1014-00004 · Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP · Engagement & Administration

conflict-check-memo.docx DOCUMENT Litigation

67 / 168 ← → ✕

MEMORANDUM

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

TO: Alan Ngo, Responsible Partner, IP Litigation Group, Calderwood & Harkness LLP

FROM: Wendy Schultz, Associate, IP Litigation Group, Calderwood & Harkness LLP

DATE: March 14, 2024

RE: Conflict Clearance — Proposed Representation of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. in Patent Infringement Litigation Against Lumicore Technologies, Inc.

Matter No.: New Matter — Pending Assignment

I. Purpose and Summary

This memorandum documents the results of the firm's conflict-of-interest check conducted in connection with the proposed engagement of Calderwood & Harkness LLP ("C&H" or "the Firm") to serve as lead litigation counsel for Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. ("OWS" or "Optiwave Semi") in anticipated patent infringement litigation against Lumicore Technologies, Inc. ("Lumicore" or "LTC") in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The purpose of this memorandum is to confirm that the Firm has undertaken a thorough and comprehensive review of its current and historical representations, lateral-hire histories, and all known related-party relationships in order to identify any actual or potential conflicts of interest that might preclude or condition the proposed engagement.

The conflict check was initiated on March 11, 2024, upon receipt of an informal inquiry from Rebecca Tanaka, General Counsel of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp., regarding C&H's availability and willingness to handle this engagement. Ms. Tanaka's inquiry was directed to Alan Ngo in the Firm's IP Litigation Group and conveyed the general nature of the proposed matter, the identity of the adverse party, the patents at issue, and the anticipated scope of the engagement. The inquiry was received via telephone on March 11, 2024, at approximately 10:15 a.m. Pacific Time, followed by a confirming email at 11:02 a.m. Pacific Time containing a preliminary matter summary and a list of relevant parties and entities. The Firm immediately commenced the conflict-check process in accordance with its standard protocols.

Conclusion: Based on the comprehensive analysis set forth below, the Firm is cleared to proceed with the proposed representation of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. One prior engagement involving an adverse-adjacent party — specifically, Silverstone Capital Markets LLC, Lumicore's investment bank and IPO underwriter — was identified and analyzed in detail. That prior engagement involved an unrelated SEC regulatory compliance matter that concluded in approximately Q4 2021. It presents no material concurrent conflict, no former-client conflict, and no imputed conflict under the applicable professional responsibility rules. The prior engagement has been appropriately cleared as described in Section IV.B and Section V below. No ethical walls, consent letters, or waivers are required.

II. Proposed Engagement Overview

A. Client Information

The following sets forth detailed information regarding the proposed client, Optiwave Semiconductor Corp., compiled from publicly available sources, information provided by Ms. Tanaka during the initial inquiry, and supplemental research conducted by the undersigned.

Full Legal Name: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.

Short Name / Abbreviation: OWS; Optiwave Semi

Entity Type: Corporation

State of Incorporation: Delaware

Principal Place of Business / Headquarters: 4810 Bayside Technology Parkway, Suite 300, Santa Clara, California 95054

Registered Agent (Delaware): Capitol Statutory Services, Inc., 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Key Officers and Directors:

• Chief Executive Officer: Dr. Priya Ramaswamy

• Chief Technology Officer: Dr. Jian-Wei Huang

• General Counsel: Rebecca Tanaka

• Vice President of Engineering, Photonics Division: Dr. Nikolai Petrov

• Chief Financial Officer: David Leitner

Employer Identification Number (EIN): 46-3921087

Year Founded: 2011

Approximate Number of Employees: 1,250

Fiscal Year 2023 Revenue: $487.3 million

Fiscal Year 2023 Net Income: $61.4 million

Market Position: OWS is the third-largest U.S. supplier of silicon-photonics transceiver modules for hyperscale data centers. The company holds 142 issued U.S. patents and has 58 patent applications currently pending before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. OWS's product portfolio is concentrated in high-bandwidth optical transceiver modules designed for cloud-computing infrastructure, enterprise networking, and telecommunications applications.

Majority Owner: Ridgeline Capital Partners, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, acquired a 55% controlling equity stake in OWS in 2019 for approximately $780 million. Ridgeline Capital Partners, LP is headquartered at 200 Clarendon Street, 40th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02116.

Board Chair: Franklin Osei, a Ridgeline Capital Partners designee and Managing Partner of Ridgeline Capital Partners, LP.

Auditor: Gresham & Whitfield LLP (San Jose, California office)

Primary Commercial Lender: Weston Fidelity Bank, N.A., which maintains a revolving credit facility of $125 million for OWS. Weston Fidelity Bank, N.A. is headquartered at 383 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10179.

Directors & Officers / Litigation-Cost Insurance Carrier: Pacific Rim Insurance Group; Policy No. PLI-2023-08812

Key Products: OWS-400ZR, OWS-800XR, and OWS-1600DR transceiver module families. These products are designed for deployment in hyperscale data center environments and utilize proprietary silicon-photonics technology, including waveguide multiplexing architectures covered by the patents at issue in the proposed litigation.

B. Adverse Party Information

The following sets forth detailed information regarding the adverse party, Lumicore Technologies, Inc., compiled from publicly available sources — including Lumicore's SEC filings, press releases, and market data — as well as information provided by Ms. Tanaka.

Full Legal Name: Lumicore Technologies, Inc.

Short Name / Abbreviation: Lumicore; LTC

Entity Type: Corporation

State of Incorporation: Delaware

Headquarters: 9200 Spectrum Boulevard, Building C, Austin, Texas 78759

Registered Agent (Delaware): National Agent Services Corp., 850 New Burton Road, Suite 201, Dover, Delaware 19904

Key Officers and Directors:

• Chief Executive Officer: Thomas "Tom" Kessler

• Chief Technology Officer: Dr. Sandra Michaud

• General Counsel: Raymond Bautista

• Vice President of Product Development: Dr. Eric Dalmqvist

• Chief Financial Officer: Janet Moreno

Employer Identification Number (EIN): 81-2547639

Year Founded: 2015

Approximate Number of Employees: 870

Fiscal Year 2023 Revenue: $312.6 million (estimated, per public filings)

Market Position: Lumicore is a fast-growing entrant in the silicon-photonics transceiver market, targeting both hyperscale data center and telecommunications market segments. Since its founding in 2015, Lumicore has rapidly expanded its product portfolio and customer base, and is now recognized as a direct competitor to OWS and other established silicon-photonics module suppliers.

Public Company Status: Lumicore completed its initial public offering on the Nasdaq Global Select Market in March 2022 at an offering price of $24.00 per share. As of the date of this memorandum, Lumicore's common stock is trading at approximately $37.00 per share. There are approximately 91.8 million shares of common stock outstanding, resulting in an approximate market capitalization of $3.4 billion.

Auditor: Brennan Kellogg & Associates LLP (Austin, Texas office)

Investment Bank / IPO Underwriter: Silverstone Capital Markets LLC

Anticipated Outside Counsel: Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP, with offices at 600 Congress Avenue, Suite 2400, Austin, Texas 78701 and 51 Madison Avenue, 30th Floor, New York, New York 10010. The anticipated lead attorneys for Lumicore at Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP are believed to include Catherine "Kate" Rourke (partner), Darren Cho (partner), Samantha Briggs (senior associate), and Rohan Iyer (associate), based on information provided by Ms. Tanaka and publicly available attorney profiles.

Anticipated Local Counsel (E.D. Tex.): Trask Eddington LLP, 425 East Front Street, Suite 300, Tyler, Texas 75701. Maria Garza is the anticipated lead local counsel partner.

C. Nature of the Proposed Engagement

The proposed engagement involves the prosecution of patent infringement claims by OWS against Lumicore in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The core allegations center on Lumicore's manufacture, use, sale, offer to sell, and/or importation of transceiver modules that OWS contends infringe four U.S. utility patents owned by OWS.

Patents-in-Suit:

1. U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847 (the "'847 Patent") — titled "Multi-Channel Silicon Photonic Transceiver with Integrated Wavelength-Division Multiplexing"

2. U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193 (the "'193 Patent") — titled "Waveguide Coupling Architecture for High-Bandwidth Optical Modules"

3. U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562 (the "'562 Patent") — titled "Low-Loss Arrayed Waveguide Grating for Dense Wavelength-Division Multiplexing Applications"

4. U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015 (the "'015 Patent") — titled "Thermally Stabilized Photonic Integrated Circuit for Data Center Interconnects"

The patents-in-suit cover various aspects of optical transceiver and waveguide multiplexing technologies in the silicon photonics domain. The '847 and '193 Patents were originally prosecuted by Cascade IP Advisors, LLC (Dr. Martin Chu, lead patent attorney). The '562 Patent was originally obtained by Solara Optics, Inc. and was subsequently acquired by OWS pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement dated June 15, 2018, along with eleven other patents, for a total consideration of $34.5 million. The '015 Patent was prosecuted by Cascade IP Advisors, LLC and issued in 2022.

