UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM
Submitted by Plaintiff Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. in Advance of the January 5, 2026 Pretrial Conference
VERDICT FORM
MEMBERS OF THE JURY:
You have heard the evidence and the arguments of counsel and have received the Court's instructions on the law. You must now decide the disputed issues of fact in this case. In doing so, you must follow the Court's instructions on the law as given to you during and at the conclusion of the trial. You must not be influenced by sympathy, prejudice, or passion.
You must answer each question unanimously. That is, all jurors must agree on the answer to each question before you write it on this form.
In answering these questions, you should apply the following standards of proof:
(a) For Plaintiff Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.'s claims of infringement, induced infringement, contributory infringement, willful infringement, and damages, Optiwave bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. This means that you should answer in Optiwave's favor if you find that the proposition is more likely true than not true based on the evidence presented at trial.
(b) For Defendant Lumicore Technologies, Inc.'s defenses of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, invalidity based on prior conception, and unenforceability due to inequitable conduct, Lumicore bears the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. This is a higher standard than preponderance of the evidence. Clear and convincing evidence means evidence that produces in your mind a firm belief or conviction that the allegations are true. It is not necessary that the evidence be uncontroverted, but it must be significantly more than a mere preponderance.
If a question directs you to skip to another question, you must follow that instruction and leave the intervening questions blank. Do not answer any question that you are instructed to skip.
In this Verdict Form, the following shorthand references are used for convenience:
•  The '847 Patent refers to U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847.
•  The '193 Patent refers to U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193.
•  The '562 Patent refers to U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562.
•  The '015 Patent refers to U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015.
The accused products in this case are: (1) the LumiLink 400G-ZR+; (2) the LumiLink 800G-DR8; and (3) the LumiEdge 1600G-LR, each manufactured, used, sold, offered for sale, and/or imported by Lumicore Technologies, Inc.
Throughout this Verdict Form, "Optiwave" or "OWS" refers to Plaintiff Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. and "Lumicore" refers to Defendant Lumicore Technologies, Inc.
When you have completed this Verdict Form, the foreperson must sign and date it on the final page. After signing, please notify the Court that the jury has reached its verdict.
PART I: INFRINGEMENT — U.S. PATENT NO. 10,234,847 (THE '847 PATENT)
QUESTION 1: Direct Infringement — '847 Patent, LumiLink 400G-ZR+
Has Optiwave proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Lumicore's LumiLink 400G-ZR+ product infringes one or more of the asserted claims of the '847 Patent (Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, and 14)?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
If you answered YES, please identify which asserted claims of the '847 Patent are infringed by the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ (check all that apply):
\\\\\_ Claim 1
\\\\\_ Claim 3
\\\\\_ Claim 5
\\\\\_ Claim 9
\\\\\_ Claim 14
If you answered NO as to all claims, proceed to Question 2.
QUESTION 2: Direct Infringement — '847 Patent, LumiLink 800G-DR8
Has Optiwave proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Lumicore's LumiLink 800G-DR8 product infringes one or more of the asserted claims of the '847 Patent (Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, and 14)?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
If you answered YES, please identify which asserted claims of the '847 Patent are infringed by the LumiLink 800G-DR8 (check all that apply):
\\\\\_ Claim 1
\\\\\_ Claim 3
\\\\\_ Claim 5
\\\\\_ Claim 9
\\\\\_ Claim 14
INSTRUCTION: If your answer to both Question 1 and Question 2 is NO for all claims, skip to Question 7 (the validity questions for the '847 Patent are moot; proceed to the '193 Patent). If you answered YES to any claim in either Question 1 or Question 2, proceed to Question 3.
