ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT — PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 48th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071
INTERNAL MEMORANDUM
Date Prepared: July 2023 (initial) Revised: September 2024
PURPOSE: This memorandum constitutes an internal summary and legal analysis of Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC's follow-on teardown report on the LumiLink 800G-DR8 transceiver module manufactured by Lumicore Technologies, Inc. The memorandum is prepared to support infringement contentions, expert witness preparation, and trial strategy for the above-captioned matter. This document should not be distributed to the client or to any third party without prior approval from the Responsible Partner.
Right-click to update Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
This memorandum summarizes and analyzes the findings of Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC ("Benchmark"), located at 2244 Mission College Boulevard, Santa Clara, California 95054, in its follow-on teardown and reverse-engineering analysis of Lumicore Technologies, Inc.'s ("Lumicore") LumiLink 800G-DR8 transceiver module. Benchmark's Lead Engineer, Kevin Ng, personally conducted the teardown procedures and authored the underlying report, which is dated June 2023 and spans 247 pages of technical analysis, including annotated SEM imagery, cross-sectional diagrams, spectroscopic data, and functional characterization results.
Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. ("OWS") initially retained Benchmark in November 2022 to perform a teardown and reverse-engineering analysis of Lumicore's first-generation LumiLink 400G-ZR+ transceiver module. That initial engagement yielded a comprehensive report delivered on December 12, 2022 (the "400G-ZR+ Report"), which identified several structures in the 400G-ZR+ that correspond to claim limitations of three of the four now-asserted patents. Following Lumicore's commercial launch of the LumiLink 800G-DR8 in Q1 2023, OWS commissioned this follow-on analysis to determine whether the next-generation product incorporates the same or similar accused technology and whether additional patent claims — particularly those of the subsequently identified '015 Patent — are implicated by the 800G-DR8's expanded feature set.
The purposes of this memorandum are threefold:
(a) To distill the technical findings of Benchmark's June 2023 teardown report into a format usable for legal analysis by the case team, translating engineering terminology and physical observations into the language of the asserted patent claims;
(b) To cross-reference each identified structure and feature of the LumiLink 800G-DR8 against specific claim limitations of all four asserted patents — U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847 (the "'847 Patent"), U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193 (the "'193 Patent"), U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562 (the "'562 Patent"), and U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015 (the "'015 Patent") — on an element-by-element basis; and
(c) To identify areas warranting further technical investigation or expert opinion by Dr. Caroline Ashford, Professor of Electrical Engineering and Photonics at Northfield Institute of Technology, who has been retained as Plaintiff's Technical Expert in this matter.
The LumiLink 800G-DR8 occupies a position of central importance in this litigation. It is accused of infringing all four asserted patents, representing the broadest accused-product exposure of any single product at issue in this case. Moreover, based on Lumicore's segment disclosures produced during fact discovery, the LumiLink 800G-DR8 generated an estimated $128.4 million in revenue during fiscal year 2023, making it the highest-revenue accused product in the litigation and the single most significant driver of the overall damages calculation. The strength of the infringement case on this product will, in substantial part, determine the scope and value of the damages award available to OWS at trial.
This memorandum was initially prepared in July 2023, shortly after receipt of Benchmark's report, and has been revised as of September 2024 to incorporate claim-limitation cross-references aligned with OWS's infringement contentions, to reflect the results of claim construction proceedings, and to account for additional discovery and deposition testimony obtained during the intervening period.
2. PRODUCT OVERVIEW — LUMILINK 800G-DR8
2.1 Product Description and Commercial Context
The LumiLink 800G-DR8 is an 800-Gigabit-per-second silicon-photonics transceiver module designed and manufactured by Lumicore Technologies, Inc. for deployment in hyperscale data-center interconnect applications. The product is engineered for short-reach optical links — up to 2 km over single-mode fiber — and is marketed to hyperscale cloud service providers, colocation operators, and enterprise data-center customers requiring high-bandwidth, low-latency optical connectivity between switches, routers, and server clusters.
Lumicore commercially launched the LumiLink 800G-DR8 in Q1 2023. The product was unveiled at OFC 2023 (the Optical Fiber Communication Conference and Exhibition) in March 2023 and began volume shipments to key accounts shortly thereafter. Based on segment disclosures produced by Lumicore during discovery in this matter, the LumiLink 800G-DR8 generated an estimated $128.4 million in revenue during fiscal year 2023. These revenue figures are corroborated by Lumicore's public earnings calls and analyst estimates, although the precise product-level breakout is derived from confidential internal accounting documents produced under the Protective Order.
The LumiLink 800G-DR8 competes directly in the marketplace with OWS's OWS-800XR transceiver module family. The OWS-800XR is OWS's flagship 800G transceiver offering and practices several of the asserted patents by design — it was developed in part based on the inventions described in the '847, '193, and '015 Patents. The direct competitive relationship between these two product lines is relevant both to the lost-profits analysis under Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152 (6th Cir. 1978), and to the willfulness analysis, as Lumicore's design team had access to OWS's published patent applications describing the technologies practiced by the OWS-800XR during the LumiLink design phase.
2.2 Product Acquisition and Chain of Custody
Benchmark acquired two production-unit samples of the LumiLink 800G-DR8 through standard commercial purchase channels in April 2023. The samples were purchased directly from an authorized Lumicore distributor, and full purchase documentation — including invoices, shipping records, and distributor confirmations — was maintained by Benchmark in accordance with its standard chain-of-custody protocols.
Upon receipt, Kevin Ng catalogued the serial numbers of both units, photographed the external packaging and labeling, and stored the units in Benchmark's secure evidence room under controlled environmental conditions until the teardown procedure commenced. Chain-of-custody logs reflecting the identity of all personnel who accessed, handled, or performed analysis on the sample units were maintained throughout the engagement.
Kevin Ng confirmed the integrity of the chain of custody at his deposition on January 7, 2025. During that deposition, Ng testified that the samples were handled exclusively by Benchmark personnel in accordance with Benchmark's standard evidence-handling procedures, that no third parties had access to the samples at any time prior to or during the teardown, and that the serial numbers on the deconstructed units matched those recorded at the time of purchase. The chain-of-custody documentation is summarized in Appendix C to this memorandum.
2.3 Module Specifications (as Identified in Teardown)
Based on Benchmark's teardown analysis, external labeling, and functional characterization, the LumiLink 800G-DR8 module has the following key specifications:
The silicon-photonics-based architecture of the LumiLink 800G-DR8 is central to the infringement analysis, as each of the four asserted patents claims inventions that are implemented at the level of the photonic integrated circuit or its immediate thermal and optical interfaces. The module's OSFP form factor and PAM4 modulation format are industry-standard features that are not themselves the subject of the asserted patent claims, but they establish the commercial context in which the accused infringing technology operates.
3. TEARDOWN METHODOLOGY
3.1 Procedures
Benchmark followed its standard semiconductor teardown and reverse-engineering protocol in analyzing the LumiLink 800G-DR8. This protocol is consistent with the methodology employed by Benchmark in its prior teardown of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ (as documented in Benchmark's December 12, 2022 report), ensuring methodological continuity across the two analyses and enabling direct comparison of findings between the two product generations.
The teardown procedure comprised the following sequential steps:
(i) External visual inspection and photography. High-resolution photographs of the module exterior, labeling, connector interfaces, and heat-sink surfaces were captured prior to any disassembly. All identifying markings, including model number, serial number, date codes, and regulatory markings, were documented.
(ii) Non-destructive X-ray imaging. The sealed module was subjected to X-ray imaging to identify internal component placement, die locations, bond-wire routing, and thermal management structures without disturbing the module's physical integrity. This step provided a preliminary roadmap for subsequent mechanical decapsulation.
(iii) Mechanical decapsulation of the module housing. The OSFP module housing was carefully disassembled using precision tools to expose the internal multi-chip module (MCM) substrate, heat-sink assembly, and optical subassemblies. Each disassembly step was photographed and logged.
(iv) Optical microscopy of the photonic integrated circuit (PIC) die. Following decapsulation, the PIC die was examined under optical microscopy at magnifications ranging from 5× to 200× to identify surface-level features including waveguide routing, grating coupler structures, modulator electrodes, and photodetector regions.
(v) Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) of the PIC die. High-resolution SEM imaging was performed on the PIC die surface and, following focused ion beam (FIB) milling, on cross-sectional views of key structures. SEM imaging provided the sub-micron resolution necessary to characterize waveguide dimensions, grating coupler periodicity, and micro-channel geometry.
(vi) Cross-sectional analysis of key structures. FIB-SEM cross-sectioning was performed at targeted locations on the PIC die and heat-sink assembly to reveal internal structural features, layer thicknesses, and material interfaces that are not visible from surface imaging alone. Cross-sections were taken at the arrayed waveguide grating (AWG) region, the Mach-Zehnder modulator arms, the germanium photodetector active region, the grating coupler periodic structures, and the micro-channel heat-sink channels.
(vii) Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) for material composition. EDX analysis was performed on selected cross-sectional samples to determine the elemental composition of key materials, including the silicon waveguide core and cladding layers, the germanium photodetector material, the copper-alloy heat-sink substrate, and the solder and brazing materials used in the thermal interface.
(viii) Functional testing of subsystems where feasible. Limited functional testing was performed on intact subsystems prior to destructive cross-sectioning. This included passive optical characterization of grating coupler transmission spectra and insertion loss measurements of the waveguide multiplexer structure. Full functional testing of the coherent detection components was not possible due to the destructive nature of die-level decapsulation; this limitation is discussed further in Section 3.3 below.
Each step in the teardown procedure was documented contemporaneously through written notes, digital photographs, and data files. The resulting dataset constitutes the evidentiary foundation for Benchmark's June 2023 report and, by extension, for the technical analysis presented in this memorandum.
3.2 Equipment and Personnel
Kevin Ng, Benchmark's Lead Engineer and a recognized expert in silicon-photonics device characterization with over fifteen years of industry experience, personally led the teardown of the LumiLink 800G-DR8. Ng was assisted by members of Benchmark's optical characterization team, whose names and roles are documented in the underlying Benchmark report.
The principal equipment used in the teardown analysis included the following:
This equipment suite is consistent with industry-standard practices for semiconductor teardown and reverse-engineering analysis and is the same suite used by Benchmark in the prior 400G-ZR+ analysis, facilitating direct comparison of results between the two engagements.
3.3 Limitations
Two principal limitations of the Benchmark teardown analysis should be noted, as they affect the completeness of the technical findings and identify areas where supplemental analysis will be necessary.
First, certain proprietary mask-level features on the PIC die could not be fully resolved at the SEM level, even with FIB cross-sectioning. In particular, the sub-wavelength grating features of the polarization-diverse grating coupler (relevant to the '015 Patent) have critical dimensions approaching the resolution limits of the Brightmoor Industries Crossbeam 550 system. Benchmark was able to identify the general periodic structure and approximate feature dimensions, but precise characterization of pitch, duty cycle, and etch depth at all points across the grating coupler area was not achievable from physical teardown data alone. Supplemental analysis using Lumicore's photonic-IC layout files, which have been produced in discovery under the "Highly Confidential — Source Code" designation of the Protective Order, should enable precise characterization of these features and is recommended as a follow-on task (see Section 8.1).
Second, functional testing of the coherent detection components was limited to passive optical characterization. Because die-level decapsulation is inherently destructive — requiring removal of wire bonds, interposer connections, and protective coatings — it was not possible to perform active functional testing of the coherent detection front-end after the PIC die was extracted from the module assembly. Benchmark was able to characterize the passive optical properties of the receiver waveguides and photodetector regions, but active measurements of coherent detection performance (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, bit-error rate, and polarization extinction ratio under operating conditions) were not performed. This limitation does not materially affect the structural infringement analysis, which is based on the physical configuration of the accused device rather than its operational performance, but it should be noted for completeness.
4. KEY TECHNICAL FINDINGS
The following subsections summarize the principal technical findings of Benchmark's teardown analysis that are relevant to the infringement analysis for each of the four asserted patents. Each finding is described in terms of the physical structure and features identified in the LumiLink 800G-DR8, the technical detail supporting the identification, and the relevance of the finding to specific asserted claims. Detailed claim-by-claim cross-referencing is provided in Section 5 of this memorandum.
4.1 Multi-Channel Silicon Photonic Waveguide Multiplexer
Finding. The LumiLink 800G-DR8 PIC incorporates an 8-channel arrayed waveguide grating (AWG) structure that combines multiple optical signals of different wavelengths onto a single waveguide for output through a common fiber port. The AWG structure functions as a wavelength-division multiplexer, routing each of the eight 100G optical channels — each operating at a distinct wavelength within the O-band or C-band spectrum — through a set of phase-shifted silicon waveguides and combining them into a single output waveguide connected to the module's fiber output port.
Technical Detail. SEM cross-sections of the AWG region reveal a slab waveguide coupler region at the input side, where the eight input waveguides carrying individual channel signals converge into a free-propagation region (the slab coupler). Light from the slab coupler enters an array of silicon waveguides, each of which has a precisely controlled optical path length that differs from its neighbors by a fixed increment. This controlled path-length difference introduces wavelength-dependent phase shifts that cause constructive interference at the output slab coupler for each channel's designated wavelength, thereby directing each channel to the common output waveguide. The waveguide cross-sections are consistent with standard silicon photonic rib-waveguide geometry, with a core thickness of approximately 220 nm on a buried oxide (Box) layer, consistent with a 300 mm SOI fabrication process.
Insertion Loss. Benchmark measured the insertion loss of the 8-channel AWG structure at approximately 1.8 dB across the full wavelength range of the eight channels. This insertion loss figure qualifies as "low insertion loss" by prevailing industry standards, where typical AWG insertion losses in silicon photonics platforms range from 1.5 dB to 3.5 dB depending on channel count, waveguide quality, and design optimization. The measured 1.8 dB figure is consistent with the "low insertion loss" language used in the '847 Patent claims and specification, which describes insertion losses of "less than approximately 3 dB" as characteristic of the claimed multiplexer architecture.
Comparison to LumiLink 400G-ZR+. The 8-channel AWG structure in the 800G-DR8 is an expanded version of the 4-channel multiplexer identified in Benchmark's December 12, 2022 teardown of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+. The fundamental waveguide multiplexer architecture — including the slab coupler geometry, the phase-shifted waveguide array design, and the silicon waveguide cross-sectional dimensions — are substantially similar between the two products. The primary difference is the increase from four channels to eight, which doubles the number of phase-shifted waveguides in the array and modestly increases the overall footprint of the AWG structure on the PIC die. This architectural continuity strongly suggests that Lumicore developed the 800G-DR8 AWG by scaling its existing 400G-ZR+ design rather than adopting a fundamentally different multiplexer approach, and it reinforces the infringement analysis for claims that are asserted against both products.
Relevance to the '847 Patent. This finding is directly relevant to asserted Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847, entitled "Multi-Channel Silicon Photonic Waveguide Multiplexer with Low Insertion Loss." The '847 Patent claims a silicon-photonics-based waveguide multiplexer that combines multiple optical channels with low insertion loss using an arrayed waveguide architecture fabricated on a silicon substrate. The 800G-DR8's 8-channel AWG structure corresponds to the claimed "multi-channel waveguide multiplexer" element, the slab coupler corresponds to the claimed "free-propagation coupling region," the phase-shifted waveguide array corresponds to the claimed "plurality of waveguides having controlled path-length differences," and the measured 1.8 dB insertion loss satisfies the claimed "low insertion loss" characteristic. The detailed element-by-element mapping is set forth in the cross-reference table at Section 5.1.
4.2 Coherent Optical Transceiver Integrated on Silicon Substrate
Finding. The LumiLink 800G-DR8 integrates its optical transmitter and receiver components — including optical modulators, photodetectors, and associated waveguide routing — on a single silicon photonics PIC die fabricated using standard semiconductor fabrication processes. The integration of both transmitter and receiver functionality on a monolithic silicon substrate is the core architectural feature claimed by the '193 Patent.
Technical Detail. The PIC die dimensions are approximately 12 mm × 8 mm, fabricated on a 300 mm silicon-on-insulator (SOI) wafer process. Benchmark identified the following key integrated components on the PIC die:
• Mach-Zehnder modulators (MZMs): Eight MZM structures, one per optical channel, are formed in the silicon waveguide layer. Each MZM consists of two waveguide arms with p-n junction phase shifters that modulate the optical signal in response to electrical drive signals. The MZM arm lengths are approximately 4 mm, and the p-n junction doping profiles were confirmed through cross-sectional SEM and EDX analysis.
• Germanium photodetectors: Eight germanium-on-silicon photodetectors are integrated on the PIC die in the receiver section. The germanium absorber regions are epitaxially grown on the silicon waveguide layer and are approximately 20 µm in length and 5 µm in width, consistent with high-bandwidth waveguide-coupled photodetector designs. These photodetectors convert received optical signals into electrical photocurrents for processing by the TIA ICs.
• Waveguide routing layers: An extensive network of silicon waveguides routes optical signals between the grating couplers (fiber interface), the modulators (transmitter), the photodetectors (receiver), and the AWG multiplexer/demultiplexer. The waveguide routing includes directional couplers, waveguide crossings, and tap couplers for optical power monitoring.
All of these components are monolithically formed on the same silicon substrate, confirming that the LumiLink 800G-DR8 employs a fully integrated silicon photonic transceiver architecture.
Coherent Detection Module. Benchmark identified what appears to be a coherent detection front-end within the receiver section of the PIC die. This front-end includes polarization-diversity receivers with what appear to be balanced photodetection circuits — a hallmark of coherent detection architectures. However, the precise implementation of the coherent detection module in the LumiLink 800G-DR8 differs in certain respects from the literal "coherent detection module" claim language of the '193 Patent. Specifically, the '193 Patent claims describe a "coherent detection module comprising a local oscillator input port, a polarization beam splitter, and a pair of 90-degree optical hybrids," whereas the LumiLink 800G-DR8 appears to implement the polarization-splitting function through a waveguide-based polarization rotator-splitter rather than a discrete polarization beam splitter, and the optical hybrid structure differs in its waveguide coupling geometry from the specific embodiment described in the patent specification.
This difference is the subject of the doctrine of equivalents analysis for Claims 3 and 7 of the '193 Patent. As discussed in Section 5.2 below, OWS asserts that the accused structure performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result as the claimed "coherent detection module," and therefore infringes under the doctrine of equivalents even if literal infringement is not established for this particular limitation.
Relevance to the '193 Patent. This finding is directly relevant to asserted Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 15, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193, entitled "High-Bandwidth Coherent Optical Transceiver Integrated on Silicon Substrate." The detailed element-by-element mapping is set forth in the cross-reference table at Section 5.2.
4.3 Embedded Micro-Channel Heat Sinks for Thermal Management
Finding. The LumiLink 800G-DR8 module incorporates an embedded micro-channel heat-sink structure directly beneath the PIC die, with channels routed through a copper-alloy heat spreader. This heat-sink structure is designed to dissipate the substantial thermal load generated by the high-power PIC die during operation, maintaining junction temperatures within acceptable operating limits for reliable transceiver performance.
Technical Detail. Cross-sectional SEM imaging of the heat-sink assembly reveals a network of micro-channels etched into a copper-alloy substrate. The channels have a hydraulic diameter ranging from approximately 85 µm to 120 µm, as measured across multiple cross-sectional cuts at different locations along the heat-sink structure. The channels are sealed with a brazed copper lid, forming enclosed fluid passages through which a coolant — presumed to be a dielectric fluid based on residue analysis performed by Benchmark — flows to absorb and transport heat away from the PIC die.
The thermal interface between the PIC die and the heat-sink substrate consists of a thin layer of thermal interface material (TIM), approximately 25 µm thick, applied between the backside of the PIC die and the upper surface of the heat-sink assembly. This TIM layer provides both thermal conductivity and mechanical compliance to accommodate differential thermal expansion between the silicon die and the copper-alloy substrate.
The micro-channel geometry is uniform across the heat-sink area, with channels running in a parallel array beneath the footprint of the PIC die. Benchmark measured approximately 48 individual channels across the width of the heat-sink structure, with channel-to-channel spacing (wall thickness) of approximately 60 µm to 80 µm. This channel density and geometry are consistent with high-performance micro-channel heat-sink designs reported in the academic literature and are specifically within the design parameters described in the '562 Patent specification.
Comparison to '562 Patent Claim Language. The micro-channel dimensions measured by Benchmark (85 µm to 120 µm hydraulic diameter) fall within the range described in the '562 Patent specification, which discloses micro-channel heat sinks with "channels having a hydraulic diameter in the range of approximately 50 µm to 500 µm." Under OWS's proposed claim construction, the term "micro-channel heat sink" means "a heat-dissipating structure containing channels with a hydraulic diameter of less than 1 mm." The Benchmark measurements fall comfortably within this range.
Dispute with Lumicore's Construction. Lumicore has proposed a narrower construction of "micro-channel heat sink," defining it as "a closed-loop liquid-cooling system with channels having a hydraulic diameter between 10 µm and 200 µm." Even under Lumicore's narrower proposed construction, which imposes both a closed-loop requirement and a specific hydraulic-diameter range, the Benchmark measurements (85 µm to 120 µm) fall squarely within Lumicore's own proposed hydraulic-diameter range. The closed-loop requirement is also met, as the heat-sink assembly includes inlet and outlet manifold ports that connect to a recirculating coolant loop within the module housing. The fact that the accused structure satisfies even the more restrictive construction proposed by the accused infringer significantly strengthens the infringement position on the '562 Patent claims.
Relevance to the '562 Patent. This finding is directly relevant to asserted Claims 1, 4, 6, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562, entitled "Method for Thermal Management of Photonic Integrated Circuits Using Embedded Micro-Channel Heat Sinks." The '562 Patent was originally assigned to Solara Optics, Inc. and was acquired by OWS pursuant to an asset purchase agreement dated June 15, 2018, for a total consideration of $34.5 million. The assignment was recorded with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the chain of title has been confirmed as part of the pre-litigation due diligence. The detailed element-by-element mapping is set forth in the cross-reference table at Section 5.3.
4.4 Polarization-Diverse Grating Coupler
Finding. The LumiLink 800G-DR8 PIC incorporates grating coupler structures at the fiber-to-chip interface that are designed to couple light of two orthogonal polarization states — the transverse electric (TE) mode and the transverse magnetic (TM) mode — from the input optical fiber into separate on-chip waveguides. This polarization-diverse coupling capability is a key innovation claimed by the '015 Patent, as it enables efficient fiber-to-chip coupling regardless of the polarization state of the incoming light, which is typically unknown and variable in deployed fiber-optic networks.
Technical Detail. SEM imaging of the grating coupler region reveals a two-dimensional periodic structure with sub-wavelength features designed to simultaneously couple TE-polarized and TM-polarized light components from the optical fiber into the PIC waveguide layer. The grating structure consists of a regular array of etched features — appearing as rectangular or elliptical holes or pillars in the silicon waveguide layer — with feature dimensions (width, length, and spacing) that are below the wavelength of the operating light (approximately 1310 nm for O-band or 1550 nm for C-band operation).
The two-dimensional periodicity of the grating is critical to its polarization-diverse functionality. Unlike conventional one-dimensional grating couplers, which are sensitive to a single polarization state, the two-dimensional periodic pattern in the LumiLink 800G-DR8 grating coupler enables simultaneous coupling of both TE and TM modes. Benchmark identified what appears to be an integrated polarization-splitting element within the grating coupler design — a structural feature that routes the TE and TM components, after coupling from the fiber into the slab waveguide region, into separate single-mode waveguides for independent processing by the receiver circuit.
"Two-Dimensional Sub-Wavelength Grating" Limitation. The accused structure employs a two-dimensional grating pattern with sub-wavelength feature dimensions, which corresponds to the "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating" claim limitation of the '015 Patent. However, the specific sub-wavelength feature geometry — including the precise pitch, duty cycle, and etch depth of the grating features — differs from the preferred embodiment described in the '015 Patent specification. The patent specification describes a preferred embodiment with a grating pitch of 580 nm to 640 nm and a duty cycle of 45% to 55%, whereas Benchmark's measurements of the LumiLink 800G-DR8 grating coupler indicate a pitch of approximately 610 nm to 680 nm and a duty cycle of approximately 38% to 48%. Whether this geometric variation takes the accused structure outside the literal scope of the claims, or merely represents a non-material design variation that falls within the claim scope, is a question that will require expert analysis by Dr. Ashford.
This geometric difference is the subject of the doctrine of equivalents analysis for Claim 12 of the '015 Patent. As discussed in Section 5.4, OWS contends that the accused structure performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result as the claimed two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating, notwithstanding the differences in specific geometric parameters.
Relevance to the '015 Patent. This finding is directly relevant to asserted Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015, entitled "Polarization-Diverse Grating Coupler for Silicon Photonic Transceivers." The '015 Patent shares Provisional Application No. 62/499,117 (filed April 7, 2017) with the '193 Patent, establishing a common priority date for certain shared subject matter. The '015 Patent was issued on August 2, 2022, and was not included in FairPoint Licensing Group's initial licensing letter to Lumicore but was subsequently added in FairPoint's supplemental licensing letter dated May 15, 2023. The detailed element-by-element mapping is set forth in the cross-reference table at Section 5.4.
4.5 Additional Observations
In addition to the four principal findings described above, Benchmark's teardown revealed several additional features of the LumiLink 800G-DR8 that, while not directly implicated by the asserted patent claims, provide useful context for understanding the module's architecture and may be relevant to other aspects of the litigation.
Multi-Chip Module (MCM) Packaging. The LumiLink 800G-DR8 module employs a multi-chip module packaging approach in which the silicon photonics PIC die, the electronic driver integrated circuits (ICs), and the transimpedance amplifier (TIA) ICs are co-packaged on a common organic substrate. The electronic ICs are flip-chip bonded to the substrate and connected to the PIC die through high-density electrical interconnects. This MCM packaging approach is a common industry practice for high-performance optical transceiver modules and does not independently affect the infringement analysis for the asserted patents, which focus on the PIC-level structures rather than the module-level packaging.
Embedded Firmware and Digital Signal Processing. The module includes embedded firmware running on a dedicated digital signal processing (DSP) IC that performs equalization, forward error correction (FEC), and other signal-conditioning functions. The DSP firmware is outside the scope of the asserted patent claims, all of which are directed to hardware structures (optical, photonic, and thermal) rather than software or firmware functionality. Accordingly, no analysis of the DSP firmware has been undertaken as part of this teardown summary.
5. CLAIM-LIMITATION CROSS-REFERENCE TABLES
This section presents element-by-element cross-reference tables mapping each limitation of the asserted claims of the four patents-in-suit to the corresponding structure or feature of the LumiLink 800G-DR8 identified in Benchmark's teardown analysis. These tables are organized by patent and are intended to serve as a working reference for the case team in preparing infringement contentions, expert reports, and trial presentations.
Each table follows a uniform format with the following columns: (1) Claim Number; (2) Claim Limitation (verbatim claim language); (3) Corresponding LumiLink 800G-DR8 Structure/Feature as identified by Benchmark; (4) Benchmark Report Page and Figure Reference; (5) Literal Infringement assessment (Y = literal infringement supported; N = literal infringement not supported; Analysis Needed = further analysis or expert opinion required); and (6) Notes on any issues requiring further attention.
The cross-reference tables presented below are summaries. The complete element-by-element mapping, including reproduction of the full claim language and detailed technical annotations, is maintained in the case team's working claim charts, which have been separately circulated.
5.1 Cross-Reference Table: '847 Patent — Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 14
U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847 — "Multi-Channel Silicon Photonic Waveguide Multiplexer with Low Insertion Loss"
Claim 9 Note. Claim 9 of the '847 Patent contains the limitation "means for thermally stabilizing the wavelength response of the multiplexer," which Calderwood & Harkness has identified as a potentially means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Per C&H's October 5, 2024 Means-Plus-Function Analysis Memorandum, this limitation invokes § 112(f) due to the use of "means for" language, and the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification must be identified to determine the scope of the claim. The '847 Patent specification discloses integrated resistive heater elements positioned adjacent to the AWG waveguides as the corresponding structure. Benchmark identified what appear to be integrated heater elements adjacent to the AWG waveguides in the LumiLink 800G-DR8, but confirmation that these elements constitute the corresponding structure — and that they perform the identical function of thermally stabilizing the wavelength response — requires expert analysis by Dr. Ashford.
Key Observation. All limitations of Claims 1, 3, 5, and 14 of the '847 Patent appear to be literally met by the structures identified in the LumiLink 800G-DR8 teardown. Claim 9 requires further analysis regarding the means-plus-function element, but the preliminary physical observations are favorable. The '847 Patent infringement position on the 800G-DR8 is strong and well-supported by the Benchmark data.
5.2 Cross-Reference Table: '193 Patent — Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 15, 18
U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193 — "High-Bandwidth Coherent Optical Transceiver Integrated on Silicon Substrate"
Claims 3 and 7 — Doctrine of Equivalents Analysis. The "coherent detection module" limitation of Claims 3 and 7 is not literally met in the precise structural configuration described by the patent claims. The '193 Patent claims describe a coherent detection module comprising three specific sub-elements: (i) a local oscillator input port, (ii) a polarization beam splitter, and (iii) a pair of 90-degree optical hybrids. The LumiLink 800G-DR8 includes a local oscillator input waveguide (satisfying element (i)) but implements the polarization-splitting function through a waveguide-based polarization rotator-splitter rather than a discrete polarization beam splitter, and employs a modified optical hybrid geometry that uses multi-mode interference (MMI) couplers rather than the directional-coupler-based 90-degree hybrid described in the patent specification.
Notwithstanding these structural differences, OWS asserts infringement under the doctrine of equivalents for Claims 3 and 7. The accused structure:
• Performs substantially the same function: detecting the phase and amplitude of incoming coherent optical signals by mixing them with a local oscillator reference and separating the two orthogonal polarization components for independent detection;
• In substantially the same way: using polarization-diversity receivers with balanced photodetection, in which the incoming signal is split by polarization state, mixed with a local oscillator in optical hybrid structures, and detected by balanced photodetector pairs to recover in-phase and quadrature signal components; and
• To achieve substantially the same result: recovering coherent optical data at high bandwidth with polarization independence, enabling the transceiver to operate over fiber links where the polarization state of the incoming signal is unknown and time-varying.
The function-way-result analysis under the Warner-Jenkinson framework supports a finding of equivalence.
Prosecution History Estoppel Note. During prosecution of the '193 Patent, the Examiner issued a § 102 anticipation rejection based on Takahashi et al., "Compact and Low-Loss Coherent Receiver Using a Polarization-Diversity Structure," published in the IEEE Photonics Technology Letters in March 2014. In response, the applicant narrowed the "coherent detection module" limitation by adding the specific sub-elements (local oscillator input port, polarization beam splitter, and pair of 90-degree optical hybrids) to distinguish over Takahashi's simpler coherent receiver architecture, which lacked a dedicated polarization beam splitter.
Under Festo Corp. v. Fenmore & Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002), a presumption of prosecution history estoppel arises when a claim limitation was narrowed during prosecution for a reason related to patentability. However, the Festo presumption is rebuttable if the patentee can demonstrate that one of three exceptions applies: (1) the equivalent was unforeseeable at the time of the amendment; (2) the rationale underlying the amendment bore no more than a tangential relation to the equivalent in question; or (3) there was some other reason the patentee could not reasonably have been expected to have described the equivalent.
Calderwood & Harkness's October 10, 2024 Prosecution History Estoppel Analysis concludes that the tangential-relation exception is applicable here. The narrowing amendment was directed to distinguishing over Takahashi's lack of a polarization beam splitter — i.e., the amendment was focused on requiring some form of polarization-splitting element in the coherent detection module. The accused equivalent in the LumiLink 800G-DR8 does include a polarization-splitting element (a waveguide-based polarization rotator-splitter); the equivalence issue is not whether a polarization splitter is present, but rather whether the specific type of polarization splitter (waveguide-based vs. discrete) falls within the claim scope. The amendment was directed to a different aspect of the module architecture (the presence or absence of any polarization-splitting element) than the accused equivalent at issue (the specific structural implementation of the polarization-splitting element). Accordingly, the tangential-relation exception should overcome the Festo presumption.
Claim 15 Note. Claim 15 contains the limitation "means for equalizing optical power across the plurality of channels," which Calderwood & Harkness has identified as a potentially means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) in C&H's October 5, 2024 Means-Plus-Function Analysis Memorandum. The corresponding structure disclosed in the '193 Patent specification is an integrated variable optical attenuator (VOA) on each channel waveguide. Benchmark identified structures consistent with integrated VOAs on each channel waveguide of the LumiLink 800G-DR8, but confirmation requires expert analysis by Dr. Ashford.
5.3 Cross-Reference Table: '562 Patent — Claims 1, 4, 6, 11
U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562 — "Method for Thermal Management of Photonic Integrated Circuits Using Embedded Micro-Channel Heat Sinks"
Key Observation. Claims 1, 4, and 6 of the '562 Patent appear to be literally met under both OWS's proposed claim construction and Lumicore's narrower proposed construction. Under OWS's proposed construction, "micro-channel heat sink" means "a heat-dissipating structure containing channels with a hydraulic diameter of less than 1 mm" — the Benchmark measurements (85 µm to 120 µm) are far below the 1 mm threshold. Under Lumicore's proposed construction, "micro-channel heat sink" means "a closed-loop liquid-cooling system with channels having a hydraulic diameter between 10 µm and 200 µm" — the Benchmark measurements fall squarely within the 10 µm to 200 µm range, and the closed-loop coolant-flow configuration was confirmed. This construction-independent infringement finding makes the '562 Patent the strongest candidate for a motion for partial summary judgment on literal infringement, consistent with Calderwood & Harkness's Summary Judgment Strategy memorandum circulated to the case team.
Claim 11 Note. Claim 11 requires that the copper or copper-alloy substrate have a thermal conductivity of at least 350 W/(m·K). Benchmark's EDX analysis identified the heat-sink substrate as a copper-based alloy with elemental composition consistent with high-thermal-conductivity copper alloys (such as C101 or C110 oxygen-free copper), which typically have thermal conductivities in the range of 380 to 400 W/(m·K). However, quantitative thermal conductivity testing was not performed by Benchmark, as such testing requires specialized apparatus (e.g., laser flash analysis or guarded hot-plate measurement) that is outside the scope of a standard semiconductor teardown. Calderwood & Harkness recommends that either (a) supplemental thermal conductivity testing be commissioned from a qualified materials-testing laboratory, or (b) Dr. Ashford be asked to provide an expert opinion on the thermal conductivity of the identified alloy based on the EDX composition data and published materials-property databases. Either approach should be sufficient to establish this limitation for infringement purposes.
5.4 Cross-Reference Table: '015 Patent — Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 16
U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015 — "Polarization-Diverse Grating Coupler for Silicon Photonic Transceivers"
Claim 12 — Doctrine of Equivalents Analysis. Claim 12 of the '015 Patent specifies a sub-wavelength grating with a pitch "between 550 nm and 650 nm" and a duty cycle "between 40% and 60%." Benchmark's measurements of the LumiLink 800G-DR8 grating coupler indicate a pitch range of approximately 610 nm to 680 nm and a duty cycle range of approximately 38% to 48%. The pitch range partially overlaps with the claimed range (610 nm to 650 nm falls within the claim; 650 nm to 680 nm falls outside), and the duty cycle range partially overlaps (40% to 48% falls within the claim; 38% to 40% falls outside). Because portions of the measured ranges fall outside the literal claim scope, literal infringement of Claim 12 cannot be established with certainty based on the currently available measurement data.
OWS asserts infringement of Claim 12 under the doctrine of equivalents. The accused grating coupler structure:
• Performs substantially the same function: coupling light of both polarization states (TE and TM) from an optical fiber into on-chip silicon waveguides with high coupling efficiency and polarization diversity;
• In substantially the same way: using a two-dimensional periodic grating structure with sub-wavelength feature dimensions to achieve diffraction-based coupling that is effective for both orthogonal polarization states, where the specific pitch and duty cycle are design parameters that are optimized for the target wavelength and fiber mode field diameter; and
• To achieve substantially the same result: efficient, polarization-insensitive fiber-to-chip optical coupling that enables high-bandwidth coherent transceiver operation over fiber links with arbitrary and time-varying polarization states.
The differences in pitch and duty cycle between the accused structure and the claimed ranges are incremental design variations that do not alter the fundamental function, mechanism, or result of the grating coupler. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the pitch and duty cycle parameters of a two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating coupler are continuously adjustable design variables that are selected based on the specific target wavelength, fiber coupling angle, and desired polarization-splitting ratio, and that modest variations in these parameters do not change the underlying physics or functionality of the device.
Prosecution History Estoppel Note. During prosecution of the '015 Patent, the Examiner issued a § 103 obviousness rejection combining the Bergmann patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,412,007) — which discloses a one-dimensional grating coupler with sub-wavelength features — with the Simonsen PCT application (PCT/EP2015/071234) — which discloses a two-dimensional grating structure for polarization diversity. In response, the applicant narrowed Claim 12 by adding the specific pitch range (550 nm to 650 nm) and duty cycle range (40% to 60%) to distinguish over the Bergmann/Simonsen combination, which disclosed gratings with different dimensional parameters.
The Festo presumption of prosecution history estoppel applies to this narrowing amendment. However, per Calderwood & Harkness's October 12, 2024 Prosecution History Estoppel Analysis, the tangential-relation exception applies because the amendment was directed to a different structural feature than the equivalent at issue. Specifically, the narrowing amendment was made to distinguish over the Bergmann patent's one-dimensional grating geometry and the Simonsen application's coarse-pitch two-dimensional grating, neither of which achieved the low-loss polarization-diverse coupling that is the central innovation of the '015 Patent. The amendment added numerical ranges to Claim 12 as a convenient way to distinguish over the prior art, but the rationale for the amendment — overcoming the Examiner's conclusion that Bergmann and Simonsen rendered the claim obvious — was directed to the overall combination of two-dimensional periodicity with sub-wavelength dimensioning, not to the specific numerical boundaries of the pitch and duty cycle ranges. The accused equivalent (a grating with pitch of 610–680 nm and duty cycle of 38–48%) was not foreseeable as falling within the prior art that prompted the amendment, and the amendment bore only a tangential relation to the specific geometric parameters of the accused equivalent.
6. COMPARISON TO LUMILINK 400G-ZR+ TEARDOWN FINDINGS
The LumiLink 800G-DR8 is architecturally an evolution of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+, Lumicore's first-generation silicon-photonics transceiver module, which was commercially launched in Q3 2022 and was the subject of Benchmark's initial teardown report delivered on December 12, 2022. A comparison between the two products is instructive both for understanding the technical progression of Lumicore's product line and for assessing the scope of patent infringement across the accused product family.
Key Similarities. The LumiLink 800G-DR8 and LumiLink 400G-ZR+ share the following fundamental architectural features:
• Both products are built on the same fundamental silicon-photonics platform, using SOI-based photonic integrated circuits fabricated on 300 mm wafers with substantially identical waveguide cross-sectional geometries (220 nm silicon core on buried oxide).
• Both products employ the same arrayed waveguide grating (AWG) multiplexer/demultiplexer architecture, with the 800G-DR8 scaling the design from 4 channels (400G-ZR+) to 8 channels.
• Both products incorporate embedded micro-channel heat-sink structures beneath the PIC die, using copper-alloy substrates with etched micro-channels and closed-loop dielectric fluid cooling. The fundamental heat-sink design approach is the same in both products, although the 800G-DR8 employs a higher channel density to accommodate increased thermal dissipation requirements.
• Both products use grating couplers for fiber-to-chip optical coupling, with the same basic grating coupler design approach and similar silicon waveguide layer fabrication.
Key Differences. The LumiLink 800G-DR8 differs from the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ in the following material respects:
• Increased channel count: The 800G-DR8 incorporates 8 optical channels operating at 100G per channel (aggregate 800G), compared to 4 channels at 100G per channel (aggregate 400G) in the 400G-ZR+. This doubling of channel count is achieved through expansion of the AWG multiplexer, addition of four more MZM modulators and four more Ge photodetectors, and corresponding expansion of the waveguide routing network.
• Higher aggregate data rate: The aggregate data rate increases from 400 Gbps to 800 Gbps, with each individual channel operating at 100 Gbps using PAM4 modulation. The per-channel data rate and modulation format are the same in both products; the aggregate data rate increase is achieved entirely through the increased channel count.
• Addition of polarization-diverse grating coupler: The 800G-DR8 incorporates a two-dimensional polarization-diverse grating coupler design that was either not present in the 400G-ZR+ or, if present, was implemented only in rudimentary form that did not exhibit the full polarization-diversity functionality. Benchmark's 400G-ZR+ teardown identified conventional one-dimensional grating couplers without polarization-diverse capability. The addition of the polarization-diverse grating coupler in the 800G-DR8 is a significant design advancement that brings the product within the scope of the '015 Patent.
• Enhanced thermal management structure: The 800G-DR8's micro-channel heat-sink structure has a higher channel density and larger overall heat-sink area compared to the 400G-ZR+, reflecting the increased power dissipation of the larger 8-channel PIC die. The fundamental micro-channel design approach is the same, but the thermal management subsystem has been scaled up to accommodate the approximately doubled power dissipation of the 800G-DR8 (estimated at 18–22 W for the PIC die, compared to approximately 10–12 W for the 400G-ZR+ PIC die).
Implications for Patent Scope. The 800G-DR8's expanded feature set — particularly the addition of the polarization-diverse grating coupler — brings it within the scope of the '015 Patent, which is not asserted against the 400G-ZR+ in its fullest claim scope. Specifically, Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, and 16 of the '015 Patent are asserted against the 800G-DR8 but not against the 400G-ZR+ (which lacks the polarization-diverse grating coupler required by these claims). This makes the 800G-DR8 the only accused product against which all four asserted patents are fully asserted, reinforcing its central importance in the litigation.
Significance of the '015 Patent Addition. The addition of the polarization-diverse grating coupler in the LumiLink 800G-DR8 is particularly significant in the context of the licensing history. The '015 Patent (issued August 2, 2022) was not included in FairPoint Licensing Group's initial licensing letter to Lumicore, dated January 15, 2023, which identified the '847, '193, and '562 Patents and listed the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ as the primary accused product. The '015 Patent was subsequently added in FairPoint's supplemental licensing letter dated May 15, 2023, sent by Angela Reeves of FairPoint, which specifically identified the LumiLink 800G-DR8 as an additional accused product that was believed to infringe the '015 Patent's grating coupler claims. This chronology is relevant to both the willfulness analysis (Section 7) and the damages calculation, as it establishes the date of Lumicore's actual notice of the '015 Patent and the 800G-DR8's accused status.
7. IMPLICATIONS FOR WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT ANALYSIS
The Benchmark teardown findings, when combined with the discovery and deposition record developed in this matter, support a strong case for willful infringement with respect to the LumiLink 800G-DR8. The following facts are relevant to the willfulness analysis under Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. 93 (2016), and the Read factors.
Pre-Launch Patent Notice. The LumiLink 800G-DR8 was commercially launched in Q1 2023, after FairPoint Licensing Group's first licensing letter of January 15, 2023, which put Lumicore on actual notice of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,234,847 ('847 Patent), 10,891,193 ('193 Patent), and 9,678,562 ('562 Patent). FairPoint's letter identified these three patents, described the claimed technology in general terms, and invited Lumicore to enter into licensing discussions. Lumicore launched the 800G-DR8 into commercial distribution within weeks of receiving this letter, without conducting any substantive analysis of the identified patents or implementing any design-around measures.
Post-Launch Patent Notice. The '015 Patent was subsequently added to the licensing dispute in FairPoint's second licensing letter dated May 15, 2023, sent by Angela Reeves of FairPoint. This supplemental letter specifically identified the LumiLink 800G-DR8 as an accused product and asserted that its polarization-diverse grating coupler infringed Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, and 16 of the '015 Patent. Lumicore continued selling the 800G-DR8 without interruption after receiving this letter, and continued to do so through the date of this memorandum. Thus, Lumicore launched the 800G-DR8 with full knowledge of at least three of the four asserted patents, and continued selling it after receiving notice of the fourth.
Deposition Testimony — Dr. Sandra Michaud (Lumicore CTO). Dr. Sandra Michaud, Lumicore's Chief Technology Officer, was deposed on November 19, 2024. During her deposition, Dr. Michaud admitted that she personally reviewed OWS's published patent application No. 2018/0123456, which corresponds to the '193 Patent ("High-Bandwidth Coherent Optical Transceiver Integrated on Silicon Substrate"), during the LumiLink product design phase. Michaud testified that she reviewed the published application in late 2021 or early 2022, while the LumiLink design team was finalizing the architecture for the 800G-DR8. Michaud stated that she reviewed the application to understand OWS's approach to integrated coherent transceiver design, but claimed that the LumiLink design team ultimately developed its own independent architecture. However, Michaud acknowledged that she did not commission a formal freedom-to-operate analysis or seek a written opinion of counsel regarding the '193 Patent prior to the 800G-DR8 launch.
Deposition Testimony — Raymond Bautista (Lumicore General Counsel). Raymond Bautista, Lumicore's General Counsel, was deposed on December 3, 2024. Bautista confirmed receipt of FairPoint's January 15, 2023 licensing letter and testified that he forwarded the letter to Lumicore's outside patent counsel, Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP, within three business days of receipt. However, Bautista admitted that no formal design-around analysis was commissioned for any of the accused LumiLink products — including the 800G-DR8 — at any time prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Bautista further admitted that no written opinion of counsel regarding non-infringement or invalidity of the asserted patents was obtained prior to the LumiLink 800G-DR8 launch or at any time thereafter. Bautista testified that the decision not to commission a design-around analysis or opinion of counsel was a business judgment made in consultation with Lumicore's executive team. This testimony is relevant to the absence of any good-faith defense or reasonable basis for Lumicore's continuing infringement.
Bautista also testified regarding the broader pattern of Lumicore's response to patent notices. He confirmed that no formal design-around analysis was commissioned before the launch of the subsequent LumiEdge 1600G-LR product either, suggesting a pattern of deliberate indifference to OWS's patent rights that extends beyond the 800G-DR8 to Lumicore's entire next-generation product roadmap.
Anticipated Testimony — Melissa Chen. Melissa Chen is a former Lumicore engineer who worked on the LumiLink product development team from 2020 to 2023 before departing Lumicore for Veridian Photonics, Inc. A trial subpoena was issued to Chen on January 22, 2025. Chen's anticipated testimony is expected to corroborate that Lumicore's LumiLink design team accessed and reviewed OWS's published patent applications — including the applications corresponding to the '847, '193, and '015 Patents — during the product design phase in 2021–2022. If Chen's testimony confirms that the design team reviewed OWS's published applications and nonetheless proceeded with an allegedly infringing design without seeking clearance, this will further support the willfulness theory.
Damages Implications of Willfulness. The LumiLink 800G-DR8's $128.4 million in fiscal year 2023 revenue represents the largest single accused-product revenue base in this litigation. This revenue figure is a key component of the post-notice lost-profits calculation being developed by OWS's damages expert, Dr. Lawrence Keating. Dr. Keating's preliminary analysis estimates total post-notice lost profits across all accused products at approximately $109.2 million, with the 800G-DR8 contributing the largest share. A finding of willful infringement would support OWS's demand for enhanced damages of up to three times the compensatory damages award under 35 U.S.C. § 284, potentially increasing the total damages recovery by a substantial multiple.
8. AREAS REQUIRING FURTHER INVESTIGATION
8.1 Supplemental Analysis with Lumicore Design Files
Lumicore's photonic-IC layout files and register-transfer-level (RTL) schematics for the LumiLink 800G-DR8 were produced during discovery under the "Highly Confidential — Source Code" designation of the Protective Order entered by Judge Gilstrap. These design files provide a digital representation of the PIC layout at mask-level resolution, including precise feature dimensions, layer stackup information, and design