Alpha Modus v. Broadcom: Three Networking Patents, 245-Day Dispute Ends in Prejudicial Dismissal
Alpha Modus Ventures filed suit against Broadcom Corporation in the Western District of Texas, asserting three patents against Brocade Directors, Switches, and Fabric Operating System products. The case closed in 245 days via joint motion to dismiss — with Alpha Modus’s claims extinguished with prejudice, while Broadcom’s counterclaims were preserved without prejudice.
A Split-Terms Dismissal That Ends Alpha Modus’s Brocade Campaign
Alpha Modus Ventures, LLC filed Case No. 1:25-cv-00609 in the Western District of Texas on April 22, 2025, asserting three patents — US11303473B2, US11108591B2, and US11310077B2 — against Broadcom Corporation. The accused products included Brocade Directors (X6 and X7), Brocade Switches (G630, G610, G720, and G730), and Broadcom’s Fabric Operating System, placing the dispute squarely within enterprise networking and storage area networking infrastructure.
The case concluded on December 23, 2025, when Judge David Alan Ezra entered an order granting the parties’ joint motion to dismiss filed the day prior. The dismissal order contains asymmetric terms: Alpha Modus’s claims against Broadcom were dismissed with prejudice, permanently barring refiling on those claims, while Broadcom’s counterclaims and defenses were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Broadcom’s ability to reassert them. Each party bears its own costs and fees, with no fee-shifting award in either direction.
Resolution in 245 days — before any claim construction ruling — suggests the parties likely reached a private settlement or licensing arrangement, though the public record is silent on any financial terms. The with-prejudice dismissal of Alpha Modus’s claims is commercially significant: it forecloses reassertion of these three patents against Broadcom, removing Brocade-related networking products from Alpha Modus’s enforcement options permanently. What drove the timing and the asymmetric prejudice terms remains undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 245 days
245 days — resolved faster than the W.D. Texas median for multi-patent infringement actions
Asymmetric dismissal: what the with-prejudice order means for each party
With-prejudice dismissal permanently bars Alpha Modus’s claims
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under res judicata principles. Alpha Modus cannot refile these three patent claims against Broadcom’s Brocade products in any court. The joint motion was filed one day before the order was entered, indicating coordinated exit rather than unilateral abandonment. Broadcom’s counterclaims, however, were dismissed without prejudice — preserving its right to reactivate them if circumstances change.
Res judicata bars refilingAlpha Modus surrenders enforcement rights against Brocade products
By accepting with-prejudice dismissal, Alpha Modus has permanently relinquished the right to assert US11303473B2, US11108591B2, and US11310077B2 against Broadcom’s Brocade Directors, Switches, and Fabric OS. This is consistent with a licensing resolution or a decision that continued litigation cost outweighed expected recovery. The absence of a fee award means Alpha Modus avoided an adverse fee ruling, which suggests the case was not deemed exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Claims permanently extinguishedBroadcom exits cleanly with counterclaims intact
Broadcom’s counterclaims and defenses were dismissed without prejudice, meaning it retains the ability to reassert them — for example, in a declaratory judgment action or future invalidity challenge — if Alpha Modus were to threaten related enforcement. Combined with no costs or fees owed, Broadcom achieved a strategically clean exit. The preservation of its counterclaims also signals Broadcom may have had meritorious invalidity or unenforceability defenses it chose not to fully litigate.
Counterclaims preservedBrocade networking stack cleared — but patents remain enforceable elsewhere
The with-prejudice dismissal only binds Alpha Modus against Broadcom. The three asserted patents remain in force and can be asserted against other networking vendors offering competing Directors, Switches, or Fabric OS-style products. Companies in the storage area networking and enterprise switching space — particularly those selling products functionally similar to Brocade’s G-series or X-series — should treat these patents as active enforcement risk. No claim construction record was generated to narrow scope.
Risk persists for third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Alpha Modus Ventures, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US11303473B2, US11108591B2, and US11310077B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Broadcom Corporation | Company | Broadcom Corporation — global semiconductor and networking infrastructure company; maker of Brocade productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ariana D. Pellegrino | Attorney | Counsel for Alpha Modus Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher E. Hanba | Attorney | Counsel for Alpha Modus Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joshua G. Jones | Attorney | Counsel for Alpha Modus Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Prince Lobel Tye LLP | Law Firm | Representing Alpha Modus Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Adrienne Elizabeth Dominguez | Attorney | Counsel for Broadcom CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Edward J. Mayle | Attorney | Counsel for Broadcom CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kenneth S. Chang | Attorney | Counsel for Broadcom CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kristopher L. Reed | Attorney | Counsel for Broadcom CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Paige Arnette Amstutz | Attorney | Counsel for Broadcom CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephen Burbank | Attorney | Counsel for Broadcom CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Holland & Knight LLP | Law Firm | Representing Broadcom CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP | Law Firm | Representing Broadcom CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Scott, Douglass & McConnico LLP | Law Firm | Representing Broadcom CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge David Alan Ezra | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The order’s asymmetric structure is analytically significant. Alpha Modus’s claims are extinguished with prejudice — a final, res judicata-triggering outcome — while Broadcom’s counterclaims exit without prejudice, preserving optionality. The court’s language follows the joint motion precisely, suggesting Judge Ezra approved the agreed terms without modification. No costs order and no fee award indicates neither party sought or obtained an exceptional-case finding under § 285, consistent with a negotiated resolution reached before substantive merits proceedings.
