ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT — PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
PROPOSED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS OF PLAINTIFF OPTIWAVE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
PROPOSED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS OF PLAINTIFF OPTIWAVE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.
Trial Date: February 2, 2026 Estimated Trial Length: 7–10 days
Prepared by:
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP Alan Ngo (Cal. Bar No. 245871) Wendy Schultz (Cal. Bar No. 302447) Omar Siddiqui (Cal. Bar No. 318956) 350 South Grand Avenue, 48th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 555-4200 Facsimile: (213) 555-4201
Local Counsel:
WHITMORE & CALLAHAN LLP James "Jim" Callahan (Tex. Bar No. 03877412) 110 North College Avenue, Suite 800 Tyler, Texas 75702 Telephone: (903) 555-7100 Facsimile: (903) 555-7101
Attorneys for Plaintiff Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.
DRAFT — For Internal Review Prior to Submission
Right-click to update Table of Contents
I. PREFATORY NOTE AND INSTRUCTIONS TO THE COURT
Plaintiff Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. ("OWS" or "Plaintiff") respectfully submits the following proposed voir dire questions for the Court's consideration in conducting jury selection for the trial of this matter, which is currently scheduled to commence on February 2, 2026.
OWS respectfully requests that the Court either ask the following questions directly of the venire panel or, in the alternative, permit counsel for Plaintiff to conduct supplemental voir dire of prospective jurors in accordance with the Court's standard practices and any applicable standing orders governing the conduct of jury selection. OWS recognizes the Court's discretion in managing the voir dire process and submits these questions as proposals that the Court may adopt, modify, or supplement as it deems appropriate.
This is a patent infringement action in which OWS asserts four United States utility patents against Defendant Lumicore Technologies, Inc. ("Lumicore" or "Defendant"). The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent No. 10,234,847 (the "'847 Patent"), U.S. Patent No. 10,891,193 (the "'193 Patent"), U.S. Patent No. 9,678,562 (the "'562 Patent"), and U.S. Patent No. 11,402,015 (the "'015 Patent"). These patents relate to silicon photonics transceiver and waveguide multiplexing technologies used in high-speed optical interconnects for data-center environments. OWS asserts claims of literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents with respect to each of the four patents-in-suit. OWS further alleges that Lumicore's infringement has been willful.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in an amount approximating $210 million, including potential enhanced damages for willful infringement as permitted under 35 U.S.C. § 284. Defendant has raised defenses of non-infringement and invalidity with respect to each asserted patent.
The trial is estimated to last approximately seven to ten court days and will involve complex technical evidence concerning silicon photonics design and fabrication processes, optical transceiver architectures, and waveguide multiplexing structures, as well as complex financial evidence concerning lost profits, reasonable royalties, and damages calculations. Both parties intend to present expert testimony from multiple witnesses in the fields of electrical engineering, photonics, and economic damages.
The proposed questions set forth below are designed to identify potential sources of bias or prejudice among prospective jurors, to assess jurors' ability to fairly and impartially evaluate complex technical and financial evidence, and to ensure the selection of a fair and impartial jury in accordance with the Seventh Amendment and applicable law.
II. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES, COUNSEL, AND KEY WITNESSES
A. Introductory Questions — Party Identification
1. Do you know, or have you ever heard of, a company called Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. (also referred to as "Optiwave Semi" or "OWS")? Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. is a semiconductor company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, that designs, manufactures, and sells silicon photonics products, including optical transceivers and photonic integrated circuits for data-center interconnects. If you have heard of this company or have any connection to it, please describe that connection.
2. Do you know, or have you ever heard of, a company called Lumicore Technologies, Inc. (also referred to as "Lumicore" or "LTC")? Lumicore Technologies, Inc. is a semiconductor company headquartered in Austin, Texas, that designs and sells optical networking products, including optical transceivers for data-center and telecommunications applications. Lumicore also maintains a sales and customer support office in Tyler, Texas, located at 2700 Earl Campbell Parkway. If you have heard of this company or have any connection to it, please describe that connection.
3. Are you, or are any members of your immediate family or household, currently employed by either Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. or Lumicore Technologies, Inc.? Have you or any members of your immediate family or household previously been employed by either of these companies at any time in the past?
4. Do you own stock in, or have any other financial interest in, either Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. or Lumicore Technologies, Inc.? This includes direct stock ownership, ownership through a brokerage account, mutual fund, exchange-traded fund, retirement account, pension fund, or any other investment vehicle. Please note that Lumicore Technologies, Inc. is a publicly traded company listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange under the ticker symbol "LMCR."
