. Reeves stated that Benchmark was selected based on its reputation in the industry and its prior experience performing teardowns of silicon-photonics transceiver modules.

Benchmark's teardown report, dated December 12, 2022, confirmed the presence of accused waveguide multiplexer structures and thermal management micro-channel heat-sink features within the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ module that FairPoint and OWS's technical team believed to read on the claims of the '847, '193, and '562 Patents. Reeves testified that the report included annotated die photographs, cross-sectional scanning electron microscope (SEM) images, and detailed descriptions of the physical structures observed at the die level, all of which were instrumental in the preparation of the summary claim charts that accompanied the first licensing letter.

Reeves stated that she personally reviewed the Benchmark teardown report, including the annotated die photographs and SEM images, before preparing the first licensing letter to Lumicore. She further stated that Dr. Jian-Wei Huang and Dr. Nikolai Petrov of OWS provided technical guidance on the interpretation of the teardown results and the mapping of observed structures to specific claim elements of the asserted patents.

B. Background on Lumicore

Reeves confirmed that she was aware of the following background facts regarding Lumicore Technologies, Inc. at the time of the licensing campaign:

Lumicore Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 9200 Spectrum Boulevard, Building C, Austin, Texas 78759. The company had its initial public offering on Nasdaq in March 2022 at a price of $24.00 per share. FairPoint assessed Lumicore as a fast-growing competitor in the silicon-photonics transceiver market, targeting hyperscale data center operators and telecommunications customers as its primary end markets. Reeves stated that FairPoint's assessment was based on publicly available financial filings, industry analyst reports, and information gathered from trade publications and conferences.

Reeves confirmed that Lumicore's General Counsel is Raymond Bautista, and that Mr. Bautista was the addressee of all licensing correspondence sent by FairPoint on behalf of OWS during the pre-suit licensing campaign.

III. FIRST LICENSING LETTER — JANUARY 15, 2023

A. Preparation and Substance of the Letter

Reeves confirmed that FairPoint Licensing Group, on behalf of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp., sent the first licensing and notice letter to Lumicore Technologies, Inc. on January 15, 2023. This letter was marked during the deposition as Reeves Deposition Exhibit 1.

The letter was addressed to Raymond Bautista, General Counsel, Lumicore Technologies, Inc., at Lumicore's Austin, Texas headquarters address (9200 Spectrum Boulevard, Building C, Austin, TX 78759). Reeves testified that the letter identified three OWS patents: the '847 Patent, the '193 Patent, and the '562 Patent. The letter also identified the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ transceiver module as the accused product.

Reeves stated that the letter included a summary of how FairPoint and OWS's technical team believed each identified patent was infringed by the LumiLink 400G-ZR+, with references to specific claim elements and corresponding structures observed in the Benchmark teardown report. The letter attached summary claim charts (marked as Reeves Deposition Exhibit 8) that mapped specific claim limitations of the '847, '193, and '562 Patents to features and structures identified in the Benchmark teardown.

The letter proposed a meeting to discuss a potential license and indicated OWS's preference for a commercially reasonable resolution. Reeves emphasized that the tone of the letter was professional and invitational, reflecting FairPoint's standard approach to pre-suit licensing outreach. The letter did not include a demand for a specific royalty rate or lump-sum payment; rather, it invited Lumicore to engage in discussions.

Reeves confirmed that the letter was sent via Severin Partners LLC overnight delivery and that FairPoint received tracking confirmation of delivery. The Severin Partners LLC tracking confirmation was marked during the deposition as Reeves Deposition Exhibit 5, showing delivery on January 16, 2023. In addition to the Severin Partners LLC delivery, a copy of the letter was sent via email to an email address for Raymond Bautista that had been obtained from Lumicore's corporate website. Reeves testified that she retained the tracking confirmation in FairPoint's files and that it had been produced in discovery.

B. Purpose and Intent

Reeves testified that the primary purpose of the January 15, 2023 letter was to put Lumicore on formal notice of OWS's patent rights and to open a dialogue toward a licensing arrangement. Reeves stated that the letter was carefully drafted to identify the specific patents at issue, the specific accused product, and the specific technical basis for the infringement allegations, so that Lumicore would have a clear understanding of OWS's position and could make an informed decision about whether to engage in licensing discussions.

Reeves further stated that it was FairPoint's standard practice to provide sufficient detail in an initial licensing letter to enable the target company to evaluate the allegations, while reserving a more detailed claim-by-claim analysis for in-person meetings or subsequent correspondence. Reeves confirmed that no demand for a specific royalty rate or lump-sum payment was included in the first letter, consistent with FairPoint's approach of establishing a dialogue before proposing specific financial terms.

IV. LUMICORE'S RESPONSE — FEBRUARY 28, 2023

A. Receipt and Substance of Response

Reeves testified that Lumicore responded to the January 15, 2023 letter on February 28, 2023. The response letter was marked during the deposition as Reeves Deposition Exhibit 2.

Notably, the response was sent not by Raymond Bautista directly but by Lumicore's outside counsel, Catherine "Kate" Rourke of Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP, located at 600 Congress Avenue, Suite 2400, Austin, Texas 78701. Reeves stated that the engagement of outside litigation counsel at this early stage was not unusual in her experience, as many companies route licensing correspondence through outside counsel as a matter of standard practice.

The substance of the February 28, 2023 response letter disputed infringement of all three identified patents — the '847, '193, and '562 Patents. In addition, the response questioned the validity of the '847 and '562 Patents, referencing certain prior-art publications, though Reeves could not recall the specific prior-art references cited in the letter during the deposition. Reeves stated that she recalled the letter raising prior art but could not recall whether the cited references were academic publications, prior-filed patents, or some combination thereof.

Reeves testified that the response did not include any opinion-of-counsel analysis, any detailed technical rebuttal to the claim charts attached to the January 15, 2023 letter, or any element-by-element response to the infringement allegations. Reeves characterized the response as a "general denial letter" that lacked substantive engagement with the technical merits of OWS's position.

Importantly, however, the response did not entirely close the door on further discussions. Reeves testified that the letter indicated Lumicore was "willing to consider" a meeting if OWS provided more detailed claim charts mapping specific claim elements to the accused product. Reeves interpreted this as an invitation to present more detailed technical information, which she viewed as a standard part of the licensing process.

B. Reeves's Assessment of the Response

Reeves characterized the February 28, 2023 response as "typical of an early-stage denial" and stated that, in her experience over more than sixty licensing campaigns, most licensing targets initially dispute infringement and question validity before engaging in substantive negotiations. Reeves stated that she did not view the response as foreclosing the possibility of a negotiated resolution at that stage.

Following receipt of the response, Reeves discussed the letter and its implications with Rebecca Tanaka. Reeves recommended proceeding to schedule an in-person meeting with Lumicore and its counsel, as indicated in the response letter's suggestion that Lumicore would consider a meeting upon receipt of more detailed claim charts. Reeves testified that Ms. Tanaka agreed with this recommendation, and that arrangements were made to schedule a meeting at a mutually convenient time and location.

V. IN-PERSON LICENSING MEETING — APRIL 20, 2023

A. Logistics and Attendees

Reeves confirmed that an in-person licensing meeting between OWS/FairPoint and Lumicore/Hawthorne Vega & Cruz took place on April 20, 2023, in Austin, Texas. The meeting was held at the offices of Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP, 600 Congress Avenue, Suite 2400, Austin, Texas 78701. Reeves testified that the location was selected by mutual agreement of the parties.

The attendees for OWS and FairPoint were as follows:

• Angela Reeves, Managing Director, FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC

• Rebecca Tanaka, General Counsel, Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.

The attendees for Lumicore were as follows:

• Raymond Bautista, General Counsel, Lumicore Technologies, Inc.

• Catherine "Kate" Rourke, Lead Partner, Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP

Reeves testified that the meeting lasted approximately two and a half hours. No technical personnel from either OWS or Lumicore were present at the meeting. Reeves stated that the absence of technical personnel on the Lumicore side was noted by OWS, as it suggested that Lumicore had not brought anyone who could engage with the technical substance of the infringement allegations at a detailed level.

B. Substance of the Meeting

Reeves testified that she presented a detailed overview of the three identified patents — the '847 Patent, the '193 Patent, and the '562 Patent — and their application to the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ product. The presentation included a discussion of the prosecution history and technical scope of each patent, as well as a description of the commercial significance of the patented technologies to the silicon-photonics transceiver market.

Reeves brought printed claim charts mapping specific claim limitations to features identified in the Benchmark teardown report. These claim charts were more detailed than the summary claim charts attached to the January 15, 2023 letter, and included element-by-element mappings for the independent claims of each of the three patents. Reeves stated that the updated claim charts had been prepared in collaboration with OWS's technical team, including Dr. Huang and Dr. Petrov.

In addition to the claim charts, Reeves brought selected annotated photographs from the Benchmark teardown showing die-level structures corresponding to the claimed waveguide multiplexer features (as claimed in the '847 Patent) and the micro-channel heat-sink features (as claimed in the '562 Patent). Reeves testified that these photographs were presented to Lumicore's representatives during the meeting and that she walked through each photograph, identifying the relevant structures and explaining how they corresponded to specific claim limitations.

Reeves proposed a royalty-bearing license arrangement during the meeting and indicated that OWS was open to discussing reasonable terms, including a running royalty on accused product sales. Reeves stated that she did not propose a specific royalty rate during the meeting, consistent with FairPoint's practice of establishing a mutual understanding of the technical and commercial landscape before proposing specific financial terms.

Reeves also testified that she discussed OWS's market position during the meeting. Specifically, she described OWS as the third-largest U.S. supplier of silicon-photonics transceiver modules for hyperscale data centers, noted that OWS held a portfolio of 142 U.S. patents and 58 pending patent applications, and emphasized the commercial significance of the patented technologies to the broader transceiver market. Reeves stated that this background information was provided to establish the context for a licensing discussion and to convey to Lumicore the breadth and depth of OWS's intellectual property position.

C. Lumicore's Reaction

Reeves testified that Lumicore's representatives "showed no interest in negotiating" a license during the April 20, 2023 meeting. Reeves provided specific details regarding the statements and conduct of Lumicore's representatives that formed the basis for this characterization.

Specifically, Reeves stated that Raymond Bautista said words to the effect that Lumicore's products were "independently developed" and did not use OWS's technology. Reeves recalled that Mr. Bautista made this statement after Reeves had completed her presentation of the claim charts and teardown photographs, suggesting that the statement was made in full awareness of the technical evidence that had been presented.

Kate Rourke reiterated the position set forth in the February 28, 2023 response letter — namely, that Lumicore disputed infringement and questioned the validity of the asserted patents. Reeves testified that Ms. Rourke's statements were general in nature and did not engage with the specific claim elements or teardown evidence that Reeves had presented during the meeting.

Reeves testified that neither Bautista nor Rourke provided any technical rebuttal to the claim charts or teardown evidence presented during the meeting. Neither representative identified any specific claim limitation that they contended was not met by the accused product, nor did they challenge the accuracy of the Benchmark teardown results. Similarly, neither Bautista nor Rourke identified any specific non-infringing design alternatives or design-around efforts that Lumicore had undertaken or planned to undertake.

