PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
OPENING STATEMENT OUTLINE
Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. v. Lumicore Technologies, Inc. Case No. 2:24-cv-00319-JRG
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division
Before the Honorable James R. Gilstrap
January 2026
Right-click to update Table of Contents
GENERAL NOTES FOR DELIVERY
Estimated Opening Statement Duration: 45–55 minutes. Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. ("OWS") has been allocated approximately four of five total days of trial presentation time. The opening statement should be proportionate to that allocation, conveying authority and thoroughness without exhausting the jury's attention before testimony begins. The target is to finish comfortably under 55 minutes while covering all five Acts below.
Tone: The opening must be accessible, narrative-driven, and righteous — but never aggressive or condescending. The jury should view OWS as a genuine innovator: a real company, with real employees, real products, and real investments in research and development. OWS is not a patent troll; it is a victim. Conversely, the jury should view Lumicore Technologies, Inc. ("Lumicore") as a deliberate copier — a company that knew about OWS's patents, chose to take the technology without permission, was confronted, and refused to stop. The moral framework is straightforward: OWS played by the rules; Lumicore did not.
Demonstratives: The opening should reference coordinated trial demonstratives throughout. Two principal demonstrative modules have been prepared:
• Infringement Module — Prepared in conjunction with Dr. Caroline Ashford (OWS's technical expert). This module includes annotated teardown photographs, side-by-side claim-limitation comparisons, and 3D animated models of the patented structures and accused product structures.
• Damages Module — Prepared in conjunction with Dr. Lawrence Keating (OWS's damages expert). This module includes revenue timelines, lost-sales graphs, royalty benchmark charts, and a Georgia-Pacific factor summary.
All demonstratives are to be pre-marked and pre-cleared with opposing counsel (Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP) and the Court in accordance with the Eastern District of Texas Local Rules and the Court's pretrial order.
Key Phrases to Repeat Throughout the Opening: The opening should build around the following refrain, used at least three times during the statement:
"They knew. They copied. They refused to stop."
This phrase encapsulates the entire case theory — knowledge, deliberate infringement, and willful post-notice continuation. It should be delivered with measured conviction, not shouted.
Jury Composition Considerations: The Eastern District of Texas jury pool is drawn primarily from communities in and around marshall, Texas. Jurors are unlikely to have backgrounds in semiconductor physics or optical engineering. The opening must avoid overly technical jargon at every turn. When technical concepts are unavoidable, they should be introduced using plain-language analogies:
• "Blueprints" — for patent claims and specifications
• "Recipe" — for the method patents
• "Highway lanes for light" — for waveguide multiplexing
• "Miniature plumbing" — for thermal management micro-channels
• "An antenna that catches every signal" — for polarization-diverse grating couplers
Build credibility by being clear and concise. Jurors reward attorneys who respect their intelligence without overwhelming them.
Legal Guardrails: The opening statement is not argument. Every assertion must be grounded in testimony or exhibits that will be introduced during trial. Do not characterize evidence in objectionable terms. Do not express personal opinions ("I believe," "I think"). Do not refer to excluded evidence or in limine rulings that preclude certain references. Preview what the evidence will show — do not argue what it means.
ACT I: THE OPTIWAVE INNOVATION STORY
Section 1.1 — Introduction of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Alan Ngo. I'm a partner at the law firm Calderwood & Harkness, and I have the privilege of representing Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. in this case.
Before I begin, I'd like to introduce you to some of the people sitting at our counsel table. You will see them here every day of this trial. First, Rebecca Tanaka, who is the General Counsel of Optiwave Semiconductor — she is the company's chief legal officer and has been involved in this matter from the very beginning. Next to her is Dr. Jian-Wei Huang, the Chief Technology Officer of Optiwave Semiconductor — he is a named inventor on multiple patents at issue in this case and one of the leading minds in silicon-photonics engineering in the United States. You will also see other representatives of Optiwave Semiconductor throughout this trial, because this case matters deeply to them and to their company.
Now, let me tell you what this case is about. I can do it in one sentence:
This case is about a company that invented breakthrough technology, patented it, and then watched a competitor copy it — knowingly and deliberately.
Over the next several days, you will hear testimony from engineers, executives, licensing professionals, and expert witnesses. You will see patent documents, product teardowns, internal communications, and financial records. And when all the evidence is in, we will ask you to hold the defendant, Lumicore Technologies, accountable for taking what did not belong to it.
But before we get to the evidence, I want to tell you a story. It's the story of how Optiwave Semiconductor came to be, what it invented, and what happened when Lumicore Technologies decided it wanted that technology — without paying for it.
Section 1.2 — Who Is Optiwave Semiconductor?
Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. — we'll call it "OWS" throughout this trial — was founded in 2011 in Santa Clara, California. It is a Delaware corporation, headquartered at 4810 Bayside Technology Parkway, Suite 300, Santa Clara, California 95054.
OWS is what the semiconductor industry calls a "fabless" company. That means OWS designs and engineers its own semiconductor chipsets but outsources the physical fabrication — the manufacturing — to specialized foundry partners. This is a well-established and widely used business model in the semiconductor industry. Companies like Quillon & Co., Stonefield Holdings, and Dunmore Industries operate on the same basic principle. Being fabless does not mean OWS is any less of an innovator. To the contrary, it means OWS's entire competitive advantage lies in its designs — its intellectual property.
