UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
PLAINTIFF OPTIWAVE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.'S SUPPLEMENTAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS PURSUANT TO P.R. 3-1
Draft — Anticipated Service Date: April 2025
Right-click to update Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION AND BASIS FOR SUPPLEMENTATION
A. Procedural Background
Plaintiff Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. ("OWS" or "Plaintiff") respectfully submits these Supplemental Infringement Contentions pursuant to Patent Rule 3-1 of the Local Patent Rules for the Eastern District of Texas. OWS served its original P.R. 3-1 Infringement Contentions on September 16, 2024 (D.E. 32), in which it identified each asserted claim of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,234,847 (the "'847 Patent"), 10,891,193 (the "'193 Patent"), 9,678,562 (the "'562 Patent"), and 11,402,015 (the "'015 Patent") (collectively, the "Asserted Patents") and mapped each limitation of each asserted claim to the accused products manufactured, sold, offered for sale, imported, and/or used by Defendant Lumicore Technologies, Inc. ("Lumicore" or "Defendant") on a claim-by-claim, limitation-by-limitation basis.
OWS now supplements those contentions pursuant to P.R. 3-1 and the Court's Scheduling Order (D.E. 27, issued August 12, 2024), based on newly produced discovery materials that provide additional granular detail confirming and refining OWS's infringement theories. As set forth herein, the newly produced materials — which include design files, mask layout data, fabrication documentation, and internal engineering presentations — were produced by Lumicore in multiple rolling productions between January 2025 and March 2025, following service of OWS's Second Set of Requests for Production.
B. Basis for Supplementation
Following OWS's Second Set of Requests for Production (served November 4, 2024), Lumicore produced additional design documentation in multiple rolling productions between January and March 2025. These newly produced materials constitute a substantial body of technical documentation that was not available at the time of OWS's original September 16, 2024 Infringement Contentions, despite OWS's timely and diligent efforts to obtain such materials through discovery.
The newly produced materials include, but are not limited to, the following categories:
(a) RTL (Register-Transfer-Level) Schematics. Complete register-transfer-level schematics for the photonic control and signal-processing logic of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+, LumiLink 800G-DR8, and LumiEdge 1600G-LR product lines. These schematics depict the digital logic architecture, module hierarchy, and signal routing of the photonic control subsystems and digital signal processing (DSP) subsystems within each accused product.
(b) Photonic-IC (PIC) Mask Layout Files (GDS-II Format). GDS-II format mask layout files for the photonic integrated circuits used in all three accused product families. These mask layout files contain the physical design data for the photonic-IC layers, including waveguide structures, coupler geometries, thermal management structures, grating coupler elements, and associated photonic components at fabrication-ready resolution.
(c) Fabrication Run Data and Process-Design-Kit (PDK) Documentation. Documentation associated with the fabrication of the accused products' silicon photonic integrated circuits, including process-design-kit parameters, fabrication run records, process control data, and foundry-provided design rule specifications. These materials confirm the dimensional parameters, material compositions, and fabrication processes used to manufacture the accused photonic integrated circuits.
(d) Internal Engineering Design Review Presentations and Meeting Minutes. Internal presentations and meeting minutes from Lumicore's product development team, including materials authored or reviewed by Dr. Sandra Michaud, Chief Technology Officer, and Dr. Eric Dalmqvist, Vice President of Product Development. These materials document design decisions, architectural trade-offs, performance specifications, thermal management strategies, and product development timelines for the accused products.
All of the above materials were designated by Lumicore as "Highly Confidential — Source Code" or "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only" under the Stipulated Protective Order entered in this case (D.E. 30, entered August 19, 2024). The Stipulated Protective Order establishes a three-tier confidentiality framework consisting of "Confidential," "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only," and "Highly Confidential — Source Code" designations. The RTL schematics, GDS-II mask layout files, and fabrication run data/PDK documentation were designated at the highest tier ("Highly Confidential — Source Code"), and the internal design review materials were designated at the second tier ("Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only"). OWS has handled all such materials in strict accordance with the Stipulated Protective Order.
These materials were not available at the time of OWS's original September 16, 2024 contentions despite OWS's timely requests. OWS's First Set of Requests for Production (comprising 85 requests, served August 26, 2024) sought, among other things, all design documents, CAD/layout files, engineering specifications, fabrication records, and related technical documentation for each accused product. Lumicore's initial production in response to the First Set of RFPs was materially incomplete, as identified in correspondence from Wendy Schultz, Esq. (Calderwood & Harkness LLP, counsel for OWS) to Samantha Briggs, Esq. (Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP, counsel for Lumicore) dated October 28, 2024, which detailed specific deficiencies in Lumicore's production and requested supplementation. OWS and Lumicore engaged in extensive meet-and-confer efforts regarding the completeness of Lumicore's production in late October and early November 2024.
OWS's Second Set of Requests for Production (comprising 30 supplemental requests, served November 4, 2024) specifically targeted source-code repositories, photonic-IC mask files, fabrication run data, process-design-kit documentation, and internal engineering presentations for the accused product families. This Second Set of RFPs prompted the additional rolling productions that occurred between January and March 2025, resulting in the production of the materials described above.
Supplementation is proper because the newly produced materials provide more granular and detailed evidence confirming and refining OWS's infringement theories, including specific structural and architectural details of the accused products that were previously identifiable only through the physical teardown reports prepared by Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC and publicly available product documentation (e.g., Lumicore's published datasheets, product briefs, and marketing materials). The Local Patent Rules contemplate supplementation of infringement contentions when additional material is obtained through discovery, and OWS has proceeded diligently to prepare and serve these supplemental contentions promptly following its review and analysis of the newly produced materials.
C. Scope of Supplementation
These Supplemental Contentions do not withdraw or replace any contentions set forth in the original September 16, 2024 Infringement Contentions (D.E. 32). Rather, they supplement and refine those contentions with specific citations to the newly produced Lumicore design files and associated documentation. The original contentions remain in full force and effect, and the supplemental citations set forth herein are provided in addition to, and in support of, the original citations to Benchmark teardown evidence, publicly available product documentation, and other prior evidence.
