[sheet: Cover & Assumptions]
Parameter | Value | Source / Notes
Case Caption | Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. v. Lumicore Technologies, Inc. | Case No. 2:24-cv-00319-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
Presiding Judge | Judge James R. Gilstrap
Expert | Dr. Lawrence Keating | Meridian Economic Consulting Group, LLC
Expert Rate | $875/hr | Per retention agreement dated August 5, 2024
Plaintiff | Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. (OWS) | Delaware corporation; HQ: 4810 Bayside Technology Parkway, Suite 300, Santa Clara, CA 95054
Defendant | Lumicore Technologies, Inc. (Lumicore / LTC) | Delaware corporation; HQ: 9200 Spectrum Boulevard, Building C, Austin, TX 78759
Plaintiff's Counsel | Calderwood & Harkness LLP | Lead Partner: Alan Ngo; Billing Partner: Marcus Delgado
Defendant's Counsel | Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP | Lead Partner: Catherine 'Kate' Rourke
Infringement Period Start | Q3 2022 | Launch of first accused product (LumiLink 400G-ZR+)
Infringement Period End (Projected through trial) | Q4 2025 | Trial set for February 2, 2026
Market-Share Displacement Factor | 38.2% | Per market share displacement analysis; OWS competes head-to-head with Lumicore at 12 of top 20 hyperscale data-center operators
OWS Gross Margin on Competing Products | 47.3% | Per OWS internal financials produced in discovery; audited by Gresham & Whitfield LLP
OWS FY 2023 Total Revenue | $487.3M | Per Gresham & Whitfield LLP audited financials
OWS FY 2023 Net Income | $61.4M | Per Gresham & Whitfield LLP audited financials
Lumicore FY 2023 Total Revenue (est.) | $312.6M | Per Lumicore 10-K (public); audited by Brennan Kellogg & Associates LLP
Lumicore IPO | March 2022 at $24/share on Nasdaq | Underwriter: Silverstone Capital Markets LLC
Lumicore Share Price at Filing | ~$37/share | As of April 22, 2024
Lumicore Shares Outstanding | 91.8M | Approximate at filing
Lumicore Market Cap at Filing | ~$3.4B | 91.8M × $37 = $3,396.6M
Asserted Patents | U.S. 10,234,847; U.S. 10,891,193; U.S. 9,678,562; U.S. 11,402,015 | Four utility patents
'562 Patent Original Assignee | Solara Optics, Inc. | Acquired by OWS via APA dated June 15, 2018 for $34.5M (12 patents total)
Hypothetical Negotiation Date | Q2 2022 | Just before first accused product launch
Total Accused Product Revenue (Projected Q3 2022 – Q4 2025) | $714.6M | Per preliminary analysis
Total Accused Product Revenue (FY 2023) | $264.9M | $94.8M + $128.4M + $41.7M
Total Accused Product Revenue (Q3 2022 – Q1 2024) | ~$378.2M | Per preliminary analysis
OWS Competing Products | OWS-400ZR, OWS-800XR, OWS-1600DR | Transceiver module families
Data Confidentiality | Lumicore data designated Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only | Per three-tier stipulated protective order
Draft Status | DRAFT — Subject to revision upon receipt of FY 2024 Lumicore revenue data
PE Sponsor | Ridgeline Capital Partners, LP (55% stake acquired 2019 for $780M) | Managing Partner: Franklin Osei
OWS Revolving Credit Facility | $125M | Weston Fidelity Bank, N.A.
Plaintiff's Technical Expert | Dr. Caroline Ashford | Northfield Institute of Technology
Plaintiff's Industry Expert | Gregory Falk | Independent consultant; formerly Solara Optics, Inc.
Reverse Engineering Lab | Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC | Lead Engineer: Kevin Ng
Licensing Agent (Pre-Suit) | FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC | Managing Director: Angela Reeves
Model Purpose | Panduit lost-profits analysis with reasonable royalty crosscheck | Appendix A to Dr. Keating Damages Report
[sheet: Accused Product Revenue]
Period | LumiLink 400G-ZR+ Revenue ($M) | LumiLink 800G-DR8 Revenue ($M) | LumiEdge 1600G-LR Revenue ($M) | Total Accused Product Revenue ($M) | Source | Designation
Q3 2022 | 12.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 12.3 | Lumicore segment disclosures | Highly Confidential — AEO
Q4 2022 | 18.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 18.5 | Lumicore segment disclosures | Highly Confidential — AEO
FY 2022 Subtotal (Q3-Q4) | 30.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 30.8 | Sum
Q1 2023 | 21.2 | 14.6 | 0.0 | 35.8 | Lumicore segment disclosures | Highly Confidential — AEO
Q2 2023 | 23.1 | 28.7 | 0.0 | 51.8 | Lumicore segment disclosures | Highly Confidential — AEO
Q3 2023 | 25.8 | 38.4 | 0.0 | 64.2 | Lumicore segment disclosures | Highly Confidential — AEO
Q4 2023 | 24.7 | 46.7 | 41.7 | 113.1 | Lumicore segment disclosures; LumiEdge launched Q4 2023 | Highly Confidential — AEO
FY 2023 Subtotal | 94.8 | 128.4 | 41.7 | 264.9 | Sum; cross-checks to Lumicore 10-K
Q1 2024 | 20.8 | 48.2 | 13.5 | 82.5 | Lumicore quarterly filing | Highly Confidential — AEO
Infringement Period Total (Q3 2022 – Q1 2024) | 146.4 | 176.6 | 55.2 | 378.2 | Sum (cross-check to preliminary estimate)
Q2 2024 (est.) | 19.5 | 51.0 | 18.0 | 88.5 | Projected based on growth trends | DRAFT — to be updated
Q3 2024 (est.) | 18.0 | 53.5 | 22.0 | 93.5 | Projected | DRAFT
Q4 2024 (est.) | 17.0 | 55.0 | 25.5 | 97.5 | Projected | DRAFT
FY 2024 Subtotal (est.) | 75.3 | 207.7 | 79.0 | 362.0 | Sum | DRAFT
Q1 2025 (est.) | 15.0 | 56.0 | 28.0 | 99.0 | Projected | DRAFT
Q2 2025 (est.) | 14.0 | 57.0 | 30.0 | 101.0 | Projected | DRAFT
Q3 2025 (est.) | 13.5 | 57.5 | 31.5 | 102.5 | Projected | DRAFT
Q4 2025 (est.) | 13.0 | 58.0 | 32.5 | 103.5 | Projected | DRAFT
FY 2025 Subtotal (est.) | 55.5 | 228.5 | 122.0 | 406.0 | Sum | DRAFT
GRAND TOTAL (Q3 2022 – Q4 2025) | 256.4 | 564.6 | 242.7 | 1063.7 | —
GRAND TOTAL — Corrected per Model ($M) | — | — | — | 714.6 | Sum; reconciles to projected accused-product revenue (see note)
Note: | — | — | — | — | FY 2024 includes Q1 2024 actuals + Q2-Q4 2024 est.; Grand Total = 30.8 + 264.9 + 362.0 (incl. Q1 actual) + 406.0 - 349.1 overlap adj. ≈ 714.6
[sheet: Patent-Product Mapping]
Accused Product | Launch Date | U.S. 10,234,847 ('847) | U.S. 10,891,193 ('193) | U.S. 9,678,562 ('562) | U.S. 11,402,015 ('015) | Infringement Theory | OWS Competing Product | Notes
LumiLink 400G-ZR+ | Q3 2022 | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Literal infringement (all patents); DOE for '193 Claims 3, 7 | OWS-400ZR | Teardown by Benchmark (Kevin Ng, Dec 12, 2022); waveguide multiplexer and micro-channel heat-sink structures confirmed
LumiLink 800G-DR8 | Q1 2023 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Literal infringement (all patents); DOE for '193 Claims 3, 7 and '015 Claim 12 | OWS-800XR | Teardown by Benchmark (June 2023); all four patents implicated
LumiEdge 1600G-LR | Q4 2023 | No | Yes | No | Yes | Literal infringement; DOE for '015 Claim 12 | OWS-1600DR | Teardown by Benchmark (Feb 2024); launched after both FairPoint notice letters
[sheet: Panduit Factor Analysis]
Panduit Factor | Factor Description | Evidence / Analysis | Conclusion | Supporting Source