OWS specializes in silicon photonics chipsets for data-center interconnects. You're going to hear a lot about silicon photonics during this trial, and I'll explain what that means in a moment. But what I want you to understand right now is that OWS is a real company with real people making real products that are used by some of the largest technology companies in the world.
As of this trial, OWS has approximately 1,250 employees. Its CEO is Dr. Priya Ramaswamy, a distinguished engineer and executive whose name you will hear referenced throughout the evidence. Its CTO is Dr. Jian-Wei Huang, who is sitting right here at counsel table — the man who led the engineering teams that developed several of the inventions at issue in this case.
Let me give you a sense of the scale of OWS's business. In fiscal year 2023 — the most recent full fiscal year for which audited financials are available — OWS generated $487.3 million in revenue and $61.4 million in net income. These are real, audited numbers, verified by the independent accounting firm Gresham & Whitfield LLP. This is not a company that exists only on paper. This is a company that designs products, sells them to customers, earns revenue, pays taxes, and employs over a thousand people.
OWS is the third-largest U.S. supplier of silicon-photonics transceiver modules for hyperscale data centers. Its key product families include the OWS-400ZR, the OWS-800XR, and the OWS-1600DR transceiver modules. These are the products that embody the patented inventions at the heart of this case — and you will hear detailed testimony about how each of these products practices the claims of the four asserted patents.
OWS holds a portfolio of 142 issued United States patents and 58 pending patent applications. This is not a company that files one or two patents and then files lawsuits. This is a company that has built its business on a foundation of sustained, systematic innovation over more than a decade. The patents at issue in this case represent just a small fraction of OWS's total intellectual property portfolio, but they are among its most commercially important.
OWS's majority owner is Ridgeline Capital Partners, LP, a private equity firm that acquired a 55% stake in OWS in 2019 for $780 million. That investment tells you something important: sophisticated investors — people who analyze businesses and technologies for a living — looked at OWS and concluded that its technology and its patent portfolio were worth nearly $800 million. The Board Chair of OWS is Franklin Osei, a designee of Ridgeline Capital Partners who oversees the company's strategic direction.
This is the company whose innovations are at issue in this case. Not a shell company. Not a patent assertion entity. A real, operating business with real customers, real employees, and real technology — technology that Lumicore Technologies decided to take.
Section 1.3 — The Technology: Why Silicon Photonics Matters
Let me take a moment to explain why the technology at the center of this case matters — not just to OWS and Lumicore, but to all of us.
Think about every email you've ever sent. Every video you've ever streamed. Every photo you've uploaded to the cloud. Every Severin Industries search, every Calderon Software call, every bank transaction processed online. All of that data has to travel — and it travels through data centers. Data centers are the backbone of the modern internet. They are enormous facilities, sometimes the size of football stadiums, filled with rows upon rows of servers, all communicating with each other at incredible speeds.
Traditionally, the connections between those servers — the links that carry data from one point to another inside a data center — have used copper wires. Copper wires carry electrical signals. But copper has limitations. As data volumes have exploded, copper connections have become bottlenecks. They're slow relative to what's needed. They generate enormous amounts of heat. They're bulky and difficult to scale.
Silicon photonics is a different approach. Instead of using electricity to transmit data through copper wires, silicon photonics uses light — actual photons — to transmit data through tiny waveguides etched into silicon chips. Light is faster than electricity. It generates less heat. It can carry vastly more data in a smaller space. Silicon photonics is the technology that makes next-generation data centers possible.
But here's the key point: making silicon photonics work in practice — making it commercially viable at the bandwidth levels required by the world's largest data-center operators — is extraordinarily difficult. It requires solving hard engineering problems in optics, materials science, thermal management, signal processing, and semiconductor fabrication all at once. That is exactly what OWS did.
During this trial, you will hear from Dr. Jian-Wei Huang, OWS's Chief Technology Officer, about the specific technical breakthroughs that OWS achieved. Dr. Huang is a named inventor on multiple patents at issue in this case. He will explain, in plain language, what these inventions do and why they matter.
You will also hear from Dr. Caroline Ashford. Dr. Ashford is a Professor of Electrical Engineering and Photonics at the Northfield Institute of Technology in Evanston, Illinois. She is one of the leading academic experts on silicon-photonic integrated circuits in the country. OWS has retained Dr. Ashford as its technical expert in this case, and she will explain the patented technology, walk you through the patent claims, and show you — using diagrams, photographs, and animations — exactly how Lumicore copied OWS's inventions.
Section 1.4 — The Four Patents at Issue
Ladies and gentlemen, this case involves four United States utility patents. These are the specific inventions that OWS developed, that the United States Patent and Trademark Office examined and issued, and that Lumicore Technologies infringes. Let me introduce each one to you briefly.
The '847 Patent — U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847. The first patent is U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847 — we'll call it "the '847 Patent" for short. Its formal title is "Multi-Channel Silicon Photonic Waveguide Multiplexer with Low Insertion Loss." It was filed on September 14, 2016, and issued on March 19, 2019. It was originally assigned to Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.
Here's what this patent covers in plain language. Imagine a highway with multiple lanes, each lane carrying a different stream of traffic. Now imagine all of those lanes need to merge into a single tunnel — but without any cars slowing down or crashing into each other. That's essentially what the '847 Patent invented for light. It covers a device called a waveguide multiplexer that takes multiple optical signals — each a different wavelength, or "color," of light — and combines them onto a single tiny waveguide on a silicon chip, with minimal signal loss. This is the kind of innovation that makes high-bandwidth silicon-photonic interconnects possible.
