UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
PLAINTIFF OPTIWAVE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.'S DISCLOSURE OF ASSERTED CLAIMS AND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS PURSUANT TO P.R. 3-1
Date Served: September 16, 2024
Right-click to update Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Patent Rule 3-1 of the Local Rules for Patent Cases in the Eastern District of Texas, Plaintiff Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. ("OWS" or "Plaintiff") hereby serves its Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions upon Defendant Lumicore Technologies, Inc. ("Lumicore" or "Defendant").
In this disclosure, OWS identifies each asserted patent, each asserted claim within each patent, each accused instrumentality—whether product or process—and the specific basis for each claim of infringement on a claim-by-claim, element-by-element basis. The contentions set forth herein are organized by patent and, within each patent, by claim, and provide the specificity required by P.R. 3-1(b)–(e) to enable Lumicore to understand the factual bases for OWS's infringement theories.
OWS contends that Lumicore directly infringes, induces infringement of, and contributorily infringes each of the asserted claims of each of the four asserted patents, both literally and, where specified herein, under the doctrine of equivalents. In particular, OWS asserts that Lumicore's manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and importation of its LumiLink 400G-ZR+, LumiLink 800G-DR8, and LumiEdge 1600G-LR transceiver modules infringe, and have infringed, the patents and claims identified below.
OWS reserves the right to supplement or amend these contentions as discovery proceeds, in accordance with P.R. 3-6 and the Court's Scheduling Order entered on August 12, 2024 (D.E. 27). OWS expressly reserves the right to supplement these contentions upon receipt of additional documents and information from Lumicore, including design files, source code, RTL schematics, photonic integrated circuit layout files, mask files, fabrication process documents, and other technical documentation that have been requested but not yet produced.
These contentions are based upon information currently available to OWS as of the date of service, including but not limited to: (a) publicly available information, including Lumicore product datasheets, whitepapers, conference presentations, press releases, and marketing materials; (b) reverse-engineering teardown analyses conducted by Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC, under the direction of Kevin Ng, including detailed teardown reports on the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ (dated December 12, 2022), the LumiLink 800G-DR8 (dated June 2023), and the LumiEdge 1600G-LR (dated February 2024); (c) Lumicore's own published patent applications and issued patents relating to the accused products; (d) documents produced by Lumicore in discovery to date, which as of the date of this filing comprise approximately 147,000 documents totaling approximately 980,000 pages; and (e) deposition testimony obtained in this action, including the deposition of Dr. Sandra Michaud, Lumicore's Chief Technology Officer, taken on November 19, 2024, in which Dr. Michaud admitted that she reviewed OWS published patent application No. 2018/0123456 (corresponding to the '193 Patent) during the LumiLink design phase. OWS's investigation is ongoing, and additional support for the contentions set forth herein may be identified as Lumicore produces the design files, source code, and other technical documentation that remain outstanding.
Nothing in these contentions constitutes a waiver of any right, claim, or defense available to OWS. These contentions are not intended to limit OWS's theories of infringement at trial and are provided solely to satisfy the requirements of P.R. 3-1.
II. IDENTIFICATION OF ASSERTED PATENTS AND CLAIMS
Pursuant to P.R. 3-1(a), OWS identifies below each patent being asserted in this action, together with information concerning the prosecution history, assignment, and patent family relationships for each patent. OWS further identifies the specific claims of each patent that are asserted against Lumicore.
A. U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847 ("the '847 Patent")
Title: "Multi-Channel Silicon Photonic Waveguide Multiplexer with Low Insertion Loss"
Filing Date: September 14, 2016
Issue Date: March 19, 2019
Original Assignee: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.
Current Assignee: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.
Named Inventors: As identified on the face of the '847 Patent.
Prosecution Firm: Cascade IP Advisors, LLC (Dr. Martin Chu, lead prosecution attorney)
Patent Family: The '847 Patent is in the same patent family as U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562 (the '562 Patent), with a continuation relationship between the two patents. The '847 Patent claims the benefit of priority through the '562 Patent's filing date.
Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, and 14, all asserted under a theory of literal infringement.
Claim 1 is an independent claim directed to a multi-channel silicon photonic waveguide multiplexer comprising, inter alia, an input waveguide array, a waveguide multiplexing region, an output waveguide, and a low insertion loss specification. Claim 1 recites the fundamental structure of the multiplexer architecture that is embodied in Lumicore's accused products.
Claim 3 depends from Claim 1 and incorporates all of the limitations of Claim 1. Claim 3 adds specific structural features of the waveguide array, including limitations relating to the phase-shift characteristics and waveguide spacing within the arrayed waveguide elements.
Claim 5 depends from Claim 1 and incorporates all of the limitations of Claim 1. Claim 5 further specifies insertion loss thresholds for the multiplexer, requiring that the waveguide multiplexer achieve a specified maximum insertion loss across the operating wavelength range.
Claim 9 is an independent claim directed to a waveguide multiplexer system with specific functional elements. Based on OWS's internal analysis, Claim 9 contains one potentially means-plus-function term subject to construction under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The corresponding structure for this term is identified in the '847 Patent specification, and OWS will identify the specific column and line references in connection with the Court's claim construction proceedings. The corresponding structure identified in the specification includes the hardware and functional components disclosed therein, as well as equivalents thereof.
