TexasLDPC v. Broadcom: Six LDPC Patents, 2,100 Days, Dismissed Without Prejudice
TexasLDPC Inc. filed suit in Delaware against Broadcom, Inc. in December 2018, asserting six patents covering low-density parity-check (LDPC) error-correction technology embedded in Broadcom’s 802.11ac/ad Wi-Fi chipsets and SandForce flash controllers. After nearly six years of litigation, all claims were dismissed without prejudice in September 2024 — leaving the door open for reinstatement.
Six LDPC Patents, Broadcom’s Chipset Portfolio, and an Open Door
TexasLDPC Inc. filed this infringement action in the District of Delaware on December 12, 2018, asserting six US patents directed to low-density parity-check (LDPC) error-correction coding. The accused products span Broadcom’s 802.11ac and 802.11ad Wi-Fi chipsets — including the BCM4350 family — as well as Densebits SSD controllers, hard disk controller products, and the SandForce SF3700 flash controller family incorporating SHIELD technology, all of which allegedly embed LDPC decoder designs covered by the asserted patents.
The case closed on September 11, 2024, when Judge Stephanos Bibas entered a final judgment dismissing all of TexasLDPC’s claims without prejudice. Broadcom’s sixteen counterclaims filed at D.I. 256 were simultaneously dismissed without prejudice, but the final judgment expressly preserves Broadcom’s right to renew those counterclaims if TexasLDPC’s claims are reinstated in this case or brought in a separate action. Neither side obtained a merits determination.
A nearly 2,100-day lifespan before a without-prejudice dismissal is notable and may suggest the parties reached a resolution — commercial, licensing, or otherwise — that made continued litigation unnecessary, though the public record is silent on any settlement terms. The without-prejudice posture means TexasLDPC retains the theoretical ability to re-file, and Broadcom’s counterclaims remain conditionally alive, making continued monitoring of these six patents commercially important for anyone operating in the LDPC-enabled chipset or flash storage space.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 2100 days
2,100 days — nearly 6 years, well above median patent case duration in D. Del.
Dismissed without prejudice: what the final judgment means for both parties
Without prejudice: no merits bar, claims can return
A dismissal without prejudice does not adjudicate the merits of the asserted claims. Unlike a dismissal with prejudice, it does not trigger claim preclusion (res judicata), meaning TexasLDPC is not legally barred from re-filing on the same patents against Broadcom. The court’s final judgment explicitly preserves Broadcom’s right to renew its sixteen counterclaims should any of TexasLDPC’s claims be reinstated or refiled.
No merits rulingTexasLDPC retains the right to re-file — with caveats
TexasLDPC exits this case without a loss on the merits, preserving the patents’ enforceability on their face. However, re-filing would reactivate Broadcom’s sixteen counterclaims, which likely include invalidity challenges. Statutes of limitations and any licensing or covenant arrangements reached outside the record could still constrain future enforcement, but the public record does not disclose such terms.
Enforceability preservedBroadcom avoids a merits decision — but counterclaims remain on standby
Broadcom obtained no invalidity ruling and no non-infringement finding in this case, meaning the six LDPC patents are not invalidated by this judgment. Broadcom’s sixteen counterclaims — which typically include declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement — are dismissed without prejudice but expressly revive if TexasLDPC returns. Broadcom’s chipset and flash controller product lines remain exposed to future assertion.
No invalidity rulingLDPC patent risk remains live for Wi-Fi and flash storage suppliers
Because no court invalidated or construed the six asserted patents, third parties cannot rely on this case as clearing prior art or claim scope. Companies designing or supplying 802.11ac/ad chipsets, SSD controllers, or flash storage products incorporating LDPC decoders should treat these patents as still-active enforcement risk. A private resolution, if any, would bind only the parties — not the broader market.
Ongoing FTO riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | TexasLDPC Inc. | Company | LDPC error-correction IP licensing entity — holder of US8555140B2 and five related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Broadcom, Inc. | Company | Broadcom, Inc. — global semiconductor company, Wi-Fi chipset and flash controller productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Bret T. Winterle | Attorney | Counsel for TexasLDPC Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David H. Hoffman | Attorney | Counsel for TexasLDPC Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ethan J. Rubin | Attorney | Counsel for TexasLDPC Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gregory Robert Booker | Attorney | Counsel for TexasLDPC Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph B. Warden | Attorney | Counsel for TexasLDPC Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lawrence K. Kolodney | Attorney | Counsel for TexasLDPC Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael R. Headley | Attorney | Counsel for TexasLDPC Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rodeen Talebi | Attorney | Counsel for TexasLDPC Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ronald P. Golden , III | Attorney | Counsel for TexasLDPC Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Shawn Bastani | Attorney | Counsel for TexasLDPC Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Warren K. Mabey , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for TexasLDPC Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bayard PA | Law Firm | Representing TexasLDPC Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fish & Richardson PC | Law Firm | Representing TexasLDPC Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Adam Wyatt Poff | Attorney | Counsel for Broadcom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Archis Ozarkar | Attorney | Counsel for Broadcom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ari Rafilson | Attorney | Counsel for Broadcom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jack B. Blumenfeld | Attorney | Counsel for Broadcom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer A. Ward | Attorney | Counsel for Broadcom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeremy A. Tigan | Attorney | Counsel for Broadcom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Laura Baron | Attorney | Counsel for Broadcom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Patrick J.D. Griffin | Attorney | Counsel for Broadcom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ramy E. Hanna | Attorney | Counsel for Broadcom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert M. Vrana | Attorney | Counsel for Broadcom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven J. Rizzi | Attorney | Counsel for Broadcom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | McKool Smith PC | Law Firm | Representing Broadcom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP | Law Firm | Representing Broadcom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Broadcom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP | Law Firm | Representing Broadcom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Stephanos Bibas | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The final judgment enters a without-prejudice dismissal as to all of TexasLDPC’s claims and simultaneously dismisses Broadcom’s sixteen counterclaims on the same terms, but with an explicit conditional revival clause. This phrasing is legally precise: it forecloses neither party’s substantive rights while closing the docket. The court made no findings on infringement, validity, or claim construction, meaning the judgment carries no collateral estoppel effect. The conditional language preserving Broadcom’s counterclaims suggests the parties — and the court — anticipated the possibility of future proceedings on these same patents.
US8555140B2 — LDPC error-correction coding for wireless and storage systems
The six asserted patents — US8555140B2, US8359522B2, US9112530B2, US8656250B2, US8418023B2, and US10141950B2 — collectively cover low-density parity-check (LDPC) error-correction coding architectures and decoding methods. LDPC codes are a class of linear error-correcting codes widely adopted in IEEE 802.11ac/ad (Wi-Fi 5/WiGig) standards and NAND flash storage interfaces. The application dates span from 2008 (US12/113729) through 2015 (US14/792982), reflecting a sustained prosecution strategy across successive wireless and storage standard generations.
LDPC decoder IP is strategically significant because it sits at the physical layer of both wireless chipsets and flash storage controllers — two of Broadcom’s highest-revenue product families. Any chipset or controller achieving 802.11ac/ad compliance or high-reliability NAND flash management must implement LDPC or a comparable FEC scheme. Patent holders in this space can assert broadly across an entire product generation, as demonstrated by the accused BCM4350 Wi-Fi family and the SandForce SF3700 SHIELD-enabled flash controllers. Competitors designing next-generation 802.11be (Wi-Fi 7) or PCIe Gen 5 NVMe controllers face analogous exposure.
Should you run an FTO analysis against these six LDPC patents?
Any engineering or product team developing 802.11ac, 802.11ad, or 802.11ax/be-compliant chipsets, SSD controllers, or hard disk controllers incorporating LDPC decoder blocks should treat these six patents as live FTO risk. The dismissal without prejudice in this case does not amount to invalidity, and no claim construction ruling was issued that could narrow scope. ODM/OEM suppliers integrating Broadcom-based reference designs should also confirm whether any upstream indemnity or license covers their specific LDPC implementation.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your LDPC decoder architecture against the claim trees of all six asserted patents, flag prosecution history estoppel arguments, and surface any post-grant IPR activity that may have narrowed claims. Eureka’s citation graph can also identify continuation applications and divisionals not asserted in this case that may carry similar claim coverage — critical for any 802.11ac/ad or NAND flash product roadmap review.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8555140B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar LDPC and wireless chipset patent cases in Delaware District Court
Related LDPC error-correction and 802.11 Wi-Fi chipset patent cases filed in Delaware District Court, including NPE assertions and semiconductor FEC disputes.
What this case signals for the LDPC and wireless chipset IP landscape
Six LDPC patents, nearly six years, and no merits ruling — this case leaves the semiconductor IP landscape materially unchanged but strategically important.
Without-prejudice dismissals in D. Del. rarely signal clean exits
When a multi-year, six-patent infringement case closes without a merits ruling in Delaware, it typically signals one of two things: a private licensing resolution, or a strategic withdrawal pending IPR outcomes or claim amendments. Either way, competitors and component suppliers should not treat this dismissal as a clearance event for the six asserted LDPC patents.
Broadcom’s preserved counterclaims are a structural deterrent against re-filing
The final judgment’s express carve-out preserving Broadcom’s sixteen counterclaims creates an asymmetric re-filing calculus for TexasLDPC. Any new action restores Broadcom’s invalidity and non-infringement claims in full, effectively raising the cost of re-engagement. This structure is consistent with a negotiated outcome where both parties preferred a conditional exit over prolonged merits litigation.
TexasLDPC v Broadcom — key questions answered
TexasLDPC Inc. filed suit against Broadcom, Inc. in the District of Delaware in December 2018, asserting six LDPC error-correction patents against Broadcom’s 802.11ac/ad Wi-Fi chipsets and SandForce flash controllers. The case closed on September 11, 2024, with all of TexasLDPC’s claims dismissed without prejudice. No merits ruling on infringement or validity was entered.
TexasLDPC asserted US8555140B2, US8359522B2, US9112530B2, US8656250B2, US8418023B2, and US10141950B2. All six patents relate to low-density parity-check (LDPC) error-correction coding architectures and decoding methods applicable to wireless communication systems and data storage controllers.
No. A dismissal without prejudice carries no merits finding. The six asserted patents were not invalidated or construed by the court, and no non-infringement determination was made. TexasLDPC retains the right to re-file on the same patents. Third parties cannot rely on this judgment as a clearance for LDPC decoder implementations in their own products.
Broadcom filed sixteen counterclaims (D.I. 256), which typically in patent infringement cases include declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement. The final judgment dismisses all sixteen without prejudice but expressly allows Broadcom to renew them if TexasLDPC reinstates its claims in this case or brings them in a separate action. The counterclaims remain conditionally live.
The accused products include Broadcom’s 802.11ac and 802.11ad Wi-Fi chipsets (specifically the BCM4350 and all other 802.11ac/ad-compliant products incorporating an LDPC decoder), Densebits SSD controllers, hard disk controller products, and the SandForce SF3700 flash controller family and other SandForce controllers using SHIELD technology.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.