Accused Products:

• LumiLink 400G-ZR+ transceiver module

• LumiLink 800G-DR8 transceiver module

• LumiEdge 1600G-LR transceiver module

Relief Sought: OWS intends to seek approximately $210 million in damages, comprising lost profits and reasonable royalties, enhanced damages for willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284, and a permanent injunction against continued infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 283. The willfulness allegations are supported, in part, by pre-suit licensing correspondence sent by FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC (OWS's licensing agent) to Lumicore on January 15, 2023 and May 15, 2023, as well as an in-person meeting between FairPoint representatives (Angela Reeves) and Lumicore personnel on April 20, 2023, in Austin, Texas. Additionally, OWS anticipates testimony from Melissa Chen, a former Lumicore engineer now employed at Veridian Photonics, Inc., regarding Lumicore's awareness of OWS patents during the design phase of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ product.

Anticipated Forum: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Venue is expected to be supported by, among other factors, the presence of customers who purchase and use the accused products in the Eastern District, including Pinnacle Data Systems, LLC (Longview, Texas), Frontier Cloud Services, Inc. (Marshall, Texas), and CrossPoint Networking Corp. (Plano, Texas).

Anticipated C&H Case Team:

• Alan Ngo, Responsible Partner, IP Litigation Group

• Marcus Delgado, Billing Partner, IP Litigation Group

• Wendy Schultz, Lead Associate, IP Litigation Group

• Omar Siddiqui, Working Associate, IP Litigation Group

Proposed Local Counsel: Whitmore & Callahan LLP, 110 North College Avenue, Suite 800, Tyler, Texas 75702. James "Jim" Callahan will serve as lead local counsel partner. C&H has not previously co-counseled with Whitmore & Callahan LLP but has been advised of the firm's strong reputation and established presence in E.D. Tex. patent practice.

Anticipated Engagement Terms: The engagement letter is currently under negotiation and is expected to include the following billing structure:

• Partners: $1,150–$1,350 per hour

• Senior Associates: $825 per hour

• Associates: $650–$725 per hour

• Paralegals: $375 per hour

• Blended cap rate: $925 per hour (negotiated at the direction of Ridgeline Capital Partners, LP)

• Success fee component: 5% of net recovery above $150 million

Execution of the engagement letter is anticipated for March 18, 2024, subject to the completion of this conflict clearance process and approval by the appropriate Firm personnel.

D. Related Parties and Entities Searched

In conducting the conflict check, the undersigned identified and searched the following comprehensive list of all entities, individuals, and affiliated parties through the Firm's master conflicts database. This list was compiled from information provided by Ms. Tanaka, publicly available records regarding Lumicore and its affiliates, and independent research conducted by the undersigned. The search encompassed all name variants, abbreviations, and alternate spellings for each entry.

Client-Side Parties:

1. Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. (and variants: "Optiwave," "OWS," "Optiwave Semi," "Optiwave Semiconductor," "Optiwave Semiconductor Corporation")

2. Ridgeline Capital Partners, LP

3. Franklin Osei

4. Dr. Priya Ramaswamy

5. Dr. Jian-Wei Huang

6. Rebecca Tanaka

7. Dr. Nikolai Petrov

8. David Leitner

Adverse-Party-Side Parties:

9. Lumicore Technologies, Inc. (and variants: "Lumicore," "LTC," "Lumicore Tech," "Lumicore Technologies")

10. Thomas "Tom" Kessler

11. Dr. Sandra Michaud

12. Raymond Bautista

13. Dr. Eric Dalmqvist

14. Janet Moreno

Opposing Counsel:

15. Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP

16. Catherine "Kate" Rourke

17. Darren Cho

18. Samantha Briggs

19. Rohan Iyer

Defendant's Local Counsel:

20. Trask Eddington LLP

21. Maria Garza

Adverse Party's Financial Advisor / Investment Bank:

22. Silverstone Capital Markets LLC

Patent Predecessor Entity:

23. Solara Optics, Inc.

Patent Prosecution Firm:

24. Cascade IP Advisors, LLC

25. Dr. Martin Chu

Licensing Agent:

26. FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC

27. Angela Reeves

Reverse-Engineering Vendor:

28. Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC

29. Kevin Ng

Defendant's Prior-Art Search Firm:

30. Marlowe Asset Management Patent Analytics, Inc.

Auditors:

31. Gresham & Whitfield LLP (OWS's auditor)

32. Brennan Kellogg & Associates LLP (Lumicore's auditor)

Insurance and Surety:

33. Pacific Rim Insurance Group (OWS's D&O/litigation-cost insurer)

34. Heritage National Surety Co. (potential injunction bond surety)

Lender:

35. Weston Fidelity Bank, N.A. (OWS's commercial lender)

Proposed Local Counsel for OWS:

36. Whitmore & Callahan LLP

37. James "Jim" Callahan

Anticipated Expert Witnesses:

38. Dr. Caroline Ashford (Northfield Institute of Technology)

39. Dr. Lawrence Keating (Meridian Economic Consulting Group, LLC)

40. Gregory Falk (independent consultant; former VP of Engineering at Solara Optics, Inc.)

Anticipated Fact Witness and Employer:

41. Veridian Photonics, Inc.

42. Melissa Chen

Venue Customers:

43. Pinnacle Data Systems, LLC (Longview, Texas)

44. Frontier Cloud Services, Inc. (Marshall, Texas)

45. CrossPoint Networking Corp. (Plano, Texas)

All forty-five entries listed above, together with all identified name variants and abbreviations, were searched against the Firm's master conflicts database as described in Section III below.

III. Conflict Check Methodology

The conflict check was conducted in accordance with Calderwood & Harkness LLP's standard conflict-of-interest screening procedures, as set forth in the Firm's Conflicts and New Business Intake Policy (last revised September 2023). The following describes the methodology employed.

Conflict Database System. The Firm maintains a centralized master conflicts database (the "C&H Conflicts System"), which is an integrated platform that records all current and former client engagements, adverse parties, related entities, and individual names associated with each matter opened at the Firm since its founding. The system is maintained and administered by the Firm's Conflicts Department, under the supervision of Patricia Langford, Director of Conflicts and New Business Intake, and is updated in real time as new matters are opened, existing matters are modified, and matters are closed. The database is searchable by entity name, individual name, matter number, practice group, responsible partner, and date range, among other fields. The system employs fuzzy-matching algorithms to capture name variants, abbreviations, trade names, and common misspellings.

Search Execution. The conflict search was conducted on March 11–12, 2024, by the undersigned, Wendy Schultz, with the assistance of Daniel Reeves, Conflicts Coordinator in the Firm's Conflicts Department. Mr. Reeves performed the initial database queries and generated the raw search report; the undersigned reviewed the raw results, conducted follow-up inquiries, and prepared this memorandum.

Scope of Search. The search encompassed the following categories:

• All current and former client matters, across all C&H offices (Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and any other relevant offices), from the inception of the Firm's database records to the present;

• All adverse parties identified in current and former matters;

• All related entities and individuals identified in current and former matters;

• All names and entities identified in Section II.D above, including all name variants, abbreviations, and alternate spellings;

Name Variant Searches. For each entity and individual listed in Section II.D, the undersigned and Mr. Reeves ran searches using all reasonably foreseeable name variants. By way of example and not limitation, "Optiwave Semiconductor Corp." was searched as "Optiwave," "OWS," "Optiwave Semi," "Optiwave Semiconductor," and "Optiwave Semiconductor Corporation." "Lumicore Technologies, Inc." was searched as "Lumicore," "LTC," "Lumicore Tech," "Lumicore Technologies," and "Lumicore Technologies Inc." Similar variant searches were conducted for all other entities and individuals on the list.

Office-Wide Review. The search was conducted across all C&H offices without geographic limitation. The Firm's historical matter lists for the Los Angeles headquarters and the Washington, D.C. office were both included in the search scope. No matters were excluded on the basis of practice group, matter type, or date of engagement.

Cross-Referencing. All entities identified in Section II.D were cross-referenced against one another to identify any relationships, common principals, or overlapping engagements that might not be apparent from a single-name search.

Lateral-Hire Conflict Checks. In addition to the Firm-wide database search, the undersigned conducted lateral-hire conflict checks for each member of the proposed case team. Specifically, the undersigned reviewed the individual conflict disclosures and prior-representation records submitted by each of the following attorneys at the time of their hire by C&H, and confirmed with each attorney directly (via email or in-person conversation) that no prior representation of any party or related entity exists:

• Alan Ngo — joined C&H in 2017 from Prescott & Langley LLP

• Marcus Delgado — joined C&H in 2019 from Braverman Cole & Associates LLP

• Wendy Schultz — joined C&H in 2021 from Kirkwood Jennings LLP

• Omar Siddiqui — joined C&H in 2022 from a judicial clerkship (Hon. Margaret Liu, U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal.)

Each team member confirmed that he or she has no prior representation of, or material relationship with, any party or related entity identified in Section II.D above.

Documentation. The system-generated conflict search report, listing all names and entities searched, the date of each search, and the results summary (including all hits and clearances), is attached as Appendix A to this memorandum. A comprehensive alphabetical listing of every name and entity run through the conflict system, with results notations, is attached as Appendix B.