Reeves further testified that at no point during the meeting did Lumicore make a counter-offer, propose alternative license terms, or suggest a framework for continued negotiations. The meeting ended without any agreement to reconvene, schedule a follow-up meeting, or continue discussions in any form.

Reeves characterized Lumicore's posture throughout the meeting as "dismissive." She stated that, in her experience with over sixty licensing campaigns, the April 20, 2023 meeting was among the least productive she had attended, and that Lumicore's refusal to engage with any of the substantive evidence presented was atypical even for early-stage licensing discussions.

Reeves specifically recalled that during the meeting, Raymond Bautista acknowledged receipt of the January 15, 2023 licensing letter and confirmed that Lumicore had reviewed the identified patents. This acknowledgment was significant because it eliminates any potential defense that Lumicore lacked actual knowledge of the asserted patents as of the date of the meeting.

D. Reeves's Post-Meeting Assessment

Reeves testified that following the April 20, 2023 meeting, she reported to Rebecca Tanaka that a negotiated license with Lumicore appeared unlikely based on the posture Lumicore had adopted during the meeting. Reeves's assessment was memorialized in an email from Reeves to Tanaka dated April 21, 2023, which was marked during the deposition as Reeves Deposition Exhibit 11. Reeves confirmed that the email accurately reflected her contemporaneous assessment of the meeting outcome.

In addition to her assessment that a negotiated license was unlikely, Reeves recommended that OWS consider supplementing the licensing campaign with additional patents and expanding the scope of accused products. Specifically, Reeves recommended adding the '015 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015 — "Polarization-Diverse Grating Coupler for Silicon Photonic Transceivers"), which had issued on August 2, 2022, and expanding the accused product identification to include the LumiLink 800G-DR8 transceiver module, which had launched commercially in the first quarter of 2023. Reeves testified that the decision to add the '015 Patent and the 800G-DR8 product was based on input from Dr. Nikolai Petrov and reflected the ongoing evolution of both OWS's patent portfolio and Lumicore's product lineup.

VI. SECOND LICENSING LETTER — MAY 15, 2023

A. Preparation and Substance

Reeves confirmed that FairPoint Licensing Group sent a second licensing letter to Lumicore Technologies, Inc. on May 15, 2023. The letter was marked during the deposition as Reeves Deposition Exhibit 3.

The letter was again addressed to Raymond Bautista, General Counsel, Lumicore Technologies, Inc., at Lumicore's Austin, Texas headquarters. Reeves testified that the second letter served two primary purposes: first, to add the '015 Patent to the list of asserted patents; and second, to expand the identification of accused products to include the LumiLink 800G-DR8, in addition to the previously identified LumiLink 400G-ZR+.

The second letter included updated claim-chart summaries for the '015 Patent as applied to both the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and the LumiLink 800G-DR8 products. These claim charts were marked during the deposition as Reeves Deposition Exhibit 9. Reeves stated that the claim charts were prepared in collaboration with OWS's technical team and reflected FairPoint's analysis of how specific claim limitations of the '015 Patent were practiced by both accused products.

The letter reiterated OWS's willingness to engage in good-faith licensing discussions and noted that OWS reserved all rights, including the right to seek judicial remedies if a license could not be achieved through negotiation. Reeves testified that the inclusion of a reservation-of-rights clause was standard practice in FairPoint's licensing letters and was not intended as a litigation threat, but rather as a prudent preservation of OWS's legal options.

Reeves confirmed that the May 15, 2023 letter was sent via Severin Partners LLC overnight delivery with tracking confirmation, and a copy was also emailed to Raymond Bautista at Lumicore. The Severin Partners LLC tracking confirmation was marked during the deposition as Reeves Deposition Exhibit 6, showing delivery on May 16, 2023.

B. Significance of Adding the '015 Patent

Reeves explained the significance of adding the '015 Patent to the licensing campaign. The '015 Patent covers polarization-diverse grating coupler technology, which is used to couple light into and out of silicon photonic integrated circuits with low polarization-dependent loss. Reeves stated that this technology was particularly relevant to the LumiLink 800G-DR8 product, which incorporated advanced grating coupler designs for higher-bandwidth operation across multiple parallel optical lanes.

Reeves testified that Dr. Nikolai Petrov, OWS's Vice President of Engineering for the Photonics Division, had provided technical input confirming the relevance of the '015 Patent to the architecture of the LumiLink 800G-DR8 product. Specifically, Dr. Petrov had identified design features in the 800G-DR8 product specification and publicly available technical materials that were consistent with the polarization-diverse grating coupler structures claimed in the '015 Patent. Reeves stated that this technical input formed the basis for the updated claim charts included with the May 15, 2023 letter.

VII. LUMICORE'S DECLINATION — JULY 10, 2023

A. Substance of Lumicore's Response

Reeves testified that Lumicore responded to the May 15, 2023 licensing letter on July 10, 2023. The response was marked during the deposition as Reeves Deposition Exhibit 4.

The response was again sent by Kate Rourke of Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP on behalf of Lumicore Technologies, Inc. Reeves testified that the July 10, 2023 letter constituted a formal declination to take a license to any of the four identified OWS patents — the '847, '193, '562, and '015 Patents.

The letter stated that Lumicore had obtained "competent legal opinions" that its products do not infringe OWS's patents. Reeves testified that the letter did not disclose the substance, author, or date of the referenced legal opinions. The letter did not identify the attorney or law firm that had prepared the opinions, did not describe the methodology or analysis underlying the opinions, and did not attach or otherwise make available any portion of the opinions for OWS's review.

In addition, the July 10, 2023 letter did not provide any technical rebuttal to the claim charts or teardown evidence that had been presented during the April 20, 2023 meeting or attached to the January 15, 2023 and May 15, 2023 licensing letters. The letter did not include any design-around analysis or description of any non-infringing alternative designs that Lumicore had adopted or planned to adopt. The letter did not include any invalidity argument or identification of prior art beyond the general references made in the earlier February 28, 2023 response.

Reeves described the July 10, 2023 letter as a "final refusal" and stated that it was clear to her that the letter was intended to terminate the licensing dialogue.

B. Reeves's Reaction and Recommendation

Reeves testified that following receipt of the July 10, 2023 declination letter, she informed Rebecca Tanaka that the licensing campaign with Lumicore had reached an impasse and that no further progress could be expected through negotiation. Reeves recommended that OWS consider litigation as the appropriate next step to enforce its patent rights.

Reeves expressed the view that Lumicore's reference to "competent legal opinions" without any willingness to share or discuss the substance of those opinions indicated that Lumicore had no genuine interest in negotiating a license on any terms. Reeves stated that in her experience, a licensing target that has obtained a good-faith opinion of counsel and genuinely wishes to avoid litigation will typically share at least the conclusions of that opinion to facilitate resolution; Lumicore's refusal to do so suggested, in Reeves's view, that the opinions either did not exist or did not support the position Lumicore was advancing.

Reeves further noted that during the entire pre-suit licensing campaign — from January 15, 2023, through July 10, 2023 — Lumicore never made a counter-offer to OWS's licensing proposal, never proposed alternative license terms, never identified a specific invalidity defense in detail, and never described any non-infringing alternative product design. This complete absence of engagement, Reeves testified, was unusual even in contentious licensing negotiations and reinforced her conclusion that Lumicore had made a deliberate business decision to continue selling the accused products without taking a license.

VIII. POST-DECLINATION DEVELOPMENTS

A. LumiEdge 1600G-LR Launch (Q4 2023)

Reeves testified that she was aware that Lumicore launched its LumiEdge 1600G-LR transceiver module in the fourth quarter of 2023, after receiving both FairPoint licensing letters and formally declining to take a license. Reeves stated that the launch of a new product line by Lumicore in the same technology space as the accused LumiLink products, at a time when Lumicore was on notice of OWS's patent rights and had deliberately refused to engage in licensing discussions, was significant.

Reeves stated that the LumiEdge 1600G-LR launch was among the factors she cited in recommending that OWS proceed with litigation. Reeves explained that the launch of the new product demonstrated Lumicore's intent to continue and expand its commercial activities in the accused technology area without regard to OWS's patent rights.

Reeves confirmed that OWS subsequently identified additional infringement of the '193 and '015 Patents by the LumiEdge 1600G-LR product. This identification was communicated by Reeves to Rebecca Tanaka, as reflected in an email marked during the deposition as Reeves Deposition Exhibit 13.

B. No Further Communications with Lumicore

Reeves testified that there were no further licensing communications between FairPoint Licensing Group and Lumicore Technologies, Inc. (or Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP) after the July 10, 2023 declination letter. Reeves stated that FairPoint did not send any additional licensing letters, did not request any additional meetings, and did not receive any further correspondence from Lumicore or its counsel regarding the OWS patent portfolio.

FairPoint's engagement with respect to the Lumicore licensing campaign effectively concluded after the declination, though FairPoint continued to advise OWS on other licensing matters unrelated to Lumicore. Reeves testified that the Lumicore licensing matter was subsequently referred to OWS's litigation counsel for handling.

IX. CROSS-EXAMINATION HIGHLIGHTS (BY SAMANTHA BRIGGS, HAWTHORNE VEGA & CRUZ LLP)

A. Scope and Nature of Cross-Examination

Following the completion of the direct examination by Wendy Schultz, the deponent was cross-examined by Samantha Briggs of Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP, counsel for defendant Lumicore Technologies, Inc. The cross-examination covered several principal areas: (1) the specificity of the claim charts provided in the licensing letters and at the April 20, 2023 meeting; (2) whether FairPoint had ever proposed a specific royalty rate or lump-sum demand to Lumicore; (3) the basis for FairPoint's technical infringement conclusions; (4) whether Reeves had independent technical expertise to assess patent infringement; and (5) the completeness and reliability of Reeves's notes from the April 20, 2023 meeting.

B. Key Cross-Examination Points and Reeves's Responses

Claim Chart Specificity. Briggs asked whether the claim charts included in the licensing letters constituted a full element-by-element mapping of each claim limitation to a specific feature of the accused products. Reeves acknowledged that the claim charts attached to both the January 15, 2023 and May 15, 2023 letters were "summary level" and were intended to provide Lumicore with a reasonable overview of OWS's infringement contentions, rather than a litigation-quality claim chart with exhaustive element-by-element analysis. Reeves stated that this was standard practice in pre-suit licensing outreach, as the purpose of the claim charts was to facilitate a dialogue and enable the target company to assess the allegations, not to replicate the level of detail that would be expected in formal infringement contentions served during litigation. Reeves further testified that more detailed claim charts were presented during the April 20, 2023 in-person meeting.