Claim 14 depends from Claim 9 and incorporates all of the limitations of Claim 9. Claim 14 adds limitations specifying channel count and wavelength spacing parameters, requiring a minimum number of multiplexed channels and a defined wavelength spacing between adjacent channels.
B. U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193 ("the '193 Patent")
Title: "High-Bandwidth Coherent Optical Transceiver Integrated on Silicon Substrate"
Filing Date: April 7, 2017
Issue Date: January 12, 2021
Priority: Claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/499,117, filed April 7, 2017. This provisional application is shared with the '015 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015).
Original Assignee: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.
Current Assignee: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.
Prosecution Firm: Cascade IP Advisors, LLC (Dr. Martin Chu, lead prosecution attorney)
Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 15, and 18. All claims are asserted under a theory of literal infringement. Claims 3 and 7 are additionally asserted under the doctrine of equivalents.
Claim 1 is an independent claim directed to a high-bandwidth coherent optical transceiver integrated on a silicon substrate, comprising, inter alia, a coherent modulator, a coherent detection module, integrated electronic driver and transimpedance amplifier circuitry, and a high-bandwidth data path. Claim 1 recites the fundamental architecture of the coherent transceiver that Lumicore has adopted in each of the three accused product families.
Claim 3 depends from Claim 1 and incorporates all of the limitations of Claim 1. Claim 3 adds the "coherent detection module" limitation, specifying characteristics of the coherent detection functionality within the transceiver. OWS asserts Claim 3 under both literal infringement and the doctrine of equivalents. As discussed in detail in Section IV.B.2 below, the doctrine of equivalents contention is based on the function-way-result test. During prosecution of the '193 Patent, the "coherent detection module" limitation was narrowed by amendment in response to a § 102 rejection based on Takahashi et al. ("Dense WDM Silicon Photonic MUX," IEEE Photonics Technology Letters, March 2014). OWS contends that prosecution history estoppel does not bar application of the doctrine of equivalents to the particular equivalent at issue for the reasons set forth in Section IV.B.2.
Claim 7 depends from Claim 1 (through Claim 3 or directly) and incorporates all of the limitations of Claim 1 and any intervening dependent claims. Claim 7 adds additional transceiver architecture limitations. OWS asserts Claim 7 under both literal infringement and the doctrine of equivalents, on the same basis as Claim 3, because the "coherent detection module" limitation applies through the dependency chain.
Claim 10 is an independent claim directed to a method of operating a high-bandwidth coherent optical transceiver integrated on a silicon substrate. Claim 10 recites method steps corresponding to the operation of the transceiver apparatus claimed in Claim 1.
Claim 15 depends from Claim 10 and incorporates all of the steps of Claim 10. Claim 15 adds an additional step that potentially includes a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The corresponding structure for this means-plus-function limitation is identified in the '193 Patent specification and will be specified in connection with the Court's claim construction proceedings.
Claim 18 depends from Claim 10 and incorporates all of the steps of Claim 10. Claim 18 adds limitations specifying bandwidth and data-rate parameters, requiring minimum performance thresholds for the transceiver's data throughput capabilities.
C. U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562 ("the '562 Patent")
Title: "Method for Thermal Management of Photonic Integrated Circuits Using Embedded Micro-Channel Heat Sinks"
Filing Date: November 22, 2014
Issue Date: June 13, 2017
Original Assignee: Solara Optics, Inc.
Current Assignee: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp., by virtue of an Asset Purchase Agreement dated June 15, 2018, pursuant to which OWS acquired the '562 Patent, along with eleven other patents, from Solara Optics, Inc. for a total purchase price of $34.5 million. The assignment of the '562 Patent from Solara Optics, Inc. to OWS has been recorded at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Patent Family: The '562 Patent is in the same patent family as U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847 (the '847 Patent), with a continuation relationship between the two patents.
Prosecution Firm: Cascade IP Advisors, LLC (Dr. Martin Chu, lead prosecution attorney)
Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 4, 6, and 11, all asserted under a theory of literal infringement.
Claim 1 is an independent claim directed to a method for thermal management of a photonic integrated circuit using embedded micro-channel heat sinks. Claim 1 recites the method steps of providing a photonic integrated circuit, forming embedded micro-channels within or adjacent to the PIC substrate, circulating a coolant or thermal fluid through the micro-channels, and dissipating heat generated by the photonic circuit.
Claim 4 depends from Claim 1 and incorporates all of the elements of Claim 1. Claim 4 adds limitations specifying micro-channel dimensions and materials, including constraints on the hydraulic diameter of the micro-channels and the composition of the substrate material.
Claim 6 depends from Claim 1 and incorporates all of the elements of Claim 1. Claim 6 adds limitations specifying heat-dissipation performance characteristics, including thermal resistance values or heat flux density thresholds.
Claim 11 is an independent claim directed to the micro-channel heat-sink structure itself, as distinguished from the method of thermal management claimed in Claim 1. Claim 11 recites structural elements including the substrate, the micro-channel array, fluid inlet and outlet ports, and a thermal interface connecting the heat-sink structure to the photonic integrated circuit.
D. U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015 ("the '015 Patent")
Title: "Polarization-Diverse Grating Coupler for Silicon Photonic Transceivers"
Filing Date: August 30, 2019
Issue Date: August 2, 2022
Priority: Claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/499,117, filed April 7, 2017. This provisional application is shared with the '193 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193).
Original Assignee: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.
Current Assignee: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.