OWS asserts Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, and 14 of the '847 Patent against Lumicore's products.
The '193 Patent — U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193. The second patent is U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193 — the '193 Patent. Its title is "High-Bandwidth Coherent Optical Transceiver Integrated on Silicon Substrate." It was filed on April 7, 2017, and issued on January 12, 2021. It was originally assigned to Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. This patent shares a common provisional application — Provisional Application No. 62/499,117, filed April 7, 2017 — with one of the other patents at issue, the '015 Patent.
Think of it this way: imagine building an entire radio station — the transmitter and the receiver — on a chip the size of your fingernail. That's what the '193 Patent invented for optical communications. It covers a complete optical transceiver built entirely on a single silicon chip, capable of what engineers call "coherent detection." Coherent detection means the device can read data encoded not just in the brightness of the light signal — its amplitude — but also in the phase of the light wave. This is a much more sophisticated and data-rich way of communicating with light, and it's critical for the highest-bandwidth applications.
OWS asserts Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 15, and 18 of the '193 Patent against Lumicore's products.
The '562 Patent — U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562. The third patent is U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562 — the '562 Patent. Its title is "Method for Thermal Management of Photonic Integrated Circuits Using Embedded Micro-Channel Heat Sinks." It was filed on November 22, 2014, and issued on June 13, 2017.
This patent has a slightly different history, and I want to be upfront about it because Lumicore will raise it. The '562 Patent was originally assigned to a company called Solara Optics, Inc., a California corporation that specialized in photonic cooling systems. OWS acquired the '562 Patent — along with eleven other patents — from Solara Optics through an arm's-length asset purchase agreement dated June 15, 2018, for $34.5 million. Solara Optics has since dissolved. The '562 and '847 Patents are related — they are in the same patent family, connected through a continuation relationship.
There is nothing unusual or improper about acquiring patents through a business transaction. Companies buy and sell patent portfolios all the time. It is a normal, lawful part of the technology business. And as you will hear, the inventor and chief engineer behind the '562 Patent technology — Gregory Falk, who was the Vice President of Engineering at Solara Optics — will testify at this trial about how this technology was developed and why it matters.
In plain language, here's what the '562 Patent covers. When you pack optical components onto a tiny silicon chip and push enormous amounts of data through them, the chip generates significant heat. If you don't manage that heat, the chip fails. The '562 Patent invented a method for cooling photonic chips by etching tiny channels directly into the chip — micro-channels — and flowing coolant through them. Think of it as building miniature plumbing into a computer chip to keep it from overheating.
OWS asserts Claims 1, 4, 6, and 11 of the '562 Patent against Lumicore's products.
The '015 Patent — U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015. The fourth and final patent is U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015 — the '015 Patent. Its title is "Polarization-Diverse Grating Coupler for Silicon Photonic Transceivers." It was filed on August 30, 2019, and issued on August 2, 2022. It was originally assigned to Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.
Here's the analogy for this one: Think of an antenna. A standard antenna might only pick up signals oriented in one particular direction. If the signal comes in at a different angle, you lose it. The '015 Patent invented a grating coupler — a component that captures incoming light signals regardless of which direction the light waves are vibrating. Engineers call this "polarization diversity." In real-world optical communications, the polarization of a light signal changes unpredictably as it travels through fiber. A polarization-diverse grating coupler ensures that the signal is captured no matter what — it's an antenna that catches every signal, no matter which way it's oriented.
OWS asserts Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, and 16 of the '015 Patent against Lumicore's products.
Patent Validity and Prosecution. All four of these patents are valid, enforceable, and currently maintained. All required maintenance fees have been paid. The patents were prosecuted — that is, they were prepared, filed, and shepherded through the Patent Office examination process — by Cascade IP Advisors, LLC, under the leadership of Dr. Martin Chu, a registered patent attorney based in Arlington, Virginia. Dr. Chu's office worked closely with OWS's engineering team to ensure that the patent applications accurately described the inventions and that the claims were properly supported.
Importantly, no inter partes review petitions — sometimes called IPRs — have been filed against any of these four patents. An IPR is a proceeding at the Patent Office in which a challenger can ask the Office to reconsider whether a patent should have been issued. No one has asked the Patent Office to take a second look at any of these patents. They stand as issued.
Section 1.5 — Years of R&D Investment
Ladies and gentlemen, the four patents I've just described did not appear out of thin air. They are the product of years — in some cases, more than a decade — of sustained research and development investment by OWS and its engineers.
You will hear testimony from Dr. Nikolai Petrov, OWS's Vice President of Engineering for the Photonics Division. Dr. Petrov will describe the engineering effort behind each patent — the years of iterative design, fabrication, testing, and failure that preceded each breakthrough. Innovation is not a straight line. It is a process of trying, failing, learning, and trying again. The inventions covered by these four patents did not happen overnight. They happened because OWS committed resources, talent, and time to solving hard problems.
And these inventions are not just theoretical. They are commercially significant. Approximately $310 million of OWS's $487.3 million in fiscal year 2023 revenue — roughly 63.6% of the company's total revenue — is directly attributable to products that practice the asserted patents. That means the technology covered by these four patents is the engine of OWS's business. Customers buy OWS's products because of these innovations.