Specific Royalty Rate Demand. Briggs asked whether FairPoint or OWS had ever proposed a specific royalty rate to Lumicore at any point during the licensing campaign. Reeves confirmed that no specific royalty rate was proposed in either the January 15, 2023 or the May 15, 2023 letter, nor was a specific rate proposed during the April 20, 2023 meeting. Reeves explained that FairPoint's standard practice was to open licensing discussions and negotiate from a position of mutual understanding of the technology and the commercial landscape, rather than leading with a specific numerical demand. Reeves stated that in her experience, proposing a specific royalty rate at the outset of a licensing campaign can be counterproductive, as it may foreclose negotiation flexibility or provoke a defensive reaction from the target company. She emphasized that OWS's stated willingness to discuss "commercially reasonable" terms was itself an invitation for Lumicore to engage in negotiations, which Lumicore chose not to do.

Technical Expertise. Briggs challenged Reeves's qualifications to assess patent infringement, noting that Reeves holds an MBA and an undergraduate engineering degree but is not a patent attorney, a registered patent agent, or a court-qualified technical expert. Reeves responded that she did not hold herself out as a patent attorney or technical expert and that her role was licensing strategy and negotiation, not technical claim analysis. She stated that she relied on OWS's technical team — specifically Dr. Jian-Wei Huang and Dr. Nikolai Petrov — and the Benchmark teardown report for the technical substance of the infringement allegations. Reeves testified that her educational background in electrical engineering, combined with her twelve years of experience in the semiconductor industry and her involvement in over sixty licensing campaigns, provided her with sufficient technical literacy to understand and communicate the substance of patent claims in a licensing context, even though she was not qualified to render legal opinions on infringement or validity.

Meeting Notes. Briggs asked whether Reeves had contemporaneous notes from the April 20, 2023 meeting. Reeves confirmed that she had handwritten notes taken during the meeting, which were marked during the deposition as Reeves Deposition Exhibit 10. Reeves also confirmed that she had sent a follow-up email to Rebecca Tanaka dated April 21, 2023, summarizing the meeting outcome and her assessment of Lumicore's posture; that email was marked as Reeves Deposition Exhibit 11. Both documents had been produced in discovery.

Briggs asked whether Reeves's notes reflected any statement by Lumicore's representatives indicating a willingness to continue discussions or suggesting any terms on which a license might be acceptable. Reeves stated that no such statement was made during the meeting and that her notes reflected a "dead end" in the licensing discussions. Reeves further stated that her April 21, 2023 email to Rebecca Tanaka was consistent with her meeting notes and reflected her contemporaneous assessment that further negotiations would not be productive.

Independent Development Claim. Briggs asked whether Reeves had any basis to dispute Lumicore's assertion that its products were independently developed. Reeves stated that she could not speak to Lumicore's internal development process, as she had no access to or knowledge of Lumicore's engineering records, design documents, or product development history. However, Reeves noted that the Benchmark teardown evidence showed structural similarities between the accused products and the claimed inventions that, in her view, were inconsistent with a wholly independent design. Reeves clarified that this was her assessment based on the available evidence and that she was not offering an expert opinion on the question of independent development.

X. KEY EXHIBITS MARKED DURING DEPOSITION

The following exhibits were marked during the deposition of Angela Reeves on December 10, 2024:

XI. ASSESSMENT OF TESTIMONY — STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

A. Strengths of Reeves's Testimony

Reeves was well-prepared, articulate, and consistent throughout her approximately five hours and forty minutes of testimony. She demonstrated thorough familiarity with the chronology of the licensing campaign, the content of the licensing letters, and the substance of the April 20, 2023 in-person meeting. Her testimony was organized and responsive, and she did not make significant concessions during cross-examination that would undermine the key elements of OWS's case.

Her account of the licensing chronology was corroborated at each material point by contemporaneous documents, including the two licensing letters (Reeves Exs. 1 and 3), the Severin Partners LLC tracking confirmations (Reeves Exs. 5 and 6), the Lumicore response letters (Reeves Exs. 2 and 4), her handwritten meeting notes (Reeves Ex. 10), and her follow-up email to Rebecca Tanaka (Reeves Ex. 11). This documentary corroboration significantly enhances the credibility of her testimony and makes it resistant to impeachment on the key factual points.

Her testimony unambiguously establishes that Lumicore was put on actual notice of the '847, '193, and '562 Patents as of January 15, 2023, and of the '015 Patent as of May 15, 2023. These dates are critical to OWS's willful infringement theory, as they establish the point at which Lumicore had actual knowledge of the asserted patents and the specific allegations of infringement. The confirmed delivery of the licensing letters and Bautista's in-person acknowledgment of receipt further eliminate any argument by Lumicore that it lacked actual notice.

Reeves's characterization of Lumicore's representatives as showing "no interest in negotiating" at the April 20, 2023 meeting is powerful evidence of Lumicore's deliberate decision to continue its infringing conduct. This testimony is supported by the contemporaneous meeting notes and follow-up email, and by the specific details Reeves provided regarding the absence of any counter-offer, alternative terms, technical rebuttal, or willingness to continue discussions.

Her testimony that Lumicore never made a counter-offer, never proposed alternative license terms, never identified non-infringing alternatives, and never shared the substance of the referenced "competent legal opinions" supports OWS's position that Lumicore acted in bad faith and with subjective willfulness under the Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. 93 (2016), standard. The totality of the evidence, as established through Reeves's testimony, paints a picture of a company that was put on detailed notice of specific patent rights, reviewed those patents, and chose to continue and expand its infringing product lines without any good-faith effort to evaluate or avoid infringement.

Reeves's testimony regarding the LumiEdge 1600G-LR launch in Q4 2023 — after formal notice and declination — reinforces the willful infringement narrative by demonstrating that Lumicore not only continued to sell the originally accused products but expanded its product line in the same technology space while on notice of OWS's patent rights.

Finally, Reeves confirmed that Raymond Bautista acknowledged receipt of the licensing letters and review of the identified patents during the April 20, 2023 meeting. This testimony is of particular importance because it eliminates any defense that Lumicore lacked actual knowledge of the asserted patents or their alleged application to the accused products.

B. Potential Weaknesses / Areas for Defendant to Exploit

Several aspects of Reeves's testimony may be subject to challenge by Lumicore at trial or in pre-trial briefing, and should be anticipated and addressed in our trial preparation:

First, Reeves acknowledged that FairPoint never proposed a specific royalty rate to Lumicore — not in the January 15, 2023 letter, not in the May 15, 2023 letter, and not during the April 20, 2023 meeting. Lumicore may argue that OWS's licensing overture was not a genuine good-faith negotiation attempt because it never put a concrete proposal on the table. This argument should be countered by Reeves's testimony that FairPoint's practice was to establish a dialogue before proposing specific financial terms, and by the fact that Lumicore never engaged in any substantive discussion that would have warranted a specific proposal.

Second, Reeves's claim charts were acknowledged to be "summary level" rather than full element-by-element charts. Lumicore may argue that the claim charts were insufficient to put Lumicore on meaningful notice of infringement and that the lack of specificity justified Lumicore's refusal to engage. This argument should be countered by Reeves's testimony that summary-level claim charts are standard practice in pre-suit licensing outreach, that more detailed charts were presented at the April 20, 2023 meeting, and that Lumicore never identified any specific deficiency in the claim charts or requested additional detail as a prerequisite to continued discussions.

Third, Reeves is not a patent attorney, registered patent agent, or technical expert. Her opinions on the merits of infringement carry limited weight and should not be presented at trial as expert opinions. Rather, her testimony should be used for its principal evidentiary value: establishing the factual chronology of the licensing campaign, Lumicore's actual notice of the asserted patents, and Lumicore's state of mind as reflected in its responses (or lack thereof) during the pre-suit negotiations.

Fourth, Reeves's characterization of the April 20, 2023 meeting as a "dead end" is a subjective assessment. However, this characterization is supported by her contemporaneous handwritten notes and her follow-up email to Rebecca Tanaka, both of which were produced in discovery and are consistent with her deposition testimony. This documentary corroboration significantly reduces the risk of impeachment on this point.

C. Recommendations for Trial Use

Based on the foregoing assessment, we recommend the following approach to the use of Reeves's testimony at trial:

1. Live Testimony or Video Deposition. Reeves should be called as a live witness at trial, if scheduling permits. Alternatively, if live testimony is not feasible, her video deposition testimony should be designated and played for the jury. Her testimony is essential to establishing the pre-suit notice timeline and Lumicore's refusal to negotiate — both of which are core elements of OWS's willful infringement case.

2. Key Deposition Designations. The following excerpts from the Reeves deposition should be designated for trial use:

(i) Confirmation of the January 15, 2023 licensing letter, including identification of the '847, '193, and '562 Patents and identification of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ as the accused product;

(ii) Confirmation that Raymond Bautista acknowledged receipt of the licensing letters and confirmed that Lumicore had reviewed the identified patents;

(iii) Description of the April 20, 2023 in-person meeting and Lumicore's dismissive posture, including the absence of any counter-offer, technical rebuttal, or willingness to continue discussions;

(iv) Confirmation of the May 15, 2023 supplemental licensing letter adding the '015 Patent and the LumiLink 800G-DR8 as an accused product;

(v) Description of the July 10, 2023 declination letter, including Lumicore's reference to "competent legal opinions" without any disclosure of substance; and

(vi) Testimony regarding the post-declination launch of the LumiEdge 1600G-LR product in Q4 2023.

3. Coordination with Supporting Materials. Reeves's testimony should be paired with the Declaration of Angela Reeves re: Pre-Suit Notice (currently in draft) for use in willful infringement briefing, and with the Timeline of Notice and Willfulness Evidence compiled internally by the trial team. These materials should be cross-referenced to ensure consistency and maximize the impact of the notice chronology at trial.

XII. OPEN ITEMS AND FOLLOW-UP

A. Transcript Finalization

The final certified transcript of the Reeves deposition is expected to be received by approximately December 27, 2024. Upon receipt, all page and line references in this summary should be verified against the final certified transcript and updated as necessary. Any discrepancies between the rough transcript and the final transcript should be flagged and assessed for materiality.

B. Errata Sheet

The deponent has a thirty-day period following receipt of the transcript to submit an errata sheet setting forth any changes in form or substance. Counsel should monitor for the timely submission of any errata by Reeves. If substantive changes are proposed — particularly with respect to her characterization of the April 20, 2023 meeting, Lumicore's statements during that meeting, or the content of the licensing letters — those changes should be assessed for inconsistency with her sworn testimony and contemporaneous documents, and a challenge should be prepared if warranted.

C. Coordination with Willful Infringement Materials

This deposition summary should be cross-referenced with the following internal work-product materials:

• Willful Infringement Memorandum (dated April 10, 2024)

• Timeline of Notice and Willfulness Evidence (dated April 12, 2024)

• Read Factor Analysis for Enhanced Damages (target completion date May 2025)

Reeves's testimony directly supports OWS's enhanced damages calculation under 35 U.S.C. § 284, particularly with respect to the post-notice lost-profits figure of approximately $109.2 million (calculated from the January 15, 2023 notice date through the projected trial date). The testimony establishes the critical predicate facts for enhanced damages — actual notice, detailed identification of patents and accused products, meaningful opportunity to negotiate, and deliberate refusal to take a license — that are required under the Halo framework.