Prosecution Firm: Cascade IP Advisors, LLC (Dr. Martin Chu, lead prosecution attorney)
Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, and 16. All claims are asserted under a theory of literal infringement. Claim 12 is additionally asserted under the doctrine of equivalents.
Claim 1 is an independent claim directed to a polarization-diverse grating coupler for a silicon photonic transceiver, comprising, inter alia, a grating structure formed on a silicon substrate, polarization-diversity functionality enabling coupling of both TE and TM modes, coupling to a fiber or free-space optical path, and integration with a transceiver optical engine.
Claim 5 depends from Claim 1 and incorporates all of the limitations of Claim 1. Claim 5 adds limitations specifying grating parameters, including grating period, duty cycle, and etch depth.
Claim 8 depends from Claim 1 and incorporates all of the limitations of Claim 1. Claim 8 adds limitations specifying coupling efficiency thresholds, requiring that the grating coupler achieve a minimum coupling efficiency for both polarization states.
Claim 12 depends from Claim 1 and one or more intervening dependent claims, and incorporates all of the limitations thereof. Claim 12 adds a "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating" limitation, specifying that the grating coupler comprises a grating structure with features arranged in two spatial dimensions and having feature sizes below the operating wavelength. OWS asserts Claim 12 under both literal infringement and the doctrine of equivalents. As discussed in detail in Section IV.D.4 below, the doctrine of equivalents contention is based on the function-way-result test. During prosecution of the '015 Patent, the "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating" limitation was added by amendment to overcome a § 103 rejection combining U.S. Patent No. 8,412,007 (Bergmann, issued April 2, 2013) with PCT/EP2015/071234 (Simonsen, filed September 17, 2015). OWS contends that prosecution history estoppel does not bar application of the doctrine of equivalents for the reasons set forth in Section IV.D.4.
Claim 16 is an independent claim directed to a method of coupling polarization-diverse light using a grating coupler on a silicon photonic transceiver. Claim 16 recites method steps corresponding to the operation of the grating coupler apparatus claimed in Claim 1.
E. Summary Table of Asserted Claims
The following table summarizes the claims asserted against Lumicore and identifies whether each claim is asserted under literal infringement, the doctrine of equivalents, or both:
In total, OWS asserts twenty-one (21) claims across four (4) patents. Of these, eighteen (18) claims are asserted solely under literal infringement, and three (3) claims are asserted under both literal infringement and the doctrine of equivalents.
III. IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITIES
Pursuant to P.R. 3-1(b), OWS identifies below each accused instrumentality—including each product, process, and system—that OWS contends infringes one or more asserted claims.
A. Accused Products
The following Lumicore product lines are accused of infringing the asserted patents:
1. LumiLink 400G-ZR+
The LumiLink 400G-ZR+ is a 400-gigabit coherent optical transceiver module designed for data-center interconnect and metro-reach applications. It was commercially launched by Lumicore in the third quarter of 2022 and has been continuously sold, offered for sale, and imported into the United States since that date. Based on publicly available financial information and OWS's analysis, the estimated fiscal year 2023 revenue attributable to sales of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ is approximately $94.8 million.
The LumiLink 400G-ZR+ employs a silicon photonic integrated circuit as its core optical engine. The product incorporates silicon photonic waveguide multiplexing to combine multiple wavelength channels, integrated coherent detection for high-bandwidth data recovery, and embedded thermal management micro-channels within the photonic integrated circuit package for heat dissipation. The LumiLink 400G-ZR+ is accused of infringing the asserted claims of the '847 Patent, the '193 Patent, and the '562 Patent.
2. LumiLink 800G-DR8
The LumiLink 800G-DR8 is an 800-gigabit direct-detect transceiver module designed for intra-data-center connectivity applications. It was commercially launched by Lumicore in the first quarter of 2023 and has been continuously sold, offered for sale, and imported into the United States since that date. Based on publicly available financial information and OWS's analysis, the estimated fiscal year 2023 revenue attributable to sales of the LumiLink 800G-DR8 is approximately $128.4 million.
The LumiLink 800G-DR8 employs silicon photonic waveguide multiplexing, a coherent optical transceiver architecture integrated on a silicon substrate, embedded micro-channel heat sinks for thermal management, and a polarization-diverse grating coupler for fiber-to-chip optical coupling. The LumiLink 800G-DR8 is accused of infringing the asserted claims of all four asserted patents: the '847 Patent, the '193 Patent, the '562 Patent, and the '015 Patent.
3. LumiEdge 1600G-LR
The LumiEdge 1600G-LR is a 1600-gigabit long-reach transceiver module designed for campus and metro network applications requiring extended reach. It was commercially launched by Lumicore in the fourth quarter of 2023—notably, after Lumicore had received notice of the asserted patents—and has been sold, offered for sale, and imported into the United States since that date. Based on publicly available financial information and OWS's analysis, the estimated fiscal year 2023 revenue attributable to sales of the LumiEdge 1600G-LR (for the partial quarter following its launch) is approximately $41.7 million.
The LumiEdge 1600G-LR employs coherent optical transceiver technology integrated on a silicon substrate and a polarization-diverse grating coupler for fiber-to-chip optical coupling. The LumiEdge 1600G-LR is accused of infringing the asserted claims of the '193 Patent and the '015 Patent.