QUESTION 3: Induced Infringement — '847 Patent
Has Optiwave proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Lumicore induced infringement of one or more asserted claims of the '847 Patent by actively encouraging or aiding others (e.g., customers, system integrators, or end users) to use the accused LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and/or LumiLink 800G-DR8 products in an infringing manner, with knowledge of the '847 Patent and knowledge or willful blindness that the induced acts constitute infringement?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
QUESTION 4: Contributory Infringement — '847 Patent
Has Optiwave proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Lumicore contributorily infringed one or more asserted claims of the '847 Patent by selling, offering to sell, or importing into the United States a component of the accused LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and/or LumiLink 800G-DR8 products that constitutes a material part of the patented invention, knowing that the component was especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '847 Patent, and that the component is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
QUESTION 5: Validity — '847 Patent (Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102)
Has Lumicore proven by clear and convincing evidence that any asserted claim of the '847 Patent is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 — that is, that each and every element of the asserted claim is found in a single prior art reference that predates the '847 Patent?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
If you answered YES, please identify which asserted claims of the '847 Patent are invalid as anticipated (check all that apply):
\\\\\_ Claim 1
\\\\\_ Claim 3
\\\\\_ Claim 5
\\\\\_ Claim 9
\\\\\_ Claim 14
QUESTION 6: Validity — '847 Patent (Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103)
Has Lumicore proven by clear and convincing evidence that any asserted claim of the '847 Patent is invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 — that is, that the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
If you answered YES, please identify which asserted claims of the '847 Patent are invalid as obvious (check all that apply):
\\\\\_ Claim 1
\\\\\_ Claim 3
\\\\\_ Claim 5
\\\\\_ Claim 9
\\\\\_ Claim 14
PART II: INFRINGEMENT — U.S. PATENT NO. 10,891,193 (THE '193 PATENT)
QUESTION 7: Direct Infringement (Literal) — '193 Patent, LumiLink 400G-ZR+
Has Optiwave proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Lumicore's LumiLink 400G-ZR+ product literally infringes one or more of the asserted claims of the '193 Patent (Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 15, and 18)?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
If you answered YES, please identify which asserted claims of the '193 Patent are literally infringed by the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ (check all that apply):
\\\\\_ Claim 1
\\\\\_ Claim 3
\\\\\_ Claim 7
\\\\\_ Claim 10
\\\\\_ Claim 15
\\\\\_ Claim 18
QUESTION 8: Direct Infringement (Literal) — '193 Patent, LumiLink 800G-DR8
Has Optiwave proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Lumicore's LumiLink 800G-DR8 product literally infringes one or more of the asserted claims of the '193 Patent (Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 15, and 18)?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
If you answered YES, please identify which asserted claims of the '193 Patent are literally infringed by the LumiLink 800G-DR8 (check all that apply):
\\\\\_ Claim 1
\\\\\_ Claim 3
\\\\\_ Claim 7
\\\\\_ Claim 10
\\\\\_ Claim 15
\\\\\_ Claim 18
QUESTION 9: Direct Infringement (Literal) — '193 Patent, LumiEdge 1600G-LR
Has Optiwave proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Lumicore's LumiEdge 1600G-LR product literally infringes one or more of the asserted claims of the '193 Patent (Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 15, and 18)?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
If you answered YES, please identify which asserted claims of the '193 Patent are literally infringed by the LumiEdge 1600G-LR (check all that apply):
\\\\\_ Claim 1
\\\\\_ Claim 3
\\\\\_ Claim 7
\\\\\_ Claim 10
\\\\\_ Claim 15
\\\\\_ Claim 18
QUESTION 10: Direct Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents — '193 Patent, Claim 3
INSTRUCTION: Answer this question only if you answered NO as to literal infringement of Claim 3 of the '193 Patent for one or more accused products in Questions 7 through 9. If you already found Claim 3 literally infringed as to a particular product, mark "N/A" for that product below.
Has Optiwave proven by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the accused products infringes Claim 3 of the '193 Patent under the doctrine of equivalents — that is, does the accused product contain an element that performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result as the "coherent detection module" limitation of Claim 3?
LumiLink 400G-ZR+:
    YES \\\\\\\\\     NO \\\\\\\\\     N/A (already found literally infringed) \\\\\\\\\_
LumiLink 800G-DR8:
    YES \\\\\\\\\     NO \\\\\\\\\     N/A (already found literally infringed) \\\\\\\\\_
LumiEdge 1600G-LR:
    YES \\\\\\\\\     NO \\\\\\\\\     N/A (already found literally infringed) \\\\\\\\\_
QUESTION 11: Direct Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents — '193 Patent, Claim 7
INSTRUCTION: Answer this question only if you answered NO as to literal infringement of Claim 7 of the '193 Patent for one or more accused products in Questions 7 through 9. If you already found Claim 7 literally infringed as to a particular product, mark "N/A" for that product below.
Has Optiwave proven by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the accused products infringes Claim 7 of the '193 Patent under the doctrine of equivalents — that is, does the accused product contain an element that performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result as the "coherent detection module" limitation of Claim 7?
LumiLink 400G-ZR+:
    YES \\\\\\\\\     NO \\\\\\\\\     N/A (already found literally infringed) \\\\\\\\\_
LumiLink 800G-DR8:
    YES \\\\\\\\\     NO \\\\\\\\\     N/A (already found literally infringed) \\\\\\\\\_
LumiEdge 1600G-LR:
    YES \\\\\\\\\     NO \\\\\\\\\     N/A (already found literally infringed) \\\\\\\\\_
QUESTION 12: Induced Infringement — '193 Patent
Has Optiwave proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Lumicore induced infringement of one or more asserted claims of the '193 Patent by actively encouraging or aiding others (e.g., customers, system integrators, or end users) to use one or more of the accused products — the LumiLink 400G-ZR+, the LumiLink 800G-DR8, and/or the LumiEdge 1600G-LR — in an infringing manner, with knowledge of the '193 Patent and knowledge or willful blindness that the induced acts constitute infringement?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
QUESTION 13: Contributory Infringement — '193 Patent
Has Optiwave proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Lumicore contributorily infringed one or more asserted claims of the '193 Patent by selling, offering to sell, or importing into the United States a component of one or more of the accused products that constitutes a material part of the patented invention, knowing that the component was especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '193 Patent, and that the component is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
QUESTION 14: Validity — '193 Patent (Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102)
Has Lumicore proven by clear and convincing evidence that any asserted claim of the '193 Patent is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 — that is, that each and every element of the asserted claim is found in a single prior art reference that predates the '193 Patent?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
If you answered YES, please identify which asserted claims of the '193 Patent are invalid as anticipated (check all that apply):
\\\\\_ Claim 1
\\\\\_ Claim 3
\\\\\_ Claim 7
\\\\\_ Claim 10
\\\\\_ Claim 15
\\\\\_ Claim 18
QUESTION 15: Validity — '193 Patent (Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103)
Has Lumicore proven by clear and convincing evidence that any asserted claim of the '193 Patent is invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 — that is, that the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
If you answered YES, please identify which asserted claims of the '193 Patent are invalid as obvious (check all that apply):
\\\\\_ Claim 1
\\\\\_ Claim 3
\\\\\_ Claim 7
\\\\\_ Claim 10
\\\\\_ Claim 15
\\\\\_ Claim 18
QUESTION 16: Unenforceability — '193 Patent (Inequitable Conduct)
Has Lumicore proven by clear and convincing evidence that the '193 Patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct before the United States Patent and Trademark Office — specifically, that:
(a) material information was withheld from the USPTO during prosecution of the application that led to the issuance of the '193 Patent; and
(b) the applicant or the applicant's representative acted with the specific intent to deceive the USPTO by withholding that material information?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
INSTRUCTION: If your answer is YES, the '193 Patent is unenforceable. You should not award damages for infringement of the '193 Patent. Proceed to Part III.
PART III: INFRINGEMENT — U.S. PATENT NO. 9,678,562 (THE '562 PATENT)
QUESTION 17: Direct Infringement — '562 Patent, LumiLink 400G-ZR+
Has Optiwave proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Lumicore's LumiLink 400G-ZR+ product infringes one or more of the asserted claims of the '562 Patent (Claims 1, 4, 6, and 11)?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
If you answered YES, please identify which asserted claims of the '562 Patent are infringed by the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ (check all that apply):
\\\\\_ Claim 1
\\\\\_ Claim 4
\\\\\_ Claim 6
\\\\\_ Claim 11
QUESTION 18: Direct Infringement — '562 Patent, LumiLink 800G-DR8
Has Optiwave proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Lumicore's LumiLink 800G-DR8 product infringes one or more of the asserted claims of the '562 Patent (Claims 1, 4, 6, and 11)?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
If you answered YES, please identify which asserted claims of the '562 Patent are infringed by the LumiLink 800G-DR8 (check all that apply):
\\\\\_ Claim 1
\\\\\_ Claim 4
\\\\\_ Claim 6
\\\\\_ Claim 11
QUESTION 19: Induced Infringement — '562 Patent
Has Optiwave proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Lumicore induced infringement of one or more asserted claims of the '562 Patent by actively encouraging or aiding others (e.g., customers, system integrators, or end users) to use the accused LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and/or LumiLink 800G-DR8 products in an infringing manner, with knowledge of the '562 Patent and knowledge or willful blindness that the induced acts constitute infringement?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
QUESTION 20: Contributory Infringement — '562 Patent
Has Optiwave proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Lumicore contributorily infringed one or more asserted claims of the '562 Patent by selling, offering to sell, or importing into the United States a component of the accused LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and/or LumiLink 800G-DR8 products that constitutes a material part of the patented invention, knowing that the component was especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '562 Patent, and that the component is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
QUESTION 21: Validity — '562 Patent (Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102)
Has Lumicore proven by clear and convincing evidence that any asserted claim of the '562 Patent is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 — that is, that each and every element of the asserted claim is found in a single prior art reference that predates the '562 Patent?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
If you answered YES, please identify which asserted claims of the '562 Patent are invalid as anticipated (check all that apply):
\\\\\_ Claim 1
\\\\\_ Claim 4
\\\\\_ Claim 6
\\\\\_ Claim 11
QUESTION 22: Validity — '562 Patent (Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103)
Has Lumicore proven by clear and convincing evidence that any asserted claim of the '562 Patent is invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 — that is, that the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
If you answered YES, please identify which asserted claims of the '562 Patent are invalid as obvious (check all that apply):
\\\\\_ Claim 1
\\\\\_ Claim 4
\\\\\_ Claim 6
\\\\\_ Claim 11
PART IV: INFRINGEMENT — U.S. PATENT NO. 11,402,015 (THE '015 PATENT)
QUESTION 23: Direct Infringement (Literal) — '015 Patent, LumiLink 800G-DR8
Has Optiwave proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Lumicore's LumiLink 800G-DR8 product literally infringes one or more of the asserted claims of the '015 Patent (Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, and 16)?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
If you answered YES, please identify which asserted claims of the '015 Patent are literally infringed by the LumiLink 800G-DR8 (check all that apply):
\\\\\_ Claim 1
\\\\\_ Claim 5
\\\\\_ Claim 8
\\\\\_ Claim 12
\\\\\_ Claim 16
QUESTION 24: Direct Infringement (Literal) — '015 Patent, LumiEdge 1600G-LR
Has Optiwave proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Lumicore's LumiEdge 1600G-LR product literally infringes one or more of the asserted claims of the '015 Patent (Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, and 16)?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
If you answered YES, please identify which asserted claims of the '015 Patent are literally infringed by the LumiEdge 1600G-LR (check all that apply):
\\\\\_ Claim 1
\\\\\_ Claim 5
\\\\\_ Claim 8
\\\\\_ Claim 12
\\\\\_ Claim 16
QUESTION 25: Direct Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents — '015 Patent, Claim 12
INSTRUCTION: Answer this question only if you answered NO as to literal infringement of Claim 12 of the '015 Patent for one or more accused products in Questions 23 through 24. If you already found Claim 12 literally infringed as to a particular product, mark "N/A" for that product below.
Has Optiwave proven by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the accused products infringes Claim 12 of the '015 Patent under the doctrine of equivalents — that is, does the accused product contain an element that performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result as the "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating" limitation of Claim 12?
LumiLink 800G-DR8:
    YES \\\\\\\\\     NO \\\\\\\\\     N/A (already found literally infringed) \\\\\\\\\_
LumiEdge 1600G-LR:
    YES \\\\\\\\\     NO \\\\\\\\\     N/A (already found literally infringed) \\\\\\\\\_
QUESTION 26: Induced Infringement — '015 Patent
Has Optiwave proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Lumicore induced infringement of one or more asserted claims of the '015 Patent by actively encouraging or aiding others (e.g., customers, system integrators, or end users) to use the accused LumiLink 800G-DR8 and/or LumiEdge 1600G-LR products in an infringing manner, with knowledge of the '015 Patent and knowledge or willful blindness that the induced acts constitute infringement?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
QUESTION 27: Contributory Infringement — '015 Patent
Has Optiwave proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Lumicore contributorily infringed one or more asserted claims of the '015 Patent by selling, offering to sell, or importing into the United States a component of the accused LumiLink 800G-DR8 and/or LumiEdge 1600G-LR products that constitutes a material part of the patented invention, knowing that the component was especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '015 Patent, and that the component is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
QUESTION 28: Validity — '015 Patent (Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102)
Has Lumicore proven by clear and convincing evidence that any asserted claim of the '015 Patent is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 — that is, that each and every element of the asserted claim is found in a single prior art reference that predates the '015 Patent?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
If you answered YES, please identify which asserted claims of the '015 Patent are invalid as anticipated (check all that apply):
\\\\\_ Claim 1
\\\\\_ Claim 5
\\\\\_ Claim 8
\\\\\_ Claim 12
\\\\\_ Claim 16
QUESTION 29: Validity — '015 Patent (Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103)
Has Lumicore proven by clear and convincing evidence that any asserted claim of the '015 Patent is invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 — that is, that the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
If you answered YES, please identify which asserted claims of the '015 Patent are invalid as obvious (check all that apply):
\\\\\_ Claim 1
\\\\\_ Claim 5
\\\\\_ Claim 8
\\\\\_ Claim 12
\\\\\_ Claim 16
QUESTION 30: Validity — '015 Patent (Prior Conception)
Has Lumicore proven by clear and convincing evidence that any asserted claim of the '015 Patent is invalid because Lumicore or another entity conceived of the claimed invention before the effective filing date of the '015 Patent, and exercised reasonable diligence in reducing the invention to practice?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
If you answered YES, please identify which asserted claims of the '015 Patent are invalid based on prior conception (check all that apply):
\\\\\_ Claim 1
\\\\\_ Claim 5
\\\\\_ Claim 8
\\\\\_ Claim 12
\\\\\_ Claim 16
PART V: WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
INSTRUCTION: Answer this section only if you found infringement of at least one valid and enforceable claim of at least one asserted patent in Parts I through IV above. If you found no infringement, or if you found that all infringed claims are invalid or unenforceable, skip this section and proceed to the Signature section at the end of this Verdict Form.
QUESTION 31: Willful Infringement
Has Optiwave proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Lumicore's infringement of one or more asserted patents was willful — that is, that Lumicore acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid and enforceable patent, and that this objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to Lumicore?
Answer:     YES \\\\\\\\\       NO \\\\\\\\\
If you answered YES, please identify for which patent(s) you find the infringement was willful (check all that apply):
\\\\\_ '847 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847)
\\\\\_ '193 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193)
\\\\\_ '562 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562)
\\\\\_ '015 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015)
PART VI: DAMAGES
INSTRUCTION: Answer this section only if you found that Lumicore infringes at least one valid and enforceable claim of at least one asserted patent. If you found no infringement, or if you found that all infringed claims are invalid or unenforceable, write "$0" in the total damages line in Question 34 and proceed to the Signature section.
INSTRUCTION: Do not reduce or increase any damages amount based on your finding of willful infringement. Any enhancement of damages for willfulness is a matter for the Court, not the jury.
QUESTION 32: Lost Profits Damages
What amount, if any, has Optiwave proven by a preponderance of the evidence that it is entitled to receive as lost-profits damages — that is, the profits Optiwave would have made but for Lumicore's infringement?
In considering this question, you should determine whether Optiwave has established all of the following:
(1) Demand for the patented product existed during the period of infringement;
(2) Acceptable non-infringing substitutes were absent from the market;
(3) Optiwave had the manufacturing and marketing capability to exploit the demand for the patented product; and
(4) The amount of profit Optiwave would have made absent the infringement.
If Optiwave has failed to prove any one of these elements, you should award $0 in lost-profits damages.
Enter amount:     $ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\_
QUESTION 33: Reasonable Royalty Damages
To the extent that Optiwave's lost-profits damages do not fully compensate for all of Lumicore's infringing sales, what amount, if any, has Optiwave proven by a preponderance of the evidence that it is entitled to receive as a reasonable royalty — that is, the amount that a willing licensor and a willing licensee would have agreed upon in a hypothetical negotiation taking place at the time infringement began?
