Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Quick update on the relevant patent applications. The application for the 'diamondoid' patent has been approved and the patent was issued (no. 11924101). Adding the diamondoid groups to the chromophore allows for higher concentrations of the chromophores in the material, and facilitates easier alignment of them (better poling efficiency), both of which result in higher r33.
Application 18/078337 (for use of high glass-transition temperature (Tg) polymers combined with specific solvents that allow 'mechanical' poling) received a notice of allowance on 1/04/24, meaning it's been reviewed and approved. As described:
"Resulting liquid crystalline properties provide a mechanical anisotropic effect allowing for the formation of a non-centrosymmetric chromophore-polymer matrix without the application of an electric field. In accordance with various embodiments described herein, a sufficient electro-optic coefficient (r33) can be induced mechanically, alleviating the need for the application of poling temperature and electric field, typically 170° C. & 100 v/pm. The liquid crystalline properties
and the lyotropic compositions allow for milder processing conditions and, thus, higher poling efficiency."
This is saying that the chromophores can be arranged without clumping (bad for r33) without applying an electric field, and that high temperatures are also not needed for poling. When Lebby said "high temperature" in the recent PR, he was referring to using materials with high Tg (the temperature at which a polymer starts to soften), meaning the Perk won't degrade at typical manufacturing and operating temperatures.
There is a delay in issuing the patent due to a modification requested by LWLG, which appears to be related to providing some improved figures (photos of chromophores which are blurry in the original application). This will not stop it from being issued.
I assume this is what you are calling Pk6.
Patent allowance - NONLINEAR OPTICAL CHROMOPHORES HAVING A DIAMONDOID GROUP ATTACHED THERETO, METHODS OF PREPARING THE SAME, AND USES THEREOF
Application no. 17/358,960, dated June 25, 2021. Publication no. 2021/0405504.
The letter of allowance was issued on Nov. 1, so the patent should be published soon. The key is that adding the diamondoid groups allows for increased concentration of the chromophore in the polymer solution (increasing r33 - electro-optic activity), easier poling, and better long-term stability by preventing the chromophores from becoming 'un-poled'. It also means the polymer can have a higher glass transition temperature (Tg, the temp at which the solid polymer softens), so it works better under high temperature conditions.
The company put it this way in the application:
CarlinNM - this isn't the application you are referring to. Here, the examiner found 3 instances where he didn't think LWLG had differentiated the claims of the invention (addition of diamondoid groups) from prior art. Looking at LWLG's response, they amended the claims to provide more specific and descriptive language. They didn't have to change the chemistry, just how they describe it.
In my (non-legal) perusal of the company's patent applications over the years, this sort of give and take with the examiner is pretty normal. The inventor wants to use language that is as non-specific as possible so the patent has broader coverage. The examiner needs to be convinced that the invention is distinct from prior art.
The application was filed on June 25, 2021. It will take several more months to finalize, assuming the company's response is accepted by the examiner. Nothing unusual about the timeline.
No, not me. Lightwave Logic, Inc. said it.
Maybe the reason to make this information public is stated in the latest application:
"High electro-optic activity and the stability of electro-optic activity, which is also referred to as “temporal stability,” are important for commercially viable devices. Electro-optic activity may be increased in electro-optic polymers by increasing the concentration of nonlinear optical chromophores in a host polymer and by increasing of the electro-optic property of chromophores. However, some techniques for increasing chromophore concentration may decrease poling efficiency and temporal stability. Simultaneous solution of these dual issues is regarded as the final impediment in the broad commercialization of EO polymers in numerous devices and systems."
LWLG is apparently providing the solution.
The USPTO keeps patent applications in confidence for 18 months, then makes them available for public viewing (see https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s101.html). It's up to the applicant to decide to publicize them. Kudos to forztnt2 for keeping an eagle eye out for them.
Of interest is the filing date for the application being discussed - it's December 9, 2022. It was published on June 15, 2023, so less than 18 months. The applicant can request earlier publication of applications per the rule cited above. They also did this with the recent application related to high-boiling point solvents (18/072964, filing date December 1, 2022, published June 8, 2023) and the one related to diamondoid groups (17/358960, application date June 21, 2021, published December 30, 2021).
The company must have a reason for requesting early publication of these applications. Let the speculation begin.
LWLG has obtained several patent approvals in less than 24 months, but some take longer. There is no set timeline. An incomplete perusal of some of the patents I've downloaded show approval times ranging from 16 months to 4.5 years.
Legal protection for the "invention" covered in a patent application begins the day the application is received. However, the applicant/assignee can't prosecute for infringement until after the patent is granted. I've linked to sites that explain this in the past. Also, this is one of the purposes of NDAs, to allow discussion of new technologies with interested parties. It should be noted that LWLG discusses new technologies with potential partners as they are being developed in order to give them what they want.
So your concern about 100mm wafers is that you found out before anyone else and therefore this is bad thing because there's stuff smart people here don't know. The fact that it is a non-issue doesn't seem to matter to you.
I hope you realize that with any company there's stuff the public doesn't know. I don't know the recipe for Coca-Cola, but I'd say they've done pretty well so far.
IF there is an issue with poling on 300mm wafers (an unknown) I'm confident LWLG with work it out if they need to. What's important to me is that there is a means to manufacture at scale. That's what the company set as their goal, and they achieved it.
Good to know. Maybe, for large volumes, 300mm is more cost effective? It likely doesn't matter to LWLG at this point.
Can you explain why the use of 100mm wafers is a negative?
Are you aware of how small the modulators are, and how many fit on a 100mm wafer? What's the cost/benefit versus 300mm wafers?
Is it possible that small foundries see an advantage to being the first to bring this tech to the market and are willing to go the extra mile? Maybe they have more flexibility in their production schedules than big foundries and can schedule test runs faster.
Is the tech limited to 100mm wafers? (No, it's not.)
I understand you and others have doubts, but I'm not seeing is substantive information supporting the doubts about technical issues. What I'd like to see is somebody provide an argument as to why the 100mm wafer "concern" is actually meaningful. I never saw convincing information supporting past concerns, like stability, poling, etc., just "it can't be done" or "they'll never figure it out". Lebby said the company is talking to foundries on a daily basis. They know what the real issues are, and I see evidence that those issues are being addressed.
KCCO - excellent summary. Given that you know more about the industry, and communicate with knowledgeable people, including Lebby, I'm now more optimistic than ever.
I've been more active lately because there are those on the board who continue to pound on a list of "concerns". Prove them wrong about one concern, and they just circle back to another, never acknowledging the proof provided. The primary issue with those posters is that they don't take any time to understand what the company is doing, or how they are doing it, IMO. Some just have their own agenda that won't change, regardless of what happens.
Now, with the new agreement with Roth, we hear the dilution talk. Yes, more shares will be sold into the market. Given that the company has managed this process successfully through 2 deals with LPC, I'm confident that future sales will also be made to the company's advantage. The test runs with foundries, device testing, preparing an initial stock for commercial sales, etc., will cost money. There is plenty of cash already available, so there will be no rush to sell new shares.
I am particularly pleased that the company uplisted to the NASDAQ without a reverse split or other financial trickery, and that they haven't gotten involved with venture capital or a big partner who would exert undo control.
The company is about to "enter the 800Gbps integrated photonics marketplace". PDKs are operational in foundries. Devices are operational. Lots of good stuff on the horizon. Exciting times.
Correct, the link is to the ECOC presentation in September.
Note a particular change from the May 2022 investor presentation from the website, pre-ASM, to the ASM presentation. It's the difference in size of the modulators shown.
May 2022, pre-ASM:
ASM and subsequent presentations, including ECOC:
17mm to 1mm. 8 Polymer Slot modulators in a smaller footprint than the earlier modulator. That's progress.
Maybe pictures will help. From the direct drive modulator patent. First, current tech:
FIGS. 8A and 8B illustrate prior art polymer modulators using RF drivers with Mach-Zehnder modulators with Y-splitters/combiners and with MMI splitters/combiners, respectively
"It will of course be understood that the driver adds substantial cost, size, complexity, DC power, heat dissipation, etc. to any packaging of the modulator."
Now, LWLG tech:
FIGS. 9A and 9B illustrate polymer modulators using direct-drive signals (no RF drivers) with Mach-Zehnder modulators with Y-splitters/combiners and with MMI splitters/combiners, respectively;
"In accordance with the present invention, an rf modulation signal (25) of approximately 0.5V, and generally in a range of 0.2V to 0.5V, is applied directly to one end of U-shaped electrode 22 and the other end is connected through a 50 ohm termination (26) to ground."
Not a red herring.
Since EO modulators use lasers, does this temperature restriction apply only to LWLG? What's the point of bringing it up? Looks like a red herring on your part.
LWLG's modulator needs far less power (<1V) than existing devices and the DSP is also driven by that same voltage. Less energy to operate the modulator, no extra energy to provide the digital signal, less heat loss, less energy needed for cooling.
Again, you don't appear to understand the technology. (or you just like red herrings?). Direct-drive eliminates the need for a high-powered DSP.
GP provided no support for the 1% or 5% number. I'd like to see a source that breaks this down. Not just to nudge GP to back up his numbers, but I've never seen an analysis that provides this type of detail.
LWLG is driving their modulators with <1V, likely at 0.6V, which is in the range of the power used in typical CMOS circuits. The lowest power consumption I've seen for current lithium niobate modulators is 3.2V, with 5-8 V typical (example here). This is where the 10X number is coming from (it's an estimate).
Beyond the power needed for the modulators, there is another power savings since less heat is produced. Getting a good estimate of overall power savings is probably pretty complicated.
LWLG has a patent for a direct-drive modulator issued June 2021. It's patent number 11,042,051 B2. Read it. You might start to appreciate what the company is doing instead of recycling old 'concerns'.
Another consideration is that the cost for the IP was negligible. No downside.
Given that the source of the shorters report is under investigation and provides no factual basis for their claim, I'll go with the company, which has generated documents and statements regarding the poling issue.
As to the new IP, I can easily speculate as to the immediate benefits, but I'll wait and see what happens. That doesn't result mean the implications are negative, however.
Thanks for the support.
Images from the patent. First, showing the 'poling step'
Items 62 are the poling electrodes. Items 38 and 42 are the permanent (RF) electrodes. Poling is done at this step in the manufacturing process to provide better control. Previously, it was done as the last step, after the electrical leads were connected to the permanent electrodes.
This is a later step with the poling electrodes removed:
Then more layers/components are added to complete the modulator, including placing a low refractive index material on each side of the EO polymer to stop light leakage.
In the earlier design, the RF electrodes were on top of the device, with some layers of materials separating them from the EO polymer. Maybe that is what was causing inconsistencies with the poling process.
I annotate the figures since the figures are presented on consecutive pages with the descriptions provided later in the text. Yes, I am that kind of nerd.
Correct. The patent application mentions "solar conversion and photovoltaic devices".
frobinso - please elaborate.
Great article. Interesting that Chromosol was talking about licensing the tech, but ended up selling it. Funding issues? LWLG was smart to acquire it.
PG - wishing you the best. And thanks for your input, which is particularly helpful for those of us not well versed in the tech.
An "Aha" moment for me! I slowly begin to understand how Chromosol's patented device works. This is a page from their patent:
Figure 4 is the device, with a laser light source ("probe laser"), which I assume is a constant light source. The top (dark) layer is "a region containing rare earth or transition metal ions for generation of radiation of a predetermined wavelength. Said region includes an organic complex comprising a ligand adapted to enhance the emission of radiation and a chromophore separately co-operable with a radiation source of wavelength not greater than that of said predetermined desired radiation". Then there is the "pump laser", which I assume is intermittent and encodes data.
When the pump laser is on, the light signal is amplified, as shown on Figure 5. That's how data is transmitted via pulses of light.
forztnt2 - thanks for connecting these dots. LWLG patent 11,262,605 B2 (ACTIVE REGION-LESS POLYMER MODULATOR INTEGRATED ON A COMMON PIC PLATFORM AND METHOD) states the Tg of the EO polymer as 150 - 200 degrees C. ALD processes can vary from 20 - 800 degrees C.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_layer_deposition
If I read the PR correctly, there are 2 separate technologies that were acquired - the "polymer technology" and "intellectual property assets". The polymer tech is compatible with low temperature ALD. I can't find any information on Chromosol's polymer tech. The LWLG patent you reference doesn't specify what ALD process (there are several) can be used nor does it specify the temperatures involved. It also doesn't specify a specific polymer to be deposited. I'm guessing that Chromosol developed a polymer to be used as a sealant that is compatible with low-temp ALD processes, but it is not patented.
The patent acquired has no relation to ALD or polymers. It involves a method to amplify light from a laser using "rare earth or transition metal ions for generation of radiation of a predetermined wavelength". It incorporates a chromophore but not a polymer. It is intended "for use as an optical amplifier operating at telecommunications wavelengths." It looks like a way to incorporate a smaller, lower powered laser light source to provide the signal for LWLG's modulator. It can have many applications, including for OLEDs. It "makes possible new hybrid integrated optoelectronic devices and applications such as organic optical amplifiers and lasers which can be easily integrated into other materials systems".
This is all guesswork by a layperson. The patent involves complex chemistry, beyond my limited knowledge. Additional input related to the polymer and/or the patent would be greatly appreciated.
From the 10Q: "Our Company has a fabrication facility in Colorado to apply standard fabrication processes to our electro-optic polymers which create modulator devices. While our internal fabrication facility is capable of manufacturing modulator devices, we have partnered with commercial silicon-based fabrication companies that are called foundries who can scale our technology with volume quickly and efficiently. The process recipe for fabrication plants or foundries is called a ‘process development kit’ or PDK. We are currently working with commercial foundries to implement our electro-optic polymers into accepted PDKs by the foundries. Our work with the foundries is being focused with the Polymer Plus™ and the Polymer Slot™ polymer modulators."
Emphasis mine.
The claims in the application that was "abandoned" are incorporated into the first application you listed.
The House just passed it. Done deal.
The Senate passed the bill today. The House should approve it this week.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/27/us/politics/senate-chips-china.html.
No. Check the Wikipedia link in my post. The Russell 2000 is "the small-cap benchmark index of the bottom 2,000 stocks in the Russell 3000 Index."
No, LWLG is in both. Each May, Russell determines the top 4000 stocks based on market cap. The Russell 3000 index includes the top 3000. The Russell 2000 includes stocks ranked 1001 - 3000. LWLG fits in both categories.
The Russell microcap index includes stocks ranked 2001 - 4000, overlapping the lower half of the Russell 2000. LWLG is not in that index, so the market cap must rank between 1001 and 2000.
See the definitions here.
Also, these are indices, not funds. There are many funds (mutual funds, ETFs, etc.) that track these indices. They need to buy stock in companies added to the indices, and re-balance every June based on the Russell reconstitution. (Sorry, being pedantic here, but I think the distinction is worth noting.)
A Google search found a list of 10 etfs tracking the Russell 2000 (none tracking the Russell 3000). Maybe all those shares are divided up among those 10 funds.
The company made the Russell 2000 list, too.
https://content.ftserussell.com/sites/default/files/ru2000_membershiplist_20220624.pdf
To see the full documents, including the figures, click on Proto's link, then click on "Images" link, then click on the "Full Pages" link. This opens a PDF version of the full application which can be downloaded.
The addition of diamondoid groups, as described in the patent application discussed in the PR on Jan. 2, 2022, seem to address these same issues (clumping of chromophores, ease of poling, etc.). Do the diamondoid groups replace the spacer system or enhance it? Since the company is still prosecuting the spacer system patent, it would indicate that the diamondoid groups are additive, but I'm not sure.
A "Notice of Allowance" was issued for the application published yesterday (the re-configured modulator) on April 8, 2022, meaning the review process is complete. It takes about 3 months for the final steps for publication, so the patent should be issued in early July.
The 2 patent applications should be viewed together. The application PR'd yesterday is incorporated into this newer one. The configuration of the device has been completely re-vamped in the earlier application (filed 12/14/2020). Previously, each part of the device was added as a separate layer, with the electrodes at the top and bottom. Poling couldn't happen until the device was fully assembled, which put some layers between the electrodes and the polymer.
The new configuration puts the electrodes and the polymer in the same layer. Poling can now happen as soon as the electrodes and polymer are in place, before the upper cladding and sealing layers are added, allowing for more control and predictability.
The newer application (filed 6/01/2021) describes sealing the device created using the design in the earlier application. If I understand it correctly, the sealer can be applied to an entire wafer - cheaper and faster than sealing each device.
Legal protection for the IP is effective as of the date the applications are filed (prosecution of infringement can't happen until patents are granted, however). The NDAs allow the company to discuss the new IP with partners, preventing IP theft. The new tech is the result of input and feedback from foundries over the last 2 years or so.
There is a newer application for LWLG listed on the USPTO site titled "HYBRID EO POLYMER MODULATOR WITH ALD SEALANT LAYER". It references the application publicized today. It appears to be another enhancement relating to applying and separating various layers. Reading and absorbing what these 2 application entail will take some time.
Thanks. I learn a little more each time I read through the patent documents.