US11303473B2, US11108591B2 & US11310077B2 — Networking Infrastructure Patents
The three asserted patents — US11303473B2 (App. US17/346048), US11108591B2 (App. US13/999756), and US11310077B2 (App. US17/346054) — cover technologies in the networking infrastructure domain. The earlier application number for US11108591B2 (US13/999756) suggests a longer prosecution history predating the continuation applications underlying the other two patents, which share a common 2021 filing date cluster. Together they target the architecture of Directors, Switches, and Fabric OS-level management — the control plane of enterprise storage area networks.
In the storage area networking and data centre interconnect sector, these patent families are strategically significant because Fabric OS and Brocade-architecture Directors remain widely deployed in legacy and active enterprise SAN environments. Alpha Modus’s decision to assert all three patents simultaneously against a defined Broadcom product list — rather than a single pioneer patent — suggests a portfolio designed to resist design-around attempts. For competing vendors in the Fibre Channel and SAN switching space, the absence of any narrowing claim construction ruling from this litigation preserves the full breadth of these patents as enforcement instruments.
Should your SAN or Fabric OS product be cleared against these three patents?
Any company developing or commercialising Fibre Channel Directors, SAN Switches, or Fabric OS-style management platforms should treat US11303473B2, US11108591B2, and US11310077B2 as live FTO risk. The accused Brocade product list — Directors (X6, X7) and Switches (G610, G630, G720, G730) — defines the category of concern. No claim construction record exists from this litigation to narrow scope, meaning FTO analysis must engage the full claim language across all three patents. Companies that have received or anticipate Alpha Modus outreach should act before any demand letter arrives.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product features against the independent and dependent claims of all three asserted patents, surfacing prior art candidates that may support invalidity arguments and flagging claim elements most likely to read on enterprise switching architectures. Given that Broadcom preserved its counterclaims — suggesting viable invalidity positions were identified — a structured prior art landscape review aligned to these three patents could materially strengthen your defensive posture before any assertion reaches the litigation stage.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11303473B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar SAN and Networking Patent Cases in W.D. Texas
Explore comparable patent infringement actions targeting enterprise networking, Fibre Channel SAN, and switching infrastructure products in the Western District of Texas.
What this case signals for the enterprise networking patent landscape
A swift, asymmetric exit in W.D. Texas suggests Broadcom negotiated favorable terms — and leaves three active patents in play against the wider SAN market.
With-prejudice exits without fee awards suggest confidential licensing
When both parties jointly exit under asymmetric prejudice terms and waive costs, the most common driver is a private licensing or settlement agreement. Patent professionals should treat this outcome as consistent with a paid resolution rather than a voluntary walk-away by the plaintiff, even though no financial terms are disclosed in the public record.
No claim construction record leaves patent scope undefined for the market
Because the case resolved before Markman proceedings, there is no judicial interpretation of the claim terms in US11303473B2, US11108591B2, or US11310077B2. Competitors in the SAN switching and fabric OS space cannot rely on any narrowing construction — the full face of these claims remains operative risk for product clearance purposes.
Alpha v Broadcom — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice as to Alpha Modus’s claims and without prejudice as to Broadcom’s counterclaims, pursuant to a joint motion filed December 22, 2025. Judge David Alan Ezra entered the order on December 23, 2025. Each party bears its own costs and fees. The with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars Alpha Modus from reasserting these three patents against Broadcom’s Brocade products.
Alpha Modus asserted three patents: US11303473B2, US11108591B2, and US11310077B2. The accused products were Broadcom’s Brocade Directors (X6 and X7), Brocade Switches (G630, G610, G720, and G730), and the Fabric Operating System. The patents relate to networking infrastructure and Fabric OS management architecture consistent with enterprise storage area networking environments.
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits under res judicata doctrine. Alpha Modus cannot refile the same patent claims against Broadcom’s Brocade products in any jurisdiction. This is distinct from Broadcom’s counterclaims, which were dismissed without prejudice — meaning Broadcom retains the ability to reassert them in future proceedings if warranted.
No. The with-prejudice dismissal only binds Alpha Modus against Broadcom. US11303473B2, US11108591B2, and US11310077B2 remain valid and enforceable patents. Because no claim construction ruling was issued, the full scope of each patent’s claims remains open. Other vendors in the Fibre Channel switching, SAN Directors, and Fabric OS space remain exposed to potential enforcement by Alpha Modus.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the early resolution. However, a joint motion to dismiss with asymmetric prejudice terms — plaintiff’s claims extinguished with prejudice, defendant’s counterclaims preserved — is consistent with a private settlement or licensing agreement. The absence of any cost or fee award suggests neither party obtained an exceptional-case finding, which is typical when parties negotiate an exit before substantive briefing on the merits.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.