B. Summary Table of Accused Products and Asserted Patents
The following table summarizes which patents are asserted against each accused product:
C. Identification of Customers and Sales in This District
OWS's investigation has confirmed that Lumicore has sold accused products to customers with facilities located in the Eastern District of Texas. Specifically, Lumicore has sold one or more accused products to at least the following three customers with operations in this district:
(a) Pinnacle Data Systems, LLC, which operates a data center facility in Longview, Texas, within the Eastern District of Texas;
(b) Frontier Cloud Services, Inc., which maintains a network operations center and data center in marshall, Texas, within the Eastern District of Texas; and
(c) CrossPoint Networking Corp., which has facilities in Plano, Texas (transferred to the Tyler Division of the Eastern District of Texas).
In addition, Lumicore itself maintains a sales office and technical support center at 2700 Earl Campbell Parkway, Suite 150, Tyler, Texas 75701, from which Lumicore conducts business related to the accused products, including sales, customer support, and technical consultation.
D. Basis of Knowledge
OWS's infringement contentions set forth herein are based upon information obtained through the following sources:
(a) Reverse-engineering teardown analyses performed by Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC, under the direction of Kevin Ng, a recognized expert in semiconductor and photonic integrated circuit teardown and analysis. Benchmark conducted detailed teardown analyses on each of the three accused products, producing the following reports:
(i) LumiLink 400G-ZR+ Teardown Report, dated December 12, 2022;
(ii) LumiLink 800G-DR8 Teardown Report, dated June 2023; and
(iii) LumiEdge 1600G-LR Teardown Report, dated February 2024.
Each teardown report includes optical and scanning electron microscope (SEM) imaging of the photonic integrated circuit die, analysis of the waveguide structures, identification of the coherent transceiver and detection architectures, thermal management structures, and grating coupler features. Annotated excerpts from these reports are attached as Exhibits A through G.
(b) Publicly available Lumicore product datasheets, whitepapers, and marketing materials, which describe the technical specifications, architecture, and performance characteristics of each accused product.
(c) Lumicore patent applications and publications relating to the accused products and the underlying technology, which provide additional detail regarding the design and structure of the accused products.
(d) Documents produced by Lumicore in discovery to date, comprising approximately 147,000 documents totaling approximately 980,000 pages. These documents include internal design presentations, engineering specifications, product development timelines, fabrication process documents, and correspondence.
(e) Deposition testimony, including the deposition of Dr. Sandra Michaud, Lumicore's Chief Technology Officer, taken on November 19, 2024, in which Dr. Michaud admitted reviewing OWS published patent application No. 2018/0123456 (corresponding to the '193 Patent) during the LumiLink design phase. Additional deposition testimony is anticipated.
OWS reserves the right to supplement these contentions upon receipt of additional Lumicore design files, RTL schematics, photonic-IC layout files, source-code repositories, and fabrication run data, which have been requested in OWS's Second Set of Requests for Production, served on November 4, 2024, and which remain outstanding as of the date of this filing.
IV. CLAIM-BY-CLAIM, ELEMENT-BY-ELEMENT INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
Prefatory Notes. Pursuant to P.R. 3-1(c), OWS sets forth below its infringement contentions on a claim-by-claim, element-by-element basis for each asserted claim of each asserted patent. For each asserted claim, the full claim language is identified, followed by a detailed identification of where each claim element is found in each accused product.
Where OWS asserts infringement under the doctrine of equivalents in addition to literal infringement, the function-way-result analysis is presented following the literal infringement mapping for the relevant claim element.
Annotated teardown photographs, SEM images, and diagrams from Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC's reports are referenced by exhibit number throughout this section and are attached as Exhibits A through H. References to Lumicore design documents produced in discovery are cited by Bates number where available.
The infringement contentions set forth below are based on OWS's proposed claim constructions as set forth in the Joint Claim Construction Statement (D.E. 40, filed October 28, 2024), OWS's Opening Claim Construction Brief (D.E. 44, filed November 15, 2024), and OWS's Reply Claim Construction Brief (D.E. 52, filed December 20, 2024). OWS reserves the right to supplement or amend these contentions following the Court's Markman Order.
A. '847 Patent — U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847
The '847 Patent is directed to a multi-channel silicon photonic waveguide multiplexer with low insertion loss. The accused products are the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and the LumiLink 800G-DR8, both of which incorporate multi-channel silicon photonic waveguide multiplexer structures.
1. Claim 1. Claim Language (Preamble): "A multi-channel silicon photonic waveguide multiplexer comprising:"
Accused Products: LumiLink 400G-ZR+; LumiLink 800G-DR8.
Infringement Mapping:
Both the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and the LumiLink 800G-DR8 incorporate a multi-channel silicon photonic waveguide multiplexer structure as a core component of their silicon photonic integrated circuit architecture. The Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC teardown of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ (December 12, 2022 report) confirmed the presence of waveguide multiplexer structures that combine multiple optical signals of different wavelengths onto a single waveguide. The Benchmark teardown of the LumiLink 800G-DR8 (June 2023 report) confirmed the same general waveguide multiplexer architecture, with refinements in the number of channels and waveguide geometry.
Lumicore's own product datasheets for both the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and the LumiLink 800G-DR8 describe multi-wavelength multiplexing capability as a key feature of the products, confirming that the products practice the claimed multiplexer architecture.
The specific elements of Claim 1 are mapped to the accused products as follows:
[Claim 1, Element (a)] — Input Waveguide Array:
The claim requires an input waveguide array comprising a plurality of input waveguide channels. Benchmark's teardown photographs of both the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and LumiLink 800G-DR8 silicon photonic dies show multiple input waveguide channels fabricated on the silicon photonic chip. See Exhibit A, Figures A-1 through A-4 (annotated die photographs of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+); Exhibit C, Figures C-1 through C-3 (annotated die photographs of the LumiLink 800G-DR8). Each input waveguide carries an optical signal at a distinct wavelength, which is then routed to the multiplexing region of the device. The input waveguide array is clearly visible in the Benchmark optical microscopy images, and its dimensions and layout are consistent with the structural parameters described in Lumicore's internal design documents. See, e.g., LUM-DESIGN-00034521 through LUM-DESIGN-00034589 (Lumicore waveguide layout specifications for LumiLink 400G-ZR+ silicon photonic chip); LUM-DESIGN-00078112 through LUM-DESIGN-00078194 (corresponding specifications for LumiLink 800G-DR8).
[Claim 1, Element (b)] — Waveguide Multiplexing Region:
The claim requires a waveguide multiplexing region configured to combine optical signals of different wavelengths from the plurality of input waveguides. In both accused products, the Benchmark teardown identified a region on the silicon photonic chip where the multiple input waveguide channels converge and their respective optical signals are combined through an arrayed waveguide grating or equivalent multiplexing structure. See Exhibit A, Figures A-5 through A-8 (annotated images of the multiplexing region in the LumiLink 400G-ZR+); Exhibit C, Figures C-4 through C-6 (annotated images of the multiplexing region in the LumiLink 800G-DR8). The multiplexing region includes a slab coupler region that functions to combine the wavelength-separated optical channels into a single combined optical signal. Lumicore's product datasheets for both the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and LumiLink 800G-DR8 describe multi-wavelength capability, corroborating the presence of a waveguide multiplexing region. See Exhibit H (Lumicore product datasheets).
[Claim 1, Element (c)] — Output Waveguide:
The claim requires a single combined output waveguide. In both accused products, the Benchmark teardown identified a single output waveguide on the silicon photonic die that carries the combined multi-wavelength optical signal from the multiplexing region to the output port of the transceiver module. See Exhibit A, Figure A-9 (annotated image showing output waveguide of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+); Exhibit C, Figure C-7 (annotated image showing output waveguide of the LumiLink 800G-DR8). The output waveguide routes the combined signal to the transceiver's fiber coupling interface, as confirmed by Lumicore product design documents. See LUM-DESIGN-00034601 through LUM-DESIGN-00034615.
[Claim 1, Element (d)] — Low Insertion Loss Specification:
The claim requires that the waveguide multiplexer exhibit insertion loss below a specified threshold across the operating wavelength range. Lumicore's published product datasheets and specifications for both the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and the LumiLink 800G-DR8 advertise insertion loss figures for their waveguide multiplexer that are consistent with—and indeed satisfy—the insertion loss threshold recited in Claim 1. See Exhibit H (datasheets specifying insertion loss for each product). Additionally, Benchmark's optical testing data, including insertion loss measurements performed on the teardown samples, independently confirm that both accused products achieve insertion loss values meeting the claimed threshold. See Exhibit A, Table A-1 (Benchmark optical testing results for LumiLink 400G-ZR+); Exhibit C, Table C-1 (Benchmark optical testing results for LumiLink 800G-DR8).
2. Claim 3 (Dependent on Claim 1). Accused Products: LumiLink 400G-ZR+; LumiLink 800G-DR8.
Claim 3 depends from Claim 1 and incorporates all of the limitations of Claim 1, as mapped above. In addition to the elements of Claim 1, Claim 3 adds specific structural features of the waveguide array, including limitations relating to the phase-shift characteristics of the arrayed waveguide elements and the spacing between adjacent waveguides in the array.
Infringement Mapping of Additional Limitation:
The Benchmark teardown data for both the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and the LumiLink 800G-DR8 confirms that the waveguide arrays in the accused products exhibit structural parameters consistent with the additional limitation of Claim 3. Specifically, Benchmark's SEM and optical microscopy images show arrayed waveguide elements with phase-shift characteristics and inter-waveguide spacing that correspond to the claimed structural features. See Exhibit A, Figures A-10 through A-12 (annotated images of waveguide array features in LumiLink 400G-ZR+); Exhibit C, Figures C-8 through C-10 (annotated images of waveguide array features in LumiLink 800G-DR8).
Additionally, Lumicore CAD layout excerpts produced in discovery confirm the dimensional parameters of the waveguide array structures in both accused products. See LUM-DESIGN-00034530 through LUM-DESIGN-00034542 (LumiLink 400G-ZR+ CAD layout showing waveguide array geometry); LUM-DESIGN-00078133 through LUM-DESIGN-00078148 (LumiLink 800G-DR8 CAD layout showing waveguide array geometry).
3. Claim 5 (Dependent on Claim 1). Accused Products: LumiLink 400G-ZR+; LumiLink 800G-DR8.
Claim 5 depends from Claim 1 and incorporates all of the limitations of Claim 1, as mapped above. In addition to the elements of Claim 1, Claim 5 further specifies insertion loss thresholds for the multiplexer.
Infringement Mapping of Additional Limitation:
Lumicore's published product specifications for both the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and the LumiLink 800G-DR8 confirm insertion loss values that meet the more specific insertion loss threshold recited in Claim 5. See Exhibit H (product datasheets and specification sheets for both accused products, listing insertion loss values). Benchmark's independent optical testing data further supports this conclusion, confirming that the measured insertion loss values for both accused products satisfy the requirements of Claim 5. See Exhibit A, Table A-1; Exhibit C, Table C-1.
4. Claim 9 (Independent). Accused Products: LumiLink 400G-ZR+; LumiLink 800G-DR8.
Claim 9 is an independent claim directed to a waveguide multiplexer system with specific functional elements. Based on OWS's analysis, Claim 9 contains one limitation that potentially invokes means-plus-function treatment under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The corresponding structure disclosed in the '847 Patent specification for this means-plus-function limitation will be identified by specific column and line references in connection with claim construction proceedings. OWS contends that the corresponding structure identified in the accused products either matches the structure disclosed in the specification or constitutes an equivalent structure that performs the identical function.
Infringement Mapping:
The element-by-element mapping for Claim 9 is consistent with the approach set forth for Claim 1 above, as Claim 9 recites a related waveguide multiplexer system configuration. Each element of Claim 9 is identified in both the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and the LumiLink 800G-DR8, as confirmed by Benchmark teardown data (Exhibits A and C), Lumicore product datasheets (Exhibit H), and Lumicore design documents produced in discovery.
For the means-plus-function element of Claim 9, the corresponding structure disclosed in the '847 Patent specification has been identified in both accused products. Benchmark's teardown analysis confirms that the accused products incorporate hardware and functional components that are identical to, or equivalent to, the structure disclosed in the specification as corresponding to the claimed function. See Exhibit A, Figures A-13 through A-15; Exhibit C, Figures C-11 through C-13.
5. Claim 14 (Dependent on Claim 9). Accused Products: LumiLink 400G-ZR+; LumiLink 800G-DR8.
Claim 14 depends from Claim 9 and incorporates all of the limitations of Claim 9, as mapped above. In addition to the elements of Claim 9, Claim 14 adds limitations specifying channel count and wavelength spacing parameters.
Infringement Mapping of Additional Limitation:
Lumicore's published product specifications for both the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and the LumiLink 800G-DR8 confirm channel count and wavelength spacing values that fall within the ranges recited in Claim 14. The LumiLink 400G-ZR+ is specified to operate with a defined number of wavelength channels at a specified channel spacing, and the LumiLink 800G-DR8 similarly specifies channel count and wavelength spacing parameters, both of which satisfy the claimed ranges. See Exhibit H (product datasheets). Benchmark's optical testing data independently corroborates the channel count and wavelength spacing values. See Exhibit A, Table A-2; Exhibit C, Table C-2.
B. '193 Patent — U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193
The '193 Patent is directed to a high-bandwidth coherent optical transceiver integrated on a silicon substrate. The accused products are the LumiLink 400G-ZR+, the LumiLink 800G-DR8, and the LumiEdge 1600G-LR, all three of which incorporate coherent optical transceiver technology integrated on a silicon substrate.
1. Claim 1. Claim Language (Preamble): "A high-bandwidth coherent optical transceiver integrated on a silicon substrate, comprising:"
Accused Products: LumiLink 400G-ZR+; LumiLink 800G-DR8; LumiEdge 1600G-LR.
Infringement Mapping:
All three accused products are coherent optical transceivers formed on or within a silicon-based wafer using semiconductor fabrication processes. The Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC teardowns of each accused product confirmed that each employs a silicon photonic integrated circuit (PIC) as its core optical engine. The silicon photonic PIC integrates modulation, detection, and signal processing functions on a common silicon substrate, consistent with the claimed "high-bandwidth coherent optical transceiver integrated on a silicon substrate." Lumicore's own product datasheets describe each of the three accused products as "silicon photonic" transceivers, confirming the silicon substrate integration. See Exhibit H.
The deposition testimony of Dr. Sandra Michaud, Lumicore's Chief Technology Officer, taken on November 19, 2024, further confirms that each accused product utilizes a silicon photonic integration approach. Dr. Michaud testified regarding the architecture of the LumiLink and LumiEdge product families and confirmed the silicon photonic integration platform.
The specific elements of Claim 1 are mapped to the accused products as follows:
[Claim 1, Element (a)] — Silicon Substrate:
Each accused product incorporates a photonic integrated circuit fabricated on a silicon substrate. Benchmark's teardown analyses of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ (Exhibit B), the LumiLink 800G-DR8 (Exhibit C), and the LumiEdge 1600G-LR (Exhibit D) each identified the silicon-on-insulator (SOI) substrate underlying the photonic integrated circuit die. The silicon substrate provides the foundation for the waveguide structures, modulator components, and detector elements in each product. Lumicore's internal fabrication process documents confirm the use of silicon-based wafer fabrication. See LUM-FAB-00012201 through LUM-FAB-00012290.
[Claim 1, Element (b)] — Coherent Modulator:
Each accused product incorporates a coherent modulator integrated on the silicon substrate, which modulates light to encode data using coherent modulation formats such as dual-polarization quadrature phase-shift keying (DP-QPSK) or higher-order modulation. Benchmark's teardown data identified coherent modulator structures, including Mach-Zehnder modulator arrays and IQ modulators, on the silicon photonic die of each accused product. See Exhibit B, Figures B-1 through B-4 (LumiLink 400G-ZR+); Exhibit C, Figures C-14 through C-17 (LumiLink 800G-DR8); Exhibit D, Figures D-1 through D-4 (LumiEdge 1600G-LR). Lumicore product datasheets describe coherent modulation capabilities, and Lumicore design schematics (Bates-numbered) confirm the coherent modulator architecture.