D. Coordination with Motion to Compel

Reeves's testimony regarding Lumicore's reference to "competent legal opinions" in the July 10, 2023 declination letter should be cited in the pending Motion to Compel Production of Opinion-of-Counsel Letters (filed October 21, 2024, D.E. 38), and in any supplemental briefing regarding privilege waiver. Specifically, Reeves's testimony establishes that: (i) Lumicore affirmatively invoked the existence of legal opinions as a defense to infringement during the pre-suit licensing campaign; (ii) Lumicore refused to disclose any aspect of those opinions to OWS despite OWS's repeated invitations to engage in substantive discussions; and (iii) the invocation of "competent legal opinions" without any supporting disclosure is inconsistent with a good-faith defense and may support a finding of waiver.

E. Coordination with Damages Expert

Dr. Lawrence Keating of Meridian Economic Consulting Group, LLC should be provided a copy of the final certified Reeves transcript for incorporation into his expert damages report. In particular, Dr. Keating should be directed to the following aspects of Reeves's testimony:

(i) The testimony establishing the hypothetical negotiation date in Q2 2022, and the evidence that no license was ever achieved through negotiation despite OWS's efforts, which bears on the willingness and motivation of the parties in the hypothetical negotiation framework;

(ii) The testimony supporting the Georgia-Pacific factor analysis, particularly Factor 15 (the amount that a licensor and licensee would have agreed upon at the time of the hypothetical negotiation, considering the nature and scope of the license, the restriction on the licensee, and the commercial relationship between the parties); and

(iii) The testimony supporting the willful infringement enhancement analysis, including the evidence of actual notice, deliberate refusal to negotiate, and post-notice product expansion.

F. Potential Additional Witness

Reeves referenced her April 21, 2023 email to Rebecca Tanaka on multiple occasions during the deposition, and the licensing campaign timeline depends in significant part on communications between Reeves and Tanaka. Tanaka's testimony regarding the licensing campaign and her interactions with FairPoint should be coordinated with Reeves's testimony to ensure consistency. Tanaka is expected to testify live at trial as an OWS fact witness. Her anticipated testimony will cover OWS's decision to retain FairPoint, the strategic decisions made during the licensing campaign, and OWS's decision to proceed with litigation following Lumicore's declination. A preparation session should be scheduled with Ms. Tanaka to review the Reeves transcript and ensure that her recollection is consistent with the documentary record.

XIII. DISTRIBUTION

This memorandum is being distributed to the following members of the litigation team:

• Alan Ngo, Responsible Partner, Calderwood & Harkness LLP

• Marcus Delgado, Billing Partner, Calderwood & Harkness LLP

• Wendy Schultz, Lead Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP

• Omar Siddiqui, Working Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP

• Jim Callahan, Local Counsel, Whitmore & Callahan LLP, 110 North College Avenue, Suite 800, Tyler, TX 75702

Do not distribute outside the litigation team without the prior written approval of Alan Ngo.

Do not forward to client without privilege review.

END OF DEPOSITION SUMMARY

Matter:	Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. v. Lumicore Technologies, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00319-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
Document Type:	Internal Deposition Summary / Digest
Date Prepared:	December 13, 2024
Prepared By:	Omar Siddiqui, Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
Reviewed By:	Wendy Schultz, Lead Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
Deponent:	Angela Reeves, Managing Director, FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC
Date of Deposition:	December 10, 2024
Location of Deposition:	Offices of Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 350 South Grand Avenue, 48th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071 (by agreement of counsel)
Court Reporter:	To be confirmed upon receipt of final certified transcript
Videographer:	To be confirmed upon receipt of final certified transcript
Duration:	Approximately 5 hours 40 minutes (including breaks)
Examining Counsel (Plaintiff / Direct):	Wendy Schultz, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
Cross-Examining Counsel (Defendant):	Samantha Briggs, Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP
Also Present:	Omar Siddiqui (Calderwood & Harkness LLP); Rohan Iyer (Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP)
Transcript Status:	Rough transcript received December 11, 2024. Final certified transcript pending. All page and line references below are to the rough transcript and are subject to adjustment upon receipt of the final certified transcript.
Exhibits Marked:	Reeves Deposition Exhibits 1 through 14
Exhibit No.	Description	Date	Significance
Reeves Ex. 1	FairPoint first licensing letter to Lumicore (addressed to Raymond Bautista, General Counsel)	January 15, 2023	Formal notice of '847, '193, and '562 Patents; identifies LumiLink 400G-ZR+ as accused product; attaches summary claim charts
Reeves Ex. 2	Lumicore/HVC response letter (Kate Rourke to Angela Reeves)	February 28, 2023	Disputes infringement of all three identified patents; questions validity of '847 and '562 Patents; indicates willingness to consider a meeting if more detailed claim charts provided
Reeves Ex. 3	FairPoint second licensing letter to Lumicore (addressed to Raymond Bautista, General Counsel)	May 15, 2023	Adds '015 Patent to asserted patents; adds LumiLink 800G-DR8 as accused product; attaches updated claim charts
Reeves Ex. 4	Lumicore/HVC declination letter (Kate Rourke to Angela Reeves)	July 10, 2023	Formal declination of license to all four identified OWS patents; references "competent legal opinions" without disclosure of substance
Reeves Ex. 5	Severin Partners LLC tracking confirmation — January 15, 2023 letter	January 16, 2023	Confirms delivery of first licensing letter to Lumicore's Austin headquarters
Reeves Ex. 6	Severin Partners LLC tracking confirmation — May 15, 2023 letter	May 16, 2023	Confirms delivery of second licensing letter to Lumicore's Austin headquarters
Reeves Ex. 7	FairPoint engagement letter with OWS	September 2022	Terms of FairPoint's retention by OWS (portions designated Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only)
Reeves Ex. 8	Summary claim charts attached to January 15, 2023 letter	January 15, 2023	Claim-limitation mapping for '847, '193, and '562 Patents as applied to LumiLink 400G-ZR+

Reeves Ex. 9	Summary claim charts attached to May 15, 2023 letter	May 15, 2023	Claim-limitation mapping for '015 Patent as applied to LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and LumiLink 800G-DR8
Reeves Ex. 10	Angela Reeves's handwritten meeting notes — April 20, 2023 meeting	April 20, 2023	Contemporaneous notes of in-person licensing meeting at HVC offices in Austin, Texas
Reeves Ex. 11	Email from Angela Reeves to Rebecca Tanaka — post-meeting summary	April 21, 2023	Summary of April 20, 2023 meeting outcome; recommendation to expand licensing campaign to include '015 Patent and LumiLink 800G-DR8
Reeves Ex. 12	Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC teardown report — LumiLink 400G-ZR+ (cover page and key sections)	December 12, 2022	Confirms presence of waveguide multiplexer and micro-channel heat-sink structures in accused product; includes annotated die photographs and SEM images
Reeves Ex. 13	Email from Angela Reeves to Rebecca Tanaka re: LumiEdge 1600G-LR launch	Q4 2023	Notifies OWS General Counsel of new Lumicore product launch occurring after formal notice and declination of license
Reeves Ex. 14	FairPoint chronology of Lumicore licensing campaign	Undated (prepared for litigation)	Internal FairPoint timeline of all licensing contacts with Lumicore, from identification through declination

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT This document was prepared by counsel in anticipation of litigation and is protected from disclosure by the attorney work-product doctrine. Do not copy or distribute without the express authorization of the responsible partner.
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 48th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 555-9400 Facsimile: (213) 555-9401
INTERNAL DEPOSITION SUMMARY / DIGEST
DEPOSITION OF ANGELA REEVES Managing Director, FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Right-click to update Table of Contents
I. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS OF DEPONENT
A. Professional Background
Angela Reeves testified that she is the Managing Director of FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC, a patent licensing advisory firm located at 500 Sansome Street, Suite 1400, San Francisco, California 94111. Reeves stated that she has served in the Managing Director role since 2017, when FairPoint was founded. In that capacity, she oversees the firm's licensing strategy engagements, manages client relationships, and leads in-person licensing negotiations on behalf of FairPoint's clients.
Prior to founding FairPoint, Reeves held positions in intellectual property licensing and business development at two semiconductor companies over a period of approximately twelve years of combined experience. She described her earlier career as having provided her with substantial exposure to patent portfolio management, licensing negotiations, and the technical landscape of the semiconductor and photonics industries. Reeves did not identify the specific companies by name during the deposition, though she indicated that both were publicly traded U.S.-based semiconductor firms with significant patent portfolios.
Reeves holds a Master of Business Administration degree and an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering. She testified that her educational background, combined with her professional experience, enables her to understand and communicate the technical substance of patent claims in the context of licensing negotiations, though she acknowledged that she is not a patent attorney, registered patent agent, or technical expert and does not render legal opinions on infringement or validity.
Reeves stated that over the course of her career, she has been personally involved in over sixty patent licensing campaigns across the semiconductor, networking, and photonics industries. She described these campaigns as ranging from single-patent licensing efforts to multi-patent portfolio campaigns involving dozens of target companies and resulting in negotiated licenses, cross-licenses, and, in some cases, recommendations that the client pursue litigation.
B. Engagement by Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.
Reeves testified that FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC was initially retained by Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. ("OWS") in approximately September 2022 to evaluate and pursue licensing opportunities for OWS's silicon-photonics patent portfolio. The engagement was formalized through a written engagement letter, which was marked during the deposition as Reeves Deposition Exhibit 7. Portions of the engagement letter were designated Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only pursuant to the Protective Order entered in this case, and accordingly, the specific financial terms of the engagement are not summarized in detail in this memorandum.
Reeves confirmed that OWS's General Counsel, Rebecca Tanaka, was her primary point of contact at OWS throughout the duration of the engagement. Reeves stated that she communicated regularly with Ms. Tanaka by telephone, email, and videoconference, and that all strategic decisions regarding the licensing campaign — including the selection of licensing targets, the timing and content of licensing letters, and the decision to recommend litigation — were made in consultation with Ms. Tanaka.
FairPoint's engagement scope encompassed the following activities: (i) identifying potential licensees based on analysis of the competitive landscape and OWS's patent claims; (ii) preparing and sending licensing outreach letters to identified targets; (iii) conducting in-person licensing meetings with target companies and their counsel; and (iv) advising OWS on royalty-rate expectations and licensing strategy. Reeves stated that the engagement was structured to enable FairPoint to act as the primary interface with licensing targets, with OWS providing technical support and ultimate decision-making authority.
Reeves further stated that OWS's Chief Technology Officer, Dr. Jian-Wei Huang, and the Vice President of Engineering for the Photonics Division, Dr. Nikolai Petrov, provided technical support and detailed explanations of the patented technologies to FairPoint's licensing team. Reeves described the collaboration as essential to ensuring that the licensing outreach was grounded in a sound technical understanding of the relevant patent claims and the accused products.
With respect to compensation, Reeves confirmed that FairPoint was compensated on a combination of a retainer fee and a success-based fee structure. As noted above, the specific financial terms of the engagement are subject to the Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only designation and are not reproduced here. Reeves stated that the compensation structure was consistent with industry norms for patent licensing advisory engagements.
C. Knowledge of Asserted Patents
Reeves confirmed that she was familiar with all four patents asserted in this litigation and that she had reviewed each patent in detail prior to preparing the first licensing letter to Lumicore. The four asserted patents are as follows:
1. U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847 (the '847 Patent) — Entitled "Multi-Channel Silicon Photonic Waveguide Multiplexer with Low Insertion Loss." Filed September 14, 2016. Issued March 19, 2019. The original assignee is Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.
2. U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193 (the '193 Patent) — Entitled "High-Bandwidth Coherent Optical Transceiver Integrated on Silicon Substrate." Filed April 7, 2017. Issued January 12, 2021. The original assignee is Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.
3. U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562 (the '562 Patent) — Entitled "Method for Thermal Management of Photonic Integrated Circuits Using Embedded Micro-Channel Heat Sinks." Filed November 22, 2014. Issued June 13, 2017. Originally assigned to Solara Optics, Inc. Acquired by OWS via an Asset Purchase Agreement dated June 15, 2018, for $34.5 million as part of a portfolio of twelve patents.
4. U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015 (the '015 Patent) — Entitled "Polarization-Diverse Grating Coupler for Silicon Photonic Transceivers." Filed August 30, 2019. Issued August 2, 2022. The original assignee is Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.
Reeves testified that, in addition to reviewing each patent, she also reviewed the teardown report prepared by Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC, on the Lumicore LumiLink 400G-ZR+ transceiver module. The Benchmark teardown report was dated December 12, 2022, and was delivered to FairPoint by Benchmark's Lead Engineer, Kevin Ng. Reeves stated that her review of both the patents and the teardown report was essential to the preparation of the first licensing letter, as it enabled FairPoint to identify specific claim limitations and corresponding structures in the accused product.
II. IDENTIFICATION OF LUMICORE AS LICENSING TARGET
A. How Lumicore Was Identified
Reeves testified that in approximately October 2022, OWS's internal engineering team identified potential infringement of OWS patents by Lumicore Technologies, Inc.'s LumiLink 400G-ZR+ transceiver module, which had launched commercially in the third quarter of 2022. Reeves stated that the identification was based on the engineering team's review of publicly available product specifications and marketing materials for the LumiLink 400G-ZR+, as well as the team's knowledge of OWS's own patented technologies in the silicon-photonics space.
The identification was referred by Rebecca Tanaka, OWS's General Counsel, to FairPoint for further evaluation and potential inclusion in the licensing campaign. Reeves stated that she discussed the referral with Ms. Tanaka and agreed that a detailed technical analysis of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ product was warranted before proceeding with any licensing outreach.
In November 2022, at FairPoint's recommendation, OWS retained Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC, to perform a physical teardown and reverse engineering of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ product. Benchmark is located at 2244 Mission College Boulevard, Santa Clara, California 95054, and specializes in semiconductor product teardowns and failure analysis. Reeves stated that Benchmark was selected based on its reputation in the industry and its prior experience performing teardowns of silicon-photonics transceiver modules.
Benchmark's teardown report, dated December 12, 2022, confirmed the presence of accused waveguide multiplexer structures and thermal management micro-channel heat-sink features within the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ module that FairPoint and OWS's technical team believed to read on the claims of the '847, '193, and '562 Patents. Reeves testified that the report included annotated die photographs, cross-sectional scanning electron microscope (SEM) images, and detailed descriptions of the physical structures observed at the die level, all of which were instrumental in the preparation of the summary claim charts that accompanied the first licensing letter.
Reeves stated that she personally reviewed the Benchmark teardown report, including the annotated die photographs and SEM images, before preparing the first licensing letter to Lumicore. She further stated that Dr. Jian-Wei Huang and Dr. Nikolai Petrov of OWS provided technical guidance on the interpretation of the teardown results and the mapping of observed structures to specific claim elements of the asserted patents.
B. Background on Lumicore
Reeves confirmed that she was aware of the following background facts regarding Lumicore Technologies, Inc. at the time of the licensing campaign:
Lumicore Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 9200 Spectrum Boulevard, Building C, Austin, Texas 78759. The company had its initial public offering on Nasdaq in March 2022 at a price of $24.00 per share. FairPoint assessed Lumicore as a fast-growing competitor in the silicon-photonics transceiver market, targeting hyperscale data center operators and telecommunications customers as its primary end markets. Reeves stated that FairPoint's assessment was based on publicly available financial filings, industry analyst reports, and information gathered from trade publications and conferences.
Reeves confirmed that Lumicore's General Counsel is Raymond Bautista, and that Mr. Bautista was the addressee of all licensing correspondence sent by FairPoint on behalf of OWS during the pre-suit licensing campaign.
III. FIRST LICENSING LETTER — JANUARY 15, 2023
A. Preparation and Substance of the Letter
Reeves confirmed that FairPoint Licensing Group, on behalf of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp., sent the first licensing and notice letter to Lumicore Technologies, Inc. on January 15, 2023. This letter was marked during the deposition as Reeves Deposition Exhibit 1.
The letter was addressed to Raymond Bautista, General Counsel, Lumicore Technologies, Inc., at Lumicore's Austin, Texas headquarters address (9200 Spectrum Boulevard, Building C, Austin, TX 78759). Reeves testified that the letter identified three OWS patents: the '847 Patent, the '193 Patent, and the '562 Patent. The letter also identified the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ transceiver module as the accused product.
Reeves stated that the letter included a summary of how FairPoint and OWS's technical team believed each identified patent was infringed by the LumiLink 400G-ZR+, with references to specific claim elements and corresponding structures observed in the Benchmark teardown report. The letter attached summary claim charts (marked as Reeves Deposition Exhibit 8) that mapped specific claim limitations of the '847, '193, and '562 Patents to features and structures identified in the Benchmark teardown.
The letter proposed a meeting to discuss a potential license and indicated OWS's preference for a commercially reasonable resolution. Reeves emphasized that the tone of the letter was professional and invitational, reflecting FairPoint's standard approach to pre-suit licensing outreach. The letter did not include a demand for a specific royalty rate or lump-sum payment; rather, it invited Lumicore to engage in discussions.
Reeves confirmed that the letter was sent via Severin Partners LLC overnight delivery and that FairPoint received tracking confirmation of delivery. The Severin Partners LLC tracking confirmation was marked during the deposition as Reeves Deposition Exhibit 5, showing delivery on January 16, 2023. In addition to the Severin Partners LLC delivery, a copy of the letter was sent via email to an email address for Raymond Bautista that had been obtained from Lumicore's corporate website. Reeves testified that she retained the tracking confirmation in FairPoint's files and that it had been produced in discovery.
B. Purpose and Intent
Reeves testified that the primary purpose of the January 15, 2023 letter was to put Lumicore on formal notice of OWS's patent rights and to open a dialogue toward a licensing arrangement. Reeves stated that the letter was carefully drafted to identify the specific patents at issue, the specific accused product, and the specific technical basis for the infringement allegations, so that Lumicore would have a clear understanding of OWS's position and could make an informed decision about whether to engage in licensing discussions.
Reeves further stated that it was FairPoint's standard practice to provide sufficient detail in an initial licensing letter to enable the target company to evaluate the allegations, while reserving a more detailed claim-by-claim analysis for in-person meetings or subsequent correspondence. Reeves confirmed that no demand for a specific royalty rate or lump-sum payment was included in the first letter, consistent with FairPoint's approach of establishing a dialogue before proposing specific financial terms.
IV. LUMICORE'S RESPONSE — FEBRUARY 28, 2023
A. Receipt and Substance of Response
Reeves testified that Lumicore responded to the January 15, 2023 letter on February 28, 2023. The response letter was marked during the deposition as Reeves Deposition Exhibit 2.
Notably, the response was sent not by Raymond Bautista directly but by Lumicore's outside counsel, Catherine "Kate" Rourke of Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP, located at 600 Congress Avenue, Suite 2400, Austin, Texas 78701. Reeves stated that the engagement of outside litigation counsel at this early stage was not unusual in her experience, as many companies route licensing correspondence through outside counsel as a matter of standard practice.
The substance of the February 28, 2023 response letter disputed infringement of all three identified patents — the '847, '193, and '562 Patents. In addition, the response questioned the validity of the '847 and '562 Patents, referencing certain prior-art publications, though Reeves could not recall the specific prior-art references cited in the letter during the deposition. Reeves stated that she recalled the letter raising prior art but could not recall whether the cited references were academic publications, prior-filed patents, or some combination thereof.
Reeves testified that the response did not include any opinion-of-counsel analysis, any detailed technical rebuttal to the claim charts attached to the January 15, 2023 letter, or any element-by-element response to the infringement allegations. Reeves characterized the response as a "general denial letter" that lacked substantive engagement with the technical merits of OWS's position.
Importantly, however, the response did not entirely close the door on further discussions. Reeves testified that the letter indicated Lumicore was "willing to consider" a meeting if OWS provided more detailed claim charts mapping specific claim elements to the accused product. Reeves interpreted this as an invitation to present more detailed technical information, which she viewed as a standard part of the licensing process.
B. Reeves's Assessment of the Response
Reeves characterized the February 28, 2023 response as "typical of an early-stage denial" and stated that, in her experience over more than sixty licensing campaigns, most licensing targets initially dispute infringement and question validity before engaging in substantive negotiations. Reeves stated that she did not view the response as foreclosing the possibility of a negotiated resolution at that stage.
Following receipt of the response, Reeves discussed the letter and its implications with Rebecca Tanaka. Reeves recommended proceeding to schedule an in-person meeting with Lumicore and its counsel, as indicated in the response letter's suggestion that Lumicore would consider a meeting upon receipt of more detailed claim charts. Reeves testified that Ms. Tanaka agreed with this recommendation, and that arrangements were made to schedule a meeting at a mutually convenient time and location.
V. IN-PERSON LICENSING MEETING — APRIL 20, 2023
A. Logistics and Attendees
Reeves confirmed that an in-person licensing meeting between OWS/FairPoint and Lumicore/Hawthorne Vega & Cruz took place on April 20, 2023, in Austin, Texas. The meeting was held at the offices of Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP, 600 Congress Avenue, Suite 2400, Austin, Texas 78701. Reeves testified that the location was selected by mutual agreement of the parties.
The attendees for OWS and FairPoint were as follows:
• Angela Reeves, Managing Director, FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC
• Rebecca Tanaka, General Counsel, Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.
The attendees for Lumicore were as follows:
• Raymond Bautista, General Counsel, Lumicore Technologies, Inc.
• Catherine "Kate" Rourke, Lead Partner, Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP
Reeves testified that the meeting lasted approximately two and a half hours. No technical personnel from either OWS or Lumicore were present at the meeting. Reeves stated that the absence of technical personnel on the Lumicore side was noted by OWS, as it suggested that Lumicore had not brought anyone who could engage with the technical substance of the infringement allegations at a detailed level.
B. Substance of the Meeting
Reeves testified that she presented a detailed overview of the three identified patents — the '847 Patent, the '193 Patent, and the '562 Patent — and their application to the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ product. The presentation included a discussion of the prosecution history and technical scope of each patent, as well as a description of the commercial significance of the patented technologies to the silicon-photonics transceiver market.
Reeves brought printed claim charts mapping specific claim limitations to features identified in the Benchmark teardown report. These claim charts were more detailed than the summary claim charts attached to the January 15, 2023 letter, and included element-by-element mappings for the independent claims of each of the three patents. Reeves stated that the updated claim charts had been prepared in collaboration with OWS's technical team, including Dr. Huang and Dr. Petrov.
In addition to the claim charts, Reeves brought selected annotated photographs from the Benchmark teardown showing die-level structures corresponding to the claimed waveguide multiplexer features (as claimed in the '847 Patent) and the micro-channel heat-sink features (as claimed in the '562 Patent). Reeves testified that these photographs were presented to Lumicore's representatives during the meeting and that she walked through each photograph, identifying the relevant structures and explaining how they corresponded to specific claim limitations.
Reeves proposed a royalty-bearing license arrangement during the meeting and indicated that OWS was open to discussing reasonable terms, including a running royalty on accused product sales. Reeves stated that she did not propose a specific royalty rate during the meeting, consistent with FairPoint's practice of establishing a mutual understanding of the technical and commercial landscape before proposing specific financial terms.
Reeves also testified that she discussed OWS's market position during the meeting. Specifically, she described OWS as the third-largest U.S. supplier of silicon-photonics transceiver modules for hyperscale data centers, noted that OWS held a portfolio of 142 U.S. patents and 58 pending patent applications, and emphasized the commercial significance of the patented technologies to the broader transceiver market. Reeves stated that this background information was provided to establish the context for a licensing discussion and to convey to Lumicore the breadth and depth of OWS's intellectual property position.
C. Lumicore's Reaction
Reeves testified that Lumicore's representatives "showed no interest in negotiating" a license during the April 20, 2023 meeting. Reeves provided specific details regarding the statements and conduct of Lumicore's representatives that formed the basis for this characterization.
Specifically, Reeves stated that Raymond Bautista said words to the effect that Lumicore's products were "independently developed" and did not use OWS's technology. Reeves recalled that Mr. Bautista made this statement after Reeves had completed her presentation of the claim charts and teardown photographs, suggesting that the statement was made in full awareness of the technical evidence that had been presented.
Kate Rourke reiterated the position set forth in the February 28, 2023 response letter — namely, that Lumicore disputed infringement and questioned the validity of the asserted patents. Reeves testified that Ms. Rourke's statements were general in nature and did not engage with the specific claim elements or teardown evidence that Reeves had presented during the meeting.
Reeves testified that neither Bautista nor Rourke provided any technical rebuttal to the claim charts or teardown evidence presented during the meeting. Neither representative identified any specific claim limitation that they contended was not met by the accused product, nor did they challenge the accuracy of the Benchmark teardown results. Similarly, neither Bautista nor Rourke identified any specific non-infringing design alternatives or design-around efforts that Lumicore had undertaken or planned to undertake.
Reeves further testified that at no point during the meeting did Lumicore make a counter-offer, propose alternative license terms, or suggest a framework for continued negotiations. The meeting ended without any agreement to reconvene, schedule a follow-up meeting, or continue discussions in any form.
Reeves characterized Lumicore's posture throughout the meeting as "dismissive." She stated that, in her experience with over sixty licensing campaigns, the April 20, 2023 meeting was among the least productive she had attended, and that Lumicore's refusal to engage with any of the substantive evidence presented was atypical even for early-stage licensing discussions.
Reeves specifically recalled that during the meeting, Raymond Bautista acknowledged receipt of the January 15, 2023 licensing letter and confirmed that Lumicore had reviewed the identified patents. This acknowledgment was significant because it eliminates any potential defense that Lumicore lacked actual knowledge of the asserted patents as of the date of the meeting.
D. Reeves's Post-Meeting Assessment
Reeves testified that following the April 20, 2023 meeting, she reported to Rebecca Tanaka that a negotiated license with Lumicore appeared unlikely based on the posture Lumicore had adopted during the meeting. Reeves's assessment was memorialized in an email from Reeves to Tanaka dated April 21, 2023, which was marked during the deposition as Reeves Deposition Exhibit 11. Reeves confirmed that the email accurately reflected her contemporaneous assessment of the meeting outcome.
In addition to her assessment that a negotiated license was unlikely, Reeves recommended that OWS consider supplementing the licensing campaign with additional patents and expanding the scope of accused products. Specifically, Reeves recommended adding the '015 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015 — "Polarization-Diverse Grating Coupler for Silicon Photonic Transceivers"), which had issued on August 2, 2022, and expanding the accused product identification to include the LumiLink 800G-DR8 transceiver module, which had launched commercially in the first quarter of 2023. Reeves testified that the decision to add the '015 Patent and the 800G-DR8 product was based on input from Dr. Nikolai Petrov and reflected the ongoing evolution of both OWS's patent portfolio and Lumicore's product lineup.
VI. SECOND LICENSING LETTER — MAY 15, 2023
A. Preparation and Substance
Reeves confirmed that FairPoint Licensing Group sent a second licensing letter to Lumicore Technologies, Inc. on May 15, 2023. The letter was marked during the deposition as Reeves Deposition Exhibit 3.
The letter was again addressed to Raymond Bautista, General Counsel, Lumicore Technologies, Inc., at Lumicore's Austin, Texas headquarters. Reeves testified that the second letter served two primary purposes: first, to add the '015 Patent to the list of asserted patents; and second, to expand the identification of accused products to include the LumiLink 800G-DR8, in addition to the previously identified LumiLink 400G-ZR+.
The second letter included updated claim-chart summaries for the '015 Patent as applied to both the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and the LumiLink 800G-DR8 products. These claim charts were marked during the deposition as Reeves Deposition Exhibit 9. Reeves stated that the claim charts were prepared in collaboration with OWS's technical team and reflected FairPoint's analysis of how specific claim limitations of the '015 Patent were practiced by both accused products.
The letter reiterated OWS's willingness to engage in good-faith licensing discussions and noted that OWS reserved all rights, including the right to seek judicial remedies if a license could not be achieved through negotiation. Reeves testified that the inclusion of a reservation-of-rights clause was standard practice in FairPoint's licensing letters and was not intended as a litigation threat, but rather as a prudent preservation of OWS's legal options.
Reeves confirmed that the May 15, 2023 letter was sent via Severin Partners LLC overnight delivery with tracking confirmation, and a copy was also emailed to Raymond Bautista at Lumicore. The Severin Partners LLC tracking confirmation was marked during the deposition as Reeves Deposition Exhibit 6, showing delivery on May 16, 2023.
B. Significance of Adding the '015 Patent
Reeves explained the significance of adding the '015 Patent to the licensing campaign. The '015 Patent covers polarization-diverse grating coupler technology, which is used to couple light into and out of silicon photonic integrated circuits with low polarization-dependent loss. Reeves stated that this technology was particularly relevant to the LumiLink 800G-DR8 product, which incorporated advanced grating coupler designs for higher-bandwidth operation across multiple parallel optical lanes.
Reeves testified that Dr. Nikolai Petrov, OWS's Vice President of Engineering for the Photonics Division, had provided technical input confirming the relevance of the '015 Patent to the architecture of the LumiLink 800G-DR8 product. Specifically, Dr. Petrov had identified design features in the 800G-DR8 product specification and publicly available technical materials that were consistent with the polarization-diverse grating coupler structures claimed in the '015 Patent. Reeves stated that this technical input formed the basis for the updated claim charts included with the May 15, 2023 letter.
VII. LUMICORE'S DECLINATION — JULY 10, 2023
A. Substance of Lumicore's Response
Reeves testified that Lumicore responded to the May 15, 2023 licensing letter on July 10, 2023. The response was marked during the deposition as Reeves Deposition Exhibit 4.
The response was again sent by Kate Rourke of Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP on behalf of Lumicore Technologies, Inc. Reeves testified that the July 10, 2023 letter constituted a formal declination to take a license to any of the four identified OWS patents — the '847, '193, '562, and '015 Patents.
The letter stated that Lumicore had obtained "competent legal opinions" that its products do not infringe OWS's patents. Reeves testified that the letter did not disclose the substance, author, or date of the referenced legal opinions. The letter did not identify the attorney or law firm that had prepared the opinions, did not describe the methodology or analysis underlying the opinions, and did not attach or otherwise make available any portion of the opinions for OWS's review.
In addition, the July 10, 2023 letter did not provide any technical rebuttal to the claim charts or teardown evidence that had been presented during the April 20, 2023 meeting or attached to the January 15, 2023 and May 15, 2023 licensing letters. The letter did not include any design-around analysis or description of any non-infringing alternative designs that Lumicore had adopted or planned to adopt. The letter did not include any invalidity argument or identification of prior art beyond the general references made in the earlier February 28, 2023 response.
Reeves described the July 10, 2023 letter as a "final refusal" and stated that it was clear to her that the letter was intended to terminate the licensing dialogue.
B. Reeves's Reaction and Recommendation
Reeves testified that following receipt of the July 10, 2023 declination letter, she informed Rebecca Tanaka that the licensing campaign with Lumicore had reached an impasse and that no further progress could be expected through negotiation. Reeves recommended that OWS consider litigation as the appropriate next step to enforce its patent rights.
Reeves expressed the view that Lumicore's reference to "competent legal opinions" without any willingness to share or discuss the substance of those opinions indicated that Lumicore had no genuine interest in negotiating a license on any terms. Reeves stated that in her experience, a licensing target that has obtained a good-faith opinion of counsel and genuinely wishes to avoid litigation will typically share at least the conclusions of that opinion to facilitate resolution; Lumicore's refusal to do so suggested, in Reeves's view, that the opinions either did not exist or did not support the position Lumicore was advancing.
Reeves further noted that during the entire pre-suit licensing campaign — from January 15, 2023, through July 10, 2023 — Lumicore never made a counter-offer to OWS's licensing proposal, never proposed alternative license terms, never identified a specific invalidity defense in detail, and never described any non-infringing alternative product design. This complete absence of engagement, Reeves testified, was unusual even in contentious licensing negotiations and reinforced her conclusion that Lumicore had made a deliberate business decision to continue selling the accused products without taking a license.
VIII. POST-DECLINATION DEVELOPMENTS
A. LumiEdge 1600G-LR Launch (Q4 2023)
Reeves testified that she was aware that Lumicore launched its LumiEdge 1600G-LR transceiver module in the fourth quarter of 2023, after receiving both FairPoint licensing letters and formally declining to take a license. Reeves stated that the launch of a new product line by Lumicore in the same technology space as the accused LumiLink products, at a time when Lumicore was on notice of OWS's patent rights and had deliberately refused to engage in licensing discussions, was significant.
Reeves stated that the LumiEdge 1600G-LR launch was among the factors she cited in recommending that OWS proceed with litigation. Reeves explained that the launch of the new product demonstrated Lumicore's intent to continue and expand its commercial activities in the accused technology area without regard to OWS's patent rights.
Reeves confirmed that OWS subsequently identified additional infringement of the '193 and '015 Patents by the LumiEdge 1600G-LR product. This identification was communicated by Reeves to Rebecca Tanaka, as reflected in an email marked during the deposition as Reeves Deposition Exhibit 13.
B. No Further Communications with Lumicore
Reeves testified that there were no further licensing communications between FairPoint Licensing Group and Lumicore Technologies, Inc. (or Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP) after the July 10, 2023 declination letter. Reeves stated that FairPoint did not send any additional licensing letters, did not request any additional meetings, and did not receive any further correspondence from Lumicore or its counsel regarding the OWS patent portfolio.
FairPoint's engagement with respect to the Lumicore licensing campaign effectively concluded after the declination, though FairPoint continued to advise OWS on other licensing matters unrelated to Lumicore. Reeves testified that the Lumicore licensing matter was subsequently referred to OWS's litigation counsel for handling.
IX. CROSS-EXAMINATION HIGHLIGHTS (BY SAMANTHA BRIGGS, HAWTHORNE VEGA & CRUZ LLP)
A. Scope and Nature of Cross-Examination
Following the completion of the direct examination by Wendy Schultz, the deponent was cross-examined by Samantha Briggs of Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP, counsel for defendant Lumicore Technologies, Inc. The cross-examination covered several principal areas: (1) the specificity of the claim charts provided in the licensing letters and at the April 20, 2023 meeting; (2) whether FairPoint had ever proposed a specific royalty rate or lump-sum demand to Lumicore; (3) the basis for FairPoint's technical infringement conclusions; (4) whether Reeves had independent technical expertise to assess patent infringement; and (5) the completeness and reliability of Reeves's notes from the April 20, 2023 meeting.
B. Key Cross-Examination Points and Reeves's Responses
Claim Chart Specificity. Briggs asked whether the claim charts included in the licensing letters constituted a full element-by-element mapping of each claim limitation to a specific feature of the accused products. Reeves acknowledged that the claim charts attached to both the January 15, 2023 and May 15, 2023 letters were "summary level" and were intended to provide Lumicore with a reasonable overview of OWS's infringement contentions, rather than a litigation-quality claim chart with exhaustive element-by-element analysis. Reeves stated that this was standard practice in pre-suit licensing outreach, as the purpose of the claim charts was to facilitate a dialogue and enable the target company to assess the allegations, not to replicate the level of detail that would be expected in formal infringement contentions served during litigation. Reeves further testified that more detailed claim charts were presented during the April 20, 2023 in-person meeting.
Specific Royalty Rate Demand. Briggs asked whether FairPoint or OWS had ever proposed a specific royalty rate to Lumicore at any point during the licensing campaign. Reeves confirmed that no specific royalty rate was proposed in either the January 15, 2023 or the May 15, 2023 letter, nor was a specific rate proposed during the April 20, 2023 meeting. Reeves explained that FairPoint's standard practice was to open licensing discussions and negotiate from a position of mutual understanding of the technology and the commercial landscape, rather than leading with a specific numerical demand. Reeves stated that in her experience, proposing a specific royalty rate at the outset of a licensing campaign can be counterproductive, as it may foreclose negotiation flexibility or provoke a defensive reaction from the target company. She emphasized that OWS's stated willingness to discuss "commercially reasonable" terms was itself an invitation for Lumicore to engage in negotiations, which Lumicore chose not to do.
Technical Expertise. Briggs challenged Reeves's qualifications to assess patent infringement, noting that Reeves holds an MBA and an undergraduate engineering degree but is not a patent attorney, a registered patent agent, or a court-qualified technical expert. Reeves responded that she did not hold herself out as a patent attorney or technical expert and that her role was licensing strategy and negotiation, not technical claim analysis. She stated that she relied on OWS's technical team — specifically Dr. Jian-Wei Huang and Dr. Nikolai Petrov — and the Benchmark teardown report for the technical substance of the infringement allegations. Reeves testified that her educational background in electrical engineering, combined with her twelve years of experience in the semiconductor industry and her involvement in over sixty licensing campaigns, provided her with sufficient technical literacy to understand and communicate the substance of patent claims in a licensing context, even though she was not qualified to render legal opinions on infringement or validity.
Meeting Notes. Briggs asked whether Reeves had contemporaneous notes from the April 20, 2023 meeting. Reeves confirmed that she had handwritten notes taken during the meeting, which were marked during the deposition as Reeves Deposition Exhibit 10. Reeves also confirmed that she had sent a follow-up email to Rebecca Tanaka dated April 21, 2023, summarizing the meeting outcome and her assessment of Lumicore's posture; that email was marked as Reeves Deposition Exhibit 11. Both documents had been produced in discovery.
Briggs asked whether Reeves's notes reflected any statement by Lumicore's representatives indicating a willingness to continue discussions or suggesting any terms on which a license might be acceptable. Reeves stated that no such statement was made during the meeting and that her notes reflected a "dead end" in the licensing discussions. Reeves further stated that her April 21, 2023 email to Rebecca Tanaka was consistent with her meeting notes and reflected her contemporaneous assessment that further negotiations would not be productive.
Independent Development Claim. Briggs asked whether Reeves had any basis to dispute Lumicore's assertion that its products were independently developed. Reeves stated that she could not speak to Lumicore's internal development process, as she had no access to or knowledge of Lumicore's engineering records, design documents, or product development history. However, Reeves noted that the Benchmark teardown evidence showed structural similarities between the accused products and the claimed inventions that, in her view, were inconsistent with a wholly independent design. Reeves clarified that this was her assessment based on the available evidence and that she was not offering an expert opinion on the question of independent development.
X. KEY EXHIBITS MARKED DURING DEPOSITION
The following exhibits were marked during the deposition of Angela Reeves on December 10, 2024:
XI. ASSESSMENT OF TESTIMONY — STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
A. Strengths of Reeves's Testimony
Reeves was well-prepared, articulate, and consistent throughout her approximately five hours and forty minutes of testimony. She demonstrated thorough familiarity with the chronology of the licensing campaign, the content of the licensing letters, and the substance of the April 20, 2023 in-person meeting. Her testimony was organized and responsive, and she did not make significant concessions during cross-examination that would undermine the key elements of OWS's case.
Her account of the licensing chronology was corroborated at each material point by contemporaneous documents, including the two licensing letters (Reeves Exs. 1 and 3), the Severin Partners LLC tracking confirmations (Reeves Exs. 5 and 6), the Lumicore response letters (Reeves Exs. 2 and 4), her handwritten meeting notes (Reeves Ex. 10), and her follow-up email to Rebecca Tanaka (Reeves Ex. 11). This documentary corroboration significantly enhances the credibility of her testimony and makes it resistant to impeachment on the key factual points.
Her testimony unambiguously establishes that Lumicore was put on actual notice of the '847, '193, and '562 Patents as of January 15, 2023, and of the '015 Patent as of May 15, 2023. These dates are critical to OWS's willful infringement theory, as they establish the point at which Lumicore had actual knowledge of the asserted patents and the specific allegations of infringement. The confirmed delivery of the licensing letters and Bautista's in-person acknowledgment of receipt further eliminate any argument by Lumicore that it lacked actual notice.
Reeves's characterization of Lumicore's representatives as showing "no interest in negotiating" at the April 20, 2023 meeting is powerful evidence of Lumicore's deliberate decision to continue its infringing conduct. This testimony is supported by the contemporaneous meeting notes and follow-up email, and by the specific details Reeves provided regarding the absence of any counter-offer, alternative terms, technical rebuttal, or willingness to continue discussions.
Her testimony that Lumicore never made a counter-offer, never proposed alternative license terms, never identified non-infringing alternatives, and never shared the substance of the referenced "competent legal opinions" supports OWS's position that Lumicore acted in bad faith and with subjective willfulness under the Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. 93 (2016), standard. The totality of the evidence, as established through Reeves's testimony, paints a picture of a company that was put on detailed notice of specific patent rights, reviewed those patents, and chose to continue and expand its infringing product lines without any good-faith effort to evaluate or avoid infringement.
Reeves's testimony regarding the LumiEdge 1600G-LR launch in Q4 2023 — after formal notice and declination — reinforces the willful infringement narrative by demonstrating that Lumicore not only continued to sell the originally accused products but expanded its product line in the same technology space while on notice of OWS's patent rights.
Finally, Reeves confirmed that Raymond Bautista acknowledged receipt of the licensing letters and review of the identified patents during the April 20, 2023 meeting. This testimony is of particular importance because it eliminates any defense that Lumicore lacked actual knowledge of the asserted patents or their alleged application to the accused products.
B. Potential Weaknesses / Areas for Defendant to Exploit
Several aspects of Reeves's testimony may be subject to challenge by Lumicore at trial or in pre-trial briefing, and should be anticipated and addressed in our trial preparation:
First, Reeves acknowledged that FairPoint never proposed a specific royalty rate to Lumicore — not in the January 15, 2023 letter, not in the May 15, 2023 letter, and not during the April 20, 2023 meeting. Lumicore may argue that OWS's licensing overture was not a genuine good-faith negotiation attempt because it never put a concrete proposal on the table. This argument should be countered by Reeves's testimony that FairPoint's practice was to establish a dialogue before proposing specific financial terms, and by the fact that Lumicore never engaged in any substantive discussion that would have warranted a specific proposal.
Second, Reeves's claim charts were acknowledged to be "summary level" rather than full element-by-element charts. Lumicore may argue that the claim charts were insufficient to put Lumicore on meaningful notice of infringement and that the lack of specificity justified Lumicore's refusal to engage. This argument should be countered by Reeves's testimony that summary-level claim charts are standard practice in pre-suit licensing outreach, that more detailed charts were presented at the April 20, 2023 meeting, and that Lumicore never identified any specific deficiency in the claim charts or requested additional detail as a prerequisite to continued discussions.
Third, Reeves is not a patent attorney, registered patent agent, or technical expert. Her opinions on the merits of infringement carry limited weight and should not be presented at trial as expert opinions. Rather, her testimony should be used for its principal evidentiary value: establishing the factual chronology of the licensing campaign, Lumicore's actual notice of the asserted patents, and Lumicore's state of mind as reflected in its responses (or lack thereof) during the pre-suit negotiations.
Fourth, Reeves's characterization of the April 20, 2023 meeting as a "dead end" is a subjective assessment. However, this characterization is supported by her contemporaneous handwritten notes and her follow-up email to Rebecca Tanaka, both of which were produced in discovery and are consistent with her deposition testimony. This documentary corroboration significantly reduces the risk of impeachment on this point.
C. Recommendations for Trial Use
Based on the foregoing assessment, we recommend the following approach to the use of Reeves's testimony at trial:
1. Live Testimony or Video Deposition. Reeves should be called as a live witness at trial, if scheduling permits. Alternatively, if live testimony is not feasible, her video deposition testimony should be designated and played for the jury. Her testimony is essential to establishing the pre-suit notice timeline and Lumicore's refusal to negotiate — both of which are core elements of OWS's willful infringement case.
2. Key Deposition Designations. The following excerpts from the Reeves deposition should be designated for trial use:
(i) Confirmation of the January 15, 2023 licensing letter, including identification of the '847, '193, and '562 Patents and identification of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ as the accused product;
(ii) Confirmation that Raymond Bautista acknowledged receipt of the licensing letters and confirmed that Lumicore had reviewed the identified patents;
(iii) Description of the April 20, 2023 in-person meeting and Lumicore's dismissive posture, including the absence of any counter-offer, technical rebuttal, or willingness to continue discussions;
(iv) Confirmation of the May 15, 2023 supplemental licensing letter adding the '015 Patent and the LumiLink 800G-DR8 as an accused product;
(v) Description of the July 10, 2023 declination letter, including Lumicore's reference to "competent legal opinions" without any disclosure of substance; and
(vi) Testimony regarding the post-declination launch of the LumiEdge 1600G-LR product in Q4 2023.
3. Coordination with Supporting Materials. Reeves's testimony should be paired with the Declaration of Angela Reeves re: Pre-Suit Notice (currently in draft) for use in willful infringement briefing, and with the Timeline of Notice and Willfulness Evidence compiled internally by the trial team. These materials should be cross-referenced to ensure consistency and maximize the impact of the notice chronology at trial.
XII. OPEN ITEMS AND FOLLOW-UP
A. Transcript Finalization
The final certified transcript of the Reeves deposition is expected to be received by approximately December 27, 2024. Upon receipt, all page and line references in this summary should be verified against the final certified transcript and updated as necessary. Any discrepancies between the rough transcript and the final transcript should be flagged and assessed for materiality.
B. Errata Sheet
The deponent has a thirty-day period following receipt of the transcript to submit an errata sheet setting forth any changes in form or substance. Counsel should monitor for the timely submission of any errata by Reeves. If substantive changes are proposed — particularly with respect to her characterization of the April 20, 2023 meeting, Lumicore's statements during that meeting, or the content of the licensing letters — those changes should be assessed for inconsistency with her sworn testimony and contemporaneous documents, and a challenge should be prepared if warranted.
C. Coordination with Willful Infringement Materials
This deposition summary should be cross-referenced with the following internal work-product materials:
• Willful Infringement Memorandum (dated April 10, 2024)
• Timeline of Notice and Willfulness Evidence (dated April 12, 2024)
• Read Factor Analysis for Enhanced Damages (target completion date May 2025)
Reeves's testimony directly supports OWS's enhanced damages calculation under 35 U.S.C. § 284, particularly with respect to the post-notice lost-profits figure of approximately $109.2 million (calculated from the January 15, 2023 notice date through the projected trial date). The testimony establishes the critical predicate facts for enhanced damages — actual notice, detailed identification of patents and accused products, meaningful opportunity to negotiate, and deliberate refusal to take a license — that are required under the Halo framework.
D. Coordination with Motion to Compel
Reeves's testimony regarding Lumicore's reference to "competent legal opinions" in the July 10, 2023 declination letter should be cited in the pending Motion to Compel Production of Opinion-of-Counsel Letters (filed October 21, 2024, D.E. 38), and in any supplemental briefing regarding privilege waiver. Specifically, Reeves's testimony establishes that: (i) Lumicore affirmatively invoked the existence of legal opinions as a defense to infringement during the pre-suit licensing campaign; (ii) Lumicore refused to disclose any aspect of those opinions to OWS despite OWS's repeated invitations to engage in substantive discussions; and (iii) the invocation of "competent legal opinions" without any supporting disclosure is inconsistent with a good-faith defense and may support a finding of waiver.
E. Coordination with Damages Expert
Dr. Lawrence Keating of Meridian Economic Consulting Group, LLC should be provided a copy of the final certified Reeves transcript for incorporation into his expert damages report. In particular, Dr. Keating should be directed to the following aspects of Reeves's testimony:
(i) The testimony establishing the hypothetical negotiation date in Q2 2022, and the evidence that no license was ever achieved through negotiation despite OWS's efforts, which bears on the willingness and motivation of the parties in the hypothetical negotiation framework;
(ii) The testimony supporting the Georgia-Pacific factor analysis, particularly Factor 15 (the amount that a licensor and licensee would have agreed upon at the time of the hypothetical negotiation, considering the nature and scope of the license, the restriction on the licensee, and the commercial relationship between the parties); and
(iii) The testimony supporting the willful infringement enhancement analysis, including the evidence of actual notice, deliberate refusal to negotiate, and post-notice product expansion.
F. Potential Additional Witness
Reeves referenced her April 21, 2023 email to Rebecca Tanaka on multiple occasions during the deposition, and the licensing campaign timeline depends in significant part on communications between Reeves and Tanaka. Tanaka's testimony regarding the licensing campaign and her interactions with FairPoint should be coordinated with Reeves's testimony to ensure consistency. Tanaka is expected to testify live at trial as an OWS fact witness. Her anticipated testimony will cover OWS's decision to retain FairPoint, the strategic decisions made during the licensing campaign, and OWS's decision to proceed with litigation following Lumicore's declination. A preparation session should be scheduled with Ms. Tanaka to review the Reeves transcript and ensure that her recollection is consistent with the documentary record.
XIII. DISTRIBUTION
This memorandum is being distributed to the following members of the litigation team:
• Alan Ngo, Responsible Partner, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
• Marcus Delgado, Billing Partner, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
• Wendy Schultz, Lead Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
• Omar Siddiqui, Working Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
• Jim Callahan, Local Counsel, Whitmore & Callahan LLP, 110 North College Avenue, Suite 800, Tyler, TX 75702
Do not distribute outside the litigation team without the prior written approval of Alan Ngo.
Do not forward to client without privilege review.
END OF DEPOSITION SUMMARY
Matter: | Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. v. Lumicore Technologies, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00319-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
Document Type: | Internal Deposition Summary / Digest
Date Prepared: | December 13, 2024
Prepared By: | Omar Siddiqui, Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
Reviewed By: | Wendy Schultz, Lead Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
Deponent: | Angela Reeves, Managing Director, FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC
Date of Deposition: | December 10, 2024
Location of Deposition: | Offices of Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 350 South Grand Avenue, 48th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071 (by agreement of counsel)
Court Reporter: | To be confirmed upon receipt of final certified transcript
Videographer: | To be confirmed upon receipt of final certified transcript
Duration: | Approximately 5 hours 40 minutes (including breaks)
Examining Counsel (Plaintiff / Direct): | Wendy Schultz, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
Cross-Examining Counsel (Defendant): | Samantha Briggs, Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP
Also Present: | Omar Siddiqui (Calderwood & Harkness LLP); Rohan Iyer (Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP)
Transcript Status: | Rough transcript received December 11, 2024. Final certified transcript pending. All page and line references below are to the rough transcript and are subject to adjustment upon receipt of the final certified transcript.
Exhibits Marked: | Reeves Deposition Exhibits 1 through 14
Exhibit No. | Description | Date | Significance
Reeves Ex. 1 | FairPoint first licensing letter to Lumicore (addressed to Raymond Bautista, General Counsel) | January 15, 2023 | Formal notice of '847, '193, and '562 Patents; identifies LumiLink 400G-ZR+ as accused product; attaches summary claim charts
Reeves Ex. 2 | Lumicore/HVC response letter (Kate Rourke to Angela Reeves) | February 28, 2023 | Disputes infringement of all three identified patents; questions validity of '847 and '562 Patents; indicates willingness to consider a meeting if more detailed claim charts provided
Reeves Ex. 3 | FairPoint second licensing letter to Lumicore (addressed to Raymond Bautista, General Counsel) | May 15, 2023 | Adds '015 Patent to asserted patents; adds LumiLink 800G-DR8 as accused product; attaches updated claim charts
Reeves Ex. 4 | Lumicore/HVC declination letter (Kate Rourke to Angela Reeves) | July 10, 2023 | Formal declination of license to all four identified OWS patents; references "competent legal opinions" without disclosure of substance
Reeves Ex. 5 | Severin Partners LLC tracking confirmation — January 15, 2023 letter | January 16, 2023 | Confirms delivery of first licensing letter to Lumicore's Austin headquarters
Reeves Ex. 6 | Severin Partners LLC tracking confirmation — May 15, 2023 letter | May 16, 2023 | Confirms delivery of second licensing letter to Lumicore's Austin headquarters
Reeves Ex. 7 | FairPoint engagement letter with OWS | September 2022 | Terms of FairPoint's retention by OWS (portions designated Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only)
Reeves Ex. 8 | Summary claim charts attached to January 15, 2023 letter | January 15, 2023 | Claim-limitation mapping for '847, '193, and '562 Patents as applied to LumiLink 400G-ZR+
Reeves Ex. 9 | Summary claim charts attached to May 15, 2023 letter | May 15, 2023 | Claim-limitation mapping for '015 Patent as applied to LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and LumiLink 800G-DR8
Reeves Ex. 10 | Angela Reeves's handwritten meeting notes — April 20, 2023 meeting | April 20, 2023 | Contemporaneous notes of in-person licensing meeting at HVC offices in Austin, Texas
Reeves Ex. 11 | Email from Angela Reeves to Rebecca Tanaka — post-meeting summary | April 21, 2023 | Summary of April 20, 2023 meeting outcome; recommendation to expand licensing campaign to include '015 Patent and LumiLink 800G-DR8
Reeves Ex. 12 | Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC teardown report — LumiLink 400G-ZR+ (cover page and key sections) | December 12, 2022 | Confirms presence of waveguide multiplexer and micro-channel heat-sink structures in accused product; includes annotated die photographs and SEM images
Reeves Ex. 13 | Email from Angela Reeves to Rebecca Tanaka re: LumiEdge 1600G-LR launch | Q4 2023 | Notifies OWS General Counsel of new Lumicore product launch occurring after formal notice and declination of license
Reeves Ex. 14 | FairPoint chronology of Lumicore licensing campaign | Undated (prepared for litigation) | Internal FairPoint timeline of all licensing contacts with Lumicore, from identification through declination

INTERNAL DEPOSITION SUMMARY / DIGEST

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS OF DEPONENT

II. IDENTIFICATION OF LUMICORE AS LICENSING TARGET

VIII. POST-DECLINATION DEVELOPMENTS

IX. CROSS-EXAMINATION HIGHLIGHTS (BY SAMANTHA BRIGGS, HAWTHORNE VEGA & CRUZ LLP)

X. KEY EXHIBITS MARKED DURING DEPOSITION

XII. OPEN ITEMS AND FOLLOW-UP

XIII. DISTRIBUTION

END OF DEPOSITION SUMMARY

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts