K.Mizra LLC v. Broadcom Corp — Dismissed With Prejudice After 213 Days
K.Mizra LLC, a patent licensing entity, filed suit against semiconductor giant Broadcom Corporation in the Western District of Texas, asserting two wireless networking patents against a broad portfolio of Broadcom BCM-series chipsets. The parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice after approximately seven months, with each side bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
NPE targets Broadcom’s BCM chipset line in W.D. Texas Wi-Fi patent dispute
K.Mizra LLC, a non-practising entity focused on patent licensing, filed this infringement action on April 14, 2025, in the Western District of Texas against Broadcom Corporation, one of the world’s largest semiconductor companies. The complaint asserted two patents — US8374154B2 and US8873531B2 — against an extensive list of Broadcom BCM-series devices spanning Wi-Fi, cable modem, and networking SoC product lines, including chips such as the BCM4389, BCM6715, BCM43740, and more than twenty additional part numbers.
The case concluded on November 13, 2025, when the court granted a joint stipulated motion for dismissal with prejudice. A with-prejudice dismissal is a final adjudication on the merits for preclusion purposes: K.Mizra may not re-file the same patent claims against Broadcom based on the same accused products. Notably, the order specifies that all parties shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs, meaning neither side secured a fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or Rule 54.
At 213 days, the case resolved considerably faster than the typical multi-year trajectory of contested patent litigation in the Western District of Texas, which suggests the parties reached a resolution — whether a licence, a covenant not to sue, or a walk-away — before meaningful claim construction or discovery motion practice. The terms of any underlying commercial arrangement remain undisclosed; the public record reflects only the procedural dismissal.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 213 days
213 days — resolved faster than the W.D. Texas median for patent cases
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice is a permanent bar on re-litigation
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), a joint stipulated dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits. K.Mizra LLC cannot reassert US8374154B2 or US8873531B2 against Broadcom’s accused BCM-series products in any future action. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is the critical distinction from a without-prejudice dismissal, which would leave the door open to re-filing.
Final — no re-filing permittedK.Mizra permanently surrenders its claims against Broadcom
K.Mizra LLC obtains no public damages award and no injunctive relief on the record. The with-prejudice nature of the dismissal forecloses reassertion of these two patents against Broadcom. However, private licensing terms may have been agreed before filing the stipulation — a common commercial resolution in NPE disputes. K.Mizra retains ownership of the patents and may continue asserting them against other defendants.
Claims extinguished vs. BroadcomBroadcom secures permanent dismissal with no admitted liability
Broadcom Corporation achieves a clean exit: no damages, no injunction, no admission of infringement. The with-prejudice order means K.Mizra cannot re-sue on these patents for the same accused BCM chipsets. No fee award was granted, suggesting Broadcom did not seek — or could not establish — an ‘exceptional case’ under § 285. The absence of fee-shifting is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a contested merits ruling.
No liability, no fee awardBCM chipset freedom confirmed; patents remain live against the broader market
Broadcom’s BCM-series Wi-Fi and networking chipsets — used across consumer routers, cable modems, and enterprise access points — are now free from K.Mizra’s claims under these two patents. Companies whose products integrate these Broadcom chips benefit indirectly. Critically, US8374154B2 and US8873531B2 remain enforceable and may be asserted against other chipset vendors, network equipment OEMs, or device makers working in the same wireless networking space.
Patents still active vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | K.Mizra, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US8374154B2 and US8873531B2 (wireless networking)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Broadcom Corporation | Company | Broadcom Corporation — global semiconductor company, BCM-series Wi-Fi and networking SoCsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan H. Rastegar | Attorney | Counsel for K.Mizra, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Patrick J. Conroy | Attorney | Counsel for K.Mizra, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Qi (Peter) Tong | Attorney | Counsel for K.Mizra, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ryan Griffin | Attorney | Counsel for K.Mizra, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | T. William Kennedy , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for K.Mizra, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC | Law Firm | Representing K.Mizra, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Russ August & Kabat LLP | Law Firm | Representing K.Mizra, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrea A. Anderson | Attorney | Counsel for Broadcom CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Cecelia A. Rivera | Attorney | Counsel for Broadcom CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kevin M. Bell | Attorney | Counsel for Broadcom CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Paige Arnette Amstutz | Attorney | Counsel for Broadcom CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Russell A. Korn | Attorney | Counsel for Broadcom CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven R. Borgman | Attorney | Counsel for Broadcom CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton 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 N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the parties’ joint language verbatim, granting dismissal with prejudice and directing each party to bear its own fees. The with-prejudice designation carries full res judicata effect: K.Mizra’s patent claims against these Broadcom products are permanently extinguished. The mutual cost-bearing provision — rather than a fee award to either side — indicates the court made no finding of exceptional case conduct and that the dismissal reflects a consensual commercial resolution rather than a merits adjudication.
US8374154B2 & US8873531B2 — wireless networking and multi-band communication
US8374154B2 (application no. 12/645648) and US8873531B2 (application no. 12/772259) both arise from the wireless networking domain, covering technology relevant to multi-band Wi-Fi communication and data transmission methods of the type implemented in modern 802.11n/ac/ax SoCs. The application serial numbers suggest filings in the 2009–2010 timeframe, placing these patents squarely in the foundational layer of the Wi-Fi 5/Wi-Fi 6 technology stack.
Broadcom’s BCM-series chipsets — named across all major product segments including residential gateways (BCM6715, BCM6756), enterprise access points (BCM43684, BCM43694), and mobile/IoT connectivity (BCM4389, BCM4398) — represent the core of Broadcom’s connectivity revenue. Any patent asserted across this breadth of SKUs implicates a significant portion of the global Wi-Fi infrastructure supply chain. Third-party networking OEMs integrating Broadcom chips, as well as competing chipset vendors (MediaTek, Qualcomm Atheros, Intel), should assess their exposure under these two patents.
Should your team run an FTO against US8374154B2 and US8873531B2?
If your product incorporates a Wi-Fi chipset, cable modem gateway SoC, or any 802.11-compliant device — whether built on Broadcom silicon or an alternative vendor’s stack — these two patents warrant a freedom-to-operate review. K.Mizra’s broad claim against 26+ Broadcom part numbers indicates the patents are interpreted broadly. OEMs, ODMs, and reference design houses in the networking equipment space face the highest residual risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US8374154B2 and US8873531B2 against your product’s wireless protocol stack, identify relevant prior art that may support validity challenges, and flag K.Mizra’s broader assertion history across other defendants. Proactive clearance before product launch significantly reduces exposure to demand letters and follow-on litigation from portfolio licensing entities.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8374154B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Wi-Fi chipset patent cases in W.D. Texas and related venues
Explore comparable NPE patent assertions targeting Wi-Fi, 802.11, and networking SoC technology in the Western District of Texas and related federal courts.
What this case signals for the wireless networking IP landscape
The K.Mizra–Broadcom settlement pattern is instructive for any company operating in the Wi-Fi chipset and networking SoC space.
NPE asserting broad chipset lists signals portfolio licensing, not targeted litigation
When a plaintiff names 26+ discrete SKUs spanning multiple product families, the complaint is typically structured to maximise licensing leverage rather than to pursue a narrow technical infringement case. Companies receiving demand letters from K.Mizra or similar entities asserting these patents should evaluate portfolio-level exposure, not just the named product.
With-prejudice dismissal without fee award is a classic settlement fingerprint
The combination of a joint stipulation, with-prejudice dismissal, and mutual cost-bearing is the standard procedural wrapper for a confidential licence or covenant not to sue. The absence of any § 285 motion suggests neither party tested the ‘exceptional case’ threshold — consistent with a commercial resolution reached before substantive motion practice.
K.Mizra v Broadcom — key questions answered
Dismissed with prejudice means K.Mizra LLC permanently waived its right to re-assert US8374154B2 and US8873531B2 against Broadcom Corporation’s accused BCM-series products. The order has res judicata effect, functioning as a final judgment on the merits. K.Mizra retains patent ownership but cannot re-file the same claims against Broadcom.
K.Mizra accused more than 26 Broadcom BCM-series chipsets, including the BCM47722, BCM6715, BCM43740, BCM43720, BCM67263, BCM6726, BCM6756, BCM6757, BCM6753, BCM6750, BCM6752, BCM47622, BCM6755, BCM43694, BCM43684, BCM49408, BCM43525, BCM47452, BCM4366, BCM43460, BCM4360, BCM4389, BCM4398, BCM4390, BCM6710, and BCM6765. These span residential gateway, enterprise Wi-Fi, and mobile connectivity product lines.
No. The court’s dismissal order expressly states that all parties shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs. No § 285 exceptional case finding was made. This is consistent with a privately negotiated resolution reached before substantive litigation milestones such as claim construction or summary judgment.
K.Mizra LLC asserted two U.S. patents: US8374154B2 (application no. 12/645648) and US8873531B2 (application no. 12/772259). Both relate to wireless networking technology relevant to the multi-band Wi-Fi communication methods implemented in Broadcom’s BCM-series chipsets.
Based on available public record, K.Mizra LLC appears to operate as a non-practising entity focused on patent licensing and enforcement rather than manufacturing products itself. The company asserted patents covering wireless networking technology across a broad set of Broadcom SKUs, which is consistent with a portfolio licensing strategy. K.Mizra retains ownership of both asserted patents following the with-prejudice dismissal and may assert them against other defendants.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.