[Claim 1, Element (c)] — Coherent Detection Module:
Each accused product incorporates a coherent detection module integrated on the silicon substrate, which receives and demodulates coherent optical signals. The coherent detection module includes integrated photodetectors and signal-processing elements for separating and demodulating phase-encoded optical channels. Benchmark's teardown data identified coherent receiver circuitry, including optical hybrid mixers and balanced photodetectors, integrated on the silicon PIC in all three accused products. See Exhibit B, Figures B-5 through B-8; Exhibit C, Figures C-18 through C-21; Exhibit D, Figures D-5 through D-8. Lumicore's design files produced in discovery show the coherent receiver architecture. See LUM-DESIGN-00045001 through LUM-DESIGN-00045089.
[Claim 1, Element (d)] — Integrated Electronic Driver/Transimpedance Amplifier (TIA):
Each accused product incorporates integrated electronic driver circuitry and transimpedance amplifier (TIA) circuitry co-packaged with or integrated alongside the silicon photonic die. Benchmark's teardowns identified driver and TIA integrated circuits within the transceiver module package of each accused product. See Exhibit B, Figures B-9 through B-11; Exhibit C, Figures C-22 through C-24; Exhibit D, Figures D-9 through D-11.
[Claim 1, Element (e)] — High-Bandwidth Data-Path Specification:
Each accused product satisfies the high-bandwidth data-path specification recited in Claim 1. The LumiLink 400G-ZR+ operates at 400 Gbps, the LumiLink 800G-DR8 operates at 800 Gbps, and the LumiEdge 1600G-LR operates at 1600 Gbps, each of which exceeds the minimum bandwidth threshold recited in the claim. Lumicore's published datasheets confirm these data-rate specifications. See Exhibit H.
2. Claim 3 (Dependent on Claim 1) — Literal Infringement and Doctrine of Equivalents. Accused Products: LumiLink 400G-ZR+; LumiLink 800G-DR8; LumiEdge 1600G-LR.
Claim 3 depends from Claim 1 and incorporates all of the limitations of Claim 1, as mapped above. In addition to the elements of Claim 1, Claim 3 adds the "coherent detection module" limitation, specifying particular characteristics of the coherent detection functionality within the transceiver.
##### Literal Infringement
Benchmark's teardown data for each of the three accused products identifies coherent detection circuitry integrated on the silicon photonic integrated circuit that satisfies the "coherent detection module" limitation of Claim 3 as that term is properly construed. Specifically, Benchmark identified optical hybrid mixers, balanced photodetector arrays, and associated signal-conditioning circuitry integrated on the silicon PIC die in each accused product. These components collectively form a coherent detection module as claimed. See Exhibit B, Figures B-5 through B-8 (LumiLink 400G-ZR+); Exhibit C, Figures C-18 through C-21 (LumiLink 800G-DR8); Exhibit D, Figures D-5 through D-8 (LumiEdge 1600G-LR).
Lumicore's design files produced in discovery further show the coherent receiver architecture in each accused product, including schematic diagrams and layout files depicting the coherent detection module. See LUM-DESIGN-00045001 through LUM-DESIGN-00045089 (LumiLink 400G-ZR+); LUM-DESIGN-00089301 through LUM-DESIGN-00089387 (LumiLink 800G-DR8); LUM-DESIGN-00112005 through LUM-DESIGN-00112098 (LumiEdge 1600G-LR).
##### Doctrine of Equivalents
To the extent Lumicore argues that its accused coherent detection implementation does not literally satisfy the "coherent detection module" limitation of Claim 3—for example, by asserting that architectural differences in the detection pathway, such as the use of a different photodetector arrangement or a modified optical hybrid configuration, take the accused products outside the literal scope of the claim—OWS contends that Lumicore's implementation nonetheless infringes Claim 3 under the doctrine of equivalents.
Function: Lumicore's accused coherent detection implementation performs substantially the same function as the claimed "coherent detection module"—namely, detecting coherent optical signals and converting them to electrical signals for subsequent data processing and recovery.
Way: Lumicore's accused implementation accomplishes this function in substantially the same way as the claimed "coherent detection module"—namely, by using integrated photodetectors and signal-processing elements on a silicon substrate to separate and demodulate phase-encoded optical channels. Whether Lumicore's implementation uses a slightly modified optical hybrid layout or an alternative balanced photodetector arrangement, the underlying mechanism for achieving coherent detection remains substantially the same.
Result: Lumicore's accused implementation achieves substantially the same result as the claimed "coherent detection module"—namely, enabling high-bandwidth coherent optical data recovery with low bit-error rate performance.
Prosecution History Estoppel Analysis: During prosecution of the '193 Patent, the "coherent detection module" limitation was narrowed by amendment in response to a § 102 anticipation rejection over Takahashi et al. ("Dense WDM Silicon Photonic MUX," IEEE Photonics Technology Letters, March 2014). The amendment was directed to distinguishing the prior art's passive multiplexing approach, which did not employ active coherent detection, from the claimed integrated coherent detection module. The amendment did not surrender the particular equivalent at issue—Lumicore's alternative coherent detection architecture, which is an active coherent detection implementation, not a passive multiplexer.
OWS contends that the presumption of prosecution history estoppel under Festo Corp. v. Fenmore & Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002), is overcome for at least two independent reasons:
(a) The equivalent at issue—Lumicore's alternative coherent detection architecture—was unforeseeable at the time the narrowing amendment was made. The particular architectural variant employed by Lumicore was not known in the art at the time of prosecution, and a person of ordinary skill could not have been expected to foresee the specific design choices Lumicore would later make.
(b) Alternatively, the rationale for the narrowing amendment bears only a tangential relation to the equivalent in question. The amendment was made to distinguish a passive multiplexing approach (Takahashi), not to limit the scope of the claimed coherent detection module to any specific architectural configuration. Lumicore's alternative coherent detection architecture is not a passive multiplexer; it is an active coherent detection implementation that was not the subject of the examiner's rejection or the applicant's amendment.
3. Claim 7 (Dependent) — Literal Infringement and Doctrine of Equivalents. Accused Products: LumiLink 400G-ZR+; LumiLink 800G-DR8; LumiEdge 1600G-LR.
Claim 7 depends from Claim 1 (through Claim 3 or directly) and incorporates all of the limitations of Claim 1 and any intervening dependent claims, as mapped above. In addition, Claim 7 adds further transceiver architecture limitations relating to the integration and configuration of the transceiver's optical and electronic components.
##### Literal Infringement
The additional transceiver architecture limitations of Claim 7 are identified in each of the three accused products through Benchmark's teardown analyses and Lumicore's design files. The specific architectural features called for by Claim 7 are present in the silicon photonic transceiver design of each accused product, as confirmed by the teardown images and design schematics referenced in the Claim 1 and Claim 3 mappings above, and by additional annotated images. See Exhibit B, Figures B-12 through B-15 (LumiLink 400G-ZR+); Exhibit C, Figures C-25 through C-28 (LumiLink 800G-DR8); Exhibit D, Figures D-12 through D-15 (LumiEdge 1600G-LR).
##### Doctrine of Equivalents
The doctrine of equivalents analysis for Claim 7 is the same as for Claim 3, because the "coherent detection module" limitation applies to Claim 7 through the dependency chain. OWS relies on the same function-way-result analysis and prosecution history estoppel arguments set forth in Section IV.B.2 above and incorporates them by reference here.
4. Claim 10 (Independent — Method Claim). Accused Products: LumiLink 400G-ZR+; LumiLink 800G-DR8; LumiEdge 1600G-LR.
Claim 10 is an independent claim directed to a method of operating a high-bandwidth coherent optical transceiver integrated on a silicon substrate. Each step of Claim 10 corresponds to the operation of the transceiver apparatus elements mapped in Claim 1 above.
Infringement Mapping:
Each of the three accused products, when operated in accordance with its intended use and as described in Lumicore's product datasheets, installation guides, and operational manuals, performs each of the method steps recited in Claim 10. Specifically:
(a) The step of modulating light using a coherent modulation format on a silicon substrate is performed when the accused product encodes data onto optical carrier signals using the integrated coherent modulator;
(b) The step of detecting coherent optical signals using a coherent detection module integrated on the silicon substrate is performed when the accused product receives and demodulates incoming coherent optical signals using the integrated coherent receiver;
(c) The step of processing the detected signals through the integrated electronic circuitry is performed when the accused product drives the modulators via the electronic driver and amplifies the received signals via the transimpedance amplifier;
(d) The step of transmitting and receiving high-bandwidth optical data is performed when the accused product operates at its specified data rate (400G, 800G, or 1600G, respectively).
These method steps are supported by Lumicore product datasheets describing operational modes (Exhibit H), Benchmark functional testing data collected during the teardown analyses (Exhibits B, C, D), and the deposition testimony of Dr. Sandra Michaud regarding product operation.
5. Claim 15 (Dependent on Claim 10). Accused Products: LumiLink 400G-ZR+; LumiLink 800G-DR8; LumiEdge 1600G-LR.
Claim 15 depends from Claim 10 and incorporates all of the steps of Claim 10, as mapped above. Claim 15 adds an additional method step that potentially includes a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The corresponding structure for this means-plus-function limitation is identified in the '193 Patent specification and will be specified by column and line reference in connection with claim construction proceedings.
Infringement Mapping of Additional Limitation:
The corresponding structure disclosed in the '193 Patent specification for the means-plus-function limitation of Claim 15 has been identified in each of the three accused products. Each accused product incorporates hardware and functional components that are identical to, or equivalent to, the structure disclosed in the specification as corresponding to the claimed function. Benchmark's teardown analyses confirm the presence of these components in each product. See Exhibit B, Figures B-16 through B-18 (LumiLink 400G-ZR+); Exhibit C, Figures C-29 through C-31 (LumiLink 800G-DR8); Exhibit D, Figures D-16 through D-18 (LumiEdge 1600G-LR).
6. Claim 18 (Dependent on Claim 10). Accused Products: LumiLink 400G-ZR+; LumiLink 800G-DR8; LumiEdge 1600G-LR.
Claim 18 depends from Claim 10 and incorporates all of the steps of Claim 10, as mapped above. Claim 18 adds limitations specifying bandwidth and data-rate parameters, requiring that the method achieve minimum performance thresholds for the transceiver's data throughput.