Supplementation applies to all four Asserted Patents and all three accused product lines, as follows:
(a) LumiLink 400G-ZR+. Launched by Lumicore in the third quarter of 2022. Lumicore's public financial filings reflect fiscal year 2023 revenue attributable to the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ product line of approximately $94.8 million. The LumiLink 400G-ZR+ is accused of infringing asserted claims of the '847 Patent, the '193 Patent, and the '562 Patent.
(b) LumiLink 800G-DR8. Launched by Lumicore in the first quarter of 2023. Lumicore's public financial filings reflect fiscal year 2023 revenue attributable to the LumiLink 800G-DR8 product line of approximately $128.4 million. The LumiLink 800G-DR8 is accused of infringing asserted claims of all four Asserted Patents — the '847 Patent, the '193 Patent, the '562 Patent, and the '015 Patent.
(c) LumiEdge 1600G-LR. Launched by Lumicore in the fourth quarter of 2023. Lumicore's public financial filings reflect fiscal year 2023 revenue attributable to the LumiEdge 1600G-LR product line of approximately $41.7 million (reflecting a partial-year revenue period). The LumiEdge 1600G-LR is accused of infringing asserted claims of the '193 Patent and the '015 Patent.
Supplementation also refines OWS's doctrine of equivalents contentions for Claims 3 and 7 of the '193 Patent and Claim 12 of the '015 Patent, as described in Sections IV.E and VI.E below. The newly produced design files provide additional factual support for the function-way-result analysis previously set forth in OWS's original contentions and strengthen OWS's rebuttal of Lumicore's anticipated prosecution history estoppel defenses.
D. Reservation of Rights
OWS reserves the right to further supplement or amend these contentions as additional discovery is produced, as claim constructions are established following the Markman hearing scheduled for March 14, 2025, or as other circumstances warrant. The discovery period in this action remains open: fact discovery does not close until May 1, 2025, and expert reports are due June 15, 2025. OWS's technical expert, Dr. Caroline Ashford, Professor of Electrical Engineering and Photonics at the Northfield Institute of Technology, will provide her full infringement opinions in her expert report, which will incorporate the newly produced design files and other materials obtained through discovery.
OWS also reserves all rights and contentions regarding damages, injunctive relief, and any other remedies to which it may be entitled under applicable law, including but not limited to enhanced damages for willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 and Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. 93 (2016).
II. IDENTIFICATION OF NEWLY PRODUCED MATERIALS
A. Categories of Newly Produced Design Files
The following table summarizes the categories of newly produced documents that form the basis for these Supplemental Contentions, together with illustrative Bates-number ranges, production dates, document types, confidentiality designations, and associated accused products:
The above Bates ranges are illustrative and may encompass sub-ranges corresponding to individual product families or document types. A comprehensive index of all newly produced documents, organized by Bates number, document description, and confidentiality designation, is provided in Exhibit 5 to these Supplemental Contentions.
B. Relationship to Prior discovery and Teardown Evidence
The newly produced materials confirm and provide substantially greater detail beyond the findings of the physical teardown analyses conducted by Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC ("Benchmark"), an independent semiconductor analysis firm retained by OWS prior to the filing of this action. Benchmark conducted physical teardowns and reverse-engineering analyses of each of the three accused product lines:
(a) LumiLink 400G-ZR+ Teardown. Conducted by Kevin Ng, Lead Engineer, Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC. The teardown report was delivered on December 12, 2022, and identified the presence of a multi-channel arrayed waveguide multiplexer structure, embedded micro-channel heat-sink structures, coherent transceiver integration on a silicon substrate, and other features relevant to the asserted patent claims.
(b) LumiLink 800G-DR8 Teardown. Conducted by Benchmark in June 2023, with a report identifying scaled waveguide multiplexer architecture, thermal management structures, polarization-diverse grating couplers, and coherent transceiver elements in the 800G-DR8 product.
(c) LumiEdge 1600G-LR Teardown. Conducted by Benchmark in February 2024, with a report identifying coherent transceiver integration, grating coupler structures with polarization-handling characteristics, and advanced DSP integration in the 1600G-LR product.
Benchmark's physical teardown analyses identified the presence of the accused structures — including waveguide multiplexer elements, micro-channel heat sinks, grating couplers, and coherent transceiver integration — through physical delayering, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), focused ion beam (FIB) cross-sectioning, and spectral analysis of the accused photonic integrated circuits. The newly produced Lumicore design files confirm the precise architecture, dimensional parameters, layer structure, design intent, and engineering specifications underlying those physically observed structures. In particular, the GDS-II mask layout files provide the authoritative design-level geometry of the photonic structures identified in the Benchmark teardowns, the RTL schematics reveal the digital logic architecture controlling the accused photonic subsystems, and the fabrication run data and PDK documentation confirm the process parameters and material specifications used to manufacture the accused structures.
In addition to confirming the teardown evidence, certain internal design review materials produced by Lumicore also corroborate testimony obtained through depositions in this action. Specifically, the design review presentations and meeting minutes are consistent with and provide additional context for testimony from the November 19, 2024 deposition of Dr. Sandra Michaud, Lumicore's Chief Technology Officer, regarding the design and development of the accused products. These materials are also relevant to the anticipated testimony of Melissa Chen, a former Lumicore engineer now employed by Veridian Photonics, Inc., who has been subpoenaed for deposition (subpoena served January 22, 2025) and is expected to testify regarding the accused product design team's activities during the 2021–2022 development period.
III. SUPPLEMENTAL CONTENTIONS — U.S. PATENT NO. 10,234,847 (THE '847 PATENT)
A. Patent Overview
U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847 (the "'847 Patent"), entitled "Multi-Channel Silicon Photonic Waveguide Multiplexer with Low Insertion Loss," was filed on September 14, 2016 and issued on March 19, 2019. The original and current assignee of the '847 Patent is Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. The '847 Patent is related to the '562 Patent through a continuation relationship; both patents are members of the same patent family and share common specification disclosure. The named inventors of the '847 Patent are Dr. Jian-Wei Huang and Dr. Nikolai Petrov.
