1014-00004 · Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP · Trial Preparation

trial-strategy-memo.docx DOCUMENT Litigation

151 / 168 ← → ✕

MEMORANDUM

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

TO: Alan Ngo, Responsible Partner; Marcus Delgado, Billing Partner

FROM: Wendy Schultz, Lead Associate; Omar Siddiqui, Working Associate

DATE: October 17, 2025

RE: Trial Strategy Memorandum — Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. v. Lumicore Technologies, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00319-JRG (E.D. Tex.)

TRIAL DATE: February 2, 2026 — Jury Trial before the Honorable James R. Gilstrap, United States District Judge (estimated 7–10 days)

Right-click to update Table of Contents

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This memorandum sets forth the comprehensive trial strategy for the upcoming jury trial in Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. v. Lumicore Technologies, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00319-JRG, currently scheduled to commence on February 2, 2026, before the Honorable James R. Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The memorandum covers trial themes, witness sequencing, exhibit strategy, jury-selection approach, verdict-form design, key evidentiary issues, damages presentation, injunction coordination, budget and resource allocation, risk assessment and contingencies, and a detailed schedule of pre-trial deadlines and action items.

Case Posture as of October 2025. This case is in a mature pre-trial posture. The Markman hearing was held on March 14, 2025, and the Court's claim-construction order was entered on April 28, 2025; the results are favorable on balance and are incorporated throughout this memorandum. Fact discovery closed on May 1, 2025. Plaintiff's expert reports were served on June 15, 2025, comprising: (a) Dr. Caroline Ashford (Northfield Institute of Technology) on infringement and validity; (b) Dr. Lawrence Keating (Meridian Economic Consulting Group, LLC) on damages; and (c) Gregory Falk (former VP Engineering, Solara Optics, Inc.) on industry context and commercial significance. Defendant's rebuttal expert reports were served on July 15, 2025, featuring: (a) Dr. Arun Sundaram (Stanford University) on validity and non-infringement; and (b) Dr. Natasha Volkov (Pinnacle Analytics Partners LLP) on damages. Expert discovery closed on August 15, 2025. Dispositive motions were filed by both parties on September 15, 2025, and remain pending before the Court. Daubert motions are due November 1, 2025, and are currently in preparation.

Core Objective. Our objective at trial is to obtain a jury verdict finding infringement on all four asserted patents — U.S. Patent Nos. 10,234,847 (the "'847 Patent"); 10,891,193 (the "'193 Patent"); 9,678,562 (the "'562 Patent"); and 11,402,015 (the "'015 Patent") — across all three accused Lumicore products; a finding of willful infringement as to each patent; damages of approximately $210 million (comprising lost profits, a reasonable royalty, and factual predicates supporting post-trial enhancement); and the development of a trial record that fully supports a post-trial motion for a permanent injunction under the Northgate Group v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), framework.

Trial Allocation. The Court has indicated a 10-day trial framework, with each side receiving five days of trial time. Based on our current witness and exhibit plan, OWS expects to request approximately four of its five allocated days for its case-in-chief, reserving approximately one day for rebuttal and contingencies.

Trial Team. The following individuals constitute the lead trial team:

• Alan Ngo — First chair; responsible for opening and closing arguments, direct examination of key witnesses, and principal cross-examinations.

• Marcus Delgado — Second chair; responsible for damages witnesses, certain cross-examinations of defense witnesses, and trial supervision of damages evidence.

• Wendy Schultz — Lead associate; responsible for witness preparation, exhibit management, technology tutorial presentation, and courtroom technology oversight.

• Omar Siddiqui — Working associate; responsible for demonstratives coordination, deposition designations and counter-designations, trial logistics, and daily trial summaries.

• Jim Callahan (Whitmore & Callahan LLP, Tyler, Texas) — Local counsel; responsible for jury-selection guidance, E.D. Tex. courtroom protocols, and local-rules compliance.

The remainder of this memorandum addresses each component of the trial strategy in detail.

II. CASE OVERVIEW AND MARKMAN RESULTS

A. The Parties

1. Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. (Plaintiff)

Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. ("OWS" or "Optiwave") is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 4810 Bayside Technology Parkway, Suite 300, Santa Clara, California 95054. OWS is a fabless semiconductor company specializing in the design and commercialization of silicon photonics chipsets for data-center interconnects. The company was founded in 2009 and has grown to approximately 1,250 employees. In its fiscal year ending December 31, 2023, OWS reported revenue of $487.3 million and net income of $61.4 million. OWS is the third-largest United States supplier of silicon-photonics transceiver modules for hyperscale data centers, trailing only Harborview Industries and Sterling Reach Holdings, in terms of domestic market share for this product category.

OWS maintains a substantial intellectual property portfolio, holding 142 issued United States patents and 58 pending applications, predominantly in the fields of silicon photonics, integrated optical circuit design, thermal management of photonic integrated circuits, and high-bandwidth data-center connectivity solutions. The four patents asserted in this litigation are among the most commercially significant in OWS's portfolio, underpinning the core technology embedded in its flagship OWS-400ZR, OWS-800XR, and OWS-1600DR transceiver module product lines.

Since 2019, OWS has been majority owned by Ridgeline Capital Partners, LP ("Ridgeline"), a private equity firm that acquired a 55% stake in OWS for approximately $780 million. The remaining equity is held by a combination of founding management (approximately 22%), institutional investors (approximately 15%), and employee option holders (approximately 8%). The Ridgeline investment reflects OWS's value as an operating company with significant revenue, substantial engineering talent, and a differentiated technology platform — a point that will be important to emphasize at trial to counter any anticipated defense narrative that OWS is a non-practicing entity or "patent troll."

The key personnel relevant to this litigation are as follows:

• Dr. Priya Ramaswamy, Chief Executive Officer

• Dr. Jian-Wei Huang, Chief Technology Officer and lead inventor on the '847, '193, and '015 Patents

• Rebecca Tanaka, General Counsel

• Dr. Nikolai Petrov, Vice President of Engineering, Photonics Division

• David Leitner, Chief Financial Officer

• Karen Whitfield, Vice President of Sales

• Franklin Osei, Board Chair (Ridgeline Capital designee)

OWS's financial statements are audited by Gresham & Whitfield LLP.

2. Lumicore Technologies, Inc. (Defendant)

Lumicore Technologies, Inc. ("Lumicore" or "LTC") is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 9200 Spectrum Boulevard, Building C, Austin, Texas 78759. Lumicore is a fast-growing competitor in the silicon-photonics transceiver market, with approximately 870 employees. The company was founded in 2017 and has experienced rapid revenue growth, reporting estimated revenue of $312.6 million in fiscal year 2023. Lumicore completed an initial public offering on Nasdaq in March 2022, pricing its shares at $24 per share. As of the filing of this lawsuit, Lumicore's stock was trading at approximately $37 per share, giving the company a market capitalization of approximately $3.4 billion on approximately 91.8 million shares outstanding.

The key personnel relevant to this litigation are as follows:

• Thomas "Tom" Kessler, Chief Executive Officer

• Dr. Sandra Michaud, Chief Technology Officer

• Raymond Bautista, General Counsel

• Dr. Eric Dalmqvist, Vice President of Product Development

• Janet Moreno, Chief Financial Officer

Lumicore's financial statements are audited by Brennan Kellogg & Associates LLP.

Lumicore is represented in this litigation by Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP ("HVC"), with lead trial partner Catherine "Kate" Rourke, second chair Darren Cho, and associates Samantha Briggs and Rohan Iyer. Lumicore's local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas is Trask Eddington LLP, with partner Maria Garza serving as the designated local representative.

Kate Rourke is a highly experienced patent litigator who has tried approximately sixteen patent jury trials in the Eastern District of Texas and has a reputation for aggressive cross-examination and meticulous trial preparation. Darren Cho has significant experience in damages-related cross-examinations and previously served as lead damages attorney in Prisma Semiconductor Corp. v. Coreline Technologies, Inc., in which the jury awarded a lower royalty rate than plaintiff sought. We should anticipate a vigorous and well-prepared defense.

B. The Asserted Patents

1. The '847 Patent — U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847

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.

Asserted Claims: 1, 3, 5, 9, 14

The '847 Patent is directed to a multi-channel silicon photonic waveguide multiplexer architecture that achieves significantly lower insertion loss than prior-art designs. The specification describes a novel arrangement of silicon-based waveguide structures that enables the efficient combination of multiple optical signals of different wavelengths onto a single output waveguide, a function critical to wavelength-division multiplexing ("WDM") in data-center transceiver modules. Claim 1 is the broadest independent claim and recites the waveguide multiplexer structure with specific limitations relating to channel count, insertion-loss thresholds, and silicon-on-insulator substrate configuration. Claims 3 and 5 are dependent claims adding further structural refinements. Claim 9 includes a "means for coupling" limitation that may invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (discussed below). Claim 14 is a system-level claim encompassing the multiplexer within a transceiver module.

The '847 Patent is in the same patent family as the '562 Patent (the '847 Patent is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 14/948,672, from which the '562 Patent issued). This family relationship is relevant to the chain-of-title analysis for the '562 Patent (acquired from Solara Optics) and to the prior-art landscape.

2. The '193 Patent — U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193

Title: "High-Bandwidth Coherent Optical Transceiver Integrated on Silicon Substrate"

Filing Date: April 7, 2017

Issue Date: January 12, 2021

Original Assignee: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.

Current Assignee: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.

Asserted Claims: 1, 3, 7, 10, 15, 18

Doctrine of Equivalents Contentions: Claims 3 and 7

The '193 Patent discloses and claims a high-bandwidth coherent optical transceiver that is integrated on a silicon substrate, enabling significantly higher data rates and improved signal integrity compared to prior hybrid integration approaches. The patent shares Provisional Application No. 62/499,117 with the '015 Patent, which provides a common priority date for certain claims. Claim 1 is the broadest independent claim and recites the coherent transceiver architecture with integrated modulator, photodetector, and digital signal processing blocks on a common silicon substrate. Claims 3 and 7 are dependent claims that add limitations relating to a "coherent detection module" — these are the claims for which OWS has asserted doctrine-of-equivalents ("DOE") theories. Claim 10 adds wavelength-tuning capabilities. Claim 15 includes a "means for digital signal processing" limitation that may invoke § 112(f). Claim 18 is a method claim.

3. The '562 Patent — U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562

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.

Asserted Claims: 1, 4, 6, 11

The '562 Patent was originally assigned to Solara Optics, Inc. ("Solara"), a company that specialized in advanced optical packaging and thermal management solutions. Solara dissolved in 2020. OWS acquired the '562 Patent, together with 11 other patents, from Solara pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement dated June 15, 2018, for a total consideration of $34.5 million. The chain of title is documented in the recorded assignment at the USPTO, and the APA is included in the trial exhibit set (Ex. P-012). Gregory Falk, who served as VP of Engineering at Solara before its dissolution, is available as a witness to testify to the patent's origins and Solara's history.