The patent system exists to reward this kind of investment. When a company invents something new, useful, and non-obvious, the patent system gives it the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling that invention for a limited period. That is the bargain: the inventor discloses the invention to the public, and in exchange, the inventor gets exclusive rights. OWS held up its end of that bargain. It invented. It disclosed. It patented. Now OWS is asking this jury to enforce the promise that the patent system makes to every inventor.
ACT II: LUMICORE'S ENTRY AND COPYING
Section 2.1 — Who Is Lumicore Technologies?
Now let me tell you about the defendant in this case, Lumicore Technologies, Inc.
Lumicore is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 9200 Spectrum Boulevard, Building C, Austin, Texas 78759. It was founded in 2015 and has grown rapidly. As of the most recent public filings, Lumicore has approximately 870 employees.
Lumicore's CEO is Thomas Kessler — he goes by "Tom." Its CTO is Dr. Sandra Michaud. Its General Counsel is Raymond Bautista. Its Vice President of Product Development is Dr. Eric Dalmqvist. Its Chief Financial Officer is Janet Moreno. You will hear several of these names throughout this trial, because they are the decision-makers who are responsible for the conduct at issue.
In March 2022, Lumicore completed an initial public offering on the Nasdaq stock exchange at $24 per share. As of the date this lawsuit was filed — April 22, 2024 — Lumicore's stock was trading at approximately $37 per share, giving it a market capitalization of approximately $3.4 billion based on roughly 91.8 million shares outstanding. This is not a small company. This is not a startup that can claim ignorance or resource constraints. This is a multi-billion-dollar publicly traded corporation.
Lumicore's fiscal year 2023 revenue, as reported in its publicly filed 10-K annual report and audited by Brennan Kellogg & Associates LLP, was approximately $312.6 million. Lumicore is a fast-growing entrant in the silicon-photonics transceiver market, and it is targeting the very same hyperscale and telecom customers that OWS serves.
Lumicore is represented in this case by Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP, with lead partner Catherine Rourke — she goes by "Kate" — and by local counsel Trask Eddington LLP, with Maria Garza serving as the responsible local attorney. You will see Ms. Rourke and Ms. Garza throughout this trial, and I have no doubt they will do an excellent job representing their client. But the evidence in this case speaks for itself.
Section 2.2 — The Accused Products
Let me now tell you about the specific Lumicore products that infringe OWS's patents. There are three of them, and they are at the very core of Lumicore's business.
The first accused product is the LumiLink 400G-ZR+. Lumicore launched this product in the third quarter of 2022. In fiscal year 2023, this product generated $94.8 million in revenue for Lumicore. OWS contends that the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ infringes the '847, '193, and '562 Patents.
The second accused product is the LumiLink 800G-DR8. Lumicore launched this product in the first quarter of 2023. In fiscal year 2023, this product generated $128.4 million in revenue for Lumicore. OWS contends that the LumiLink 800G-DR8 infringes all four asserted patents — the '847, '193, '562, and '015 Patents.
The third accused product is the LumiEdge 1600G-LR. Lumicore launched this product in the fourth quarter of 2023 — and, as you will hear, this launch occurred well after Lumicore had been put on notice of OWS's patents and had been asked to take a license. In fiscal year 2023, this product generated $41.7 million in revenue for Lumicore. OWS contends that the LumiEdge 1600G-LR infringes the '193 and '015 Patents.
Let me put some numbers on this. The total revenue generated by these three accused products in fiscal year 2023 alone was $264.9 million. Over the full infringement period — from the third quarter of 2022 through the projected end of 2025 — the total revenue from these accused products is approximately $714.6 million.
And here is the number I want you to keep in mind: the accused products represent approximately 84.7% of Lumicore's total fiscal year 2023 revenue. These are not peripheral products. These are not side projects. The accused products are the core of Lumicore's business. Lumicore built its company on OWS's patented technology.
Section 2.3 — Evidence of Copying
So how do we know that Lumicore copied OWS's patented technology? The evidence will come from multiple independent sources.
First, you will hear from Melissa Chen. Ms. Chen is a former Lumicore engineer who worked on the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ design team from 2020 to 2024. She has since left Lumicore and is now employed at Veridian Photonics, Inc. Ms. Chen is expected to testify — either live in this courtroom or by video deposition — that Lumicore's engineering team accessed and reviewed OWS's published patent application, Application No. 2018/0123456, which corresponds to the '193 Patent, during the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ product design phase in 2021 and 2022. This was not an accident. The engineering team was looking at OWS's published patent application as they were designing Lumicore's competing product.
Second, you will hear from Dr. Sandra Michaud, Lumicore's own CTO. Dr. Michaud was deposed on November 19, 2024. Under oath, Dr. Michaud admitted that she personally reviewed OWS's published patent application No. 2018/0123456 during the LumiLink design phase. She denied knowledge of the issued patents until Lumicore received the first licensing letter — a point we will address shortly — but she could not identify a single specific non-infringing design alternative that Lumicore had considered during the design process. The defendant's own Chief Technology Officer, under oath, admitted she reviewed OWS's published patent application during the very period when Lumicore was designing the products that now stand accused of infringement.
Third, you will see physical evidence. OWS retained Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC — an independent semiconductor analysis firm led by Kevin Ng in Santa Clara, California — to perform physical teardowns of all three accused Lumicore products. A teardown is exactly what it sounds like: the product is purchased, carefully disassembled, and its internal structures are examined under high-powered microscopes and analytical equipment.
• The LumiLink 400G-ZR+ teardown report was delivered on December 12, 2022. It confirmed the presence of waveguide multiplexer structures and thermal management micro-channels that correspond to the claims of the '847 and '562 Patents.