In determining the reasonable royalty, you should consider the factors set forth in the Court's instructions, including the factors identified in Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970), as applicable to the facts of this case.
A reasonable royalty is the minimum measure of damages when infringement has been found. Optiwave is entitled to no less than a reasonable royalty on all infringing sales not captured by the lost-profits award above.
Enter amount:     $ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\_
QUESTION 34: Total Compensatory Damages
State the total amount of compensatory damages to which Optiwave is entitled. This amount should be the sum of your answers to Question 32 (Lost Profits Damages) and Question 33 (Reasonable Royalty Damages).
Total compensatory damages:     $ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\_
PART VII: LUMICORE'S COUNTERCLAIM — DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
INSTRUCTION: If you found that Lumicore does not infringe any valid and enforceable asserted claim of a particular patent, answer YES as to that patent below. If you found infringement of at least one valid and enforceable claim of a particular patent, answer NO as to that patent.
QUESTION 35: Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement
Is Lumicore entitled to a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe the asserted claims of each of the following patents?
'847 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847):     YES \\\\\\\\\     NO \\\\\\\\\
'193 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193):     YES \\\\\\\\\     NO \\\\\\\\\
'562 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562):     YES \\\\\\\\\     NO \\\\\\\\\
'015 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015):     YES \\\\\\\\\     NO \\\\\\\\\
SIGNATURE
We, the jury, unanimously agree to the foregoing answers to each interrogatory in this Verdict Form.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\_ Foreperson's Signature
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\_ Foreperson's Printed Name
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\_ Date
INSTRUCTION: After signing, please notify the Court that the jury has reached its verdict. Do not reveal the substance of your verdict to anyone until instructed to do so by the Court.
APPENDIX: CLAIM AND PRODUCT REFERENCE TABLE
(For Jury Convenience During Deliberations)
The following table summarizes which asserted patent claims correspond to which accused products in this case:
Note on Doctrine of Equivalents: The doctrine of equivalents is specifically at issue with respect to the following claim limitations:
•  '193 Patent, Claims 3 and 7: The "coherent detection module" limitation (Questions 10 and 11).
•  '015 Patent, Claim 12: The "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating" limitation (Question 25).
For all other asserted claims, Optiwave has asserted only literal infringement.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this \\\\ day of December 2025, a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.'s Proposed Verdict Form was served on all counsel of record by electronic means through the Court's CM/ECF system, and by email to the following:
Catherine "Kate" Rourke HAWTHORNE VEGA & CRUZ LLP 600 Congress Avenue, Suite 2400 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 555-7200
Email: krourke@hvclaw.com
Counsel for Defendant Lumicore Technologies, Inc.
Maria Garza TRASK EDDINGTON LLP 425 East Front Street, Suite 300 Tyler, Texas 75701 Telephone: (903) 555-4100
Email: mgarza@traskeddington.com
Local Counsel for Defendant Lumicore Technologies, Inc.
Respectfully submitted,
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: ________
Alan Ngo (Lead Counsel) Texas State Bar No. 24098761 350 South Grand Avenue, 48th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 555-6000 Facsimile: (213) 555-6001
Email: ango@calderwoodharkness.com
Marcus Delgado Wendy Schultz Omar Siddiqui
WHITMORE & CALLAHAN LLP
James "Jim" Callahan Texas State Bar No. 03812540 110 North College Avenue, Suite 800 Tyler, Texas 75702 Telephone: (903) 555-2200 Facsimile: (903) 555-2201
Email: jcallahan@whitmorecallahan.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.
OPTIWAVE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.,
Plaintiff,
v. | Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-00319-JRG
LUMICORE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., | JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant.
Patent | Asserted Claims | Accused Products
'847 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847) | Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 14 | LumiLink 400G-ZR+; LumiLink 800G-DR8
'193 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193) | Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 15, 18 | LumiLink 400G-ZR+; LumiLink 800G-DR8; LumiEdge 1600G-LR
'562 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562) | Claims 1, 4, 6, 11 | LumiLink 400G-ZR+; LumiLink 800G-DR8
'015 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015) | Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 16 | LumiLink 800G-DR8; LumiEdge 1600G-LR