The '562 Patent is directed to a method for managing thermal dissipation in photonic integrated circuits ("PICs") through the use of embedded micro-channel heat sinks. The specification describes a fabrication methodology for creating micro-channel structures within the silicon substrate that carry a coolant fluid directly beneath the photonic circuit elements, enabling substantially improved thermal performance compared to conventional top-mounted or flip-chip heat-sink approaches. The '562 Patent is in the same family as the '847 Patent (continuation relationship).

4. The '015 Patent — U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015

Title: "Polarization-Diverse Grating Coupler for Silicon Photonic Transceivers"

Filing Date: August 30, 2019

Issue Date: August 2, 2022

Original Assignee: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.

Current Assignee: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.

Asserted Claims: 1, 5, 8, 12, 16

Doctrine of Equivalents Contentions: Claim 12

The '015 Patent discloses and claims a polarization-diverse grating coupler designed for use in silicon photonic transceivers. The grating coupler structure enables efficient coupling of light into and out of the silicon waveguide while simultaneously splitting incoming light into its orthogonal polarization states, thereby addressing a critical challenge in coherent detection systems. The '015 Patent shares Provisional Application No. 62/499,117 with the '193 Patent. Claim 1 is the broadest independent claim and recites the grating coupler structure with polarization-diversity functionality. Claim 12 includes a "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating" limitation that is the subject of OWS's DOE contention. Claim 16 is a method claim directed to the fabrication process.

C. Accused Products

Lumicore manufactures and sells three accused product lines, each of which is a silicon-photonics transceiver module designed for data-center interconnect applications:

1. LumiLink 400G-ZR+. Launched in Q3 2022, this product is a 400-gigabit coherent optical transceiver module designed for data-center interconnect ("DCI") applications at extended reach distances. LumiLink 400G-ZR+ generated $94.8 million in revenue in fiscal year 2023. This product is accused of infringing the '847 Patent (waveguide multiplexer), the '193 Patent (coherent transceiver integration), and the '562 Patent (thermal management).

2. LumiLink 800G-DR8. Launched in Q1 2023, this product is an 800-gigabit direct-detect transceiver module using eight parallel 100G lanes. LumiLink 800G-DR8 generated $128.4 million in revenue in fiscal year 2023 and is Lumicore's highest-revenue accused product. This product is accused of infringing all four asserted patents: the '847 Patent, the '193 Patent, the '562 Patent, and the '015 Patent.

3. LumiEdge 1600G-LR. Launched in Q4 2023 — critically, several months after Lumicore received both FairPoint notice letters and participated in the face-to-face licensing meeting — this product is a next-generation 1.6-terabit long-reach transceiver module. LumiEdge 1600G-LR generated $41.7 million in revenue in fiscal year 2023 (reflecting only partial-year sales from its Q4 launch). This product is accused of infringing the '193 Patent and the '015 Patent.

Revenue Summary:

Total infringement-period revenue from Q3 2022 through Q1 2024 (the most recent quarter for which actual financials are available) is approximately $378.2 million. Dr. Keating projects total accused-product revenue through the anticipated trial date (Q3 2022 through Q4 2025) at approximately $714.6 million.

D. Markman Ruling — Summary and Impact on Trial

The Markman hearing was held on March 14, 2025, before Judge Gilstrap. The parties initially disputed 14 claim terms; two were resolved by stipulation prior to the hearing, leaving 12 disputed terms for the Court's resolution. The Court's claim-construction order was entered on April 28, 2025 (D.E. 89). Below, we summarize the Court's construction of the four terms most critical to the trial presentation, followed by an assessment of the overall impact of the ruling.

1. "Waveguide Multiplexer" ('847 Patent)

OWS proposed: "An optical device that combines multiple optical signals of different wavelengths onto a single waveguide."

Lumicore proposed: "An arrayed waveguide grating (AWG) device that uses an array of waveguides of incrementally increasing length to combine multiple optical signals of different wavelengths onto a single output waveguide."

Court's Construction: The Court adopted a construction substantially aligned with OWS's proposal, defining "waveguide multiplexer" as "an optical device implemented in a silicon waveguide structure that combines multiple optical signals of different wavelengths onto a single waveguide." Critically, the Court rejected Lumicore's attempt to limit the term to arrayed waveguide gratings (AWGs), finding that the specification discloses multiple multiplexer architectures — including echelle gratings and cascaded Mach-Zehnder interferometer designs — and that importing an AWG-only limitation would improperly read out disclosed embodiments.

Impact on Trial: This construction is highly favorable. Lumicore's accused products use a proprietary multiplexer architecture that Lumicore characterizes as a "micro-ring resonator cascaded multiplexer," which is distinct from a conventional AWG. Under the Court's broader construction, the accused architecture falls squarely within the claim scope. Under Lumicore's rejected narrow construction, infringement would have required significant additional technical argumentation. Dr. Ashford's infringement analysis is fully supported by the Court's construction.

2. "Integrated on a Silicon Substrate" ('193 Patent)

OWS proposed: "Formed on or within a silicon substrate using semiconductor fabrication techniques."

Lumicore proposed: "Monolithically fabricated on a single silicon substrate without the use of heterogeneous bonding or hybrid integration techniques."

Court's Construction: The Court construed the term as "formed on or within a silicon substrate," rejecting Lumicore's attempt to impose a "monolithically fabricated" limitation. The Court found that the specification explicitly contemplates both monolithic and hybrid integration approaches and that the prosecution history does not evince a clear disavowal of hybrid integration. The Court further noted that several dependent claims specifically address monolithic integration, suggesting that the independent claims encompass a broader scope.

Impact on Trial: This construction is favorable. The accused LumiLink 800G-DR8 and LumiEdge 1600G-LR products use a hybrid integration approach in which certain components (specifically, the indium phosphide gain elements) are heterogeneously bonded to the silicon substrate. Under Lumicore's rejected construction, these products would have fallen outside the claim scope. Under the Court's adopted construction, the hybrid integration approach satisfies the "integrated on a silicon substrate" limitation.

3. "Micro-Channel Heat Sink" ('562 Patent)

OWS proposed: "A heat sink comprising channels with a hydraulic diameter of less than 1 mm that carry a coolant fluid for thermal management."

Lumicore proposed: "A heat sink comprising closed-loop channels with a hydraulic diameter between 10 µm and 200 µm that circulate a coolant fluid for thermal management of a photonic integrated circuit."

Court's Construction: The Court adopted a construction closer to OWS's proposal: "A heat sink comprising channels with a hydraulic diameter of less than 1 mm that carry a coolant fluid for thermal management of a photonic integrated circuit." The Court rejected Lumicore's narrow "10 µm to 200 µm" range and the "closed-loop" limitation, finding that the specification discloses a broader range of channel dimensions and does not require a closed-loop configuration.

Impact on Trial: This construction is favorable. Benchmark's teardown analysis of the accused LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and 800G-DR8 products identified micro-channel structures with hydraulic diameters ranging from approximately 85 µm to 450 µm. Several of these channels exceed the 200 µm upper bound of Lumicore's proposed construction but fall comfortably within the Court's adopted "less than 1 mm" construction. The "closed-loop" limitation would also have created factual issues, as Benchmark's analysis suggests the accused products use an open-loop (single-pass) micro-channel architecture. Under the Court's construction, both products clearly satisfy this limitation.

4. "Polarization-Diverse Grating Coupler" ('015 Patent)

OWS proposed: "A grating coupler that receives an input optical signal and separates it into two orthogonal polarization components."

Lumicore proposed: "A grating coupler comprising a two-dimensional splitting element that simultaneously diffracts and separates an input optical signal into two orthogonal polarization components."

Court's Construction: The Court adopted a construction that partially favored each side: "A grating coupler that receives an input optical signal and separates it into two orthogonal polarization components, wherein the separation is achieved through the grating structure itself." The Court rejected the specific "two-dimensional splitting element" limitation proposed by Lumicore but added the clarification that the separation must be achieved through the grating structure rather than through a separate downstream polarization beam splitter.

Impact on Trial: This construction is generally favorable but introduces a factual question regarding whether the accused products' grating couplers achieve polarization separation through the grating structure itself. Dr. Ashford's analysis concludes that they do, based on the micro-ring resonator patterns observed in Benchmark's SEM imagery, which function as both a diffractive coupling element and a polarization-splitting element. Lumicore's expert, Dr. Sundaram, may dispute this characterization. The DOE contention on Claim 12 (which adds the "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating" limitation) remains relevant as a fallback theory in the event literal infringement is contested on this limitation.

5. Means-Plus-Function Rulings

The Court identified two claim limitations as potentially invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f): Claim 9 of the '847 Patent ("means for coupling optical signals from the waveguide multiplexer to an output fiber") and Claim 15 of the '193 Patent ("means for digital signal processing of the coherent optical signal"). For each, the Court identified the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification:

• Claim 9 of '847: The Court identified the corresponding structure as "a tapered-mode converter with a spot-size adapter, as disclosed in Figures 7A–7C and column 12, lines 22–48 of the '847 Patent, and equivalents thereof."

• Claim 15 of '193: The Court identified the corresponding structure as "a CMOS digital signal processing application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) with a finite impulse response (FIR) equalizer and carrier-phase recovery module, as disclosed in Figures 11–13 and column 18, lines 5–42 of the '193 Patent, and equivalents thereof."

Dr. Ashford's analysis confirms that the accused products contain structures that are either identical to or equivalent to the corresponding structures identified by the Court.

6. Overall Assessment

The Markman ruling is favorable to OWS on balance. The Court's constructions support literal infringement on the vast majority of the asserted claims across all three accused products. The DOE theories for Claims 3 and 7 of the '193 Patent and Claim 12 of the '015 Patent remain viable as fallback positions but may be less critical than initially anticipated if Dr. Ashford can establish literal infringement under the Court's constructions. We should continue to present DOE as an alternative theory to ensure that, in the event any literal-infringement argument faces unexpected jury resistance, we have a fully briefed and supported secondary theory.

III. TRIAL THEMES

A. Overarching Narrative

A patent jury trial is ultimately a story. The jury must come away understanding three things: what OWS invented, what Lumicore took, and why it matters. Our three overarching themes are designed to communicate these concepts in plain, compelling language.

Theme 1 — "Innovation vs. Imitation"

Optiwave Semiconductor invested years of research and development and hundreds of millions of dollars to develop breakthrough silicon photonics technology that has transformed how data centers communicate. Dr. Jian-Wei Huang and his team spent the better part of a decade iterating on waveguide multiplexer designs, coherent transceiver architectures, thermal management solutions, and grating coupler structures — filing patent applications, building prototypes, testing, failing, and ultimately succeeding. The result was a suite of patented innovations that enabled OWS to build world-class products and compete effectively in one of the most demanding technology markets on Earth.

Lumicore Technologies chose a different path. Rather than invest the time and resources to develop its own solutions, Lumicore chose to copy OWS's technology. The physical evidence — obtained through meticulous reverse-engineering by Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC — shows that Lumicore's products literally incorporate every element of OWS's patented claims. The technology "fingerprint" is unmistakable. This is not a case of independent parallel development. This is a case of a company that saw what worked, took it, and profited enormously.

This theme is intended to resonate with jurors who value hard work, ingenuity, and fair play. It positions OWS as the innovator and Lumicore as the imitator, a framing that should be reinforced throughout every stage of the trial.

Theme 2 — "They Knew and They Chose"

Lumicore was not an innocent infringer that stumbled into OWS's patent rights. The evidence will show that Lumicore's own engineers — including Melissa Chen, who will testify at trial — reviewed OWS's published patent applications during the design phase of the very products that are now accused of infringement. Lumicore knew about OWS's technology. Lumicore knew about OWS's patents.

And when OWS's licensing agent, FairPoint Licensing Group, put Lumicore on formal notice in January 2023, Lumicore did not stop. It did not redesign. It did not negotiate in good faith. Instead, it continued selling the accused products — and then launched an entirely new infringing product, the LumiEdge 1600G-LR, in Q4 2023, months after receiving detailed notice. This was a deliberate choice, made with full knowledge of OWS's patent rights. That choice has consequences.

This theme is critical to the willfulness case. It paints a picture of a company that did not merely stumble into infringement but affirmatively chose to continue infringing despite clear notice — a fact pattern that supports both the jury's willfulness finding and the Court's post-trial enhancement determination.

Theme 3 — "Full and Fair Compensation"

OWS's patents are the foundation of its competitive position. They represent the company's most valuable assets and the source of its ability to innovate, invest in new technologies, and create jobs. Lumicore has reaped hundreds of millions of dollars from OWS's inventions — over $714 million in projected accused-product revenue by the time of trial. The jury should award damages that fully compensate OWS for its losses and that reflect the true value of what was taken.

This is not about punishing Lumicore for being a competitor. Competition is healthy. But competition must be fair. Taking someone else's patented technology without permission is not fair competition. It is infringement. And the law provides a remedy: full and fair compensation to the patent holder.

This theme is designed to preempt any defense narrative that OWS is seeking to "stifle competition" or is motivated by greed. It frames the damages demand as a matter of basic fairness and legal entitlement.

B. Subsidiary Themes by Issue

Infringement. The teardown evidence from Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC — prepared under the direction of lead engineer Kevin Ng — provides the backbone of the infringement case. Benchmark obtained and reverse-engineered samples of all three accused Lumicore products. The teardown reports include detailed cross-section photographs, scanning electron microscope ("SEM") images, and element-by-element comparisons between the accused product structures and the patent claim limitations. The technology "fingerprint" left by OWS's patented innovations is clearly visible in the physical evidence.

This subsidiary theme is designed to ground the infringement case in tangible, visual evidence that the jury can see and understand. Abstract claim-construction arguments will be necessary, but the most powerful evidence will be the side-by-side photographs showing that Lumicore's products look like OWS's patents because they are OWS's patents, implemented in silicon.

Validity. OWS's patents withstood rigorous examination by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Each patent was reviewed by experienced patent examiners who searched the prior art and allowed the claims only after satisfying themselves that the claimed inventions were novel and non-obvious. The prior art that Lumicore now relies upon — the same prior art that was available to the USPTO during prosecution, or prior art that is even less relevant than what the examiner already considered — does not invalidate any asserted claim.

Secondary considerations of non-obviousness powerfully confirm the validity of OWS's patents. OWS's practicing products — which embody the patented technology — have generated approximately $310 million in revenue in fiscal year 2023 alone (commercial success). The industry had long sought a solution to the problem of low-insertion-loss waveguide multiplexing, and OWS solved it (long-felt need). At least three competitors attempted and failed to develop comparable technology (failure of others). And Lumicore copied OWS's patented technology rather than developing its own (copying). These objective indicia of non-obviousness are powerful evidence that OWS's patents claim inventions that were anything but obvious.

Willfulness. The willfulness narrative is built on a chain of evidence that progresses from awareness to notice to deliberate indifference. Melissa Chen will testify that Lumicore's design team accessed and reviewed OWS's published patent applications during the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ design phase. FairPoint's licensing letters — sent in January 2023 and May 2023 — put Lumicore on formal notice of the specific patents at issue. The in-person meeting in Austin on April 20, 2023, gave Lumicore a face-to-face opportunity to engage in good-faith licensing discussions. Lumicore's July 10, 2023 declination letter references "competent legal opinions" — opinion-of-counsel letters that Lumicore now refuses to produce, raising a powerful adverse inference. And despite all of this, Lumicore launched the LumiEdge 1600G-LR in Q4 2023, adding yet another infringing product to its lineup.

Damages. Lumicore's accused products have generated — and are projected to generate — over $714 million in revenue during the infringement period. OWS has suffered real, quantifiable harm: lost sales to customers that were diverted to Lumicore; an 18.7% decline in average selling price ("ASP") in the 400G-ZR transceiver market from Q3 2022 to Q4 2023; and denied design-in opportunities at major hyperscale data-center operators. Dr. Keating's damages analysis quantifies these harms using well-established legal frameworks — the Panduit test for lost profits and the Georgia-Pacific factors for reasonable royalty — arriving at a total damages demand of approximately $210 million.

C. Counter-Themes (Defense) and Responses

Anticipated Defense Narrative

Based on Lumicore's trial-team composition, litigation strategy to date, and the tenor of Kate Rourke's prior E.D. Tex. trials, we anticipate the following overarching defense narrative: "OWS's patents are invalid over the prior art. The technology claimed in these patents was well known in the silicon photonics field before OWS filed its applications. OWS is not an innovator — it is an aggressive litigant backed by private equity money, using overbroad patents to stifle legitimate competition and extract hundreds of millions of dollars from a company that independently developed its own products."

Lumicore will attempt to recast this case as a David-versus-Goliath story, positioning itself as the scrappy, publicly traded innovator fighting against a PE-backed patent bully. Lumicore will lean heavily on its invalidity defenses — particularly the Takahashi prior art against the '847 Patent and the Simonsen PCT application as an obviousness combination — and will argue that the claimed technology was either anticipated or obvious in light of the prior art.

Our Responses. OWS is a practicing entity, not a "patent troll." This response must be established early and often. OWS manufactures (through foundry partners) and sells products that embody the patented technology. OWS generated $487.3 million in revenue in fiscal year 2023. OWS employs approximately 1,250 people. OWS competes head-to-head with Lumicore in the marketplace. Ridgeline Capital's involvement reflects OWS's value as an operating company — a private equity firm invested $780 million in OWS precisely because OWS is a successful, growing technology business, not because OWS is a litigation vehicle. The technology tutorial and Dr. Huang's testimony on Day 1 should firmly establish OWS's identity as a real company with real products and real engineers.

OWS tried to license in good faith before suing. The FairPoint licensing correspondence and Rebecca Tanaka's testimony will establish that OWS approached Lumicore through a professional licensing intermediary, offered to discuss a license, and was rebuffed. OWS did not rush to the courthouse. It engaged in pre-suit dialogue for over a year before retaining litigation counsel. This narrative undermines any suggestion that OWS is a litigation-first company.

Non-infringing alternatives do not exist. Lumicore may argue that non-infringing alternatives to OWS's patented technology exist in the marketplace. But Dr. Sandra Michaud — Lumicore's own CTO — was unable to identify specific non-infringing design alternatives when asked at her deposition. Raymond Bautista — Lumicore's General Counsel — admitted that no formal design-around analysis was commissioned before the LumiEdge 1600G-LR launch. If Lumicore cannot identify alternatives that its own executives endorse, the jury should be skeptical of any last-minute design-around theories presented through defense experts.

IV. WITNESS STRATEGY

A. Plaintiff's Case-in-Chief — Witness Order and Purpose

The following section describes each witness OWS intends to call in its case-in-chief, the purpose and scope of each witness's testimony, key preparation considerations, and estimated time allocations. The witnesses are presented in proposed order of presentation, which is designed to build the trial narrative sequentially: innovation → notice → physical evidence → willfulness → market impact → technical infringement → validity → damages.

1. Dr. Jian-Wei Huang (OWS Chief Technology Officer) — LIVE

Role: Lead inventor on the '847, '193, and '015 Patents; co-inventor on continuation applications in the '847/'562 patent family.

Purpose: Dr. Huang is the face of OWS's innovation story. His testimony will open the plaintiff's case-in-chief (after the technology tutorial and opening statement) and will set the stage for everything that follows. He will explain, in accessible terms, the technical problems that OWS solved, the years of research and development that went into the patented inventions, and the significance of these inventions to the silicon photonics field. Dr. Huang is articulate, charismatic, and deeply knowledgeable — he holds a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Stanford University and has authored over 80 peer-reviewed publications in the field. He is the ideal witness to humanize the inventive process and to establish OWS's credibility as a genuine innovator.

Key Testimony:

• Background and training: Ph.D., Stanford (2008); post-doctoral research at MIT Lincoln Laboratory; joined OWS as a principal engineer in 2010; promoted to CTO in 2016.

• The state of the art at the time of invention: prior to OWS's work, silicon photonic waveguide multiplexers suffered from high insertion loss that limited channel count and bandwidth; coherent transceivers could not be efficiently integrated on a single silicon substrate; thermal management of PICs was handled through inefficient external heat sinks; grating couplers could not achieve polarization-diverse coupling without bulky downstream optics.

• The inventive concept behind each patent: how the team approached each problem; the "aha moment" that led to each breakthrough; the iterative nature of the R&D process (multiple failed prototypes before success).

• The iterative development process: timeline of development from 2012 to 2019; investment of over $145 million in silicon photonics R&D during this period; the role of OWS's cleanroom facilities and design teams.

• Commercial success: how the patented innovations were embedded in OWS's flagship products (OWS-400ZR, OWS-800XR, OWS-1600DR); the connection between the patents and the products that generated $310 million in practicing-product revenue in FY 2023.

• Identification of patented features in OWS's own products: use demonstratives showing the patented structures in OWS's products alongside the patent figures.

Preparation Notes: Dr. Huang was deposed on November 5, 2024. The deposition transcript should be reviewed in detail for consistency between his anticipated trial testimony and his deposition statements. Particular attention should be paid to cross-examination topics likely to arise: prosecution-history amendments (the '193 Patent underwent a narrowing amendment during prosecution that gave rise to the Festo presumption on Claims 3 and 7); prior publications by Dr. Huang that Lumicore may cite as prior art; and any internal OWS communications suggesting that Dr. Huang was aware of the prior art Lumicore relies upon. Alan Ngo should conduct two full preparation sessions with Dr. Huang — one on direct examination and one on anticipated cross-examination — in January 2026.

Estimated Time: 1.5–2 hours direct examination; anticipate 1–1.5 hours cross-examination.

2. Dr. Nikolai Petrov (OWS VP Engineering, Photonics Division) — LIVE

Role: Oversees the commercialization of patented technology within OWS's product line; responsible for the engineering teams that design and qualify OWS's transceiver modules.