• The LumiLink 800G-DR8 teardown was completed in June 2023.
• The LumiEdge 1600G-LR teardown was completed in February 2024.
Mr. Ng was deposed on January 7, 2025. He confirmed the teardown methodology, the chain of custody for each accused product sample, and identified specific structures in Lumicore's products that correspond to each asserted claim limitation.
During this trial, we will show you side-by-side demonstratives: on one side, the patent claim element — the specific invention as described in the patent; on the other side, a photograph or diagram from the teardown of Lumicore's product showing the same structure. The similarities will be unmistakable.
Section 2.4 — Lumicore Knew About OWS's Patents
But Lumicore didn't just stumble into copying OWS's technology. They knew about these patents — and they did it anyway.
That fact — that Lumicore knew — is what makes this case about more than mere infringement. It is what makes this case about willful infringement. And it is what entitles OWS to enhanced damages under the law.
Let me walk you through the timeline.
ACT III: PRE-SUIT NOTICE AND WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
Section 3.1 — The Licensing Outreach
The story of how OWS discovered Lumicore's infringement begins in October 2022. OWS's internal engineering team, led by Dr. Nikolai Petrov, Vice President of Engineering for the Photonics Division, identified what they believed to be potential infringement by the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ product. Dr. Petrov referred the matter to Rebecca Tanaka, OWS's General Counsel.
Ms. Tanaka and her team took the responsible, measured step of obtaining independent confirmation before making any accusations. In November 2022, OWS retained Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC — the independent teardown firm I mentioned a moment ago — to conduct a physical teardown of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ product. On December 12, 2022, Benchmark delivered its teardown report. The report confirmed what Dr. Petrov's team had suspected: the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ contained structures that practiced the claims of the '847, '193, and '562 Patents.
Armed with this independent analysis, OWS took the next responsible step. It did not file a lawsuit. It did not issue a press release. It reached out to Lumicore through a licensing agent and offered to discuss a license.
On January 15, 2023, FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC — OWS's licensing agent, led by Managing Director Angela Reeves in San Francisco, California — sent a formal licensing and notice letter to Raymond Bautista, the General Counsel of Lumicore Technologies. That letter identified three of the four patents at issue — the '847, '193, and '562 Patents — described OWS's belief that Lumicore's LumiLink 400G-ZR+ product infringed those patents, and invited Lumicore to enter into licensing discussions.
This is the date — January 15, 2023 — on which Lumicore was put on actual, written notice of OWS's patent rights and OWS's infringement contentions.
What was Lumicore's response? On February 28, 2023, Lumicore responded through its outside counsel, Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP. The response disputed infringement. It questioned the validity of the patents. But notably, Lumicore did not ask for a license. It did not propose a design-around. And it did not stop selling the accused products. Lumicore's response was, in essence: "We disagree, and we intend to continue doing exactly what we are doing."
Still, OWS persisted with good-faith efforts to resolve the dispute without litigation. On April 20, 2023, an in-person licensing meeting was held in Austin, Texas. The attendees included Angela Reeves of FairPoint Licensing Group, Rebecca Tanaka of OWS, Raymond Bautista of Lumicore, and Kate Rourke of Hawthorne Vega & Cruz. The meeting produced no resolution. Angela Reeves was deposed on December 10, 2024, and she testified that Lumicore's representatives showed "no interest in negotiating." They came to the meeting to say "no."
On May 15, 2023, FairPoint sent a second, supplemental licensing letter to Lumicore. This time, the letter added the '015 Patent, which had issued on August 2, 2022, and expanded the list of accused products to include the LumiLink 800G-DR8, which Lumicore had launched in the first quarter of 2023. After this letter, Lumicore had notice of all four asserted patents and at least two of the three accused product lines.
On July 10, 2023, Lumicore formally declined to take a license. Its declination letter, signed by Raymond Bautista, stated that Lumicore had obtained "competent legal opinions" concluding that its products did not infringe OWS's patents. But here is a critical fact: Lumicore has refused to produce those opinion letters in this case. Lumicore claims they are protected by attorney-client privilege. You may draw your own conclusions about what those opinions actually say.
Section 3.2 — Continued Infringement After Notice
So let me sum up where we stand in the timeline. By mid-2023, Lumicore had:
• Received two detailed licensing and notice letters identifying all four patents;
• Attended an in-person licensing meeting;
• Formally declined to take a license; and
• Claimed to have legal opinions supporting its position — but refused to share them.
What did Lumicore do next? Did it stop selling the accused products? No. Did it commission a design-around to avoid OWS's patents? No. Did it come back to the table and negotiate in good faith? No.
In the fourth quarter of 2023, Lumicore launched the LumiEdge 1600G-LR module — a brand-new product that also infringes the '193 and '015 Patents. Lumicore did not stop. Lumicore did not redesign. Lumicore launched yet another infringing product.
Raymond Bautista, Lumicore's General Counsel, was deposed on December 3, 2024. Under oath, Mr. Bautista confirmed receipt of FairPoint's January 15, 2023 letter. He said he forwarded it to outside counsel within three business days. He refused to answer questions about the substance of the opinion letters on privilege grounds. And he admitted — this is a critical admission — that no formal design-around analysis was commissioned before the LumiEdge 1600G-LR launch. The company's own General Counsel admitted under oath that Lumicore did not undertake any formal effort to design around OWS's patents before launching a third infringing product.