IV. Results of Conflict Search

A. No Direct Conflicts Identified

The conflict search confirmed the following with respect to the adverse party and its affiliates, counsel, and related entities:

1. C&H has never represented Lumicore Technologies, Inc. in any capacity — whether as litigation counsel, transactional counsel, regulatory advisor, or in any other professional capacity. No engagement, whether formal or informal, involving Lumicore was identified in the Firm's records.

2. C&H has never represented any officer, director, or executive of Lumicore, including Thomas "Tom" Kessler (CEO), Dr. Sandra Michaud (CTO), Raymond Bautista (General Counsel), Dr. Eric Dalmqvist (VP of Product Development), or Janet Moreno (CFO), in any individual or entity-related capacity.

3. C&H has never represented Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP, the anticipated opposing counsel, or any of its named partners or associates identified in connection with this matter, including Catherine "Kate" Rourke, Darren Cho, Samantha Briggs, and Rohan Iyer.

4. C&H has never represented Trask Eddington LLP, the anticipated local counsel for Lumicore in the Eastern District of Texas, or its anticipated lead partner Maria Garza.

5. No prior representation of Marlowe Asset Management Patent Analytics, Inc., Lumicore's prior-art search firm, was identified.

6. No prior representation of Brennan Kellogg & Associates LLP, Lumicore's auditor, was identified.

7. No prior representation of any Lumicore customer identified for venue purposes was identified, including Pinnacle Data Systems, LLC (Longview, Texas), Frontier Cloud Services, Inc. (Marshall, Texas), and CrossPoint Networking Corp. (Plano, Texas).

Accordingly, no direct conflict of interest exists with respect to the adverse party or any entity or individual directly affiliated with the adverse party.

B. Prior Engagement Requiring Analysis — Silverstone Capital Markets LLC

Identification of Hit. The Firm's conflict database returned a single affirmative hit during the search process. The hit was for Silverstone Capital Markets LLC, which was searched because it serves as Lumicore Technologies, Inc.'s investment bank and IPO underwriter.

Nature of Prior Engagement. C&H represented Silverstone Capital Markets LLC in an unrelated regulatory compliance matter in 2021. Specifically, the engagement involved advising Silverstone on certain Securities and Exchange Commission reporting obligations arising in connection with a municipal bond offering for a public infrastructure project in which Silverstone served as underwriter. The matter was assigned Firm Matter No. 1014-00004 and was handled entirely by the Firm's Capital Markets & Securities Practice Group in the Washington, D.C. office. The responsible partner was Diane Kowalski, and the primary working attorney was Senior Associate Jonathan Mears. Neither Ms. Kowalski nor Mr. Mears is a member of the IP Litigation Group, and neither has any involvement with the proposed Optiwave engagement. The engagement commenced in approximately Q2 2021 and concluded in approximately Q4 2021 upon satisfactory resolution of the SEC reporting questions. No ongoing representation, retainer, or advisory relationship between C&H and Silverstone exists. The matter was formally closed in the Firm's system as of January 2022.

Relevance to Current Matter. Silverstone Capital Markets LLC served as Lumicore Technologies, Inc.'s investment bank and lead underwriter for Lumicore's initial public offering on the Nasdaq Global Select Market in March 2022. Based on publicly available information, Silverstone continues in an ongoing advisory capacity for Lumicore with respect to capital markets and corporate finance matters. However, Silverstone is not a party, nor is it anticipated to be a party or witness, in the proposed patent infringement litigation. Silverstone will not be adverse to C&H's client OWS in this matter. There is no substantive overlap whatsoever between the subject matter of the prior Silverstone engagement — which concerned SEC reporting obligations related to a municipal bond offering — and the proposed patent infringement litigation against Lumicore, which involves allegations of infringement of four U.S. utility patents covering silicon-photonics transceiver and waveguide multiplexing technologies.

Assessment. The prior representation of Silverstone Capital Markets LLC does not create a concurrent conflict of interest under applicable professional responsibility rules. The engagement has been concluded and no current attorney-client relationship exists between C&H and Silverstone. Silverstone is not a party to the proposed litigation and will not be directly or indirectly adverse to OWS in any aspect of the proposed engagement. No confidential information obtained during the Silverstone engagement bears any relevance to the Lumicore patent infringement case. The subject matter of the prior engagement (municipal bond SEC reporting) has no factual, legal, or technical overlap with the subject matter of the proposed engagement (patent infringement in the silicon-photonics domain). No information barrier or ethical wall is required, and no member of the proposed case team had any involvement with the prior Silverstone engagement.

Clearance. This prior engagement is cleared. No further action is required. As a precautionary measure, a courtesy disclosure to Rebecca Tanaka is recommended, as discussed in Section VI.A below.

C. Related-Party Clearances

The following related parties and entities were searched and cleared with no conflicts identified:

Ridgeline Capital Partners, LP. No prior C&H representation of Ridgeline Capital Partners, LP or its Managing Partner and OWS Board Chair, Franklin Osei, was identified. No conflicts were found. Ridgeline is OWS's majority owner, holding a 55% equity stake acquired in 2019 for approximately $780 million. Ridgeline will be involved in the approval of the litigation budget, which is anticipated to be approximately $18.5 million through trial, and in strategic decisions regarding the conduct of the litigation, including settlement authority. However, Ridgeline is not a party to the proposed litigation and is not adverse to any current or former C&H client. Ridgeline is an interested stakeholder by virtue of its majority ownership of the client entity. No conflict arises from representing OWS against Lumicore when Ridgeline is OWS's private equity sponsor. The relationship between C&H and the client entity, as well as any reporting obligations to the Board (including Ridgeline designees), will be addressed in the engagement letter as discussed in Section VI.C below.

Solara Optics, Inc. No prior C&H representation of Solara Optics, Inc. was identified. Solara Optics is a defunct California corporation that was dissolved in approximately 2020. OWS acquired the '562 Patent, along with eleven other patents in the silicon-photonics domain, from Solara pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement dated June 15, 2018, for aggregate consideration of $34.5 million. Gregory Falk, an anticipated expert witness for OWS, is a former Vice President of Engineering at Solara Optics. No conflict exists.

Cascade IP Advisors, LLC / Dr. Martin Chu. No prior C&H representation of Cascade IP Advisors, LLC or Dr. Martin Chu was identified. Cascade IP Advisors is the patent prosecution firm that prosecuted three of the four asserted patents (the '847 Patent, the '193 Patent, and the '015 Patent) before the USPTO. Cascade IP Advisors is a third-party service provider, and no adversity between Cascade IP and any C&H client is anticipated. No conflict exists.

FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC / Angela Reeves. No prior C&H representation of FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC or its principal Angela Reeves was identified. FairPoint served as OWS's licensing agent and conducted pre-suit outreach to Lumicore, including the transmission of licensing demand letters dated January 15, 2023 and May 15, 2023, and an in-person meeting with Lumicore representatives on April 20, 2023, in Austin, Texas. FairPoint is a third-party licensing agent retained by OWS, and no adversity is anticipated. No conflict exists.

Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC / Kevin Ng. No prior C&H representation of Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC or Kevin Ng was identified. Benchmark performed teardown and reverse-engineering analysis of the accused Lumicore products at OWS's request. Benchmark is a third-party technical vendor retained by OWS. No adversity is anticipated, and no conflict exists.

Gresham & Whitfield LLP. No prior C&H representation of Gresham & Whitfield LLP, OWS's external auditor, was identified. No conflict exists.

Weston Fidelity Bank, N.A. No prior C&H representation of Weston Fidelity Bank, N.A., OWS's primary commercial lender (revolving credit facility of $125 million), was identified. No conflict exists.