The '847 Patent is generally directed to a multi-channel silicon photonic waveguide multiplexer that achieves low insertion loss through a novel configuration of arrayed waveguide structures, slab couplers, and channel-spacing geometries. The patented invention addresses a long-standing problem in the field of silicon photonics — specifically, the challenge of combining multiple optical signals of different wavelengths onto a single waveguide with minimal optical power loss and acceptable crosstalk performance. The specification of the '847 Patent discloses and claims specific structural and architectural innovations in waveguide multiplexer design that achieve these performance objectives.
B. Asserted Claims
OWS asserts Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, and 14 of the '847 Patent against the accused products identified below. Claim 1 is an independent claim; Claims 3, 5, 9, and 14 are dependent claims that incorporate all limitations of Claim 1 and add further limitations. OWS's original Infringement Contentions (D.E. 32) set forth complete claim charts mapping each limitation of each asserted claim to the accused products. These Supplemental Contentions supplement and refine those claim charts with citations to the newly produced design files.
C. Accused Products
The LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and the LumiLink 800G-DR8 are accused of infringing Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, and 14 of the '847 Patent.
D. Supplemental Claim-by-Claim, Limitation-by-Limitation Analysis
1. Claim 1 — LumiLink 400G-ZR+
Claim 1 of the '847 Patent recites a multi-channel silicon photonic waveguide multiplexer with specific structural limitations including, inter alia, a plurality of input waveguides, a slab coupler region, an arrayed waveguide grating section, and an output waveguide, arranged and configured to combine multiple optical signals of different wavelengths onto a single output waveguide with low insertion loss.
For each limitation of Claim 1, OWS's original contentions cited evidence from the Benchmark teardown report for the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ (delivered December 12, 2022) and publicly available product documentation, including Lumicore's LumiLink 400G-ZR+ product datasheet and application notes. These Supplemental Contentions supplement those citations with specific references to the newly produced Lumicore design files.
With respect to the key limitation reciting a "waveguide multiplexer" — which OWS proposes should be construed to mean "an optical device that combines multiple optical signals of different wavelengths onto a single waveguide" — OWS's original contentions cited Benchmark teardown photographs identifying multi-channel arrayed waveguide structures within the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ photonic integrated circuit. These Supplemental Contentions further cite the GDS-II mask layout files produced by Lumicore (Bates Nos. LTC-SC-004288 et seq.), which depict the precise waveguide geometry, channel spacing, and slab coupler configuration of the waveguide multiplexer structure in the LumiLink 400G-ZR+. The mask layout files confirm that the structure combines multiple wavelength channels onto a single output waveguide, consistent with OWS's proposed construction of "waveguide multiplexer." Specifically, the GDS-II data shows the arrayed waveguide grating section with individual waveguide paths of incrementally varying lengths connecting two slab coupler regions, with input ports corresponding to distinct wavelength channels and a common output port — precisely the structure claimed in Claim 1.
The supplemental RTL schematics (Bates Nos. LTC-SC-000001 et seq.) further show the photonic control logic that interfaces with the waveguide multiplexer structure, including wavelength-channel control circuitry and multiplexer configuration registers, confirming that the waveguide multiplexer is actively controlled by digital logic as part of the overall transceiver architecture.
A complete supplemental claim chart for Claim 1 as applied to the LumiLink 400G-ZR+, mapping each limitation to the newly produced design files with specific Bates-number citations, is provided in Exhibit 1 to these Supplemental Contentions.
2. Claim 1 — LumiLink 800G-DR8
The same analysis applies to the LumiLink 800G-DR8, which employs a scaled version of the same waveguide multiplexer architecture used in the LumiLink 400G-ZR+, with additional wavelength channels to support higher aggregate bandwidth. The GDS-II mask layout files for the LumiLink 800G-DR8 (Bates Nos. LTC-SC-004288 et seq., 800G-DR8-specific mask layers) show a waveguide multiplexer structure with an expanded number of input waveguide ports and correspondingly adjusted channel spacing, while retaining the same fundamental slab coupler and arrayed waveguide grating architecture claimed in Claim 1. The RTL schematics for the LumiLink 800G-DR8 (Bates Nos. LTC-SC-000001 et seq., 800G-DR8-specific RTL modules) similarly show the photonic control logic for the expanded multiplexer configuration.
The scaling of the waveguide multiplexer architecture from the 400G-ZR+ to the 800G-DR8 does not alter the infringement analysis, as each limitation of Claim 1 is satisfied by the 800G-DR8 in the same manner as the 400G-ZR+. A complete supplemental claim chart for Claim 1 as applied to the LumiLink 800G-DR8 is provided in Exhibit 1.
3. Dependent Claims 3, 5, 9, 14
For each dependent claim, OWS's Supplemental Contentions identify the additional limitation introduced by the dependent claim and cite the newly produced design files confirming that the accused products satisfy that additional limitation.
Claim 3 depends from Claim 1 and adds a limitation reciting specific channel-spacing parameters for the waveguide multiplexer. The GDS-II mask layout files for both the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and the LumiLink 800G-DR8 confirm the channel spacing of the arrayed waveguide structures, which falls within the range recited in Claim 3. The supplemental claim chart in Exhibit 1 provides the specific dimensional measurements extracted from the mask layout data.
Claim 5 depends from Claim 1 and adds a limitation directed to the material composition of the waveguide core and cladding layers. The fabrication run data and PDK documentation (Bates Nos. LTC-SC-008957 et seq.) confirm the material specifications for the waveguide layers in the accused products, which correspond to the materials recited in Claim 5. The supplemental claim chart in Exhibit 1 identifies the specific PDK parameters confirming satisfaction of this limitation.
Claim 9 depends from Claim 1 and adds a limitation that, upon internal analysis (memorandum dated October 5, 2024), potentially involves a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). OWS's original contentions identified the function and the corresponding structure disclosed in the '847 Patent specification. These Supplemental Contentions identify the corresponding structure in the newly produced Lumicore design files — specifically, the RTL schematics and GDS-II mask layout data showing the structural implementation of the claimed function in the accused products — which matches the structure disclosed in the '847 Patent specification. The supplemental claim chart in Exhibit 1 provides the specific design-file citations and identifies the structural correspondence.