Section 3.3 — Willful Infringement
Under the law, willful infringement means more than just infringing someone's patent. It means the infringer knew about the patent, knew that its conduct was infringing — or was reckless about that risk — and continued to infringe anyway. Willful infringement is a finding that the jury will be asked to make, and it has significant consequences: it can result in enhanced damages, up to three times the amount of compensatory damages found by the jury, under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
The evidence in this case will establish that Lumicore's infringement was willful. Let me list the key facts that support that conclusion:
1. FairPoint's January 15, 2023 letter put Lumicore on actual, written notice of the '847, '193, and '562 Patents — complete with claim charts identifying the specific claims and the specific accused product structures believed to infringe.
2. The May 15, 2023 supplemental letter added the '015 Patent and expanded the list of accused products.
3. Lumicore continued to sell the existing accused products without interruption after receiving both letters.
4. Lumicore launched a brand-new infringing product — the LumiEdge 1600G-LR — after receiving both letters and after declining to take a license.
5. Lumicore has refused to produce the "competent legal opinions" referenced in its July 10, 2023 declination letter, raising the inference that those opinions do not support Lumicore's position.
6. Melissa Chen's testimony will establish that Lumicore's engineering team reviewed OWS's published patent applications during the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ design phase — meaning Lumicore was aware of OWS's technology before the first accused product even launched.
7. Dr. Sandra Michaud, Lumicore's CTO, admitted under oath that she personally reviewed OWS's published patent application during the design phase.
This is not a close question. Lumicore knew. Lumicore copied. Lumicore refused to stop.
The jury will be instructed that a finding of willful infringement can result in enhanced damages — up to three times the compensatory amount. OWS will ask for that enhancement, because the law provides it precisely for cases like this one.
They knew. They copied. They refused to stop.
ACT IV: THE PATENTED TECHNOLOGY EXPLAINED
Section 4.1 — Setting the Stage for the Technical Evidence
Now let me take a few minutes to explain the technology at issue in this case. This is a patent case, and patents are about specific inventions — specific solutions to specific engineering problems. I want to show you what OWS invented, and how Lumicore took it.
I want to assure you of something at the outset: you do not need to be engineers to understand this. You do not need a degree in physics or optics. We will use diagrams, animations, and plain language throughout this trial. Our goal is to make every concept clear, and if at any point during the trial something is not clear, I am confident that Dr. Ashford, our technical expert, will explain it in a way that makes sense.
Let me walk through each of the four patented technologies.
Section 4.2 — Waveguide Multiplexing (The '847 Patent)
The first technology is covered by the '847 Patent — the waveguide multiplexer.
Remember the highway analogy? Multiple lanes of traffic, each carrying different data, merging into a single tunnel without anyone slowing down. That is what a waveguide multiplexer does, but with light.
More specifically, the '847 Patent covers an optical device that combines multiple optical signals of different wavelengths — different "colors" of light, though many of these wavelengths are invisible to the human eye — onto a single waveguide on a silicon chip with low insertion loss. "Low insertion loss" means that very little of the signal is lost in the merging process. This is critical because in high-speed data communications, even small amounts of signal degradation can cause errors or limit the distance over which data can travel.
The Court held a Markman hearing to construe certain key terms in the patents at issue. The Court's construction of the term "waveguide multiplexer" will govern this trial, and Dr. Ashford will explain what that construction means and how it applies to Lumicore's products.
During trial, we will show the jury an animated 3D model demonstrating how light of different wavelengths enters the multiplexer through separate input ports and is combined onto a single output waveguide. Side by side with that animation, we will display Benchmark teardown photographs of Lumicore's LumiLink 400G-ZR+ product, showing the same structural elements. The correspondence between the patented invention and Lumicore's product is striking.
Dr. Ashford will walk the jury through each of the five asserted claims — Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, and 14 — limitation by limitation, showing how each element of each claim is met by Lumicore's LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and LumiLink 800G-DR8 products.
Section 4.3 — Coherent Optical Transceiver (The '193 Patent)
The second technology is covered by the '193 Patent — the coherent optical transceiver.
Remember the radio-station analogy? Building an entire radio station — the transmitter and the receiver — on a chip the size of a fingernail. That is what the '193 Patent achieves, but for optical communications. The '193 Patent covers a complete coherent optical transceiver integrated on a silicon substrate. It can both send and receive data encoded in light, and it can detect data encoded not only in the amplitude of the light signal — how bright it is — but also in the phase of the light wave. This capability, called coherent detection, dramatically increases the amount of data that can be transmitted over a single optical link.
This patent is asserted against all three accused products — the LumiLink 400G-ZR+, the LumiLink 800G-DR8, and the LumiEdge 1600G-LR.
With respect to Claims 3 and 7, OWS asserts both literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The doctrine of equivalents is a legal principle that prevents an infringer from escaping liability by making trivial, insubstantial changes to avoid the literal language of a patent claim while still taking the essence of the invention. Specifically, even if Lumicore's "coherent detection module" does not literally match the claim language, OWS will show that it performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result. Dr. Ashford will present a detailed function-way-result analysis for each of these claims.
Dr. Ashford will walk through all six asserted claims — Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 15, and 18 — for each accused product.
Section 4.4 — Thermal Management (The '562 Patent)
The third technology is covered by the '562 Patent — the thermal management method.
Remember the miniature plumbing analogy? Tiny channels etched directly into the silicon chip, through which coolant flows to carry heat away. That is the invention of the '562 Patent.
When photonic integrated circuits operate at high data rates, they generate significant heat. Heat is the enemy of precision optical components — it causes signal drift, reduces reliability, and can ultimately cause device failure. The '562 Patent solved this problem by introducing a method for embedding micro-channel heat sinks directly into the photonic integrated circuit. These micro-channels are extraordinarily small — on the order of tens to hundreds of micrometers in diameter — and they provide efficient, localized cooling exactly where it is needed most.
As I mentioned earlier, this technology was originally developed at Solara Optics, Inc., and was acquired by OWS on June 15, 2018, through an arm's-length asset purchase agreement for $34.5 million. Gregory Falk, who was the Vice President of Engineering at Solara Optics at the time this technology was developed, will testify at this trial. He will describe the engineering effort that went into developing embedded micro-channel cooling for photonic chips and explain why this approach was a significant advance over prior thermal management techniques.
Benchmark's teardown confirmed the presence of micro-channel heat-sink structures in both the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and the LumiLink 800G-DR8.
A key dispute in this case concerns the meaning of the term "micro-channel heat sink." OWS proposed that this term means "a heat-dissipating structure containing channels with a hydraulic diameter of less than 1 mm." Lumicore proposed an improperly narrow construction: "a closed-loop liquid-cooling system with channels having a hydraulic diameter between 10 µm and 200 µm." The Court's Markman ruling resolved this dispute, and Dr. Ashford will apply the Court's construction to show that Lumicore's products meet this claim limitation.
OWS asserts Claims 1, 4, 6, and 11 of the '562 Patent against the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and the LumiLink 800G-DR8.
Section 4.5 — Polarization-Diverse Grating Coupler (The '015 Patent)
The fourth and final technology is covered by the '015 Patent — the polarization-diverse grating coupler.
Remember the antenna analogy? An antenna that catches signals no matter which direction the waves are vibrating. That is the '015 Patent invention.
In real-world optical fiber communications, the polarization state of a light signal — the direction in which the electromagnetic wave oscillates — changes unpredictably as the light travels through the fiber. This creates a problem for the receiver: if the grating coupler at the receiving end is designed to accept light polarized in only one direction, it will lose the signal whenever the polarization rotates to an orthogonal orientation. The '015 Patent solves this problem with a grating coupler that is capable of efficiently coupling light of two orthogonal polarization states, ensuring that the signal is captured regardless of how its polarization has been scrambled during transmission.
This is a critical component for any commercially viable coherent transceiver module, and it is one of the features that makes OWS's products — and, unfortunately, Lumicore's accused products — work in real-world conditions.
With respect to Claim 12, OWS asserts both literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Specifically, even if Lumicore's design does not literally include a "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating" as described in Claim 12, OWS will show that Lumicore employs an equivalent structure that achieves the same polarization-diverse coupling result in the same way. Dr. Ashford will present the function-way-result analysis.
OWS asserts Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, and 16 of the '015 Patent against the LumiLink 800G-DR8 and the LumiEdge 1600G-LR.
Section 4.6 — The Expert Witnesses
During this trial, you will hear from several expert witnesses who will help you understand the evidence. Let me preview the three key experts on the OWS side.
Dr. Caroline Ashford is a Professor of Electrical Engineering and Photonics at the Northfield Institute of Technology in Evanston, Illinois. She is one of the country's foremost academic experts on silicon-photonic integrated circuit design. Dr. Ashford will testify on two subjects. First, she will explain the patented technology and walk you through the infringement analysis — both literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents — for each asserted claim of each patent against each accused product. Second, she will rebut Lumicore's invalidity contentions by analyzing the prior-art references that Lumicore relies on and explaining why none of them anticipates or renders obvious any asserted claim.
Dr. Ashford will also define the level of skill of the relevant "person of ordinary skill in the art" — that is, the hypothetical person whose knowledge is the baseline for judging what the patent claims mean and whether the inventions would have been obvious. Dr. Ashford will testify that a person of ordinary skill in this art is someone with a Master's degree or Ph.D. in electrical engineering or photonics and at least three years of experience in silicon-photonic integrated circuit design.
Dr. Lawrence Keating is a Managing Director at Meridian Economic Consulting Group, LLC, based in Chicago, Illinois. Dr. Keating is OWS's damages expert. He will testify on the economic harm caused by Lumicore's infringement, including lost profits, reasonable royalty, and the basis for enhanced damages. Dr. Keating has extensive experience in patent damages analysis and has been qualified as an expert in federal courts throughout the country.
Gregory Falk is an independent consultant and the former Vice President of Engineering at Solara Optics, Inc. Mr. Falk will testify about the development of the '562 Patent technology at Solara, the industry background and competitive landscape for silicon-photonic thermal management solutions, and the commercial significance of the patented innovations.
Section 4.7 — Anticipating and Defusing Defense Arguments
Now, I have told you OWS's story. But in a moment, Lumicore's attorneys will stand before you and tell you a different story. That is their job, and I respect it. But let me briefly preview some of the things you are likely to hear from the defense, so that when you hear them, you can evaluate them with the full picture in mind.
Lumicore will argue its products are different. They will say that their designs are not the same as what the patents describe. But the evidence — including physical teardowns performed by an independent laboratory, Lumicore's own internal design files produced in discovery, and the sworn testimony of Lumicore's own CTO — shows otherwise. Dr. Ashford will walk you through the claim-by-claim, limitation-by-limitation analysis, and the correspondence between the patent claims and Lumicore's products will be clear.