MEMORANDUM
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
TO: Alan Ngo, Responsible Partner, IP Litigation Group, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
FROM: Wendy Schultz, Associate, IP Litigation Group, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
DATE: March 14, 2024
RE: Conflict Clearance — Proposed Representation of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. in Patent Infringement Litigation Against Lumicore Technologies, Inc.
Matter No.: New Matter — Pending Assignment
I. Purpose and Summary
This memorandum documents the results of the firm's conflict-of-interest check conducted in connection with the proposed engagement of Calderwood & Harkness LLP ("C&H" or "the Firm") to serve as lead litigation counsel for Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. ("OWS" or "Optiwave Semi") in anticipated patent infringement litigation against Lumicore Technologies, Inc. ("Lumicore" or "LTC") in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The purpose of this memorandum is to confirm that the Firm has undertaken a thorough and comprehensive review of its current and historical representations, lateral-hire histories, and all known related-party relationships in order to identify any actual or potential conflicts of interest that might preclude or condition the proposed engagement.
The conflict check was initiated on March 11, 2024, upon receipt of an informal inquiry from Rebecca Tanaka, General Counsel of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp., regarding C&H's availability and willingness to handle this engagement. Ms. Tanaka's inquiry was directed to Alan Ngo in the Firm's IP Litigation Group and conveyed the general nature of the proposed matter, the identity of the adverse party, the patents at issue, and the anticipated scope of the engagement. The inquiry was received via telephone on March 11, 2024, at approximately 10:15 a.m. Pacific Time, followed by a confirming email at 11:02 a.m. Pacific Time containing a preliminary matter summary and a list of relevant parties and entities. The Firm immediately commenced the conflict-check process in accordance with its standard protocols.
Conclusion: Based on the comprehensive analysis set forth below, the Firm is cleared to proceed with the proposed representation of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. One prior engagement involving an adverse-adjacent party — specifically, Silverstone Capital Markets LLC, Lumicore's investment bank and IPO underwriter — was identified and analyzed in detail. That prior engagement involved an unrelated SEC regulatory compliance matter that concluded in approximately Q4 2021. It presents no material concurrent conflict, no former-client conflict, and no imputed conflict under the applicable professional responsibility rules. The prior engagement has been appropriately cleared as described in Section IV.B and Section V below. No ethical walls, consent letters, or waivers are required.
II. Proposed Engagement Overview
A. Client Information
The following sets forth detailed information regarding the proposed client, Optiwave Semiconductor Corp., compiled from publicly available sources, information provided by Ms. Tanaka during the initial inquiry, and supplemental research conducted by the undersigned.
Full Legal Name: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.
Short Name / Abbreviation: OWS; Optiwave Semi
Entity Type: Corporation
State of Incorporation: Delaware
Principal Place of Business / Headquarters: 4810 Bayside Technology Parkway, Suite 300, Santa Clara, California 95054
Registered Agent (Delaware): Capitol Statutory Services, Inc., 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Key Officers and Directors:
•  Chief Executive Officer: Dr. Priya Ramaswamy
•  Chief Technology Officer: Dr. Jian-Wei Huang
•  General Counsel: Rebecca Tanaka
•  Vice President of Engineering, Photonics Division: Dr. Nikolai Petrov
•  Chief Financial Officer: David Leitner
Employer Identification Number (EIN): 46-3921087
Year Founded: 2011
Approximate Number of Employees: 1,250
Fiscal Year 2023 Revenue: $487.3 million
Fiscal Year 2023 Net Income: $61.4 million
Market Position: OWS is the third-largest U.S. supplier of silicon-photonics transceiver modules for hyperscale data centers. The company holds 142 issued U.S. patents and has 58 patent applications currently pending before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. OWS's product portfolio is concentrated in high-bandwidth optical transceiver modules designed for cloud-computing infrastructure, enterprise networking, and telecommunications applications.
Majority Owner: Ridgeline Capital Partners, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, acquired a 55% controlling equity stake in OWS in 2019 for approximately $780 million. Ridgeline Capital Partners, LP is headquartered at 200 Clarendon Street, 40th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02116.
Board Chair: Franklin Osei, a Ridgeline Capital Partners designee and Managing Partner of Ridgeline Capital Partners, LP.
Auditor: Gresham & Whitfield LLP (San Jose, California office)
Primary Commercial Lender: Weston Fidelity Bank, N.A., which maintains a revolving credit facility of $125 million for OWS. Weston Fidelity Bank, N.A. is headquartered at 383 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10179.
Directors & Officers / Litigation-Cost Insurance Carrier: Pacific Rim Insurance Group; Policy No. PLI-2023-08812
Key Products: OWS-400ZR, OWS-800XR, and OWS-1600DR transceiver module families. These products are designed for deployment in hyperscale data center environments and utilize proprietary silicon-photonics technology, including waveguide multiplexing architectures covered by the patents at issue in the proposed litigation.
B. Adverse Party Information
The following sets forth detailed information regarding the adverse party, Lumicore Technologies, Inc., compiled from publicly available sources — including Lumicore's SEC filings, press releases, and market data — as well as information provided by Ms. Tanaka.
Full Legal Name: Lumicore Technologies, Inc.
Short Name / Abbreviation: Lumicore; LTC
Entity Type: Corporation
State of Incorporation: Delaware
Headquarters: 9200 Spectrum Boulevard, Building C, Austin, Texas 78759
Registered Agent (Delaware): National Agent Services Corp., 850 New Burton Road, Suite 201, Dover, Delaware 19904
Key Officers and Directors:
•  Chief Executive Officer: Thomas "Tom" Kessler
•  Chief Technology Officer: Dr. Sandra Michaud
•  General Counsel: Raymond Bautista
•  Vice President of Product Development: Dr. Eric Dalmqvist
•  Chief Financial Officer: Janet Moreno
Employer Identification Number (EIN): 81-2547639
Year Founded: 2015
Approximate Number of Employees: 870
Fiscal Year 2023 Revenue: $312.6 million (estimated, per public filings)
Market Position: Lumicore is a fast-growing entrant in the silicon-photonics transceiver market, targeting both hyperscale data center and telecommunications market segments. Since its founding in 2015, Lumicore has rapidly expanded its product portfolio and customer base, and is now recognized as a direct competitor to OWS and other established silicon-photonics module suppliers.
Public Company Status: Lumicore completed its initial public offering on the Nasdaq Global Select Market in March 2022 at an offering price of $24.00 per share. As of the date of this memorandum, Lumicore's common stock is trading at approximately $37.00 per share. There are approximately 91.8 million shares of common stock outstanding, resulting in an approximate market capitalization of $3.4 billion.
Auditor: Brennan Kellogg & Associates LLP (Austin, Texas office)
Investment Bank / IPO Underwriter: Silverstone Capital Markets LLC
Anticipated Outside Counsel: Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP, with offices at 600 Congress Avenue, Suite 2400, Austin, Texas 78701 and 51 Madison Avenue, 30th Floor, New York, New York 10010. The anticipated lead attorneys for Lumicore at Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP are believed to include Catherine "Kate" Rourke (partner), Darren Cho (partner), Samantha Briggs (senior associate), and Rohan Iyer (associate), based on information provided by Ms. Tanaka and publicly available attorney profiles.
Anticipated Local Counsel (E.D. Tex.): Trask Eddington LLP, 425 East Front Street, Suite 300, Tyler, Texas 75701. Maria Garza is the anticipated lead local counsel partner.
C. Nature of the Proposed Engagement
The proposed engagement involves the prosecution of patent infringement claims by OWS against Lumicore in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The core allegations center on Lumicore's manufacture, use, sale, offer to sell, and/or importation of transceiver modules that OWS contends infringe four U.S. utility patents owned by OWS.
Patents-in-Suit:
1.  U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847 (the "'847 Patent") — titled "Multi-Channel Silicon Photonic Transceiver with Integrated Wavelength-Division Multiplexing"
2.  U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193 (the "'193 Patent") — titled "Waveguide Coupling Architecture for High-Bandwidth Optical Modules"
3.  U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562 (the "'562 Patent") — titled "Low-Loss Arrayed Waveguide Grating for Dense Wavelength-Division Multiplexing Applications"
4.  U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015 (the "'015 Patent") — titled "Thermally Stabilized Photonic Integrated Circuit for Data Center Interconnects"
The patents-in-suit cover various aspects of optical transceiver and waveguide multiplexing technologies in the silicon photonics domain. The '847 and '193 Patents were originally prosecuted by Cascade IP Advisors, LLC (Dr. Martin Chu, lead patent attorney). The '562 Patent was originally obtained by Solara Optics, Inc. and was subsequently acquired by OWS pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement dated June 15, 2018, along with eleven other patents, for a total consideration of $34.5 million. The '015 Patent was prosecuted by Cascade IP Advisors, LLC and issued in 2022.
Accused Products:
•  LumiLink 400G-ZR+ transceiver module
•  LumiLink 800G-DR8 transceiver module
•  LumiEdge 1600G-LR transceiver module
Relief Sought: OWS intends to seek approximately $210 million in damages, comprising lost profits and reasonable royalties, enhanced damages for willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284, and a permanent injunction against continued infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 283. The willfulness allegations are supported, in part, by pre-suit licensing correspondence sent by FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC (OWS's licensing agent) to Lumicore on January 15, 2023 and May 15, 2023, as well as an in-person meeting between FairPoint representatives (Angela Reeves) and Lumicore personnel on April 20, 2023, in Austin, Texas. Additionally, OWS anticipates testimony from Melissa Chen, a former Lumicore engineer now employed at Veridian Photonics, Inc., regarding Lumicore's awareness of OWS patents during the design phase of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ product.