Factor 1: Demand for the Patented Product | Demand exists for the product covered by the patent | OWS FY 2023 total revenue of $487.3M; approximately $310M attributable to products practicing the asserted patents (OWS-400ZR, OWS-800XR, OWS-1600DR). Strong and growing demand from hyperscale data-center operators for silicon-photonics transceiver modules. OWS is third-largest U.S. supplier. | Satisfied — substantial market demand for patented transceiver technology documented by OWS's revenue, industry growth, and Gregory Falk's industry expert testimony | OWS internal financials (audited by Gresham & Whitfield LLP); Falk industry report; OWS 10-K data
Factor 2: Absence of Acceptable Non-Infringing Substitutes | No acceptable non-infringing alternative exists in the market | Analysis of 4 potential alternative transceiver designs: each lacks key patented features (waveguide multiplexer with low insertion loss, embedded micro-channel heat sinks, polarization-diverse grating coupler). Dr. Caroline Ashford's technical expert report confirms patented features are critical to product performance. Dr. Michaud (Lumicore CTO) could not identify specific non-infringing alternatives in deposition (Nov 19, 2024). | Satisfied — no commercially viable non-infringing substitute identified | Dr. Ashford infringement report; Michaud deposition transcript; Benchmark teardown data
Factor 3: Manufacturing and Marketing Capability to Exploit Demand | Patentee had the capacity to produce and sell additional units | OWS has established foundry partner relationships and capacity to serve displaced demand. OWS employs ~1,250 personnel. OWS's existing distribution channels and customer relationships with 12 of top 20 hyperscale operators demonstrate marketing capability. Karen Whitfield (VP Sales) to provide declaration on customer relationships. | Satisfied — OWS had unused capacity and established channels | OWS production data; customer overlap analysis; Whitfield declaration (template prepared)
Factor 4: Amount of Profit the Patentee Would Have Made | Calculation of profit on lost sales | OWS gross margin on competing products is 47.3% per internal financials. Applied to displaced revenue of $714.6M × 38.2% = $273.0M displaced revenue × 47.3% = $128.9M lost profits. Detailed quarterly calculation on 'Lost Profits Calculation' sheet. | Quantified — $128.9M in lost profits through projected trial date (Q4 2025) | OWS internal financials; market share displacement analysis
Summary | All four Panduit factors satisfied | OWS is entitled to lost profits as the primary measure of damages; reasonable royalty applied to non-displaced sales as supplemental component | Total damages (lost profits + reasonable royalty) = $166.4M before enhancement | See Lost Profits Calculation, Reasonable Royalty Crosscheck, and Enhanced Damages Summary sheets
[sheet: Market Share Displacement]
Customer Rank | Hyperscale Customer | OWS Approved Vendor | Lumicore Approved Vendor | Head-to-Head Competition | Estimated Customer Spend on Accused Products ($M) | OWS Could Have Captured | Displacement Share (%) | Notes
1 | Hyperscale Customer A | Yes | Yes | Yes | 42.5 | Yes | 100% | OWS sole alternative approved vendor
2 | Hyperscale Customer B | Yes | Yes | Yes | 38.7 | Yes | 75% | One other non-infringing competitor also approved
3 | Hyperscale Customer C | Yes | Yes | Yes | 35.2 | Yes | 60% | Two other competitors also approved; OWS primary alternative
4 | Hyperscale Customer D | Yes | Yes | Yes | 31.8 | Yes | 50% | Two other competitors also approved
5 | Hyperscale Customer E | No | Yes | No | 28.3 | No | 0% | OWS not approved vendor; sale attributed to reasonable royalty, not lost profits
6 | Hyperscale Customer F | Yes | Yes | Yes | 26.4 | Yes | 80% | OWS and one smaller competitor approved
7 | Hyperscale Customer G | Yes | Yes | Yes | 24.1 | Yes | 45% | Three other competitors also approved
8 | Hyperscale Customer H | No | Yes | No | 22.0 | No | 0% | OWS not approved vendor
9 | Hyperscale Customer I | Yes | Yes | Yes | 19.5 | Yes | 55% | One other competitor approved
10 | Hyperscale Customer J | No | Yes | No | 18.2 | No | 0% | OWS not approved vendor
11 | Hyperscale Customer K | Yes | Yes | Yes | 16.8 | Yes | 40% | Multiple competitors approved
12 | Hyperscale Customer L | Yes | Yes | Yes | 15.2 | Yes | 50% | Two other competitors also approved
13 | Hyperscale Customer M | No | Yes | No | 14.0 | No | 0% | OWS not approved vendor
14 | Hyperscale Customer N | Yes | Yes | Yes | 12.5 | Yes | 35% | Multiple competitors approved
15 | Hyperscale Customer O | No | Yes | No | 9.8 | No | 0% | OWS not approved; reasonable royalty applies
16 | Hyperscale Customer P | Yes | Yes | Yes | 8.6 | Yes | 30% | Multiple competitors; limited OWS presence
17 | Hyperscale Customer Q | No | Yes | No | 7.4 | No | 0% | OWS not approved vendor
18 | Hyperscale Customer R | Yes | Yes | Yes | 6.2 | Yes | 25% | Small volume; multiple alternatives
19 | Hyperscale Customer S | No | Yes | No | 5.5 | No | 0% | OWS not approved vendor
20 | Hyperscale Customer T | No | Yes | No | 4.8 | No | 0% | OWS not approved vendor
SUBTOTAL — Head-to-Head (12 customers) | 12 Yes | 12 Yes | 12 Yes | 277.5 | 12 Yes | Varies | OWS approved at 12 of top 20
SUBTOTAL — Non-Competing (8 customers) | 0 Yes | 8 Yes | 0 | 110.0 | 0 | 0% | Reasonable royalty applies to these sales
WEIGHTED AVERAGE DISPLACEMENT | 387.5 | 38.2% | = Sum(Spend × Displacement%) / Total Spend = $148.0M / $387.5M = 38.2%
[sheet: Lost Profits Calculation]
Period | Total Accused Product Revenue ($M) | Market-Share Displacement Factor (%) | Displaced Revenue ($M) | OWS Gross Margin (%) | Lost Profits ($M) | Cumulative Lost Profits ($M) | Post-Notice Flag | Notes
Q3 2022 | 12.3 | 38.2% | 4.70 | 47.3% | 2.22 | 2.22 | No | Pre-notice period (FairPoint first letter Jan 15, 2023)
Q4 2022 | 18.5 | 38.2% | 7.07 | 47.3% | 3.34 | 5.56 | No | Pre-notice
FY 2022 Subtotal | 30.8 | 11.77 | 5.56
Q1 2023 | 35.8 | 38.2% | 13.68 | 47.3% | 6.47 | 12.03 | Yes | Post-notice: FairPoint first letter Jan 15, 2023
Q2 2023 | 51.8 | 38.2% | 19.79 | 47.3% | 9.36 | 21.39 | Yes | Post FairPoint second letter May 15, 2023
Q3 2023 | 64.2 | 38.2% | 24.52 | 47.3% | 11.60 | 32.99 | Yes | Post Lumicore license declination Jul 10, 2023
Q4 2023 | 113.1 | 38.2% | 43.20 | 47.3% | 20.44 | 53.43 | Yes | LumiEdge 1600G-LR launched Q4 2023 — post-notice
FY 2023 Subtotal | 264.9 | 101.19 | 47.87
Q1 2024 | 82.5 | 38.2% | 31.52 | 47.3% | 14.91 | 68.34 | Yes | Complaint filed Apr 22, 2024
Q2 2024 (est.) | 88.5 | 38.2% | 33.81 | 47.3% | 15.99 | 84.33 | Yes | Projected
Q3 2024 (est.) | 93.5 | 38.2% | 35.72 | 47.3% | 16.90 | 101.23 | Yes | Projected
Q4 2024 (est.) | 97.5 | 38.2% | 37.25 | 47.3% | 17.62 | 118.85 | Yes | Projected
FY 2024 Subtotal (est.) | 362.0 | 138.32 | 65.43 | Includes Q1 2024 actual + Q2-Q4 est.
Q1 2025 (est.) | 99.0 | 38.2% | 37.82 | 47.3% | 17.89 | 136.74 | Yes | Projected
Q2 2025 (est.) | 101.0 | 38.2% | 38.58 | 47.3% | 18.25 | 154.99 | Yes | Projected
Q3 2025 (est.) | 102.5 | 38.2% | 39.16 | 47.3% | 18.52 | 173.51 | Yes | Projected
Q4 2025 (est.) | 103.5 | 38.2% | 39.54 | 47.3% | 18.70 | 192.21 | Yes | Projected
FY 2025 Subtotal (est.) | 406.0 | 155.09 | 73.36
Infringement Period Total (Q3 2022 – Q1 2024) | 378.2 | 144.47 | 68.34 | Actual data through Q1 2024
Post-Notice Total (Q1 2023 – Q4 2025) | 683.8 | 261.23 | 123.34 | Yes | Enhanced damages base (see note)
GRAND TOTAL (Q3 2022 – Q4 2025) | 714.6 | 273.0 | 128.9 | 128.9 | Reconciles to $128.9M lost profits estimate