Lumicore will argue the patents are invalid. They have cited 23 prior-art references in support of their invalidity contentions. That sounds like a lot. But as Dr. Ashford will explain, none of these references — not one — anticipates or renders obvious any of the asserted claims. Each reference fails to disclose one or more critical claim limitations. And the secondary considerations of non-obviousness overwhelmingly support validity: the commercial success of OWS's patented products, which generated approximately $310 million in fiscal year 2023 revenue; the long-felt but unsolved need in the industry for the solutions these patents address; the failure of at least three other competitors who attempted similar designs and did not succeed; and, of course, the copying by Lumicore itself, which is powerful evidence that these inventions were not obvious.
Lumicore has raised an inequitable conduct counterclaim. They allege that Dr. Jian-Wei Huang, OWS's CTO and a named inventor on the '193 Patent, failed to disclose a prior publication to the Patent Office during prosecution of the '193 Patent. The evidence will show that this reference was cumulative — it disclosed nothing that was not already before the patent examiner in the form of other prior art that the examiner considered during prosecution. And there is no evidence — none — that Dr. Huang or anyone else at OWS intended to deceive the Patent Office. Inequitable conduct requires clear and convincing evidence of both materiality and intent to deceive. Lumicore cannot meet that burden.
Lumicore has asserted a prior-conception defense against the '015 Patent. They claim that Lumicore engineers independently conceived the polarization-diverse grating coupler technology before OWS's patent was filed, based on internal design documents purportedly dated 2016 to 2017. These documents are uncorroborated and, upon analysis, actually post-date the '015 Patent's priority date. Dr. Ashford will explain why this defense does not withstand scrutiny.
I mention these defenses not to argue against them now — we will do that with evidence during the trial — but so that you have context when you hear them. Do not take any claim at face value. Wait for the evidence. Evaluate it carefully. And when you do, we are confident you will find that OWS's patents are valid, that Lumicore infringes them, and that the infringement was willful.
ACT V: THE HARM TO OWS AND THE REMEDY
Section 5.1 — Direct Competition and Lost Sales
Let me now turn to what all of this means in terms of harm — the real-world economic damage that Lumicore's infringement has caused to OWS.
OWS and Lumicore are direct competitors. They compete head-to-head in the silicon-photonics transceiver market for hyperscale data centers. They sell to the same customers. They compete in the same product categories. They participate in the same purchasing processes. The evidence will show that OWS and Lumicore compete at twelve of the top twenty hyperscale data-center operators in the world.
OWS's key competing products are the OWS-400ZR and OWS-800XR transceiver modules — the products that directly embody the patented technology that Lumicore took. OWS's gross margin on these competing products is 47.3%. That is the profit OWS earns on each unit it sells, after subtracting the cost of materials, fabrication, and assembly.
Dr. Keating, OWS's damages expert, has performed a detailed market-share displacement analysis. Based on the competitive dynamics of the market, customer testimony, purchasing data, and the absence of acceptable non-infringing substitutes, Dr. Keating has concluded that 38.2% of Lumicore's accused-product sales would have gone to OWS "but for" the infringement. In other words, if Lumicore had not been selling infringing products, OWS would have captured more than a third of those sales.
Dr. Keating will present this analysis under the framework established by the Federal Circuit in Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc. The law requires proof of four factors to establish entitlement to lost profits:
1. Demand for the patented products — proven by OWS's $487.3 million in fiscal year 2023 revenue and its position as the third-largest U.S. supplier of silicon-photonics transceiver modules.
2. Absence of acceptable non-infringing substitutes — Dr. Keating analyzed four potential alternative products in the market; each lacks one or more of the key patented features, making them inadequate substitutes for the accused products.
3. Manufacturing and marketing capability — OWS has the capacity to have made the additional sales through its foundry partners and existing sales infrastructure.
4. Amount of profit OWS would have made — calculated using OWS's 47.3% gross margin on competing products.
Based on this analysis, Dr. Keating has calculated OWS's lost profits at approximately $128.9 million. That figure is derived from $714.6 million in projected accused-product revenue over the infringement period, multiplied by the 38.2% displacement rate, multiplied by OWS's 47.3% gross margin.
Section 5.2 — Price Erosion
But lost unit sales are not the only harm OWS has suffered. Lumicore's entry into the market with infringing products — products built on technology that Lumicore did not have to pay to develop — has driven down prices across the entire market.
The average selling price of 400G-ZR transceivers declined 18.7% from the third quarter of 2022 to the fourth quarter of 2023. This decline is attributable in significant part to Lumicore's aggressive pricing, which was enabled by its use of OWS's patented technology without paying for it. When you don't have to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in R&D, and you don't have to pay a royalty for the technology you're using, you can undercut your competitor on price. That is exactly what Lumicore did.
The result is that OWS suffered harm on every unit it sold — not just the units it lost. Every sale OWS made during the infringement period was at a lower price than OWS would have been able to charge in a market without Lumicore's infringing products.
You will hear from Karen Whitfield, OWS's Vice President of Sales, and from regional sales directors, about specific lost design-in opportunities — situations where OWS was competing for a customer's next-generation platform, and Lumicore won the business with an infringing product at a lower price. These are not hypothetical scenarios. These are real deals, with real customers, that OWS lost because of Lumicore's infringement.
Section 5.3 — Reasonable Royalty