5. Do you know, or have you ever heard of, a company or firm called Ridgeline Capital Partners, LP? Ridgeline Capital Partners is a private equity firm based in Boston, Massachusetts, that holds a majority ownership stake in Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. If you have any knowledge of or connection to Ridgeline Capital Partners, please describe it.
6. Do you know, or have you ever heard of, a company called Silverstone Capital Markets LLC? Silverstone Capital Markets is an investment bank based in New York, New York. If you have any knowledge of or connection to Silverstone Capital Markets, please describe it.
B. Counsel Identification
7. Do you know, or have you ever had any personal, professional, or social dealings with, any of the following law firms or any of the attorneys listed below? If so, please describe the nature and extent of your relationship.
(a) Calderwood & Harkness LLP, a law firm based in Los Angeles, California, and any of the following attorneys affiliated with that firm: Alan Ngo, Marcus Delgado, Wendy Schultz, and Omar Siddiqui;
(b) Whitmore & Callahan LLP, a law firm based in Tyler, Texas, and in particular attorney James "Jim" Callahan;
(c) Hawthorne Vega & Cruz LLP, a law firm representing the Defendant in this action, and any of the following attorneys affiliated with that firm: Catherine "Kate" Rourke, Darren Cho, Samantha Briggs, and Rohan Iyer;
(d) Trask Eddington LLP, a law firm based in Tyler, Texas, and in particular attorney Maria Garza.
C. Witness Identification
8. During the course of this trial, you may hear testimony from a number of witnesses, both live and by deposition. The following is a list of individuals who may be called to testify or whose names may be mentioned during the trial. Please review this list carefully and indicate whether you know any of these individuals personally or professionally, or whether you have ever had any dealings with any of them:
Witnesses associated with Plaintiff Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.:
(a) Dr. Priya Ramaswamy — Chief Executive Officer of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.;
(b) Dr. Jian-Wei Huang — Chief Technology Officer of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.;
(c) Rebecca Tanaka — General Counsel of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.;
(d) Dr. Nikolai Petrov — Vice President of Engineering, Photonics Division, Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.;
(e) David Leitner — Chief Financial Officer of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.;
(f) Franklin Osei — Chairman of the Board of Directors of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. and Managing Partner of Ridgeline Capital Partners, LP;
(g) Karen Whitfield — Vice President of Sales of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.;
Witnesses associated with Defendant Lumicore Technologies, Inc.:
(h) Thomas "Tom" Kessler — Chief Executive Officer of Lumicore Technologies, Inc.;
(i) Dr. Sandra Michaud — Chief Technology Officer of Lumicore Technologies, Inc.;
(j) Raymond Bautista — General Counsel of Lumicore Technologies, Inc.;
(k) Dr. Eric Dalmqvist — Vice President of Product Development of Lumicore Technologies, Inc.;
(l) Janet Moreno — Chief Financial Officer of Lumicore Technologies, Inc.;
Other fact witnesses:
(m) Angela Reeves — Managing Director of FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC;
(n) Kevin Ng — Lead Engineer at Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC;
(o) Melissa Chen — formerly employed by Lumicore Technologies, Inc., currently employed by Veridian Photonics, Inc.;
(p) Gregory Falk — independent consultant and formerly Vice President of Engineering at Solara Optics, Inc.;
Expert witnesses:
(q) Dr. Caroline Ashford — Professor at the Northfield Institute of Technology, who will serve as an expert witness in the field of silicon photonics and photonic integrated circuit design;
(r) Dr. Lawrence Keating — Managing Director of Meridian Economic Consulting Group, LLC, who will serve as an expert witness in the field of patent damages and economic analysis;
(s) Dr. Rajesh Sundaram — Professor at Pacific Western University, who may testify as an expert witness on behalf of the Defendant;
(t) Dr. Natasha Volkov — Partner at Pinnacle Analytics Partners LLP, who may testify as an expert witness on behalf of the Defendant.
D. Related Entities
9. Do you know, or have you ever had any dealings with, any of the following companies, firms, or organizations? If so, please describe the nature of your relationship or connection:
(a) Solara Optics, Inc. — a former optics company based in California that is now dissolved;
(b) Cascade IP Advisors, LLC — a patent prosecution firm located in Arlington, Virginia;
(c) FairPoint Licensing Group, LLC — a patent licensing agent located in San Francisco, California;
(d) Benchmark Semiconductor Analysis, LLC — a semiconductor reverse-engineering and analysis laboratory located in Santa Clara, California;
(e) Marlowe Asset Management Patent Analytics, Inc. — a prior-art search and patent analytics firm located in Atlanta, Georgia;
(f) Meridian Economic Consulting Group, LLC — an economic consulting firm located in Chicago, Illinois;
(g) Pinnacle Analytics Partners LLP — a consulting firm located in Houston, Texas;
(h) Pacific Rim Insurance Group;
(i) Heritage National Surety Co.;
(j) Weston Fidelity Bank, N.A.;
(k) Gresham & Whitfield LLP — an accounting and audit firm;
(l) Brennan Kellogg & Associates LLP — an accounting and audit firm;
(m) Veridian Photonics, Inc.;
(n) Pinnacle Data Systems, LLC, located in Longview, Texas;
(o) Frontier Cloud Services, Inc., located in marshall, Texas;
(p) CrossPoint Networking Corp., located in Plano, Texas.
III. GENERAL BACKGROUND AND OCCUPATION
A. Employment and Professional Background
10. What is your current occupation or job? Please briefly describe the nature of your work. How long have you held your current position?
11. If you are currently retired, what was your primary occupation or profession before retirement? How long did you work in that field?
12. What is your spouse's or partner's current occupation? If your spouse or partner is retired, what was his or her occupation before retirement?
13. Have you, or has any member of your immediate family (including your spouse or partner, parents, siblings, or adult children), ever worked in any of the following industries or fields:
(a) Semiconductor manufacturing or design;
(b) Fiber optics or optical networking;
(c) Data center construction, management, or operations;
(d) Telecommunications;
(e) Cloud computing or internet services;
(f) Electronics manufacturing or engineering;
(g) Computer hardware or software engineering?
If so, please describe the nature of that work and when it occurred.
14. Have you, or has any member of your immediate family, ever worked for a "fabless" semiconductor company — that is, a company that designs semiconductor chips but outsources the physical fabrication of those chips to a third-party foundry? If so, please identify the company and describe the nature of the work.
15. Have you, or has any member of your immediate family, ever worked in product development, research and development, or engineering in any field? If so, please describe the nature of that work.
B. Education.
16. What is the highest level of formal education you have completed? Please indicate whether you have a high school diploma, associate's degree, bachelor's degree, master's degree, doctoral degree, or any other advanced or professional degree, and identify the institution(s) you attended.
17. Did your education include any coursework, concentration, or degree in any of the following fields:
(a) Electrical engineering;
(b) Photonics or optics;
(c) Physics;
(d) Computer engineering or computer science;
(e) Materials science;
(f) Any other science or engineering discipline?
If so, please describe the nature and extent of your studies.
18. Have you ever taken any courses, attended any seminars or continuing education programs, or received any professional training relating to patent law, intellectual property, or technology licensing? If so, please describe.
IV. PATENT LAW AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
A. General Patent Knowledge
19. Before today — before coming to court for jury selection — what, if anything, did you know about patent law or the patent system in the United States? Please describe whatever understanding or knowledge you may have, regardless of how you acquired it.
20. Have you ever read about, heard about, or otherwise become aware of any patent infringement lawsuits — whether in the news, on television, on the internet, on social media, in a podcast, in a magazine or newspaper, or in any other context? If so, what case or cases are you aware of, and what was your impression or reaction to what you read or heard?
21. Have you ever formed any opinions — whether favorable or unfavorable — about patent litigation in general? For example, do you believe that patent lawsuits serve a useful purpose, or do you believe they are generally wasteful, frivolous, or harmful? If you hold any views on this subject, please describe them.
22. Do you believe that the patent system serves a useful purpose in encouraging innovation and protecting the rights of inventors and companies that invest in research and development? Do you hold any views to the contrary — for example, that patents stifle competition or harm consumers? Please explain.
23. Some people believe that companies that enforce their patents through litigation are doing something improper, or are sometimes referred to as "patent trolls." Do you hold any views along those lines? Have you ever heard the term "patent troll," and if so, what is your understanding of it? Please note that in this case, the Plaintiff, Optiwave Semiconductor Corp., is a practicing entity — it manufactures and sells products that embody its patented inventions. Does that fact affect your view in any way?
24. Do you understand that a patent gives its owner the legal right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing the patented invention for a limited period of time, and that this right is granted by the United States government through the United States Patent and Trademark Office? Do you have any disagreement with or objection to this concept?
B. Prior Experience with Patents or intellectual Property
25. Have you ever been named as an inventor on a United States patent or a patent application filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office or any foreign patent office? If so, please describe the invention and the circumstances.
26. Have you, or has any member of your immediate family, ever been involved in obtaining, prosecuting, licensing, purchasing, selling, or enforcing a patent or any other form of intellectual property (including trademarks, copyrights, or trade secrets)?
27. Have you, or has any member of your immediate family, ever been sued for patent infringement, or have you or they ever been involved in a patent dispute in any capacity — whether as a party, a witness, a consultant, or in any other role? If so, please describe the nature of that dispute and its outcome.
28. Have you ever worked at a company that was involved in patent litigation — either as a plaintiff seeking to enforce its patents or as a defendant accused of infringement? If so, what was your role, what was the nature of the dispute, and did the experience leave you with any positive or negative impressions about patent litigation or the patent system?
29. Have you ever been involved in any licensing negotiations involving patents, trade secrets, or other forms of intellectual property? If so, please describe the nature of those negotiations and your role.
C. Specific Legal Concepts
30. In this case, the jury will be asked to determine whether the Defendant's accused products infringe the Plaintiff's patents. The Plaintiff asserts two theories of infringement: "literal infringement" and infringement under a legal doctrine called the "doctrine of equivalents."
The doctrine of equivalents asks whether an accused product performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result as the patented invention — even if the accused product does not literally satisfy every word of the patent claim. This doctrine exists because the law recognizes that a party should not be able to avoid infringement simply by making insubstantial changes to a patented invention.
Do you have any views about whether the doctrine of equivalents is a fair legal standard? Is there anything about this concept that would make it difficult for you to follow the Court's instructions and apply the doctrine of equivalents as the law requires?
31. In this case, the Plaintiff also alleges "willful infringement" — that is, the Plaintiff contends that the Defendant knew about the Plaintiff's patents and deliberately continued to make, use, and sell products that infringed those patents despite that knowledge. If the jury finds that the Defendant's infringement was willful, the law permits the presiding judge to increase the damages award by up to three times the amount of compensatory damages found by the jury. See 35 U.S.C. § 284.
Do you have any feelings or views about this concept — sometimes referred to as "enhanced damages" or "treble damages" — that might affect your ability to be fair and impartial in evaluating the evidence? Would you have any difficulty finding that infringement was willful if the evidence supports such a finding? Conversely, would you have any difficulty declining to make such a finding if the evidence does not support it?
32. In this case, the Defendant has raised defenses of invalidity, contending that the Plaintiff's patents should not have been granted because the claimed inventions were anticipated by or would have been obvious in light of the "prior art" — that is, previously existing technology and publications. The law presumes that a patent issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office is valid. This means that the Defendant bears the burden of proving invalidity, and it must do so by "clear and convincing evidence" — a standard that is higher than the ordinary civil standard of "preponderance of the evidence."
Can you accept and apply this legal standard — the presumption of validity and the clear-and-convincing-evidence burden — as the Court instructs you, even if you might personally believe that a different standard would be more appropriate? Is there anything about this concept that troubles you or that would make it difficult for you to follow the Court's instructions?
V. TECHNOLOGY EXPERIENCE AND UNDERSTANDING
A. Familiarity with Silicon Photonics and Semiconductor Technologies
33. Have you ever heard the term "silicon photonics"? If so, what is your understanding of that term? In what context did you encounter it?
34. Are you familiar with optical transceivers — that is, devices used to transmit and receive data using light signals over fiber-optic cables? If so, in what context have you encountered optical transceivers? For example, have you used them, purchased them, installed them, or worked with them in any professional or personal capacity?
35. Have you ever worked with, purchased, or made decisions about purchasing equipment for data centers — including networking equipment, servers, switches, routers, or optical interconnect products? If so, please describe the nature and extent of that experience.
36. Are you familiar with any of the following specific product types, technologies, or technical concepts? If so, please describe your familiarity:
(a) Waveguide multiplexers — devices that combine multiple optical signals onto a single waveguide or optical channel;
(b) coherent optical transceivers — transceivers that use coherent detection techniques to achieve high-speed, long-distance optical data transmission;
(c) Photonic integrated circuits (PICs) — integrated circuits that incorporate photonic (light-based) components on a single chip, analogous to electronic integrated circuits;
(d) Grating couplers — optical structures used to couple light between an optical fiber and a photonic integrated circuit;
(e) Micro-channel heat sinks — thermal management structures used to dissipate heat from electronic or photonic components through small fluid-carrying channels.
37. This case involves products sold primarily to large "hyperscale" data-center operators — companies that operate massive data-center facilities to support cloud computing, internet services, and enterprise computing. Do you, or does any member of your immediate family, work for or have any relationship with any large data-center operator or cloud computing company? If so, please describe the nature of that relationship.
B. Ability to Understand Technical Evidence
38. This trial will involve technical testimony from expert witnesses and fact witnesses in the fields of electrical engineering, photonics, and silicon-photonic integrated circuit design. Some of this testimony may be highly technical and may involve detailed discussions of semiconductor fabrication processes, waveguide geometries, optical signal characteristics, and circuit architectures. Do you feel comfortable listening to and evaluating technical testimony of this nature, even if the subject matter is unfamiliar to you?
39. Would you tend to give more weight, or less weight, to the testimony of a witness simply because that witness is a professor at a university or holds an advanced degree such as a Ph.D.? Would you tend to defer to the opinions of a credentialed expert, or would you evaluate each witness's testimony on its own merits regardless of that witness's credentials?
40. It is likely that the parties' technical experts will disagree about what the claims of the asserted patents mean, how the accused products work, and whether the accused products infringe the patents. Are you willing to carefully evaluate both sides' technical evidence, consider the competing opinions of the experts, and reach your own independent conclusion based solely on the evidence presented in the courtroom and the Court's instructions?
41. Do you have any difficulty reading or interpreting diagrams, charts, schematics, graphs, or technical drawings? During this trial, the parties will present visual aids and demonstrative exhibits to explain technical concepts. Is there any reason you would have difficulty understanding or evaluating such materials?
VI. DAMAGES AND FINANCIAL EVIDENCE
A. General Attitudes Toward Damages
42. As noted earlier, this case involves a claim for approximately $210 million in damages, which includes both compensatory damages and a component reflecting potential enhanced damages for willful infringement. Does the size of this damages claim, in and of itself, affect your ability to be fair and impartial in evaluating the evidence? Is there anything about the magnitude of the damages sought that would make you uncomfortable or would predispose you for or against either party?
43. If, after hearing all of the evidence and following the Court's instructions, you conclude that the evidence supports a large damages award — potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars — would you have any reluctance or hesitation in awarding that amount? Can you award a large sum of money if you find that the evidence justifies it?
44. Conversely, if, after hearing all of the evidence, you conclude that the evidence does not support a large damages award, would you have any reluctance in awarding a smaller amount — or no damages at all, if you find that the Plaintiff has not proven infringement? Can you return a verdict in favor of the Defendant if you conclude that the evidence warrants such a result?
45. Some people believe that large jury awards in patent cases are excessive, harmful to businesses, or damaging to the economy. Do you hold any such views? If so, please describe them and explain whether those views would affect your ability to fairly evaluate the damages evidence in this case.
46. Some people believe that patent owners should be fully and fairly compensated when their inventions are used by others without permission, and that damages awards should reflect the true economic value of the patented technology. Do you hold any views about the appropriate level of compensation a patent owner should receive? Would those views affect your ability to follow the Court's instructions on how to calculate damages?
B. Understanding of Damages Concepts
47. In this case, the Plaintiff will present damages evidence based on two principal theories. The first theory is "lost profits" — that is, money the Plaintiff contends it lost because the Defendant's infringing products took sales away from the Plaintiff's competing products. The second theory is a "reasonable royalty" — that is, a fair licensing fee that the Defendant should have paid for the right to use the Plaintiff's patented technology. Are you willing to evaluate both types of damages evidence based on the evidence presented and the instructions the Court gives you?
48. As mentioned, the Plaintiff will also ask the jury to find that the Defendant's infringement was willful, which could result in the presiding judge increasing the damages award by up to three times the compensatory damages. Can you follow the Court's instructions on this issue and make a finding on willfulness based solely on the evidence presented at trial, without regard to any preconceptions you may have about enhanced damages?
49. Do you have any education, training, or professional experience in any of the following areas:
(a) Accounting or finance;
(b) Economics;
(c) Business valuation;
(d) Licensing or royalty calculations;
(e) Financial analysis or financial modeling?
If so, please describe the nature and extent of your experience.
50. Have you ever served as an expert witness, consultant, or advisor in any financial, economic, or business-valuation matter? If so, please describe.
C. Attitudes Toward Companies and Businesses
51. Do you have any feelings — whether positive or negative — about any of the following types of companies or entities:
(a) Large technology companies;
(b) Semiconductor companies;
(c) Companies that are backed or owned by private equity firms;
(d) Publicly traded companies;
(e) Companies headquartered in California;
(f) Companies headquartered in Texas;
(g) Start-up or fast-growing technology companies?
If you hold any views about any of these categories of companies, please describe those views and explain whether they would affect your ability to be fair and impartial in this case.
52. As noted, Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. is majority-owned by a private equity firm, Ridgeline Capital Partners, LP. Does the fact that a private equity firm has a majority ownership interest in the Plaintiff affect your view of this case or your ability to be fair and impartial to both sides? Do you have any preconceptions — positive or negative — about companies that are owned or controlled by private equity firms?
53. As noted, Lumicore Technologies, Inc. is a publicly traded company listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange. If an award of damages in this case could affect Lumicore's stock price, business operations, or competitive position, would that concern affect your ability to follow the Court's instructions and award damages that are supported by the evidence? Would you feel any reluctance to award damages against a publicly traded company if the evidence warrants such an award?
VII. LITIGATION EXPERIENCE
A. Prior Jury Service
54. Have you ever served as a juror before, in either a civil or criminal case? If so, please answer the following questions:
(a) How many times have you served as a juror?
(b) For each time you served, was the case a civil case, a criminal case, or both?
(c) Did the case or cases proceed to a verdict, or were they settled or otherwise resolved during the course of trial?
(d) Were you selected as the foreperson of the jury in any of those cases?
(e) Would you describe your experience as a juror as positive, negative, or neutral? Please explain.
(f) Did anything about your prior jury service affect your views about the legal system, the courts, attorneys, or the jury process? If so, please describe.
55. Have you ever served on a jury in a patent infringement case or any other case involving intellectual property rights (such as trademarks, copyrights, or trade secrets)?
56. Have you ever served on a jury in a case that involved complex technical or scientific evidence — for example, a products liability case, a medical malpractice case, an environmental case, or a technology dispute?
57. Have you ever served on a jury that was asked to determine the amount of monetary damages to be awarded to a party? If so, did you find that process to be straightforward or difficult? Did the experience leave you with any impressions that might be relevant here?
B. Personal Litigation Experience
58. Have you, or has any member of your immediate family, ever been a party to a civil lawsuit — either as a plaintiff (the person bringing the lawsuit) or as a defendant (the person being sued)? If so, please describe the nature of the lawsuit and its outcome.
59. Have you, or has any member of your immediate family, ever been involved in a business dispute or a dispute over intellectual property rights of any kind? If so, please describe the nature of the dispute and how it was resolved.
60. Have you, or has any member of your immediate family, ever filed a lawsuit against a company or corporation? If so, what was the nature of the case, and what was the outcome?
61. Have you, or has any member of your immediate family, ever been sued by a company or corporation? If so, what was the nature of the case, and what was the outcome?
62. Do you have any pending legal matters — whether lawsuits, administrative proceedings, arbitrations, or any other legal proceedings — that might distract you from fully participating in this trial over a period of seven to ten court days?
VIII. RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTIES, COUNSEL, AND WITNESSES
63. Do you have any personal, professional, business, or social relationship with any of the parties, attorneys, law firms, witnesses, or entities identified earlier in this set of proposed questions? If so, please describe the nature and extent of that relationship.
64. Do you live near, or do you frequently visit, any of the following locations:
(a) 4810 Bayside Technology Parkway, Santa Clara, California — the headquarters of Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.;
(b) 9200 Spectrum Boulevard, Austin, Texas — the headquarters of Lumicore Technologies, Inc.;
(c) 2700 Earl Campbell Parkway, Tyler, Texas — the sales and customer support office of Lumicore Technologies, Inc.?
65. Do you have any friends, relatives, or close acquaintances who work in the fields of patent law, intellectual property law, or technology litigation? If so, please describe the nature of that person's work and your relationship to him or her.
66. Do you have any friends, relatives, or close acquaintances who work at or do business with either Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. or Lumicore Technologies, Inc.? If so, please describe the nature and extent of that relationship or business connection.