Anticipated Forum: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Venue is expected to be supported by, among other factors, the presence of customers who purchase and use the accused products in the Eastern District, including Pinnacle Data Systems, LLC (Longview, Texas), Frontier Cloud Services, Inc. (Marshall, Texas), and CrossPoint Networking Corp. (Plano, Texas).
Anticipated C&H Case Team:
•  Alan Ngo, Responsible Partner, IP Litigation Group
•  Marcus Delgado, Billing Partner, IP Litigation Group
•  Wendy Schultz, Lead Associate, IP Litigation Group
•  Omar Siddiqui, Working Associate, IP Litigation Group
Proposed Local Counsel: Whitmore & Callahan LLP, 110 North College Avenue, Suite 800, Tyler, Texas 75702. James "Jim" Callahan will serve as lead local counsel partner. C&H has not previously co-counseled with Whitmore & Callahan LLP but has been advised of the firm's strong reputation and established presence in E.D. Tex. patent practice.
Anticipated Engagement Terms: The engagement letter is currently under negotiation and is expected to include the following billing structure:
•  Partners: $1,150–$1,350 per hour
•  Senior Associates: $825 per hour
•  Associates: $650–$725 per hour
•  Paralegals: $375 per hour
•  Blended cap rate: $925 per hour (negotiated at the direction of Ridgeline Capital Partners, LP)
•  Success fee component: 5% of net recovery above $150 million
Execution of the engagement letter is anticipated for March 18, 2024, subject to the completion of this conflict clearance process and approval by the appropriate Firm personnel.
D. Related Parties and Entities Searched
In conducting the conflict check, the undersigned identified and searched the following comprehensive list of all entities, individuals, and affiliated parties through the Firm's master conflicts database. This list was compiled from information provided by Ms. Tanaka, publicly available records regarding Lumicore and its affiliates, and independent research conducted by the undersigned. The search encompassed all name variants, abbreviations, and alternate spellings for each entry.
Client-Side Parties:
1.  Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. (and variants: "Optiwave," "OWS," "Optiwave Semi," "Optiwave Semiconductor," "Optiwave Semiconductor Corporation")
2.  Ridgeline Capital Partners, LP
3.  Franklin Osei
4.  Dr. Priya Ramaswamy
5.  Dr. Jian-Wei Huang
6.  Rebecca Tanaka
7.  Dr. Nikolai Petrov
8.  David Leitner
Adverse-Party-Side Parties:
9.  Lumicore Technologies, Inc. (and variants: "Lumicore," "LTC," "Lumicore Tech," "Lumicore Technologies")
10.  Thomas "Tom" Kessler
11.  Dr. Sandra Michaud
12.  Raymond Bautista
13.  Dr. Eric Dalmqvist
14.  Janet Moreno
Opposing Counsel:
15.  Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP
16.  Catherine "Kate" Rourke
17.  Darren Cho
18.  Samantha Briggs
19.  Rohan Iyer
Defendant's Local Counsel:
20.  Trask Eddington LLP
21.  Maria Garza
Adverse Party's Financial Advisor / Investment Bank:
22.  Silverstone Capital Markets LLC
Patent Predecessor Entity:
23.  Solara Optics, Inc.
Patent Prosecution Firm:
24.  Cascade IP Advisors, LLC
25.  Dr. Martin Chu
Licensing Agent:
26.  FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC
27.  Angela Reeves
Reverse-Engineering Vendor:
28.  Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC
29.  Kevin Ng
Defendant's Prior-Art Search Firm:
30.  Marlowe Asset Management Patent Analytics, Inc.
Auditors:
31.  Gresham & Whitfield LLP (OWS's auditor)
32.  Brennan Kellogg & Associates LLP (Lumicore's auditor)
Insurance and Surety:
33.  Pacific Rim Insurance Group (OWS's D&O/litigation-cost insurer)
34.  Heritage National Surety Co. (potential injunction bond surety)
Lender:
35.  Weston Fidelity Bank, N.A. (OWS's commercial lender)
Proposed Local Counsel for OWS:
36.  Whitmore & Callahan LLP
37.  James "Jim" Callahan
Anticipated Expert Witnesses:
38.  Dr. Caroline Ashford (Northfield Institute of Technology)
39.  Dr. Lawrence Keating (Meridian Economic Consulting Group, LLC)
40.  Gregory Falk (independent consultant; former VP of Engineering at Solara Optics, Inc.)
Anticipated Fact Witness and Employer:
41.  Veridian Photonics, Inc.
42.  Melissa Chen
Venue Customers:
43.  Pinnacle Data Systems, LLC (Longview, Texas)
44.  Frontier Cloud Services, Inc. (Marshall, Texas)
45.  CrossPoint Networking Corp. (Plano, Texas)
All forty-five entries listed above, together with all identified name variants and abbreviations, were searched against the Firm's master conflicts database as described in Section III below.
III. Conflict Check Methodology
The conflict check was conducted in accordance with Calderwood & Harkness LLP's standard conflict-of-interest screening procedures, as set forth in the Firm's Conflicts and New Business Intake Policy (last revised September 2023). The following describes the methodology employed.
Conflict Database System. The Firm maintains a centralized master conflicts database (the "C&H Conflicts System"), which is an integrated platform that records all current and former client engagements, adverse parties, related entities, and individual names associated with each matter opened at the Firm since its founding. The system is maintained and administered by the Firm's Conflicts Department, under the supervision of Patricia Langford, Director of Conflicts and New Business Intake, and is updated in real time as new matters are opened, existing matters are modified, and matters are closed. The database is searchable by entity name, individual name, matter number, practice group, responsible partner, and date range, among other fields. The system employs fuzzy-matching algorithms to capture name variants, abbreviations, trade names, and common misspellings.
Search Execution. The conflict search was conducted on March 11–12, 2024, by the undersigned, Wendy Schultz, with the assistance of Daniel Reeves, Conflicts Coordinator in the Firm's Conflicts Department. Mr. Reeves performed the initial database queries and generated the raw search report; the undersigned reviewed the raw results, conducted follow-up inquiries, and prepared this memorandum.
Scope of Search. The search encompassed the following categories:
•  All current and former client matters, across all C&H offices (Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and any other relevant offices), from the inception of the Firm's database records to the present;
•  All adverse parties identified in current and former matters;
•  All related entities and individuals identified in current and former matters;
•  All names and entities identified in Section II.D above, including all name variants, abbreviations, and alternate spellings;
Name Variant Searches. For each entity and individual listed in Section II.D, the undersigned and Mr. Reeves ran searches using all reasonably foreseeable name variants. By way of example and not limitation, "Optiwave Semiconductor Corp." was searched as "Optiwave," "OWS," "Optiwave Semi," "Optiwave Semiconductor," and "Optiwave Semiconductor Corporation." "Lumicore Technologies, Inc." was searched as "Lumicore," "LTC," "Lumicore Tech," "Lumicore Technologies," and "Lumicore Technologies Inc." Similar variant searches were conducted for all other entities and individuals on the list.
Office-Wide Review. The search was conducted across all C&H offices without geographic limitation. The Firm's historical matter lists for the Los Angeles headquarters and the Washington, D.C. office were both included in the search scope. No matters were excluded on the basis of practice group, matter type, or date of engagement.
Cross-Referencing. All entities identified in Section II.D were cross-referenced against one another to identify any relationships, common principals, or overlapping engagements that might not be apparent from a single-name search.
Lateral-Hire Conflict Checks. In addition to the Firm-wide database search, the undersigned conducted lateral-hire conflict checks for each member of the proposed case team. Specifically, the undersigned reviewed the individual conflict disclosures and prior-representation records submitted by each of the following attorneys at the time of their hire by C&H, and confirmed with each attorney directly (via email or in-person conversation) that no prior representation of any party or related entity exists:
•  Alan Ngo — joined C&H in 2017 from Prescott & Langley LLP
•  Marcus Delgado — joined C&H in 2019 from Braverman Cole & Associates LLP
•  Wendy Schultz — joined C&H in 2021 from Kirkwood Jennings LLP
•  Omar Siddiqui — joined C&H in 2022 from a judicial clerkship (Hon. Margaret Liu, U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal.)
Each team member confirmed that he or she has no prior representation of, or material relationship with, any party or related entity identified in Section II.D above.
Documentation. The system-generated conflict search report, listing all names and entities searched, the date of each search, and the results summary (including all hits and clearances), is attached as Appendix A to this memorandum. A comprehensive alphabetical listing of every name and entity run through the conflict system, with results notations, is attached as Appendix B.
IV. Results of Conflict Search
A. No Direct Conflicts Identified
The conflict search confirmed the following with respect to the adverse party and its affiliates, counsel, and related entities:
1.  C&H has never represented Lumicore Technologies, Inc. in any capacity — whether as litigation counsel, transactional counsel, regulatory advisor, or in any other professional capacity. No engagement, whether formal or informal, involving Lumicore was identified in the Firm's records.
2.  C&H has never represented any officer, director, or executive of Lumicore, including Thomas "Tom" Kessler (CEO), Dr. Sandra Michaud (CTO), Raymond Bautista (General Counsel), Dr. Eric Dalmqvist (VP of Product Development), or Janet Moreno (CFO), in any individual or entity-related capacity.
3.  C&H has never represented Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP, the anticipated opposing counsel, or any of its named partners or associates identified in connection with this matter, including Catherine "Kate" Rourke, Darren Cho, Samantha Briggs, and Rohan Iyer.
4.  C&H has never represented Trask Eddington LLP, the anticipated local counsel for Lumicore in the Eastern District of Texas, or its anticipated lead partner Maria Garza.
5.  No prior representation of Marlowe Asset Management Patent Analytics, Inc., Lumicore's prior-art search firm, was identified.
6.  No prior representation of Brennan Kellogg & Associates LLP, Lumicore's auditor, was identified.
7.  No prior representation of any Lumicore customer identified for venue purposes was identified, including Pinnacle Data Systems, LLC (Longview, Texas), Frontier Cloud Services, Inc. (Marshall, Texas), and CrossPoint Networking Corp. (Plano, Texas).
Accordingly, no direct conflict of interest exists with respect to the adverse party or any entity or individual directly affiliated with the adverse party.
B. Prior Engagement Requiring Analysis — Silverstone Capital Markets LLC
Identification of Hit. The Firm's conflict database returned a single affirmative hit during the search process. The hit was for Silverstone Capital Markets LLC, which was searched because it serves as Lumicore Technologies, Inc.'s investment bank and IPO underwriter.
Nature of Prior Engagement. C&H represented Silverstone Capital Markets LLC in an unrelated regulatory compliance matter in 2021. Specifically, the engagement involved advising Silverstone on certain Securities and Exchange Commission reporting obligations arising in connection with a municipal bond offering for a public infrastructure project in which Silverstone served as underwriter. The matter was assigned Firm Matter No. 1014-00004 and was handled entirely by the Firm's Capital Markets & Securities Practice Group in the Washington, D.C. office. The responsible partner was Diane Kowalski, and the primary working attorney was Senior Associate Jonathan Mears. Neither Ms. Kowalski nor Mr. Mears is a member of the IP Litigation Group, and neither has any involvement with the proposed Optiwave engagement. The engagement commenced in approximately Q2 2021 and concluded in approximately Q4 2021 upon satisfactory resolution of the SEC reporting questions. No ongoing representation, retainer, or advisory relationship between C&H and Silverstone exists. The matter was formally closed in the Firm's system as of January 2022.
Relevance to Current Matter. Silverstone Capital Markets LLC served as Lumicore Technologies, Inc.'s investment bank and lead underwriter for Lumicore's initial public offering on the Nasdaq Global Select Market in March 2022. Based on publicly available information, Silverstone continues in an ongoing advisory capacity for Lumicore with respect to capital markets and corporate finance matters. However, Silverstone is not a party, nor is it anticipated to be a party or witness, in the proposed patent infringement litigation. Silverstone will not be adverse to C&H's client OWS in this matter. There is no substantive overlap whatsoever between the subject matter of the prior Silverstone engagement — which concerned SEC reporting obligations related to a municipal bond offering — and the proposed patent infringement litigation against Lumicore, which involves allegations of infringement of four U.S. utility patents covering silicon-photonics transceiver and waveguide multiplexing technologies.
Assessment. The prior representation of Silverstone Capital Markets LLC does not create a concurrent conflict of interest under applicable professional responsibility rules. The engagement has been concluded and no current attorney-client relationship exists between C&H and Silverstone. Silverstone is not a party to the proposed litigation and will not be directly or indirectly adverse to OWS in any aspect of the proposed engagement. No confidential information obtained during the Silverstone engagement bears any relevance to the Lumicore patent infringement case. The subject matter of the prior engagement (municipal bond SEC reporting) has no factual, legal, or technical overlap with the subject matter of the proposed engagement (patent infringement in the silicon-photonics domain). No information barrier or ethical wall is required, and no member of the proposed case team had any involvement with the prior Silverstone engagement.
Clearance. This prior engagement is cleared. No further action is required. As a precautionary measure, a courtesy disclosure to Rebecca Tanaka is recommended, as discussed in Section VI.A below.
C. Related-Party Clearances
The following related parties and entities were searched and cleared with no conflicts identified:
Ridgeline Capital Partners, LP. No prior C&H representation of Ridgeline Capital Partners, LP or its Managing Partner and OWS Board Chair, Franklin Osei, was identified. No conflicts were found. Ridgeline is OWS's majority owner, holding a 55% equity stake acquired in 2019 for approximately $780 million. Ridgeline will be involved in the approval of the litigation budget, which is anticipated to be approximately $18.5 million through trial, and in strategic decisions regarding the conduct of the litigation, including settlement authority. However, Ridgeline is not a party to the proposed litigation and is not adverse to any current or former C&H client. Ridgeline is an interested stakeholder by virtue of its majority ownership of the client entity. No conflict arises from representing OWS against Lumicore when Ridgeline is OWS's private equity sponsor. The relationship between C&H and the client entity, as well as any reporting obligations to the Board (including Ridgeline designees), will be addressed in the engagement letter as discussed in Section VI.C below.
Solara Optics, Inc. No prior C&H representation of Solara Optics, Inc. was identified. Solara Optics is a defunct California corporation that was dissolved in approximately 2020. OWS acquired the '562 Patent, along with eleven other patents in the silicon-photonics domain, from Solara pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement dated June 15, 2018, for aggregate consideration of $34.5 million. Gregory Falk, an anticipated expert witness for OWS, is a former Vice President of Engineering at Solara Optics. No conflict exists.
Cascade IP Advisors, LLC / Dr. Martin Chu. No prior C&H representation of Cascade IP Advisors, LLC or Dr. Martin Chu was identified. Cascade IP Advisors is the patent prosecution firm that prosecuted three of the four asserted patents (the '847 Patent, the '193 Patent, and the '015 Patent) before the USPTO. Cascade IP Advisors is a third-party service provider, and no adversity between Cascade IP and any C&H client is anticipated. No conflict exists.
FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC / Angela Reeves. No prior C&H representation of FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC or its principal Angela Reeves was identified. FairPoint served as OWS's licensing agent and conducted pre-suit outreach to Lumicore, including the transmission of licensing demand letters dated January 15, 2023 and May 15, 2023, and an in-person meeting with Lumicore representatives on April 20, 2023, in Austin, Texas. FairPoint is a third-party licensing agent retained by OWS, and no adversity is anticipated. No conflict exists.
Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC / Kevin Ng. No prior C&H representation of Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC or Kevin Ng was identified. Benchmark performed teardown and reverse-engineering analysis of the accused Lumicore products at OWS's request. Benchmark is a third-party technical vendor retained by OWS. No adversity is anticipated, and no conflict exists.
Gresham & Whitfield LLP. No prior C&H representation of Gresham & Whitfield LLP, OWS's external auditor, was identified. No conflict exists.
Weston Fidelity Bank, N.A. No prior C&H representation of Weston Fidelity Bank, N.A., OWS's primary commercial lender (revolving credit facility of $125 million), was identified. No conflict exists.
Pacific Rim Insurance Group. No prior C&H representation of Pacific Rim Insurance Group, OWS's directors & officers and litigation-cost insurance carrier (Policy No. PLI-2023-08812), was identified. No conflict exists.
Heritage National Surety Co. No prior C&H representation of Heritage National Surety Co. was identified. Heritage National is a potential surety for an injunction bond that may be required in connection with the proposed litigation. No conflict exists.
Whitmore & Callahan LLP / James "Jim" Callahan. No prior C&H representation of Whitmore & Callahan LLP or James "Jim" Callahan was identified. No prior adverse matter involving Whitmore & Callahan was found. Whitmore & Callahan is the proposed local counsel for OWS in the Eastern District of Texas. C&H has not previously co-counseled with Whitmore & Callahan but has been informed of the firm's strong reputation and established presence in E.D. Tex. patent litigation practice. No conflict exists.
Anticipated Expert Witnesses. No prior C&H representation of any anticipated expert witness or their affiliated institutions was identified:
•  Dr. Caroline Ashford (Professor, Northfield Institute of Technology) — No prior C&H representation of Dr. Ashford or Northfield Institute of Technology. No conflict.
•  Dr. Lawrence Keating (Managing Director, Meridian Economic Consulting Group, LLC) — No prior C&H representation of Dr. Keating or Meridian Economic Consulting Group, LLC. No conflict.
•  Gregory Falk (independent consultant; former Vice President of Engineering at Solara Optics, Inc.) — No prior C&H representation of Mr. Falk. No conflict.
Veridian Photonics, Inc. / Melissa Chen. No prior C&H representation of Veridian Photonics, Inc. or Melissa Chen was identified. Melissa Chen is a former Lumicore engineer who is now employed at Veridian Photonics and is anticipated to serve as a fact witness regarding Lumicore's awareness of OWS patents during the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ design phase. No conflict exists.
D. Lateral-Hire Conflict Checks
As described in Section III above, the undersigned conducted lateral-hire conflict checks for each member of the proposed case team. The results are as follows:
Alan Ngo (Responsible Partner). Mr. Ngo joined Calderwood & Harkness LLP in 2017 from Prescott & Langley LLP. The undersigned reviewed Mr. Ngo's lateral-hire conflict disclosures and confirmed directly with Mr. Ngo on March 12, 2024, that he has no prior representation of any party or related entity identified in Section II.D above. Mr. Ngo further confirmed that he has no personal, financial, or other relationship with any individual or entity identified in the search that could give rise to a conflict or the appearance of a conflict. No ethical wall issues were identified.
Marcus Delgado (Billing Partner). Mr. Delgado joined Calderwood & Harkness LLP in 2019 from Braverman Cole & Associates LLP. The undersigned reviewed Mr. Delgado's lateral-hire conflict disclosures and confirmed directly with Mr. Delgado on March 12, 2024, that he has no prior representation of any party or related entity identified in Section II.D above. Mr. Delgado further confirmed that he has no personal, financial, or other relationship with any identified individual or entity that could give rise to a conflict or the appearance of a conflict. No ethical wall issues were identified.
Wendy Schultz (Lead Associate). The undersigned joined Calderwood & Harkness LLP in 2021 from Kirkwood Jennings LLP. The undersigned reviewed her own lateral-hire conflict disclosures and confirms that she has no prior representation of any party or related entity identified in Section II.D above. The undersigned further confirms that she has no personal, financial, or other relationship with any identified individual or entity that could give rise to a conflict or the appearance of a conflict. No ethical wall issues were identified.
Omar Siddiqui (Working Associate). Mr. Siddiqui joined Calderwood & Harkness LLP in 2022 following a judicial clerkship with the Honorable Margaret Liu, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California. The undersigned reviewed Mr. Siddiqui's lateral-hire conflict disclosures and confirmed directly with Mr. Siddiqui on March 12, 2024, that he has no prior representation of any party or related entity identified in Section II.D above. Mr. Siddiqui further confirmed that his clerkship did not involve any matter related to any party or entity identified in the search. No ethical wall issues were identified.
V. Analysis Under Applicable Professional Responsibility Rules
The undersigned has analyzed the results of the conflict search under the applicable professional responsibility rules, including the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (the "Model Rules") and the California Rules of Professional Conduct (the "California Rules"), which govern the Firm's conduct in its principal office jurisdiction. The analysis below addresses each category of potential conflict.
A. Concurrent Conflicts (Model Rule 1.7 / California Rule 1.7)
Model Rule 1.7(a) provides that a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest, which exists if (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client, or (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client, or a third person, or by a personal interest of the lawyer.
No concurrent conflict of interest exists in connection with the proposed representation of OWS against Lumicore. Calderwood & Harkness LLP is not currently representing Lumicore Technologies, Inc. or any party adverse to OWS in any matter, whether related or unrelated. The Firm has no current client relationship with any entity or individual affiliated with Lumicore, its officers, its directors, or its counsel. The prior engagement involving Silverstone Capital Markets LLC has concluded, and no current attorney-client relationship exists between C&H and Silverstone. Accordingly, the Silverstone engagement does not create a concurrent conflict.
There is no significant risk that the Firm's representation of OWS will be materially limited by the Firm's responsibilities to any other current client, former client, or third person. No waiver, consent, or any other curative measure is required under Rule 1.7.
B. Former-Client Conflicts (Model Rule 1.9 / California Rule 1.9)
Model Rule 1.9(a) provides that a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client, unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing. Rule 1.9(c) further provides that a lawyer who has formerly represented a client shall not use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client or reveal information relating to the representation except as otherwise permitted or required.
The only former-client analysis required in connection with this proposed engagement relates to Silverstone Capital Markets LLC. As set forth in Section IV.B above, C&H formerly represented Silverstone in connection with SEC reporting obligations arising from a municipal bond offering for an infrastructure project. That engagement was handled by the Firm's Capital Markets & Securities Practice Group, concluded in approximately Q4 2021, and involved no factual, legal, or subject-matter overlap with the proposed patent infringement litigation against Lumicore.
Under Rule 1.9(a), the critical inquiries are: (1) whether the proposed matter is the "same or a substantially related matter" as the prior Silverstone engagement, and (2) whether OWS's interests are "materially adverse" to Silverstone's interests.
With respect to the first inquiry, the proposed patent infringement action against Lumicore is plainly neither the same matter nor a substantially related matter to the prior Silverstone engagement. The prior engagement involved SEC regulatory compliance advice in connection with a municipal bond offering — a matter entirely within the domain of securities regulation and public finance. The proposed engagement involves the prosecution of patent infringement claims involving silicon-photonics transceiver technology in the Eastern District of Texas. There is no factual overlap, no common legal issues, no shared witnesses, and no connection of any kind between the two matters. A reasonable observer would not conclude that the subject matters are substantially related, and no confidential information obtained during the Silverstone engagement could plausibly be relevant to the proposed patent litigation.
With respect to the second inquiry, Silverstone's interests are not materially adverse to OWS's interests. Silverstone is not a party to the proposed litigation, is not anticipated to become a party or witness, and has no direct stake in the outcome of the patent dispute. While Silverstone maintains an ongoing advisory relationship with Lumicore, that relationship does not render Silverstone's interests materially adverse to OWS's in the context of the patent litigation.
Additionally, no confidential information obtained from Silverstone during the prior engagement is relevant to, or could be used in connection with, the Lumicore patent infringement case. The prior engagement concerned an entirely different area of law, an entirely different transaction, and entirely different parties. No violation of Rule 1.9(c) is implicated.
Conclusion: No former-client conflict exists under Rule 1.9 with respect to Silverstone Capital Markets LLC. No consent from Silverstone is required.
C. Imputed Conflicts (Model Rule 1.10)
Model Rule 1.10(a) provides that while lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by Rules 1.7 or 1.9, unless the prohibition is based on a personal interest of the disqualified lawyer and does not present a significant risk of materially limiting the representation of the client by the remaining lawyers in the firm.
Because no individual lawyer at Calderwood & Harkness LLP has an actual or potential conflict with respect to the proposed representation of OWS against Lumicore, there is no conflict to impute to the Firm under Rule 1.10. None of the proposed case team members — Alan Ngo, Marcus Delgado, Wendy Schultz, or Omar Siddiqui — has any individual conflict arising from prior representations, personal relationships, financial interests, or any other basis that would require imputation analysis. The attorneys who handled the prior Silverstone engagement (Diane Kowalski and Jonathan Mears) have no conflict with respect to the proposed engagement, as the Silverstone matter is neither the same nor substantially related to the Lumicore patent litigation, and no confidential information is at issue.
Conclusion: No imputed conflict exists under Rule 1.10. No ethical screening or information barrier is required.
VI. Additional Considerations
While the conflict analysis set forth above confirms that no actual or potential conflict of interest precludes the proposed engagement, the undersigned identifies the following additional considerations for the attention of the Responsible Partner and the Firm.
A. Business Relationship Sensitivity — Silverstone Capital Markets LLC
As noted in Section IV.B above, Silverstone Capital Markets LLC maintains an ongoing advisory relationship with Lumicore Technologies, Inc. in its capacity as Lumicore's investment bank and IPO underwriter. While this relationship does not create a legal conflict under the applicable professional responsibility rules, the Firm should be mindful that C&H's prior (concluded) engagement for Silverstone is a matter of record within the Firm's systems. Should Silverstone, for any reason, become a witness, party, or otherwise materially involved in the Lumicore patent infringement litigation — a scenario that is not anticipated based on the current facts — the conflict analysis should be promptly revisited and updated.
Recommendation: Alan Ngo should make a brief courtesy disclosure to Rebecca Tanaka, General Counsel of OWS, regarding the prior Silverstone engagement. The disclosure should confirm that (i) C&H previously represented Silverstone Capital Markets LLC in an unrelated SEC regulatory compliance matter that concluded in Q4 2021, (ii) the prior engagement has no connection to the proposed patent litigation, (iii) no confidential information from the Silverstone engagement is relevant to or will be used in the OWS matter, and (iv) the prior engagement has been analyzed and presents no conflict of interest. This disclosure is precautionary and is not legally required, but is consistent with best practices for client relations and transparency, particularly in light of Silverstone's ongoing relationship with the adverse party. The disclosure should be made orally and followed up in writing, and should be documented in the matter file.
B. Insurance and Lender Considerations
Insurance Coverage. OWS maintains directors & officers and litigation-cost insurance coverage through Pacific Rim Insurance Group under Policy No. PLI-2023-08812. Coverage notification should be sent promptly upon the filing of the complaint in the patent infringement action. The engagement letter should address cooperation with PRIG and any coverage counsel that PRIG may designate. No conflict exists between C&H and Pacific Rim Insurance Group, as confirmed by the conflict search.
Lender Notification. OWS's revolving credit facility with Weston Fidelity Bank, N.A., which provides for $125 million in borrowing capacity, may include reporting covenants that require OWS to notify the lender of the commencement of material litigation. Rebecca Tanaka should be advised to review the credit agreement and any related loan documents for notice obligations, including any provisions requiring disclosure of pending or threatened litigation that could have a material adverse effect on OWS's financial condition or operations. Timely compliance with any such covenants is important to avoid potential defaults or other adverse consequences under the credit facility.
C. Private Equity Sponsor Involvement
Ridgeline Capital Partners, LP holds a 55% controlling equity stake in OWS, and its designee, Franklin Osei, serves as Chair of OWS's Board of Directors. Based on the initial discussions with Ms. Tanaka, Ridgeline will be actively involved in approving the litigation budget (anticipated at approximately $18.5 million through trial) and in strategic decisions regarding the conduct of the litigation, including but not limited to settlement authority, the decision to seek injunctive relief, and the overall litigation strategy.