Claim 14 depends from Claim 1 and adds a limitation directed to insertion-loss performance specifications. The internal design review presentations produced by Lumicore (Bates Nos. LTC-HC-045000 et seq.) include measured insertion-loss data for the waveguide multiplexer structures in the accused products, confirming that the accused products achieve insertion-loss performance within the parameters recited in Claim 14. The supplemental claim chart in Exhibit 1 cites the specific design review materials.
E. Supplemental Evidence Summary Table — '847 Patent
The following table provides a summary cross-reference of the evidence supporting OWS's supplemental contentions for the '847 Patent:
Detailed supplemental claim charts with complete limitation-by-limitation mappings are provided in Exhibit 1.
IV. SUPPLEMENTAL CONTENTIONS — U.S. PATENT NO. 10,891,193 (THE '193 PATENT)
A. Patent Overview
U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193 (the "'193 Patent"), entitled "High-Bandwidth Coherent Optical Transceiver Integrated on Silicon Substrate," was filed on April 7, 2017 and issued on January 12, 2021. The original and current assignee of the '193 Patent is Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. The '193 Patent claims priority to Provisional Application No. 62/499,117, filed April 7, 2017, which is shared with the '015 Patent. The named inventor of the '193 Patent is Dr. Jian-Wei Huang.
The '193 Patent is generally directed to a high-bandwidth coherent optical transceiver that is integrated on a silicon substrate, providing a compact, high-performance optical transceiver architecture suitable for data center and telecommunications applications. The specification discloses innovations in integrating coherent detection, modulation, and signal-processing functionality onto a single silicon-based platform, achieving high bandwidth, reduced power consumption, and improved signal integrity compared to prior discrete-component approaches.
B. Asserted Claims
OWS asserts Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 15, and 18 of the '193 Patent against the accused products identified below. Claim 1 is an independent claim; Claims 3, 7, 10, 15, and 18 are dependent claims.
C. Accused Products
All three accused product lines — the LumiLink 400G-ZR+, the LumiLink 800G-DR8, and the LumiEdge 1600G-LR — are accused of infringing Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 15, and 18 of the '193 Patent.
D. Supplemental Claim-by-Claim, Limitation-by-Limitation Analysis — Literal Infringement
1. Claim 1 — All Accused Products
Claim 1 of the '193 Patent recites a high-bandwidth coherent optical transceiver integrated on a silicon substrate, with specific limitations directed to the transceiver architecture, coherent detection components, modulation elements, and the integration of these components on a silicon-based platform.
A key limitation of Claim 1 recites that the coherent optical transceiver is "integrated on a silicon substrate." This term is the subject of a claim construction dispute between the parties. OWS proposes that "integrated on a silicon substrate" should be construed to mean "formed on or within a silicon-based wafer using semiconductor fabrication processes." Lumicore proposes a substantially narrower construction: "monolithically fabricated on a single silicon die without hybrid bonding or heterogeneous integration." The Court's construction of this term is pending the Markman hearing scheduled for March 14, 2025.
The newly produced design files provide substantial additional evidence bearing on this claim limitation under either proposed construction. The PIC mask layout files in GDS-II format (Bates Nos. LTC-SC-004288 et seq.) confirm that the accused products' transceiver components — including the coherent detection elements, modulation structures, and waveguide routing — are formed on a silicon-based wafer using semiconductor fabrication processes. The fabrication run data and PDK documentation (Bates Nos. LTC-SC-008957 et seq.) provide detailed confirmation of the silicon substrate fabrication flow, including the foundry process node, wafer specifications, and fabrication steps used to manufacture the accused photonic integrated circuits.
Under OWS's proposed construction ("formed on or within a silicon-based wafer using semiconductor fabrication processes"), the design files unambiguously confirm literal infringement of this limitation. The mask layout files and fabrication data demonstrate that the accused transceiver components are fabricated on a silicon wafer through standard semiconductor processes including photolithography, etching, deposition, and related fabrication steps.
Even under Lumicore's narrow proposed construction ("monolithically fabricated on a single silicon die without hybrid bonding or heterogeneous integration"), OWS identifies that the mask files show a predominantly monolithic fabrication approach for the core transceiver elements. The GDS-II data reveals that the primary photonic components — including the coherent detection module, optical modulators, and waveguide routing — are fabricated on a single silicon die through a unified process flow without resort to hybrid bonding or heterogeneous integration for those core elements. To the extent that any ancillary components (such as laser sources or specific amplifier elements) may involve separate integration steps, OWS contends that these do not alter the fundamental monolithic character of the transceiver integration claimed in Claim 1. In the alternative, and to the extent any element does not literally satisfy Lumicore's narrow construction, OWS preserves its contentions under the doctrine of equivalents as set forth in Section IV.E below and in the original contentions.
2. Claim 1 — Product-Specific Detail
LumiLink 400G-ZR+. The GDS-II mask layout files specific to the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ photonic integrated circuit (within Bates Nos. LTC-SC-004288 et seq.) identify the coherent transceiver architecture, including the mask layers corresponding to the coherent receiver, optical modulator, and waveguide interconnect structures. The RTL schematics specific to the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ (within Bates Nos. LTC-SC-000001 et seq.) identify the DSP module hierarchy and control logic that interfaces with the photonic transceiver elements. Citations to specific mask layers and RTL modules are provided in the supplemental claim chart in Exhibit 2.
LumiLink 800G-DR8. The GDS-II mask layout files specific to the LumiLink 800G-DR8 photonic integrated circuit (within Bates Nos. LTC-SC-004288 et seq.) identify a scaled coherent transceiver architecture with additional parallel channels to support the 800G aggregate bandwidth. The RTL schematics for the LumiLink 800G-DR8 (within Bates Nos. LTC-SC-000001 et seq.) identify the expanded DSP module hierarchy and multi-channel control logic. Citations to specific mask layers and RTL modules are provided in Exhibit 2.
LumiEdge 1600G-LR. The GDS-II mask layout files specific to the LumiEdge 1600G-LR photonic integrated circuit (within Bates Nos. LTC-SC-004288 et seq.) identify a next-generation coherent transceiver architecture optimized for long-reach applications, with integrated coherent detection and advanced modulation formats. The RTL schematics for the LumiEdge 1600G-LR (within Bates Nos. LTC-SC-000001 et seq.) identify the DSP architecture supporting the 1600G data rate. Citations to specific mask layers and RTL modules are provided in Exhibit 2.