Purpose: Dr. Petrov bridges the gap between R&D and commercial products. While Dr. Huang tells the innovation story, Dr. Petrov connects that story to the marketplace. He will explain how the patented innovations are embedded in OWS's product line, describe the competitive landscape and the impact of Lumicore's market entry, and authenticate internal engineering documents and competitive analyses that track Lumicore's products.

Key Testimony:

• How OWS's key products (OWS-400ZR, OWS-800XR, OWS-1600DR) practice the asserted patents: provide a product-level overview with reference to internal block diagrams and engineering specifications showing the correspondence between the patented features and OWS's product implementations.

• Competitive impact of Lumicore's entry: when Lumicore first appeared in competitive evaluations; how Lumicore's products competed head-to-head with OWS's products at the same hyperscale customers.

• Customer feedback showing displacement: communications from customers indicating that Lumicore's products were being evaluated as alternatives to OWS's products; instances where OWS lost design-in opportunities.

• Authentication of internal competitive-analysis documents and engineering memoranda.

Preparation Notes: Dr. Petrov is an effective witness but tends to use highly technical jargon. Preparation sessions should emphasize plain-language explanations and the use of visual aids. One full preparation session in January 2026.

Estimated Time: 1–1.5 hours direct examination; anticipate 0.5–1 hour cross-examination.

3. Rebecca Tanaka (OWS General Counsel) — LIVE

Role: Managed OWS's pre-suit enforcement and licensing efforts; oversaw engagement of FairPoint Licensing Group and subsequent retention of litigation counsel.

Purpose: Tanaka establishes the pre-suit notice chronology — a critical foundation for the willfulness case. She will authenticate the FairPoint licensing correspondence, describe OWS's good-faith efforts to resolve the dispute without litigation, and explain the decision-making process that led from licensing outreach to the filing of this lawsuit.

Key Testimony:

• Decision to engage FairPoint Licensing Group in late 2022 for pre-suit enforcement of OWS's silicon photonics patent portfolio against Lumicore.

• Receipt and review of Benchmark teardown reports in December 2022 and mid-2023, which confirmed that Lumicore's products incorporated OWS's patented technology.

• Oversight of FairPoint's licensing outreach: the January 15, 2023 letter, the February 28, 2023 response, the April 20, 2023 meeting, the May 15, 2023 supplemental letter, and the July 10, 2023 declination.

• Decision to escalate from licensing to litigation: retention of Calderwood & Harkness LLP on March 18, 2024; filing of complaint on May 1, 2024.

• OWS's willingness to license: Tanaka will testify that OWS was genuinely willing to negotiate a license and that Lumicore's refusal to engage meaningfully left OWS with no alternative but litigation.

Preparation Notes: Tanaka's testimony must be carefully coordinated with the privilege log and any privilege rulings. Tanaka should not be asked to testify about the substance of any attorney-client communications regarding litigation strategy. One preparation session with Alan Ngo in January 2026.

Estimated Time: 0.75–1 hour direct examination; anticipate 0.5 hour cross-examination.

4. Angela Reeves (FairPoint Licensing Group, Managing Director) — LIVE or VIDEO

Role: Conducted the pre-suit licensing outreach to Lumicore on behalf of OWS.

Purpose: Reeves provides the granular detail of the notice chronology. She personally drafted and sent the licensing letters, attended the April 20, 2023 meeting in Austin, and can testify to Lumicore's lack of meaningful engagement. Her testimony corroborates Tanaka's account and provides additional specificity regarding the content of the communications and Lumicore's responses.

Key Testimony:

• Drafting and sending of the January 15, 2023 letter to Raymond Bautista, identifying the '847, '193, and '562 Patents and providing claim charts mapping the patents to the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ product.

• Receipt of the February 28, 2023 response from Lumicore, in which Lumicore disputed infringement but did not provide any technical basis for its position.

• The April 20, 2023 in-person meeting in Austin: Reeves and Tanaka attended on behalf of OWS; Bautista and Kate Rourke attended on behalf of Lumicore. Reeves will testify that Lumicore showed "no interest in negotiating" a license and that the meeting was perfunctory, lasting less than one hour.

• Drafting and sending of the May 15, 2023 supplemental letter, which added the '015 Patent and expanded the accused products to include the LumiLink 800G-DR8.

• Receipt of the July 10, 2023 declination letter from Lumicore, referencing "competent legal opinions" as the basis for its refusal to take a license.

Deposition: Taken December 10, 2024. Designations have been prepared for use if the witness is unavailable live. We should make every effort to secure Reeves's live attendance, as her testimony is more compelling in person. Confirm availability no later than December 2025.

Estimated Time: 0.75 hour direct examination; anticipate 0.5 hour cross-examination.

5. Kevin Ng (Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC, Lead Engineer) — LIVE

Role: Performed the reverse-engineering teardowns of all three accused Lumicore products.

Purpose: Kevin Ng is the witness who puts the physical evidence in front of the jury. His testimony provides the factual foundation for the infringement case — the element-by-element comparison between the accused product structures and the patent claim limitations. Ng's work is meticulous, well-documented, and visually compelling. His teardown photographs and SEM images will be among the most powerful exhibits at trial.

Key Testimony:

• Chain of custody for product samples: how Benchmark obtained samples of each accused product (purchased through authorized distribution channels); handling and documentation procedures.