It is essential that the engagement letter clearly define the client as Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. — the corporate entity — and not Ridgeline Capital Partners, LP or any of its affiliates, partners, or designees. The engagement letter should specify that C&H's professional obligations, including duties of confidentiality, loyalty, and competent representation, run to OWS as the client entity. Any dual-reporting obligations — such as requirements to report litigation developments, budget variances, or settlement discussions to the OWS Board (including Ridgeline designees) as well as to OWS management — should be addressed explicitly in the engagement letter. The engagement letter should also address the possibility that the interests of OWS management and the interests of the Ridgeline-controlled Board may diverge on certain strategic questions, and should establish a clear protocol for handling any such divergence consistent with C&H's duties to the corporate client.
No conflict of interest arises from representing OWS against Lumicore merely because Ridgeline, as a private equity sponsor, is actively involved in the governance and strategic direction of the client. However, the Firm should remain attentive to any circumstances in which Ridgeline's interests might diverge from those of OWS as a corporate entity, and should ensure that the engagement letter and all related communications clearly delineate the boundaries of the attorney-client relationship.
VII. Conclusion and Clearance Determination
Based on the comprehensive conflict check described in this memorandum, Calderwood & Harkness LLP is cleared to represent Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. as lead litigation counsel in the proposed patent infringement action against Lumicore Technologies, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
The sole identified prior engagement involving a related party — C&H's concluded 2021 representation of Silverstone Capital Markets LLC in an unrelated SEC regulatory compliance matter — has been analyzed in detail under Model Rules 1.7, 1.9, and 1.10 and the corresponding California Rules of Professional Conduct. The analysis confirms that the prior engagement presents no concurrent conflict, no former-client conflict, and no imputed conflict. No ethical walls, consent letters, or waivers are required.
The Firm may proceed with the finalization and execution of the engagement letter with Optiwave Semiconductor Corp., which is anticipated for March 18, 2024. The courtesy disclosure to Rebecca Tanaka regarding the prior Silverstone engagement, as recommended in Section VI.A, should be completed prior to or contemporaneously with execution of the engagement letter.
This memorandum, together with the attached Appendices A and B, will be retained in the Firm's conflict-check records and in the matter file for the proposed engagement.
VIII. Approvals
Prepared by:
________________________________________
Wendy Schultz Associate, IP Litigation Group Calderwood & Harkness LLP
Date: March 14, 2024
Reviewed by:
________________________________________
Daniel Reeves Conflicts Coordinator, Conflicts Department Calderwood & Harkness LLP
Date: March 14, 2024
Approved by:
________________________________________
Alan Ngo Responsible Partner, IP Litigation Group Calderwood & Harkness LLP
Date: ________
Approved by:
________________________________________
Patricia Langford Director of Conflicts and New Business Intake Calderwood & Harkness LLP
Date: ________
Appendix A — Conflict Search Report Printout
This Appendix contains the system-generated conflict search report from the C&H Conflicts System. The report was generated on March 12, 2024, by Daniel Reeves, Conflicts Coordinator, and reflects the results of all searches conducted on March 11–12, 2024, in connection with the proposed representation of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. against Lumicore Technologies, Inc.
Search Date Range: March 11, 2024 – March 12, 2024
Search Conducted By: Daniel Reeves, Conflicts Coordinator; Wendy Schultz, Associate
Database Searched: C&H Master Conflicts System (all offices, all practice groups, all matter types, all date ranges)
Total Search Queries Executed: 127 (including name variants and abbreviations)
Total Hits Returned: 1
Hit Detail:
Total Direct Conflicts Identified: 0
Total Hits Requiring Analysis: 1 (Silverstone Capital Markets LLC — analyzed and cleared)
Total Unresolved Hits: 0
The complete raw search output, including all individual query results and timestamps, is maintained electronically in the C&H Conflicts System and is available for review upon request. The original system printout is retained in the Conflicts Department's records under reference number CR-2024-0311-OWS.
Appendix B — List of All Parties, Related Entities, and Individuals Searched
The following is a comprehensive alphabetical listing of every name and entity run through the C&H Conflicts System in connection with the proposed representation of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. against Lumicore Technologies, Inc. Each entry includes the results notation from the conflict search.
Total Entries Searched: 51 (excluding name variants) Total Name Variant Queries: 127 Total Hits: 1 (Silverstone Capital Markets LLC — Hit — Cleared) Total Unresolved Conflicts: 0
Search Reference Number: CR-2024-0311-OWS Database Version: C&H Conflicts System v.8.4.2 Report Generated: March 12, 2024, 4:47 p.m. Pacific Time
— End of Memorandum —
Hit No. | Entity / Individual | Matter No. | Matter Description | Practice Group | Office | Status | Clearance
1 | Silverstone Capital Markets LLC | 1014-00004 | SEC regulatory compliance — municipal bond offering | Capital Markets & Securities | Washington, D.C. | Closed (Q4 2021) | Cleared — no conflict (see Section IV.B of Memorandum)
No. | Name / Entity | Role / Relationship | Search Result
1 | Ashford, Dr. Caroline | Anticipated expert witness (OWS); Northfield Institute of Technology | No Hit
2 | Bautista, Raymond | General Counsel, Lumicore Technologies, Inc. | No Hit
3 | Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC | Reverse-engineering vendor (retained by OWS) | No Hit
4 | Brennan Kellogg & Associates LLP | Auditor, Lumicore Technologies, Inc. | No Hit
5 | Briggs, Samantha | Senior Associate, Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP (opposing counsel) | No Hit
6 | Callahan, James "Jim" | Partner, Whitmore & Callahan LLP (proposed local counsel for OWS) | No Hit
7 | Cascade IP Advisors, LLC | Patent prosecution firm (prosecuted OWS patents) | No Hit
8 | Chen, Melissa | Former Lumicore engineer; anticipated fact witness; current employee, Veridian Photonics, Inc. | No Hit
9 | Cho, Darren | Partner, Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP (opposing counsel) | No Hit
10 | Chu, Dr. Martin | Patent attorney, Cascade IP Advisors, LLC | No Hit
11 | CrossPoint Networking Corp. | Venue customer (Plano, TX) | No Hit
12 | Delgado, Marcus | Billing Partner, C&H (lateral-hire check) | No Hit
13 | FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC | OWS's licensing agent (pre-suit outreach) | No Hit
14 | Falk, Gregory | Anticipated expert witness (OWS); independent consultant; former VP of Engineering, Solara Optics, Inc. | No Hit
15 | Frontier Cloud Services, Inc. | Venue customer (Marshall, TX) | No Hit
16 | Garza, Maria | Partner, Trask Eddington LLP (defendant's local counsel) | No Hit
17 | Gresham & Whitfield LLP | Auditor, Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. | No Hit
18 | Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP | Anticipated opposing counsel for Lumicore | No Hit
19 | Heritage National Surety Co. | Potential injunction bond surety | No Hit
20 | Huang, Dr. Jian-Wei | CTO, Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. | No Hit
21 | Iyer, Rohan | Associate, Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP (opposing counsel) | No Hit
22 | Keating, Dr. Lawrence | Anticipated expert witness (OWS); Meridian Economic Consulting Group, LLC | No Hit
23 | Kessler, Thomas "Tom" | CEO, Lumicore Technologies, Inc. | No Hit
24 | Leitner, David | CFO, Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. | No Hit
25 | Dalmqvist, Dr. Eric | VP of Product Development, Lumicore Technologies, Inc. | No Hit
26 | Lumicore Technologies, Inc. | Adverse party (defendant) | No Hit
27 | Meridian Economic Consulting Group, LLC | Affiliated institution of anticipated expert Dr. Lawrence Keating | No Hit
28 | Michaud, Dr. Sandra | CTO, Lumicore Technologies, Inc. | No Hit
29 | Moreno, Janet | CFO, Lumicore Technologies, Inc. | No Hit
30 | Ng, Kevin | Principal, Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC | No Hit
31 | Ngo, Alan | Responsible Partner, C&H (lateral-hire check) | No Hit
32 | Northfield Institute of Technology | Affiliated institution of anticipated expert Dr. Caroline Ashford | No Hit
33 | Osei, Franklin | Board Chair, OWS; Managing Partner, Ridgeline Capital Partners, LP | No Hit
34 | Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. | Proposed client (plaintiff) | No Hit
35 | Pacific Rim Insurance Group | D&O / litigation-cost insurer, OWS | No Hit
36 | Petrov, Dr. Nikolai | VP of Engineering (Photonics Division), OWS | No Hit
37 | Pinnacle Data Systems, LLC | Venue customer (Longview, TX) | No Hit
38 | Ramaswamy, Dr. Priya | CEO, Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. | No Hit
39 | Reeves, Angela | Principal, FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC | No Hit
40 | Ridgeline Capital Partners, LP | PE sponsor; majority owner of OWS (55% stake) | No Hit
41 | Rourke, Catherine "Kate" | Partner, Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP (opposing counsel) | No Hit
42 | Schultz, Wendy | Lead Associate, C&H (lateral-hire check) | No Hit
43 | Siddiqui, Omar | Working Associate, C&H (lateral-hire check) | No Hit
44 | Silverstone Capital Markets LLC | Lumicore's investment bank / IPO underwriter | Hit — Cleared (see Section IV.B)
45 | Solara Optics, Inc. | Predecessor entity; sold patents to OWS via APA (June 15, 2018) | No Hit
46 | Tanaka, Rebecca | General Counsel, Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. | No Hit
47 | Trask Eddington LLP | Defendant's anticipated local counsel (E.D. Tex.) | No Hit
48 | Marlowe Asset Management Patent Analytics, Inc. | Defendant's prior-art search firm | No Hit
49 | Veridian Photonics, Inc. | Current employer of anticipated fact witness Melissa Chen | No Hit
50 | Weston Fidelity Bank, N.A. | OWS's primary commercial lender | No Hit
51 | Whitmore & Callahan LLP | Proposed local counsel for OWS (E.D. Tex.) | No Hit

MEMORANDUM

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts