Federal Circuit revives Texas A&M-linked patent case against Broadcom
The Federal Circuit on September 14, 2026, revived a Texas A&M University-linked patent and copyright case against Broadcom Inc., LSI Corp. and Avago Technologies U.S. Inc.
In TexasLDPC Inc. v. Broadcom Inc., No. 25-1074, the appeals court reversed the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s dismissal and sent the case back for further proceedings. The ruling does not decide whether the defendants infringed, whether the patents are valid or whether TexasLDPC is entitled to damages.
What the appeals court decided
The Federal Circuit addressed two issues that had ended the case in the lower court.
First, the court held that TexasLDPC’s license from Texas A&M did not automatically terminate when the company shifted its focus to patent enforcement. The agreement treated enforcement activity as part of TexasLDPC’s permitted business operations.
The 2015 agreement defined “commercially reasonable efforts” to include resources used to enforce patents and copyrights. It also gave TexasLDPC the first and only right to sue for infringement and the exclusive right to collect damages. The Federal Circuit said those provisions showed that the parties contemplated enforcement even if the company stopped pursuing customers or sublicensees.
Second, the court held that the license conveyed “all substantial rights” in the asserted patents. That allowed TexasLDPC to bring the case in its own name without joining Texas A&M as a plaintiff.
Texas A&M retained some rights, including research and education uses, the ability to enforce rights against an earlier licensee and certain termination and assignment rights. But the Federal Circuit said those retained interests did not outweigh TexasLDPC’s exclusive rights to make, use and sell licensed products, grant sublicenses, sue infringers and collect damages.
How the dispute began
TexasLDPC received the exclusive license from Texas A&M in 2015 in exchange for equity in the company, a share of sublicense royalties and a percentage of money recovered through enforcement actions.
The case involves five patents covering low-density parity-check, or LDPC, error-correction technology. LDPC systems help detect and correct errors in transmitted data. The lawsuit also asserts three copyrights covering source-code programs that implement LDPC functionality.
TexasLDPC sued Broadcom in December 2018 and later added Avago and LSI. The Federal Circuit opinion says the company met its development milestones but exhausted its capital after failing to secure customers or sublicensees. By the summer of 2019, it had shifted its efforts solely toward enforcing its intellectual-property rights.
Why the lower court dismissed the case
In a September 29, 2023, decision, the Delaware district court concluded that TexasLDPC’s license had ended when the company ceased other business operations and focused on enforcement. The court also ruled that Texas A&M had not been joined even though it owned the intellectual property.
The district court later dismissed the federal claims and counterclaims under both theories. It viewed Texas A&M’s potential interest in licensing information and damages evidence as relevant to whether the university was a necessary party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19.
Why the Federal Circuit disagreed
The Federal Circuit said the contract’s language expressly contemplated enforcement. It pointed to provisions addressing commercially reasonable efforts, enforcement rights and TexasLDPC’s share of recoveries from enforcement actions. Taken together, the court said, those provisions showed that enforcement remained one of TexasLDPC’s business operations.
The appeals court also said the agreement’s grant of broad commercial and enforcement rights was comparable to a transfer of all substantial rights in the patents. Texas A&M’s retained rights were not enough to require the university’s participation in the case.
On Rule 19, the Federal Circuit rejected the idea that Texas A&M became a necessary party simply because it might possess additional licensing information. The court said Rule 19 is not a discovery tool and concluded that meaningful relief could be provided to the existing parties without the university.
What happens next
The case now returns to the District of Delaware. The defendants’ underlying claims of noninfringement, patent invalidity, unenforceability and related defenses remain unresolved. The appellate ruling concerns the license, standing and party-joinder questions, not the merits of the alleged infringement.
The decision may matter to universities and companies that structure technology-transfer agreements around exclusive licenses. It shows that a licensee may be able to sue independently when the agreement gives it broad control over commercialization, enforcement and damages. The result depends on the specific contract language and does not establish that every exclusive licensee can proceed without joining the patent owner.
Sources
Look for updates to this story
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.