3. Additional Limitations — Claims 10, 15, 18
Claim 10 depends from Claim 1 and adds a limitation directed to the optical modulator architecture within the coherent transceiver. The newly produced mask layout files confirm the modulator structure and configuration in the accused products, consistent with the limitation of Claim 10. The supplemental claim chart in Exhibit 2 provides specific citations.
Claim 15 depends from Claim 1 and adds a limitation that, upon analysis, potentially involves a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). OWS's Supplemental Contentions identify the corresponding structure in the newly produced design files — specifically, the RTL schematics and GDS-II mask layout data — that matches the structure disclosed in the '193 Patent specification for performing the claimed function. The supplemental claim chart in Exhibit 2 provides the specific design-file citations and identifies the structural correspondence between the accused products and the patent disclosure.
Claim 18 depends from Claim 1 and adds a limitation relating to the coherent detection integration on the silicon substrate. The newly produced design review presentations (Bates Nos. LTC-HC-045000 et seq.) include specific engineering discussions of the coherent detection integration architecture, including presentation slides describing the design team's approach to integrating coherent detection functionality on the silicon photonic platform. These materials provide direct evidence that the accused products satisfy the additional limitation of Claim 18. The supplemental claim chart in Exhibit 2 cites the specific design review materials and presentation slides.
E. Supplemental Doctrine of Equivalents Contentions — Claims 3 and 7
1. Background.  OWS's original Infringement Contentions (D.E. 32, served September 16, 2024) asserted infringement of Claims 3 and 7 of the '193 Patent under the doctrine of equivalents, in addition to literal infringement. OWS contended that even if Lumicore's accused designs do not literally satisfy the "coherent detection module" limitation as recited in Claims 3 and 7, the accused elements perform substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result as the claimed elements. See Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Harborline Enterprises Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 39–40 (1997); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605, 608 (1950).
In its internal analysis (Calderwood & Harkness memorandum dated September 5, 2024), OWS identified potential prosecution-history-estoppel risks arising from a narrowing amendment made during prosecution of the '193 Patent. Specifically, during prosecution, the applicant narrowed the scope of the "coherent detection module" limitation in response to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on Takahashi et al., "Dense WDM Silicon Photonic MUX," IEEE Photonics Technology Letters (March 2014). OWS's prosecution history estoppel analysis (completed October 10, 2024) concluded that the Festo presumption — that a narrowing amendment made for purposes of patentability creates a presumption that the patentee has surrendered all equivalents between the original and amended claim language, see Festo Corp. v. Fenmore & Co., 535 U.S. 722, 740 (2002) — applies to this amendment. However, OWS contends that the tangential-relation exception to the Festo presumption applies because the amendment was not made for reasons of patentability related to the specific equivalent at issue in the accused products.
2. Supplemental Evidence from Design Files
The newly produced RTL schematics and PIC mask layout files for all three accused products provide additional detail and specificity regarding the coherent detection architecture employed by Lumicore that was not previously available from the Benchmark teardown reports or public product documentation. This additional evidence refines and strengthens OWS's function-way-result analysis for the doctrine of equivalents contentions on Claims 3 and 7.
The refined function-way-result analysis, as supplemented by the newly produced design files, is as follows:
Function. The accused coherent detection elements in each of the three accused products perform substantially the same function as the claimed "coherent detection module" of Claims 3 and 7 of the '193 Patent — namely, detecting and processing coherent optical signals to extract amplitude, phase, and polarization information from a received optical signal. The RTL schematics (Bates Nos. LTC-SC-000001 et seq.) confirm that the accused products' coherent detection subsystems are designed to receive a modulated optical signal, perform coherent detection through mixing with a local oscillator signal, and output digital representations of the detected amplitude, phase, and polarization state information. This is the same function performed by the "coherent detection module" of the '193 Patent.
Way. The Lumicore design files demonstrate that the accused coherent detection elements operate in substantially the same way as the claimed "coherent detection module." The RTL schematics (Bates Nos. LTC-SC-000001 et seq., specifically the coherent receiver RTL modules) show signal-processing logic that implements coherent detection through mixing the received optical signal with a local oscillator and processing the resulting interference pattern through balanced photodetection and analog-to-digital conversion. The GDS-II mask layout files (Bates Nos. LTC-SC-004288 et seq.) confirm that the photonic structures implementing the coherent detection functionality use optical hybrid couplers and balanced photodetector pairs — the same fundamental approach disclosed and claimed in the '193 Patent. While there may be differences in specific implementation details (such as the number of photodetector elements or the specific hybrid coupler topology), these differences do not alter the fundamental way in which the accused elements achieve coherent detection.
Result. The internal design review materials (Bates Nos. LTC-HC-045000 et seq.) confirm that the accused products achieve substantially the same result as the claimed "coherent detection module" — high-bandwidth coherent optical reception with equivalent or comparable bit-error-rate performance, signal-to-noise ratio, and data throughput. Specifically, the design review presentations include performance characterization data showing that the accused products' coherent detection subsystems achieve bit-error-rate performance and signal quality metrics that are functionally equivalent to those achieved by the coherent detection module described in the '193 Patent specification.
The supplemental claim charts in Exhibit 2 provide specific citations to design file pages, mask layer identifiers, RTL module hierarchies, and design review presentation slides confirming each prong of the function-way-result test for Claims 3 and 7.
3. Prosecution History Estoppel Rebuttal
OWS restates its position that the tangential-relation exception to the Festo presumption applies to the narrowing amendment made during prosecution of the '193 Patent. As set forth in OWS's original contentions and further supported by the newly produced evidence, the amendment narrowing the "coherent detection module" limitation was made to distinguish the Takahashi et al. prior-art reference, which addressed wavelength-division multiplexing architecture and dense WDM silicon photonic multiplexer design — not coherent detection architectures or coherent detection module configurations. The reason for the amendment was to distinguish the claimed invention from a prior-art reference directed to a fundamentally different aspect of silicon photonic design (wavelength multiplexing), and the equivalent at issue in Lumicore's accused products (a variant coherent detection topology) is, at most, tangentially related to the reason for the amendment. See Festo, 535 U.S. at 740–41.
The newly produced design files provide additional support for this position. The design files demonstrate that Lumicore's coherent detection architecture differs from the Takahashi reference in the same ways as the claimed invention — i.e., Lumicore's coherent detection implementation has no architectural relationship to the wavelength multiplexing approach of Takahashi, confirming that the amendment was not directed to the type of variation present in the accused products. Accordingly, the tangential-relation exception to the Festo presumption is satisfied, and prosecution history estoppel does not bar OWS's doctrine of equivalents contentions for Claims 3 and 7 of the '193 Patent.
V. SUPPLEMENTAL CONTENTIONS — U.S. PATENT NO. 9,678,562 (THE '562 PATENT)
A. Patent Overview
U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562 (the "'562 Patent"), entitled "Method for Thermal Management of Photonic Integrated Circuits Using Embedded Micro-Channel Heat Sinks," was filed on November 22, 2014 and issued on June 13, 2017. The '562 Patent was originally assigned to Solara Optics, Inc. The current assignee is Optiwave Semiconductor Corp., which acquired the '562 Patent (together with eleven other patents) from Solara Optics, Inc. pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement dated June 15, 2018, for a total acquisition price of $34.5 million. The '562 Patent is a member of the same patent family as the '847 Patent through a continuation relationship.
The '562 Patent is generally directed to a method for managing thermal dissipation in photonic integrated circuits through the use of embedded micro-channel heat-sink structures. The specification discloses and claims innovations in integrating micro-channel cooling structures directly within the photonic integrated circuit substrate, achieving efficient thermal management without requiring external cooling modules and enabling higher-power photonic circuit operation within acceptable thermal envelopes.
B. Asserted Claims
OWS asserts Claims 1, 4, 6, and 11 of the '562 Patent against the accused products identified below. Claim 1 is an independent claim; Claims 4, 6, and 11 are dependent claims.
C. Accused Products
The LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and the LumiLink 800G-DR8 are accused of infringing Claims 1, 4, 6, and 11 of the '562 Patent.
D. Supplemental Claim-by-Claim, Limitation-by-Limitation Analysis
1. Claim 1 — Key Limitation: "micro-channel heat sink"
Claim 1 of the '562 Patent recites a method for thermal management of a photonic integrated circuit using an embedded "micro-channel heat sink." This term is the subject of a claim construction dispute between the parties.
OWS proposes that "micro-channel heat sink" should be construed to mean "a heat-dissipating structure containing channels with a hydraulic diameter of less than 1 mm." This construction is consistent with the specification of the '562 Patent, which describes micro-channel structures with hydraulic diameters ranging from approximately 50 µm to 500 µm and discusses the thermal performance advantages of channel dimensions in this range.
Lumicore proposes a narrower construction: "a closed-loop liquid-cooling system with channels having a hydraulic diameter between 10 µm and 200 µm." Lumicore's construction adds two limitations not present in the claim language — a "closed-loop liquid-cooling" requirement and a narrower dimensional range (10 µm to 200 µm versus the broader "less than 1 mm" range proposed by OWS). OWS contends that Lumicore's proposed construction is improperly narrow and unsupported by the intrinsic record, but in any event, as demonstrated by the newly produced design files, the accused products satisfy even Lumicore's narrow construction.
OWS's original contentions cited the Benchmark teardown report for the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ (December 12, 2022) and the Benchmark teardown report for the LumiLink 800G-DR8 (June 2023), both of which confirmed the presence of micro-channel heat-sink structures within the photonic integrated circuits of the accused products. Benchmark's physical analysis identified embedded channel structures through FIB cross-sectioning and SEM imaging and provided dimensional measurements of the channel features.
The newly produced GDS-II mask layout files provide supplemental evidence of the micro-channel heat-sink structures. The PIC mask files (Bates Nos. LTC-SC-004288 et seq.) include dedicated thermal management mask layers showing embedded channel structures within the photonic integrated circuit. These mask layers depict the channel layout, routing, manifold structures, and integration with the photonic device layers. The mask layout data confirms the presence of embedded micro-channel structures that serve a thermal dissipation function, consistent with the "micro-channel heat sink" limitation of Claim 1.
The fabrication run data and PDK documentation (Bates Nos. LTC-SC-008957 et seq.) provide further supplemental evidence. The process parameters and fabrication records confirm the channel dimensions and hydraulic diameter of the thermal management structures as fabricated in the accused products. Under OWS's broader proposed construction (hydraulic diameter of less than 1 mm), the design files and fabrication data clearly confirm literal infringement, as the channel dimensions fall well within the less-than-1 mm range. Even under Lumicore's narrower proposed construction (hydraulic diameter between 10 µm and 200 µm), the fabrication data confirms that the channel dimensions of the accused products' thermal management structures fall within this narrower range. The PDK documentation specifies the design-rule parameters for the thermal channel layer, and the fabrication run records include metrology data confirming the as-fabricated channel dimensions.
2. Claims 4, 6, 11
Claim 4 depends from Claim 1 and adds a limitation directed to the specific geometry of the micro-channel structures — specifically, the channel cross-sectional profile and aspect ratio. The GDS-II mask layout files (Bates Nos. LTC-SC-004288 et seq.) include layer annotations and cross-sectional representations confirming the channel geometry in the accused products. The fabrication run data (Bates Nos. LTC-SC-008957 et seq.) includes process specifications for the channel etching step that confirm the aspect ratio of the fabricated channels. The supplemental claim chart in Exhibit 3 provides specific citations to the mask layout and fabrication data confirming satisfaction of the Claim 4 limitation.
Claim 6 depends from Claim 1 and adds a limitation directed to the material composition of the channel walls and the integration method used to embed the micro-channel structure within the photonic integrated circuit. The PDK documentation (Bates Nos. LTC-SC-008957 et seq.) specifies the material and process parameters for the thermal channel fabrication, confirming the material composition and integration approach. The supplemental claim chart in Exhibit 3 cites the relevant PDK specifications.
Claim 11 depends from Claim 1 and adds a limitation relating to specific thermal dissipation performance characteristics of the micro-channel heat-sink structure. The internal design review presentations produced by Lumicore (Bates Nos. LTC-HC-045000 et seq.) include thermal simulation results for the accused products, showing the thermal performance of the embedded micro-channel structures under various operating conditions. These simulation results confirm that the accused products achieve the thermal dissipation performance characteristics recited in Claim 11. The supplemental claim chart in Exhibit 3 cites the specific design review presentation slides and thermal simulation data.
E. Supplemental Evidence Summary Table — '562 Patent
Detailed supplemental claim charts are provided in Exhibit 3.
VI. SUPPLEMENTAL CONTENTIONS — U.S. PATENT NO. 11,402,015 (THE '015 PATENT)
A. Patent Overview
U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015 (the "'015 Patent"), entitled "Polarization-Diverse Grating Coupler for Silicon Photonic Transceivers," was filed on August 30, 2019 and issued on August 2, 2022. The original and current assignee of the '015 Patent is Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. The '015 Patent claims priority to Provisional Application No. 62/499,117, filed April 7, 2017, which is shared with the '193 Patent. The named inventors of the '015 Patent are Dr. Jian-Wei Huang and Dr. Nikolai Petrov.
The '015 Patent is generally directed to a polarization-diverse grating coupler designed for use in silicon photonic transceivers. The specification discloses innovations in grating coupler design that enable efficient coupling of light from an optical fiber into a silicon waveguide while accommodating both orthogonal polarization states (TE and TM modes), thereby addressing the polarization-dependent loss and coupling efficiency challenges that have historically limited the performance of silicon photonic transceiver architectures.
B. Asserted Claims
OWS asserts Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, and 16 of the '015 Patent against the accused products identified below. Claim 1 is an independent claim; Claims 5, 8, 12, and 16 are dependent claims.
C. Accused Products
The LumiLink 800G-DR8 and the LumiEdge 1600G-LR are accused of infringing Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, and 16 of the '015 Patent.
D. Supplemental Claim-by-Claim, Limitation-by-Limitation Analysis — Literal Infringement
1. Claim 1 — Key Limitation: "polarization-diverse grating coupler"
Claim 1 of the '015 Patent recites a silicon photonic transceiver incorporating a "polarization-diverse grating coupler" with specific structural and functional limitations. The term "polarization-diverse grating coupler" is the subject of a claim construction dispute.
OWS proposes that "polarization-diverse grating coupler" should be construed to mean "a grating coupler capable of coupling light of two orthogonal polarization states." This construction reflects the ordinary meaning of the term as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art and is consistent with the specification of the '015 Patent, which describes grating coupler structures designed to handle both TE and TM polarization modes.
Lumicore proposes a narrower construction: "a two-dimensional grating coupler with a polarization-splitting element that simultaneously couples TE and TM modes." Lumicore's construction adds structural requirements (a "two-dimensional" grating with a "polarization-splitting element") and a functional requirement ("simultaneously" couples TE and TM modes) that are not required by the claim language. OWS contends that Lumicore's proposed construction is improperly narrow, but as demonstrated below, the accused products satisfy even Lumicore's narrow construction.
OWS's original contentions cited Benchmark teardown photographs and analysis identifying grating coupler structures in the LumiLink 800G-DR8 and LumiEdge 1600G-LR photonic integrated circuits. Benchmark's physical analysis confirmed the presence of periodic grating structures at the fiber-coupling interfaces of the accused products, with structural features consistent with polarization-diverse operation.
The newly produced GDS-II mask layout files provide substantial supplemental evidence. The PIC mask files for both the LumiLink 800G-DR8 and the LumiEdge 1600G-LR (Bates Nos. LTC-SC-004288 et seq.) show grating coupler structures with explicit polarization-handling elements. Specific mask layers depict the grating period, etch depth, grating tooth geometry, and overall coupler configuration. The mask data confirms the presence of a two-dimensional grating pattern — i.e., a grating with periodicity in two orthogonal directions — that is designed to diffract and couple light of both TE and TM polarization states into the silicon waveguide plane. This confirms the presence of a polarization-diverse grating coupler design that satisfies both OWS's proposed construction and, indeed, even Lumicore's narrower proposed construction.
The internal design review presentations (Bates Nos. LTC-HC-045000 et seq.) provide further supplemental evidence. Specific presentation slides discuss the grating coupler polarization performance, including measured coupling efficiency data for both TE and TM modes. In these presentations, Lumicore's engineering team explicitly describes the coupler as designed to handle "both polarization states," providing direct evidence that the accused grating couplers are polarization-diverse within the meaning of Claim 1. The design review materials also include polarization extinction ratio measurements and coupling-efficiency characterization data that confirm the polarization-diverse operation of the accused grating couplers.
2. Claims 5, 8, 16
Claim 5 depends from Claim 1 and adds a limitation directed to the grating coupler's coupling efficiency at specified wavelength ranges. The design review presentations (Bates Nos. LTC-HC-045000 et seq.) include measured coupling efficiency data for the accused grating couplers at the relevant wavelength ranges, confirming satisfaction of this limitation. The supplemental claim chart in Exhibit 4 provides specific citations.
Claim 8 depends from Claim 1 and adds a limitation directed to the grating coupler's structural integration with the silicon photonic transceiver. The GDS-II mask layout files (Bates Nos. LTC-SC-004288 et seq.) confirm the physical integration of the grating coupler with the transceiver waveguide routing and photonic circuit elements, satisfying the integration limitation of Claim 8. The supplemental claim chart in Exhibit 4 cites the specific mask layers.
Claim 16 depends from Claim 1 and adds a limitation directed to the electronic control interface for the grating coupler subsystem. The RTL schematics (Bates Nos. LTC-SC-000001 et seq.) show the electronic control interface modules that manage grating coupler alignment, tuning, and operational parameters within the overall transceiver control architecture. These schematics confirm the presence of the electronic control interface recited in Claim 16. The supplemental claim chart in Exhibit 4 provides specific citations to the RTL module hierarchy and control register definitions.
E. Supplemental Doctrine of Equivalents Contentions — Claim 12
1. Background.  OWS's original Infringement Contentions (D.E. 32, served September 16, 2024) asserted infringement of Claim 12 of the '015 Patent under the doctrine of equivalents, in addition to literal infringement. Claim 12 depends from Claim 1 and recites a "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating" limitation. OWS contended in its original contentions that even if Lumicore's accused grating coupler designs do not literally satisfy the "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating" limitation of Claim 12, the accused elements perform substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result as the claimed element.
OWS's prosecution history estoppel analysis (completed October 12, 2024) identified that the prosecution of the '015 Patent included a narrowing amendment to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on a combination of Bergmann (U.S. Patent No. 8,412,007, issued April 2, 2013) and Simonsen (PCT/EP2015/071234, published September 17, 2015). The amendment narrowed the "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating" limitation to distinguish the Bergmann-Simonsen combination. The Festo presumption accordingly applies to this amendment. However, OWS contends that the tangential-relation exception to the Festo presumption applies because the amendment was directed to distinguishing a specific prior-art combination, not the type of grating variation present in Lumicore's accused products.
2. Supplemental Evidence from Design Files
The GDS-II mask layout files for the LumiLink 800G-DR8 and the LumiEdge 1600G-LR provide detailed grating coupler geometry data that was not available from the Benchmark teardown analyses. This data enables a more refined and granular function-way-result analysis for the doctrine of equivalents contentions on Claim 12.
The refined function-way-result analysis, as supplemented by the newly produced design files, is as follows:
Function. Lumicore's grating coupler element performs substantially the same function as the claimed "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating" — coupling light from an optical fiber into a silicon waveguide while preserving polarization diversity. The GDS-II mask layout files (Bates Nos. LTC-SC-004288 et seq.) confirm that the accused grating structures are positioned at the fiber-to-waveguide coupling interface and are designed to diffract incident light into the waveguide plane while accommodating both polarization states. This is the same function performed by the claimed "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating."
Way. The mask layout files show that Lumicore's grating structure operates in substantially the same way as the claimed "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating" — using periodic sub-wavelength features to diffract and couple light into the waveguide plane. The GDS-II data reveals a grating structure with feature dimensions below the operating wavelength, arranged in a two-dimensional periodic pattern that produces diffraction-based coupling. While the specific grating tooth profile, fill factor, or apodization scheme may differ in certain implementation details from the preferred embodiment disclosed in the '015 Patent, the fundamental operating mechanism — diffractive coupling through periodic sub-wavelength features — is substantially the same.
Result. The design review presentations (Bates Nos. LTC-HC-045000 et seq.) include measured coupling efficiency and polarization extinction ratio data for the accused grating couplers, demonstrating substantially the same result as the claimed "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating." The measured performance data shows coupling efficiency and polarization handling that are functionally equivalent to the performance described in the '015 Patent specification for the claimed grating coupler.
Specific citations to mask layers, grating dimensions (including grating period, etch depth, and feature width), and performance data in the newly produced files are provided in the supplemental claim chart in Exhibit 4.
3. Prosecution History Estoppel Rebuttal
OWS restates and supplements its position that the tangential-relation exception to the Festo presumption applies to the narrowing amendment made during prosecution of the '015 Patent. The amendment narrowing the "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating" limitation was made to distinguish the Bergmann-Simonsen prior-art combination. The Bergmann reference disclosed a one-dimensional grating coupler, and the Simonsen reference disclosed a separate polarization rotator element. The examiner's § 103 rejection combined these references to argue that it would have been obvious to modify Bergmann's one-dimensional grating with Simonsen's polarization rotator to achieve polarization-diverse coupling. The applicant's narrowing amendment was directed to distinguishing this specific combination — i.e., a one-dimensional grating with a separate polarization rotator — not to excluding the type of grating variation present in Lumicore's accused products.
Lumicore's accused grating coupler design, as revealed by the newly produced GDS-II mask layout files, employs a grating topology that is fundamentally different from the Bergmann-Simonsen combination. Lumicore's design does not use a one-dimensional grating with a separate polarization rotator; rather, it employs an integrated two-dimensional grating structure. The variation between Lumicore's grating coupler and the claimed "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating" pertains to specific geometric parameters and implementation details that are, at most, tangentially related to the reason for the narrowing amendment. The newly produced design files corroborate that Lumicore's approach is distinct from the Bergmann-Simonsen prior art in the same ways as the patented invention, supporting the tangential-relation exception to the Festo presumption.
Accordingly, prosecution history estoppel does not bar OWS's doctrine of equivalents contentions for Claim 12 of the '015 Patent.
VII. SUPPLEMENTAL CONTENTIONS — INDUCED INFRINGEMENT (ALL FOUR PATENTS)
A. Legal Standard
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), "[w]hoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer." To establish liability for induced infringement, OWS must demonstrate that Lumicore knowingly induced acts of direct infringement by third parties and that Lumicore acted with the specific intent to encourage another's infringement of the asserted patent claims, with knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement. See Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 766 (2011); Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 575 U.S. 632, 639 (2015).
Lumicore's knowledge of the Asserted Patents has been established through multiple channels. FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC ("FairPoint"), acting on behalf of OWS, sent a detailed notice letter to Raymond Bautista, General Counsel of Lumicore Technologies, Inc., dated January 15, 2023, which identified the '847 Patent, the '193 Patent, and the '562 Patent and put Lumicore on notice that its products were believed to infringe those patents. FairPoint sent a supplemental notice letter to Mr. Bautista on May 15, 2023, which identified the '015 Patent (which had issued on August 2, 2022) and added it to the portfolio of asserted patents. Both letters were sent via certified mail and email, and receipt was confirmed.
On April 20, 2023, an in-person licensing meeting was held in Austin, Texas, among Angela Reeves (FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC), Rebecca Tanaka (General Counsel, Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.), Raymond Bautista (General Counsel, Lumicore Technologies, Inc.), and Catherine "Kate" Rourke (Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP, outside counsel for Lumicore). At this meeting, OWS's representatives presented a detailed analysis of the asserted patents and their application to Lumicore's accused products, and Lumicore's representatives acknowledged receipt of