MEMORANDUM
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
TO: Alan Ngo, Responsible Partner; Marcus Delgado, Billing Partner
FROM: Wendy Schultz, Lead Associate; Omar Siddiqui, Working Associate
DATE: October 17, 2025
RE: Trial Strategy Memorandum — Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. v. Lumicore Technologies, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00319-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
TRIAL DATE: February 2, 2026 — Jury Trial before the Honorable James R. Gilstrap, United States District Judge (estimated 7–10 days)
Right-click to update Table of Contents
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This memorandum sets forth the comprehensive trial strategy for the upcoming jury trial in Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. v. Lumicore Technologies, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00319-JRG, currently scheduled to commence on February 2, 2026, before the Honorable James R. Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The memorandum covers trial themes, witness sequencing, exhibit strategy, jury-selection approach, verdict-form design, key evidentiary issues, damages presentation, injunction coordination, budget and resource allocation, risk assessment and contingencies, and a detailed schedule of pre-trial deadlines and action items.
Case Posture as of October 2025. This case is in a mature pre-trial posture. The Markman hearing was held on March 14, 2025, and the Court's claim-construction order was entered on April 28, 2025; the results are favorable on balance and are incorporated throughout this memorandum. Fact discovery closed on May 1, 2025. Plaintiff's expert reports were served on June 15, 2025, comprising: (a) Dr. Caroline Ashford (Northfield Institute of Technology) on infringement and validity; (b) Dr. Lawrence Keating (Meridian Economic Consulting Group, LLC) on damages; and (c) Gregory Falk (former VP Engineering, Solara Optics, Inc.) on industry context and commercial significance. Defendant's rebuttal expert reports were served on July 15, 2025, featuring: (a) Dr. Arun Sundaram (Stanford University) on validity and non-infringement; and (b) Dr. Natasha Volkov (Pinnacle Analytics Partners LLP) on damages. Expert discovery closed on August 15, 2025. Dispositive motions were filed by both parties on September 15, 2025, and remain pending before the Court. Daubert motions are due November 1, 2025, and are currently in preparation.
Core Objective. Our objective at trial is to obtain a jury verdict finding infringement on all four asserted patents — U.S. Patent Nos. 10,234,847 (the "'847 Patent"); 10,891,193 (the "'193 Patent"); 9,678,562 (the "'562 Patent"); and 11,402,015 (the "'015 Patent") — across all three accused Lumicore products; a finding of willful infringement as to each patent; damages of approximately $210 million (comprising lost profits, a reasonable royalty, and factual predicates supporting post-trial enhancement); and the development of a trial record that fully supports a post-trial motion for a permanent injunction under the Northgate Group v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), framework.
Trial Allocation. The Court has indicated a 10-day trial framework, with each side receiving five days of trial time. Based on our current witness and exhibit plan, OWS expects to request approximately four of its five allocated days for its case-in-chief, reserving approximately one day for rebuttal and contingencies.
Trial Team. The following individuals constitute the lead trial team:
• Alan Ngo — First chair; responsible for opening and closing arguments, direct examination of key witnesses, and principal cross-examinations.
• Marcus Delgado — Second chair; responsible for damages witnesses, certain cross-examinations of defense witnesses, and trial supervision of damages evidence.
• Wendy Schultz — Lead associate; responsible for witness preparation, exhibit management, technology tutorial presentation, and courtroom technology oversight.
• Omar Siddiqui — Working associate; responsible for demonstratives coordination, deposition designations and counter-designations, trial logistics, and daily trial summaries.
• Jim Callahan (Whitmore & Callahan LLP, Tyler, Texas) — Local counsel; responsible for jury-selection guidance, E.D. Tex. courtroom protocols, and local-rules compliance.
The remainder of this memorandum addresses each component of the trial strategy in detail.
II. CASE OVERVIEW AND MARKMAN RESULTS
A. The Parties
1. Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. (Plaintiff)
Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. ("OWS" or "Optiwave") is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 4810 Bayside Technology Parkway, Suite 300, Santa Clara, California 95054. OWS is a fabless semiconductor company specializing in the design and commercialization of silicon photonics chipsets for data-center interconnects. The company was founded in 2009 and has grown to approximately 1,250 employees. In its fiscal year ending December 31, 2023, OWS reported revenue of $487.3 million and net income of $61.4 million. OWS is the third-largest United States supplier of silicon-photonics transceiver modules for hyperscale data centers, trailing only Harborview Industries and Sterling Reach Holdings, in terms of domestic market share for this product category.
OWS maintains a substantial intellectual property portfolio, holding 142 issued United States patents and 58 pending applications, predominantly in the fields of silicon photonics, integrated optical circuit design, thermal management of photonic integrated circuits, and high-bandwidth data-center connectivity solutions. The four patents asserted in this litigation are among the most commercially significant in OWS's portfolio, underpinning the core technology embedded in its flagship OWS-400ZR, OWS-800XR, and OWS-1600DR transceiver module product lines.
Since 2019, OWS has been majority owned by Ridgeline Capital Partners, LP ("Ridgeline"), a private equity firm that acquired a 55% stake in OWS for approximately $780 million. The remaining equity is held by a combination of founding management (approximately 22%), institutional investors (approximately 15%), and employee option holders (approximately 8%). The Ridgeline investment reflects OWS's value as an operating company with significant revenue, substantial engineering talent, and a differentiated technology platform — a point that will be important to emphasize at trial to counter any anticipated defense narrative that OWS is a non-practicing entity or "patent troll."
The key personnel relevant to this litigation are as follows:
• Dr. Priya Ramaswamy, Chief Executive Officer
• Dr. Jian-Wei Huang, Chief Technology Officer and lead inventor on the '847, '193, and '015 Patents
• Rebecca Tanaka, General Counsel
• Dr. Nikolai Petrov, Vice President of Engineering, Photonics Division
• David Leitner, Chief Financial Officer
• Karen Whitfield, Vice President of Sales
• Franklin Osei, Board Chair (Ridgeline Capital designee)
OWS's financial statements are audited by Gresham & Whitfield LLP.
2. Lumicore Technologies, Inc. (Defendant)
Lumicore Technologies, Inc. ("Lumicore" or "LTC") is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 9200 Spectrum Boulevard, Building C, Austin, Texas 78759. Lumicore is a fast-growing competitor in the silicon-photonics transceiver market, with approximately 870 employees. The company was founded in 2017 and has experienced rapid revenue growth, reporting estimated revenue of $312.6 million in fiscal year 2023. Lumicore completed an initial public offering on Nasdaq in March 2022, pricing its shares at $24 per share. As of the filing of this lawsuit, Lumicore's stock was trading at approximately $37 per share, giving the company a market capitalization of approximately $3.4 billion on approximately 91.8 million shares outstanding.
The key personnel relevant to this litigation are as follows:
• Thomas "Tom" Kessler, Chief Executive Officer
• Dr. Sandra Michaud, Chief Technology Officer
• Raymond Bautista, General Counsel
• Dr. Eric Dalmqvist, Vice President of Product Development
• Janet Moreno, Chief Financial Officer
Lumicore's financial statements are audited by Brennan Kellogg & Associates LLP.
Lumicore is represented in this litigation by Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP ("HVC"), with lead trial partner Catherine "Kate" Rourke, second chair Darren Cho, and associates Samantha Briggs and Rohan Iyer. Lumicore's local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas is Trask Eddington LLP, with partner Maria Garza serving as the designated local representative.
Kate Rourke is a highly experienced patent litigator who has tried approximately sixteen patent jury trials in the Eastern District of Texas and has a reputation for aggressive cross-examination and meticulous trial preparation. Darren Cho has significant experience in damages-related cross-examinations and previously served as lead damages attorney in Prisma Semiconductor Corp. v. Coreline Technologies, Inc., in which the jury awarded a lower royalty rate than plaintiff sought. We should anticipate a vigorous and well-prepared defense.
B. The Asserted Patents
1. The '847 Patent — U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847
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.
Asserted Claims: 1, 3, 5, 9, 14
The '847 Patent is directed to a multi-channel silicon photonic waveguide multiplexer architecture that achieves significantly lower insertion loss than prior-art designs. The specification describes a novel arrangement of silicon-based waveguide structures that enables the efficient combination of multiple optical signals of different wavelengths onto a single output waveguide, a function critical to wavelength-division multiplexing ("WDM") in data-center transceiver modules. Claim 1 is the broadest independent claim and recites the waveguide multiplexer structure with specific limitations relating to channel count, insertion-loss thresholds, and silicon-on-insulator substrate configuration. Claims 3 and 5 are dependent claims adding further structural refinements. Claim 9 includes a "means for coupling" limitation that may invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (discussed below). Claim 14 is a system-level claim encompassing the multiplexer within a transceiver module.
The '847 Patent is in the same patent family as the '562 Patent (the '847 Patent is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 14/948,672, from which the '562 Patent issued). This family relationship is relevant to the chain-of-title analysis for the '562 Patent (acquired from Solara Optics) and to the prior-art landscape.
2. The '193 Patent — U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193
Title: "High-Bandwidth Coherent Optical Transceiver Integrated on Silicon Substrate"
Filing Date: April 7, 2017
Issue Date: January 12, 2021
Original Assignee: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.
Current Assignee: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.
Asserted Claims: 1, 3, 7, 10, 15, 18
Doctrine of Equivalents Contentions: Claims 3 and 7
The '193 Patent discloses and claims a high-bandwidth coherent optical transceiver that is integrated on a silicon substrate, enabling significantly higher data rates and improved signal integrity compared to prior hybrid integration approaches. The patent shares Provisional Application No. 62/499,117 with the '015 Patent, which provides a common priority date for certain claims. Claim 1 is the broadest independent claim and recites the coherent transceiver architecture with integrated modulator, photodetector, and digital signal processing blocks on a common silicon substrate. Claims 3 and 7 are dependent claims that add limitations relating to a "coherent detection module" — these are the claims for which OWS has asserted doctrine-of-equivalents ("DOE") theories. Claim 10 adds wavelength-tuning capabilities. Claim 15 includes a "means for digital signal processing" limitation that may invoke § 112(f). Claim 18 is a method claim.
3. The '562 Patent — U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562
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.
Asserted Claims: 1, 4, 6, 11
The '562 Patent was originally assigned to Solara Optics, Inc. ("Solara"), a company that specialized in advanced optical packaging and thermal management solutions. Solara dissolved in 2020. OWS acquired the '562 Patent, together with 11 other patents, from Solara pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement dated June 15, 2018, for a total consideration of $34.5 million. The chain of title is documented in the recorded assignment at the USPTO, and the APA is included in the trial exhibit set (Ex. P-012). Gregory Falk, who served as VP of Engineering at Solara before its dissolution, is available as a witness to testify to the patent's origins and Solara's history.
The '562 Patent is directed to a method for managing thermal dissipation in photonic integrated circuits ("PICs") through the use of embedded micro-channel heat sinks. The specification describes a fabrication methodology for creating micro-channel structures within the silicon substrate that carry a coolant fluid directly beneath the photonic circuit elements, enabling substantially improved thermal performance compared to conventional top-mounted or flip-chip heat-sink approaches. The '562 Patent is in the same family as the '847 Patent (continuation relationship).
4. The '015 Patent — U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015
Title: "Polarization-Diverse Grating Coupler for Silicon Photonic Transceivers"
Filing Date: August 30, 2019
Issue Date: August 2, 2022
Original Assignee: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.
Current Assignee: Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.
Asserted Claims: 1, 5, 8, 12, 16
Doctrine of Equivalents Contentions: Claim 12
The '015 Patent discloses and claims a polarization-diverse grating coupler designed for use in silicon photonic transceivers. The grating coupler structure enables efficient coupling of light into and out of the silicon waveguide while simultaneously splitting incoming light into its orthogonal polarization states, thereby addressing a critical challenge in coherent detection systems. The '015 Patent shares Provisional Application No. 62/499,117 with the '193 Patent. Claim 1 is the broadest independent claim and recites the grating coupler structure with polarization-diversity functionality. Claim 12 includes a "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating" limitation that is the subject of OWS's DOE contention. Claim 16 is a method claim directed to the fabrication process.
C. Accused Products
Lumicore manufactures and sells three accused product lines, each of which is a silicon-photonics transceiver module designed for data-center interconnect applications:
1. LumiLink 400G-ZR+. Launched in Q3 2022, this product is a 400-gigabit coherent optical transceiver module designed for data-center interconnect ("DCI") applications at extended reach distances. LumiLink 400G-ZR+ generated $94.8 million in revenue in fiscal year 2023. This product is accused of infringing the '847 Patent (waveguide multiplexer), the '193 Patent (coherent transceiver integration), and the '562 Patent (thermal management).
2. LumiLink 800G-DR8. Launched in Q1 2023, this product is an 800-gigabit direct-detect transceiver module using eight parallel 100G lanes. LumiLink 800G-DR8 generated $128.4 million in revenue in fiscal year 2023 and is Lumicore's highest-revenue accused product. This product is accused of infringing all four asserted patents: the '847 Patent, the '193 Patent, the '562 Patent, and the '015 Patent.
3. LumiEdge 1600G-LR. Launched in Q4 2023 — critically, several months after Lumicore received both FairPoint notice letters and participated in the face-to-face licensing meeting — this product is a next-generation 1.6-terabit long-reach transceiver module. LumiEdge 1600G-LR generated $41.7 million in revenue in fiscal year 2023 (reflecting only partial-year sales from its Q4 launch). This product is accused of infringing the '193 Patent and the '015 Patent.
Revenue Summary:
Total infringement-period revenue from Q3 2022 through Q1 2024 (the most recent quarter for which actual financials are available) is approximately $378.2 million. Dr. Keating projects total accused-product revenue through the anticipated trial date (Q3 2022 through Q4 2025) at approximately $714.6 million.
D. Markman Ruling — Summary and Impact on Trial
The Markman hearing was held on March 14, 2025, before Judge Gilstrap. The parties initially disputed 14 claim terms; two were resolved by stipulation prior to the hearing, leaving 12 disputed terms for the Court's resolution. The Court's claim-construction order was entered on April 28, 2025 (D.E. 89). Below, we summarize the Court's construction of the four terms most critical to the trial presentation, followed by an assessment of the overall impact of the ruling.
1. "Waveguide Multiplexer" ('847 Patent)
OWS proposed: "An optical device that combines multiple optical signals of different wavelengths onto a single waveguide."
Lumicore proposed: "An arrayed waveguide grating (AWG) device that uses an array of waveguides of incrementally increasing length to combine multiple optical signals of different wavelengths onto a single output waveguide."
Court's Construction: The Court adopted a construction substantially aligned with OWS's proposal, defining "waveguide multiplexer" as "an optical device implemented in a silicon waveguide structure that combines multiple optical signals of different wavelengths onto a single waveguide." Critically, the Court rejected Lumicore's attempt to limit the term to arrayed waveguide gratings (AWGs), finding that the specification discloses multiple multiplexer architectures — including echelle gratings and cascaded Mach-Zehnder interferometer designs — and that importing an AWG-only limitation would improperly read out disclosed embodiments.
Impact on Trial: This construction is highly favorable. Lumicore's accused products use a proprietary multiplexer architecture that Lumicore characterizes as a "micro-ring resonator cascaded multiplexer," which is distinct from a conventional AWG. Under the Court's broader construction, the accused architecture falls squarely within the claim scope. Under Lumicore's rejected narrow construction, infringement would have required significant additional technical argumentation. Dr. Ashford's infringement analysis is fully supported by the Court's construction.
2. "Integrated on a Silicon Substrate" ('193 Patent)
OWS proposed: "Formed on or within a silicon substrate using semiconductor fabrication techniques."
Lumicore proposed: "Monolithically fabricated on a single silicon substrate without the use of heterogeneous bonding or hybrid integration techniques."
Court's Construction: The Court construed the term as "formed on or within a silicon substrate," rejecting Lumicore's attempt to impose a "monolithically fabricated" limitation. The Court found that the specification explicitly contemplates both monolithic and hybrid integration approaches and that the prosecution history does not evince a clear disavowal of hybrid integration. The Court further noted that several dependent claims specifically address monolithic integration, suggesting that the independent claims encompass a broader scope.
Impact on Trial: This construction is favorable. The accused LumiLink 800G-DR8 and LumiEdge 1600G-LR products use a hybrid integration approach in which certain components (specifically, the indium phosphide gain elements) are heterogeneously bonded to the silicon substrate. Under Lumicore's rejected construction, these products would have fallen outside the claim scope. Under the Court's adopted construction, the hybrid integration approach satisfies the "integrated on a silicon substrate" limitation.
3. "Micro-Channel Heat Sink" ('562 Patent)
OWS proposed: "A heat sink comprising channels with a hydraulic diameter of less than 1 mm that carry a coolant fluid for thermal management."
Lumicore proposed: "A heat sink comprising closed-loop channels with a hydraulic diameter between 10 µm and 200 µm that circulate a coolant fluid for thermal management of a photonic integrated circuit."
Court's Construction: The Court adopted a construction closer to OWS's proposal: "A heat sink comprising channels with a hydraulic diameter of less than 1 mm that carry a coolant fluid for thermal management of a photonic integrated circuit." The Court rejected Lumicore's narrow "10 µm to 200 µm" range and the "closed-loop" limitation, finding that the specification discloses a broader range of channel dimensions and does not require a closed-loop configuration.
Impact on Trial: This construction is favorable. Benchmark's teardown analysis of the accused LumiLink 400G-ZR+ and 800G-DR8 products identified micro-channel structures with hydraulic diameters ranging from approximately 85 µm to 450 µm. Several of these channels exceed the 200 µm upper bound of Lumicore's proposed construction but fall comfortably within the Court's adopted "less than 1 mm" construction. The "closed-loop" limitation would also have created factual issues, as Benchmark's analysis suggests the accused products use an open-loop (single-pass) micro-channel architecture. Under the Court's construction, both products clearly satisfy this limitation.
4. "Polarization-Diverse Grating Coupler" ('015 Patent)
OWS proposed: "A grating coupler that receives an input optical signal and separates it into two orthogonal polarization components."
Lumicore proposed: "A grating coupler comprising a two-dimensional splitting element that simultaneously diffracts and separates an input optical signal into two orthogonal polarization components."
Court's Construction: The Court adopted a construction that partially favored each side: "A grating coupler that receives an input optical signal and separates it into two orthogonal polarization components, wherein the separation is achieved through the grating structure itself." The Court rejected the specific "two-dimensional splitting element" limitation proposed by Lumicore but added the clarification that the separation must be achieved through the grating structure rather than through a separate downstream polarization beam splitter.
Impact on Trial: This construction is generally favorable but introduces a factual question regarding whether the accused products' grating couplers achieve polarization separation through the grating structure itself. Dr. Ashford's analysis concludes that they do, based on the micro-ring resonator patterns observed in Benchmark's SEM imagery, which function as both a diffractive coupling element and a polarization-splitting element. Lumicore's expert, Dr. Sundaram, may dispute this characterization. The DOE contention on Claim 12 (which adds the "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating" limitation) remains relevant as a fallback theory in the event literal infringement is contested on this limitation.
5. Means-Plus-Function Rulings
The Court identified two claim limitations as potentially invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f): Claim 9 of the '847 Patent ("means for coupling optical signals from the waveguide multiplexer to an output fiber") and Claim 15 of the '193 Patent ("means for digital signal processing of the coherent optical signal"). For each, the Court identified the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification:
• Claim 9 of '847: The Court identified the corresponding structure as "a tapered-mode converter with a spot-size adapter, as disclosed in Figures 7A–7C and column 12, lines 22–48 of the '847 Patent, and equivalents thereof."
• Claim 15 of '193: The Court identified the corresponding structure as "a CMOS digital signal processing application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) with a finite impulse response (FIR) equalizer and carrier-phase recovery module, as disclosed in Figures 11–13 and column 18, lines 5–42 of the '193 Patent, and equivalents thereof."
Dr. Ashford's analysis confirms that the accused products contain structures that are either identical to or equivalent to the corresponding structures identified by the Court.
6. Overall Assessment
The Markman ruling is favorable to OWS on balance. The Court's constructions support literal infringement on the vast majority of the asserted claims across all three accused products. The DOE theories for Claims 3 and 7 of the '193 Patent and Claim 12 of the '015 Patent remain viable as fallback positions but may be less critical than initially anticipated if Dr. Ashford can establish literal infringement under the Court's constructions. We should continue to present DOE as an alternative theory to ensure that, in the event any literal-infringement argument faces unexpected jury resistance, we have a fully briefed and supported secondary theory.
III. TRIAL THEMES
A. Overarching Narrative
A patent jury trial is ultimately a story. The jury must come away understanding three things: what OWS invented, what Lumicore took, and why it matters. Our three overarching themes are designed to communicate these concepts in plain, compelling language.
Theme 1 — "Innovation vs. Imitation"
Optiwave Semiconductor invested years of research and development and hundreds of millions of dollars to develop breakthrough silicon photonics technology that has transformed how data centers communicate. Dr. Jian-Wei Huang and his team spent the better part of a decade iterating on waveguide multiplexer designs, coherent transceiver architectures, thermal management solutions, and grating coupler structures — filing patent applications, building prototypes, testing, failing, and ultimately succeeding. The result was a suite of patented innovations that enabled OWS to build world-class products and compete effectively in one of the most demanding technology markets on Earth.
Lumicore Technologies chose a different path. Rather than invest the time and resources to develop its own solutions, Lumicore chose to copy OWS's technology. The physical evidence — obtained through meticulous reverse-engineering by Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC — shows that Lumicore's products literally incorporate every element of OWS's patented claims. The technology "fingerprint" is unmistakable. This is not a case of independent parallel development. This is a case of a company that saw what worked, took it, and profited enormously.
This theme is intended to resonate with jurors who value hard work, ingenuity, and fair play. It positions OWS as the innovator and Lumicore as the imitator, a framing that should be reinforced throughout every stage of the trial.
Theme 2 — "They Knew and They Chose"
Lumicore was not an innocent infringer that stumbled into OWS's patent rights. The evidence will show that Lumicore's own engineers — including Melissa Chen, who will testify at trial — reviewed OWS's published patent applications during the design phase of the very products that are now accused of infringement. Lumicore knew about OWS's technology. Lumicore knew about OWS's patents.
And when OWS's licensing agent, FairPoint Licensing Group, put Lumicore on formal notice in January 2023, Lumicore did not stop. It did not redesign. It did not negotiate in good faith. Instead, it continued selling the accused products — and then launched an entirely new infringing product, the LumiEdge 1600G-LR, in Q4 2023, months after receiving detailed notice. This was a deliberate choice, made with full knowledge of OWS's patent rights. That choice has consequences.
This theme is critical to the willfulness case. It paints a picture of a company that did not merely stumble into infringement but affirmatively chose to continue infringing despite clear notice — a fact pattern that supports both the jury's willfulness finding and the Court's post-trial enhancement determination.
Theme 3 — "Full and Fair Compensation"
OWS's patents are the foundation of its competitive position. They represent the company's most valuable assets and the source of its ability to innovate, invest in new technologies, and create jobs. Lumicore has reaped hundreds of millions of dollars from OWS's inventions — over $714 million in projected accused-product revenue by the time of trial. The jury should award damages that fully compensate OWS for its losses and that reflect the true value of what was taken.
This is not about punishing Lumicore for being a competitor. Competition is healthy. But competition must be fair. Taking someone else's patented technology without permission is not fair competition. It is infringement. And the law provides a remedy: full and fair compensation to the patent holder.
This theme is designed to preempt any defense narrative that OWS is seeking to "stifle competition" or is motivated by greed. It frames the damages demand as a matter of basic fairness and legal entitlement.
B. Subsidiary Themes by Issue
Infringement. The teardown evidence from Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC — prepared under the direction of lead engineer Kevin Ng — provides the backbone of the infringement case. Benchmark obtained and reverse-engineered samples of all three accused Lumicore products. The teardown reports include detailed cross-section photographs, scanning electron microscope ("SEM") images, and element-by-element comparisons between the accused product structures and the patent claim limitations. The technology "fingerprint" left by OWS's patented innovations is clearly visible in the physical evidence.
This subsidiary theme is designed to ground the infringement case in tangible, visual evidence that the jury can see and understand. Abstract claim-construction arguments will be necessary, but the most powerful evidence will be the side-by-side photographs showing that Lumicore's products look like OWS's patents because they are OWS's patents, implemented in silicon.
Validity. OWS's patents withstood rigorous examination by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Each patent was reviewed by experienced patent examiners who searched the prior art and allowed the claims only after satisfying themselves that the claimed inventions were novel and non-obvious. The prior art that Lumicore now relies upon — the same prior art that was available to the USPTO during prosecution, or prior art that is even less relevant than what the examiner already considered — does not invalidate any asserted claim.
Secondary considerations of non-obviousness powerfully confirm the validity of OWS's patents. OWS's practicing products — which embody the patented technology — have generated approximately $310 million in revenue in fiscal year 2023 alone (commercial success). The industry had long sought a solution to the problem of low-insertion-loss waveguide multiplexing, and OWS solved it (long-felt need). At least three competitors attempted and failed to develop comparable technology (failure of others). And Lumicore copied OWS's patented technology rather than developing its own (copying). These objective indicia of non-obviousness are powerful evidence that OWS's patents claim inventions that were anything but obvious.
Willfulness. The willfulness narrative is built on a chain of evidence that progresses from awareness to notice to deliberate indifference. Melissa Chen will testify that Lumicore's design team accessed and reviewed OWS's published patent applications during the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ design phase. FairPoint's licensing letters — sent in January 2023 and May 2023 — put Lumicore on formal notice of the specific patents at issue. The in-person meeting in Austin on April 20, 2023, gave Lumicore a face-to-face opportunity to engage in good-faith licensing discussions. Lumicore's July 10, 2023 declination letter references "competent legal opinions" — opinion-of-counsel letters that Lumicore now refuses to produce, raising a powerful adverse inference. And despite all of this, Lumicore launched the LumiEdge 1600G-LR in Q4 2023, adding yet another infringing product to its lineup.
Damages. Lumicore's accused products have generated — and are projected to generate — over $714 million in revenue during the infringement period. OWS has suffered real, quantifiable harm: lost sales to customers that were diverted to Lumicore; an 18.7% decline in average selling price ("ASP") in the 400G-ZR transceiver market from Q3 2022 to Q4 2023; and denied design-in opportunities at major hyperscale data-center operators. Dr. Keating's damages analysis quantifies these harms using well-established legal frameworks — the Panduit test for lost profits and the Georgia-Pacific factors for reasonable royalty — arriving at a total damages demand of approximately $210 million.
C. Counter-Themes (Defense) and Responses
Anticipated Defense Narrative
Based on Lumicore's trial-team composition, litigation strategy to date, and the tenor of Kate Rourke's prior E.D. Tex. trials, we anticipate the following overarching defense narrative: "OWS's patents are invalid over the prior art. The technology claimed in these patents was well known in the silicon photonics field before OWS filed its applications. OWS is not an innovator — it is an aggressive litigant backed by private equity money, using overbroad patents to stifle legitimate competition and extract hundreds of millions of dollars from a company that independently developed its own products."
Lumicore will attempt to recast this case as a David-versus-Goliath story, positioning itself as the scrappy, publicly traded innovator fighting against a PE-backed patent bully. Lumicore will lean heavily on its invalidity defenses — particularly the Takahashi prior art against the '847 Patent and the Simonsen PCT application as an obviousness combination — and will argue that the claimed technology was either anticipated or obvious in light of the prior art.
Our Responses. OWS is a practicing entity, not a "patent troll." This response must be established early and often. OWS manufactures (through foundry partners) and sells products that embody the patented technology. OWS generated $487.3 million in revenue in fiscal year 2023. OWS employs approximately 1,250 people. OWS competes head-to-head with Lumicore in the marketplace. Ridgeline Capital's involvement reflects OWS's value as an operating company — a private equity firm invested $780 million in OWS precisely because OWS is a successful, growing technology business, not because OWS is a litigation vehicle. The technology tutorial and Dr. Huang's testimony on Day 1 should firmly establish OWS's identity as a real company with real products and real engineers.
OWS tried to license in good faith before suing. The FairPoint licensing correspondence and Rebecca Tanaka's testimony will establish that OWS approached Lumicore through a professional licensing intermediary, offered to discuss a license, and was rebuffed. OWS did not rush to the courthouse. It engaged in pre-suit dialogue for over a year before retaining litigation counsel. This narrative undermines any suggestion that OWS is a litigation-first company.
Non-infringing alternatives do not exist. Lumicore may argue that non-infringing alternatives to OWS's patented technology exist in the marketplace. But Dr. Sandra Michaud — Lumicore's own CTO — was unable to identify specific non-infringing design alternatives when asked at her deposition. Raymond Bautista — Lumicore's General Counsel — admitted that no formal design-around analysis was commissioned before the LumiEdge 1600G-LR launch. If Lumicore cannot identify alternatives that its own executives endorse, the jury should be skeptical of any last-minute design-around theories presented through defense experts.
IV. WITNESS STRATEGY
A. Plaintiff's Case-in-Chief — Witness Order and Purpose
The following section describes each witness OWS intends to call in its case-in-chief, the purpose and scope of each witness's testimony, key preparation considerations, and estimated time allocations. The witnesses are presented in proposed order of presentation, which is designed to build the trial narrative sequentially: innovation → notice → physical evidence → willfulness → market impact → technical infringement → validity → damages.
1. Dr. Jian-Wei Huang (OWS Chief Technology Officer) — LIVE
Role: Lead inventor on the '847, '193, and '015 Patents; co-inventor on continuation applications in the '847/'562 patent family.
Purpose: Dr. Huang is the face of OWS's innovation story. His testimony will open the plaintiff's case-in-chief (after the technology tutorial and opening statement) and will set the stage for everything that follows. He will explain, in accessible terms, the technical problems that OWS solved, the years of research and development that went into the patented inventions, and the significance of these inventions to the silicon photonics field. Dr. Huang is articulate, charismatic, and deeply knowledgeable — he holds a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Stanford University and has authored over 80 peer-reviewed publications in the field. He is the ideal witness to humanize the inventive process and to establish OWS's credibility as a genuine innovator.
Key Testimony:
• Background and training: Ph.D., Stanford (2008); post-doctoral research at MIT Lincoln Laboratory; joined OWS as a principal engineer in 2010; promoted to CTO in 2016.
• The state of the art at the time of invention: prior to OWS's work, silicon photonic waveguide multiplexers suffered from high insertion loss that limited channel count and bandwidth; coherent transceivers could not be efficiently integrated on a single silicon substrate; thermal management of PICs was handled through inefficient external heat sinks; grating couplers could not achieve polarization-diverse coupling without bulky downstream optics.
• The inventive concept behind each patent: how the team approached each problem; the "aha moment" that led to each breakthrough; the iterative nature of the R&D process (multiple failed prototypes before success).
• The iterative development process: timeline of development from 2012 to 2019; investment of over $145 million in silicon photonics R&D during this period; the role of OWS's cleanroom facilities and design teams.
• Commercial success: how the patented innovations were embedded in OWS's flagship products (OWS-400ZR, OWS-800XR, OWS-1600DR); the connection between the patents and the products that generated $310 million in practicing-product revenue in FY 2023.
• Identification of patented features in OWS's own products: use demonstratives showing the patented structures in OWS's products alongside the patent figures.
Preparation Notes: Dr. Huang was deposed on November 5, 2024. The deposition transcript should be reviewed in detail for consistency between his anticipated trial testimony and his deposition statements. Particular attention should be paid to cross-examination topics likely to arise: prosecution-history amendments (the '193 Patent underwent a narrowing amendment during prosecution that gave rise to the Festo presumption on Claims 3 and 7); prior publications by Dr. Huang that Lumicore may cite as prior art; and any internal OWS communications suggesting that Dr. Huang was aware of the prior art Lumicore relies upon. Alan Ngo should conduct two full preparation sessions with Dr. Huang — one on direct examination and one on anticipated cross-examination — in January 2026.
Estimated Time: 1.5–2 hours direct examination; anticipate 1–1.5 hours cross-examination.
2. Dr. Nikolai Petrov (OWS VP Engineering, Photonics Division) — LIVE
Role: Oversees the commercialization of patented technology within OWS's product line; responsible for the engineering teams that design and qualify OWS's transceiver modules.
Purpose: Dr. Petrov bridges the gap between R&D and commercial products. While Dr. Huang tells the innovation story, Dr. Petrov connects that story to the marketplace. He will explain how the patented innovations are embedded in OWS's product line, describe the competitive landscape and the impact of Lumicore's market entry, and authenticate internal engineering documents and competitive analyses that track Lumicore's products.
Key Testimony:
• How OWS's key products (OWS-400ZR, OWS-800XR, OWS-1600DR) practice the asserted patents: provide a product-level overview with reference to internal block diagrams and engineering specifications showing the correspondence between the patented features and OWS's product implementations.
• Competitive impact of Lumicore's entry: when Lumicore first appeared in competitive evaluations; how Lumicore's products competed head-to-head with OWS's products at the same hyperscale customers.
• Customer feedback showing displacement: communications from customers indicating that Lumicore's products were being evaluated as alternatives to OWS's products; instances where OWS lost design-in opportunities.
• Authentication of internal competitive-analysis documents and engineering memoranda.
Preparation Notes: Dr. Petrov is an effective witness but tends to use highly technical jargon. Preparation sessions should emphasize plain-language explanations and the use of visual aids. One full preparation session in January 2026.
Estimated Time: 1–1.5 hours direct examination; anticipate 0.5–1 hour cross-examination.
3. Rebecca Tanaka (OWS General Counsel) — LIVE
Role: Managed OWS's pre-suit enforcement and licensing efforts; oversaw engagement of FairPoint Licensing Group and subsequent retention of litigation counsel.
Purpose: Tanaka establishes the pre-suit notice chronology — a critical foundation for the willfulness case. She will authenticate the FairPoint licensing correspondence, describe OWS's good-faith efforts to resolve the dispute without litigation, and explain the decision-making process that led from licensing outreach to the filing of this lawsuit.
Key Testimony:
• Decision to engage FairPoint Licensing Group in late 2022 for pre-suit enforcement of OWS's silicon photonics patent portfolio against Lumicore.
• Receipt and review of Benchmark teardown reports in December 2022 and mid-2023, which confirmed that Lumicore's products incorporated OWS's patented technology.
• Oversight of FairPoint's licensing outreach: the January 15, 2023 letter, the February 28, 2023 response, the April 20, 2023 meeting, the May 15, 2023 supplemental letter, and the July 10, 2023 declination.
• Decision to escalate from licensing to litigation: retention of Calderwood & Harkness LLP on March 18, 2024; filing of complaint on May 1, 2024.
• OWS's willingness to license: Tanaka will testify that OWS was genuinely willing to negotiate a license and that Lumicore's refusal to engage meaningfully left OWS with no alternative but litigation.
Preparation Notes: Tanaka's testimony must be carefully coordinated with the privilege log and any privilege rulings. Tanaka should not be asked to testify about the substance of any attorney-client communications regarding litigation strategy. One preparation session with Alan Ngo in January 2026.
Estimated Time: 0.75–1 hour direct examination; anticipate 0.5 hour cross-examination.
4. Angela Reeves (FairPoint Licensing Group, Managing Director) — LIVE or VIDEO
Role: Conducted the pre-suit licensing outreach to Lumicore on behalf of OWS.
Purpose: Reeves provides the granular detail of the notice chronology. She personally drafted and sent the licensing letters, attended the April 20, 2023 meeting in Austin, and can testify to Lumicore's lack of meaningful engagement. Her testimony corroborates Tanaka's account and provides additional specificity regarding the content of the communications and Lumicore's responses.
Key Testimony:
• Drafting and sending of the January 15, 2023 letter to Raymond Bautista, identifying the '847, '193, and '562 Patents and providing claim charts mapping the patents to the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ product.
• Receipt of the February 28, 2023 response from Lumicore, in which Lumicore disputed infringement but did not provide any technical basis for its position.
• The April 20, 2023 in-person meeting in Austin: Reeves and Tanaka attended on behalf of OWS; Bautista and Kate Rourke attended on behalf of Lumicore. Reeves will testify that Lumicore showed "no interest in negotiating" a license and that the meeting was perfunctory, lasting less than one hour.
• Drafting and sending of the May 15, 2023 supplemental letter, which added the '015 Patent and expanded the accused products to include the LumiLink 800G-DR8.
• Receipt of the July 10, 2023 declination letter from Lumicore, referencing "competent legal opinions" as the basis for its refusal to take a license.
Deposition: Taken December 10, 2024. Designations have been prepared for use if the witness is unavailable live. We should make every effort to secure Reeves's live attendance, as her testimony is more compelling in person. Confirm availability no later than December 2025.
Estimated Time: 0.75 hour direct examination; anticipate 0.5 hour cross-examination.
5. Kevin Ng (Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC, Lead Engineer) — LIVE
Role: Performed the reverse-engineering teardowns of all three accused Lumicore products.
Purpose: Kevin Ng is the witness who puts the physical evidence in front of the jury. His testimony provides the factual foundation for the infringement case — the element-by-element comparison between the accused product structures and the patent claim limitations. Ng's work is meticulous, well-documented, and visually compelling. His teardown photographs and SEM images will be among the most powerful exhibits at trial.
Key Testimony:
• Chain of custody for product samples: how Benchmark obtained samples of each accused product (purchased through authorized distribution channels); handling and documentation procedures.
• Teardown methodology: the standardized reverse-engineering protocol used by Benchmark, including mechanical decapsulation, optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and compositional analysis (energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy).
• December 12, 2022 report on LumiLink 400G-ZR+: identification of waveguide multiplexer structures matching the '847 Patent claims; identification of micro-channel heat sink structures matching the '562 Patent claims; identification of coherent transceiver integration matching the '193 Patent claims.
• June 2023 teardown of LumiLink 800G-DR8: identification of all structures found in the 400G-ZR+ plus polarization-diverse grating coupler structures matching the '015 Patent claims.
• February 2024 teardown of LumiEdge 1600G-LR: identification of coherent transceiver integration ('193 Patent) and grating coupler structures ('015 Patent).
• Annotated photographs and SEM images: Ng will walk the jury through large-format annotated images showing the accused structures alongside the patent figures, with color-coded arrows identifying each claim element.
• Cross-reference to claim elements: for each asserted claim, Ng will identify the specific physical structure in the accused product that corresponds to each claim limitation.
Preparation Notes: Ng was deposed on January 7, 2025. Anticipated cross-examination topics include: (i) whether Benchmark's teardown methodology may have introduced artifacts; (ii) whether the teardown findings are consistent with Lumicore's own design files (which Ng did not review, as his analysis was based solely on physical examination); and (iii) chain-of-custody issues relating to the LumiEdge 1600G-LR sample (which was obtained through a third-party reseller). We should prepare Ng thoroughly on these topics. Two preparation sessions — one substantive, one focused on cross-examination — in January 2026.
Estimated Time: 1.5–2 hours direct examination; anticipate 1–1.5 hours cross-examination.
6. Melissa Chen (Former Lumicore Engineer; now at Veridian Photonics, Inc.) — LIVE or VIDEO
Role: Key fact witness on Lumicore's awareness of OWS patents during the design phase of the LumiLink 400G-ZR+.
Purpose: Chen's testimony is the linchpin of the pre-filing willfulness case. She will testify that Lumicore's LumiLink 400G-ZR+ design team accessed and reviewed OWS's published patent applications — specifically Published Application No. 2018/0123456, which corresponds to the '193 Patent — during the product design phase in 2021–2022. This testimony establishes that Lumicore's awareness of OWS's patents predates the FairPoint notice letters and extends back to the design phase itself.
Key Testimony:
• Her role on the LumiLink 400G-ZR+ design team at Lumicore from 2020 to 2024: she was a senior photonics design engineer responsible for coherent transceiver integration on the 400G-ZR+ platform.
• Team meetings in 2021 and early 2022 where OWS's published patent applications were discussed: Chen recalls at least three team meetings — in March 2021, July 2021, and January 2022 — at which OWS's published applications were circulated and discussed by the design team.
• How the team "adapted aspects of OWS's disclosed technology": Chen will testify that the team used OWS's disclosed waveguide multiplexer architecture and grating coupler design as reference points during the design process, benchmarking Lumicore's designs against OWS's disclosed approaches.
• Her departure to Veridian Photonics in March 2024: Chen left Lumicore approximately two months before this lawsuit was filed. She will testify that her departure was unrelated to this litigation.
Procedural Status: A third-party subpoena was issued on January 22, 2025, under Rule 45. Chen has been generally cooperative but has not formally committed to live trial attendance. We need to confirm her cooperation and availability for live testimony no later than November 2025. If she is unavailable for live testimony, we should prepare a video deposition for trial presentation. Omar Siddiqui to coordinate.
Sensitivity Note: Chen is a sympathetic witness. She is a young engineer who left Lumicore voluntarily and is now employed at a different company. She has no axe to grind. Her testimony should be handled carefully to avoid any appearance that OWS is coercing or pressuring her. Alan Ngo should conduct her direct examination in a conversational, non-adversarial tone, allowing her to tell her story in her own words. Her credibility is her greatest asset.
Estimated Time: 0.5–0.75 hour direct examination; anticipate 0.5–0.75 hour cross-examination.
7. Karen Whitfield (OWS VP of Sales) — LIVE
Role: OWS's senior sales executive with firsthand knowledge of customer diversion and lost sales attributable to Lumicore's accused products.
Purpose: Whitfield provides the real-world commercial impact testimony that grounds the damages case. While Dr. Keating will provide the economic quantification, Whitfield gives the jury a human perspective on what it means to lose a customer, see prices decline, and watch a competitor undercut your position using your own technology.
Key Testimony:
• OWS's customer relationships at major hyperscale data-center operators: OWS has direct sales relationships with 18 of the top 20 hyperscale operators worldwide.
• Head-to-head competition with Lumicore: Whitfield will identify 12 specific customer accounts at which OWS competed head-to-head with Lumicore during the infringement period.
• Lost design-in opportunities: Whitfield will describe at least four specific instances in which OWS was on track to win a design-in at a major hyperscale customer but lost the opportunity to Lumicore after Lumicore offered its accused products at lower prices.
• Price erosion: the 18.7% decline in ASP for 400G-ZR transceiver modules from Q3 2022 to Q4 2023, driven by Lumicore's aggressive pricing of the accused LumiLink 400G-ZR+ product.
• Customer communications: Whitfield will authenticate emails and meeting notes from customers indicating that they were evaluating Lumicore's products as lower-cost alternatives to OWS's offerings.
Estimated Time: 0.75–1 hour direct examination; anticipate 0.5 hour cross-examination.
8. Dr. Caroline Ashford (Plaintiff's Technical Expert — Infringement and Validity) — LIVE
Role: Expert witness on infringement (literal and doctrine of equivalents) and validity, retained from the Northfield Institute of Technology, where she is a tenured professor of electrical engineering and photonics.
Purpose: Dr. Ashford is the centerpiece of OWS's technical case. She will present the infringement analysis on a claim-by-claim, product-by-product basis, explain why the accused products fall within the scope of the asserted claims under the Court's claim constructions, and rebut each of Lumicore's invalidity defenses. Dr. Ashford has testified in approximately 15 prior patent trials and has been qualified as an expert in silicon photonics in 8 of those trials. She is an effective communicator who can explain complex technical concepts to a lay jury.
Key Testimony — Infringement:
• Definition of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ("POSITA"): An individual holding a Master of Science or Doctor of Philosophy degree in electrical engineering, photonics, or a closely related discipline, with at least three years of experience in silicon-photonic integrated circuit design.
• Element-by-Element Mapping: For each asserted claim against each accused product, Dr. Ashford will walk the jury through a detailed mapping of each claim limitation to the corresponding structure or method step in the accused product. This analysis will reference (a) the Benchmark teardown data and annotated photographs; (b) Lumicore's own design files, including RTL schematics and photonic-IC layout files produced in discovery; and (c) deposition testimony from Lumicore's engineers (principally Dr. Michaud and Dr. Dalmqvist).
• Literal Infringement: Dr. Ashford will opine that each accused product literally infringes each asserted claim under the Court's claim constructions. This analysis covers 52 discrete claim-product combinations (accounting for multiple claims per patent and multiple patents per product).
• Doctrine of Equivalents: For Claims 3 and 7 of the '193 Patent (the "coherent detection module" limitation) and Claim 12 of the '015 Patent (the "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating" limitation), Dr. Ashford will present a DOE analysis under the function-way-result test. Specifically:
• Claims 3 and 7 of '193: The accused products' coherent detection module performs substantially the same function (detecting coherent optical signals and converting them to electrical domain), in substantially the same way (using balanced photodetectors with local-oscillator mixing on a silicon substrate), to achieve substantially the same result (high-sensitivity, polarization-diverse coherent detection) as the claimed "coherent detection module."
• Claim 12 of '015: The accused products' grating structure performs substantially the same function (coupling light into the silicon waveguide while splitting polarization states), in substantially the same way (using a periodic sub-wavelength pattern etched into the silicon surface), to achieve substantially the same result (efficient, polarization-diverse optical coupling) as the claimed "two-dimensional sub-wavelength grating."
• Prosecution History Estoppel (Festo): Dr. Ashford will address the Festo presumption that arises from narrowing amendments made during prosecution of the '193 and '015 Patents. She will support our legal argument that the tangential-relation exception applies: the narrowing amendments were directed at aspects of the claims unrelated to the equivalents at issue. Specifically, the amendment to Claim 3 of the '193 Patent narrowed the bandwidth specification, not the coherent detection module structure; the amendment to Claim 12 of the '015 Patent narrowed the fabrication-method limitations, not the grating structure itself.
Key Testimony — Validity:
• Rebuttal of Prior-Art References: Lumicore has asserted 23 prior-art references across its invalidity contentions. Dr. Ashford will address each reference in her expert report and will provide a summary rebuttal at trial, focusing on the most significant references:
• Takahashi et al. (March 2014 IEEE Photonics Technology Letters article): Lumicore's primary anticipation reference against the '847 Patent. Dr. Ashford will testify that Takahashi discloses a planar lightwave circuit (PLC) multiplexer on a glass substrate, not a silicon photonic waveguide multiplexer, and that Takahashi's design lacks at least two limitations of Claim 1: the silicon-on-insulator substrate configuration and the low-insertion-loss threshold recited in the claim.
• Bergmann ('007 Patent, April 2013) and Dr. Li Wei conference paper (OFC 2013): Lumicore's primary obviousness references against the '562 Patent. Dr. Ashford will testify that Bergmann discloses conventional heat sinks without micro-channel structures, and that the Li Wei paper discloses micro-channels in a non-photonic context (MEMS cooling) with no suggestion of application to photonic integrated circuits. She will further testify that these references, taken individually or in combination, do not render the '562 Patent claims obvious because a POSITA would not have been motivated to combine them and would not have had a reasonable expectation of success.
• Simonsen PCT Application (September 2015): Lumicore's primary obviousness combination reference against the '847 Patent. Dr. Ashford will testify that Simonsen discloses a wavelength-selective switch architecture, not a waveguide multiplexer, and that a POSITA would not have been motivated to combine Simonsen with any of the other cited references to arrive at the claimed invention.
• Lumicore Internal Documents (2016–2017): Lumicore has raised a prior-conception defense against the '015 Patent, asserting that its engineers independently conceived the polarization-diverse grating coupler design before OWS's priority date. Dr. Ashford will testify that the internal documents relied upon by Lumicore lack corroboration under the Mahurkar standard and, in any event, post-date the August 30, 2016 effective filing date established through the shared Provisional Application No. 62/499,117.
• Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness:
• Commercial success: approximately $310 million in OWS revenue from products practicing the asserted patents in FY 2023.
• Long-felt need: the silicon photonics industry had sought a solution to low-insertion-loss waveguide multiplexing for over a decade prior to OWS's invention.
• Failure of others: at least three competitors (Sundial Corporation, Quillon Industries, and Tarrant Holdings) attempted and failed to develop comparable technology.
• Copying by Lumicore: the Benchmark teardown evidence and Chen's testimony establish that Lumicore copied OWS's patented technology.
Expert Retention: Dr. Ashford was retained on August 1, 2024, at a rate of $950 per hour. Her total budget is $1.1 million, covering report preparation, deposition, trial preparation, and trial testimony.
Estimated Time: 3–4 hours direct examination (split across infringement and validity modules, potentially spanning two trial days); anticipate 2–3 hours cross-examination.
Daubert Preparation: We anticipate that HVC will file a Daubert motion seeking to exclude Dr. Ashford's DOE opinions on the grounds that they are conclusory or that prosecution history estoppel forecloses the equivalents analysis. We should prepare a robust response demonstrating the factual and scientific basis for Dr. Ashford's DOE opinions and the legal basis for the tangential-relation exception to the Festo presumption. Separately, OWS's Daubert motion against Dr. Sundaram (challenging his reliance on unco

MEMORANDUM

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

II. CASE OVERVIEW AND MARKMAN RESULTS

III. TRIAL THEMES

IV. WITNESS STRATEGY

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts