{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:cafc-25-1074-2026-09-14", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:cafc-25-1074-2026-09-14)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-12", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:2a3d67", "proof": "sha256:ac62e43b65ea8188e632707c30f2150ab0a43c6dd88ead68a1d614faa0c30244", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:cafc-25-1074-2026-09-14", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Front matter", "paragraphs": [ "para_1", "para_2", "para_3", "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20", "para_21", "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139", "para_140", "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151", "para_152", "para_153", "para_154", "para_155", "para_156", "para_157", "para_158", "para_159", "para_160", "para_161", "para_162", "para_163", "para_164", "para_165", "para_166", "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172", "para_173", "para_174", "para_175", "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179", "para_180", "para_181", "para_182", "para_183", "para_184", "para_185", "para_186", "para_187", "para_188", "para_189", "para_190", "para_191", "para_192", "para_193", "para_194", "para_195", "para_196", "para_197", "para_198", "para_199", "para_200", "para_201", "para_202", "para_203", "para_204", "para_205", "para_206", "para_207", "para_208", "para_209", "para_210", "para_211", "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215", "para_216", "para_217", "para_218", "para_219", "para_220", "para_221", "para_222", "para_223", "para_224", "para_225", "para_226", "para_227", "para_228", "para_229", "para_230", "para_231", "para_232", "para_233", "para_234", "para_235", "para_236", "para_237", "para_238", "para_239", "para_240", "para_241", "para_242", "para_243", "para_244", "para_245", "para_246", "para_247", "para_248", "para_249", "para_250", "para_251", "para_252", "para_253", "para_254", "para_255", "para_256", "para_257", "para_258", "para_259", "para_260", "para_261", "para_262", "para_263", "para_264", "para_265", "para_266", "para_267", "para_268", "para_269", "para_270", "para_271", "para_272", "para_273", "para_274", "para_275", "para_276", "para_277", "para_278", "para_279", "para_280", "para_281", "para_282", "para_283", "para_284", "para_285", "para_286", "para_287", "para_288", "para_289", "para_290", "para_291", "para_292", "para_293", "para_294", "para_295", "para_296", "para_297", "para_298", "para_299", "para_300", "para_301", "para_302", "para_303", "para_304", "para_305", "para_306", "para_307", "para_308", "para_309", "para_310", "para_311", "para_312", "para_313", "para_314", "para_315", "para_316", "para_317", "para_318", "para_319", "para_320", "para_321", "para_322", "para_323", "para_324", "para_325", "para_326", "para_327", "para_328", "para_329", "para_330", "para_331", "para_332", "para_333", "para_334", "para_335", "para_336", "para_337", "para_338", "para_339", "para_340", "para_341", "para_342", "para_343", "para_344", "para_345", "para_346", "para_347", "para_348", "para_349", "para_350", "para_351", "para_352", "para_353", "para_354", "para_355", "para_356", "para_357", "para_358", "para_359", "para_360", "para_361", "para_362", "para_363", "para_364", "para_365", "para_366", "para_367", "para_368", "para_369", "para_370", "para_371", "para_372", "para_373", "para_374", "para_375", "para_376", "para_377", "para_378", "para_379", "para_380", "para_381", "para_382", "para_383", "para_384", "para_385", "para_386", "para_387", "para_388", "para_389", "para_390", "para_391", "para_392", "para_393", "para_394", "para_395", "para_396", "para_397", "para_398", "para_399", "para_400", "para_401", "para_402", "para_403", "para_404", "para_405", "para_406", "para_407", "para_408", "para_409", "para_410", "para_411", "para_412", "para_413", "para_414", "para_415", "para_416", "para_417", "para_418", "para_419", "para_420", "para_421", "para_422", "para_423", "para_424", "para_425", "para_426", "para_427", "para_428", "para_429", "para_430", "para_431", "para_432", "para_433", "para_434", "para_435", "para_436", "para_437", "para_438", "para_439", "para_440", "para_441", "para_442", "para_443", "para_444", "para_445", "para_446", "para_447", "para_448", "para_449", "para_450", "para_451", "para_452", "para_453", "para_454", "para_455", "para_456", "para_457", "para_458", "para_459", "para_460", "para_461", "para_462", "para_463", "para_464", "para_465", "para_466", "para_467", "para_468", "para_469", "para_470", "para_471", "para_472", "para_473", "para_474", "para_475", "para_476", "para_477", "para_478", "para_479", "para_480", "para_481", "para_482", "para_483", "para_484", "para_485", "para_486", "para_487", "para_488", "para_489", "para_490", "para_491", "para_492", "para_493", "para_494", "para_495", "para_496", "para_497", "para_498", "para_499", "para_500", "para_501", "para_502", "para_503", "para_504", "para_505", "para_506", "para_507", "para_508", "para_509", "para_510", "para_511", "para_512", "para_513", "para_514", "para_515", "para_516", "para_517", "para_518", "para_519", "para_520", "para_521", "para_522", "para_523", "para_524", "para_525", "para_526", "para_527", "para_528", "para_529", "para_530", "para_531", "para_532", "para_533", "para_534", "para_535", "para_536", "para_537", "para_538", "para_539", "para_540", "para_541", "para_542", "para_543", "para_544", "para_545", "para_546", "para_547", "para_548", "para_549", "para_550", "para_551", "para_552", "para_553", "para_554", "para_555", "para_556", "para_557", "para_558", "para_559", "para_560", "para_561", "para_562", "para_563", "para_564", "para_565", "para_566", "para_567", "para_568", "para_569", "para_570", "para_571", "para_572", "para_573", "para_574", "para_575", "para_576", "para_577", "para_578", "para_579", "para_580", "para_581", "para_582", "para_583", "para_584", "para_585", "para_586", "para_587", "para_588", "para_589", "para_590", "para_591", "para_592", "para_593", "para_594", "para_595", "para_596", "para_597", "para_598", "para_599", "para_600", "para_601", "para_602", "para_603", "para_604", "para_605", "para_606", "para_607", "para_608", "para_609", "para_610", "para_611", "para_612", "para_613", "para_614", "para_615", "para_616", "para_617", "para_618", "para_619", "para_620", "para_621", "para_622", "para_623", "para_624", "para_625", "para_626", "para_627", "para_628", "para_629", "para_630", "para_631", "para_632", "para_633", "para_634", "para_635", "para_636", "para_637", "para_638", "para_639", "para_640", "para_641", "para_642", "para_643", "para_644", "para_645", "para_646", "para_647", "para_648", "para_649", "para_650", "para_651", "para_652", "para_653", "para_654", "para_655", "para_656", "para_657", "para_658", "para_659", "para_660", "para_661", "para_662", "para_663", "para_664", "para_665", "para_666", "para_667", "para_668", "para_669", "para_670", "para_671", "para_672", "para_673", "para_674", "para_675", "para_676", "para_677", "para_678", "para_679", "para_680", "para_681", "para_682", "para_683", "para_684", "para_685", "para_686", "para_687", "para_688", "para_689", "para_690", "para_691", "para_692", "para_693", "para_694", "para_695", "para_696", "para_697", "para_698", "para_699", "para_700", "para_701", "para_702", "para_703", "para_704", "para_705", "para_706", "para_707", "para_708", "para_709", "para_710", "para_711", "para_712", "para_713", "para_714", "para_715", "para_716", "para_717", "para_718", "para_719", "para_720", "para_721", "para_722", "para_723", "para_724", "para_725", "para_726", "para_727", "para_728", "para_729", "para_730", "para_731", "para_732", "para_733", "para_734", "para_735", "para_736", "para_737", "para_738", "para_739", "para_740", "para_741", "para_742", "para_743", "para_744", "para_745", "para_746", "para_747", "para_748", "para_749", "para_750", "para_751", "para_752", "para_753", "para_754", "para_755", "para_756", "para_757", "para_758", "para_759", "para_760", "para_761", "para_762", "para_763", "para_764", "para_765", "para_766", "para_767", "para_768", "para_769", "para_770", "para_771", "para_772", "para_773", "para_774", "para_775", "para_776", "para_777", "para_778", "para_779", "para_780", "para_781", "para_782", "para_783", "para_784", "para_785", "para_786", "para_787", "para_788", "para_789", "para_790", "para_791", "para_792", "para_793", "para_794", "para_795", "para_796", "para_797", "para_798", "para_799", "para_800", "para_801", "para_802", "para_803", "para_804", "para_805", "para_806", "para_807", "para_808", "para_809", "para_810", "para_811", "para_812", "para_813", "para_814", "para_815", "para_816", "para_817", "para_818", "para_819", "para_820", "para_821", "para_822", "para_823", "para_824", "para_825", "para_826", "para_827", "para_828", "para_829", "para_830", "para_831", "para_832", "para_833", "para_834", "para_835", "para_836", "para_837", "para_838", "para_839", "para_840", "para_841", "para_842", "para_843", "para_844", "para_845", "para_846", "para_847", "para_848", "para_849", "para_850", "para_851", "para_852", "para_853", "para_854", "para_855", "para_856", "para_857", "para_858", "para_859", "para_860", "para_861", "para_862", "para_863", "para_864", "para_865", "para_866", "para_867" ], "kind": "front_matter" } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "United States Court of Appeals", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "for the Federal Circuit", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "______________________", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "TEXASLDPC INC.,", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "Plaintiff-Appellant", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "v.", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "BROADCOM INC., LSI CORPORATION, AVAGO", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "TECHNOLOGIES U.S. INC.,", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "Defendants-Appellees", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "______________________", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "2025-1074", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "______________________", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "Appeal from the United States District Court for the", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "District of Delaware in No. 1:18-cv-01966-SB, Circuit", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "Judge Stephanos Bibas.", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "______________________", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "Decided: September 14, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "______________________", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "WARREN K. MABEY, JR., Fish & Richardson P.C., Wil-", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "mington, DE, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also repre-", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "sented by DAVID M. HOFFMAN, Austin, TX; FRANK", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "SCHERKENBACH, Boston, MA; JOHN WINSTON", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "THORNBURGH, San Diego, CA.", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "STEVEN J. RIZZI, McKool Smith, PC, New York, NY, ar-", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "gued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "CHARLES E. FOWLER, JR., Austin, TX; RAMY HANNA, Hou-", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "ston, TX.", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "______________________", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "Case: 25-1074 Document: 60 Page: 1 Filed: 09/14/2026", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "TEXASLDPC INC. v. BROADCOM INC.2", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "Before MOORE, Chief Judge, CHEN, Circuit Judge, and", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "BISSOON, Chief District Judge.1", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "CHEN, Circuit Judge.", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "Only a “patentee” may bring a civil action for patent in-", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "fringement. 35 U.S.C. § 281. This case calls on us to again", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "undertake the oftentimes complicated task of determining", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "whether a license agreement conveyed a sufficient owner-", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "ship interest to the licensee such that the agreement is tan-", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "tamount to an assignment, thereby granting the licensee", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "the right to maintain a lawsuit in its own name without", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "joining the patent owner.", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "Plaintiff-Appellant TexasLDPC Inc. (TexasLDPC), the", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "exclusive licensee of the patents and copyrights asserted in", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "this case, sued Broadcom Inc., LSI Corporation, and Avago", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "Technologies U.S. Inc. (collectively, Defendants) for in-", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "fringement in the United States District Court for the Dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "trict of Delaware. But TexasLDPC did not join the patent", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "owner, Texas A&M University (A&M), as a co-plaintiff. Af-", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "ter years of litigation, the district court dismissed the law-", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "suit on two grounds: (1) TexasLDPC’s “License", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "Agreement” covering the asserted patents and copyrights", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "(Agreement) had automatically terminated during the", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "course of the litigation when, in the district court’s view,", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "TexasLDPC ceased its business operations; and (2) even if", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "the Agreement had not terminated, the lawsuit could not", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "proceed without joinder of A&M. TexasLDPC Inc. v.", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "Broadcom Inc., No. 1:18-CV-01966-SB, 2023 WL 6387974,", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "at *1 (D. Del. Sep. 29, 2023) (Decision).", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "We determine that, under the terms of the Agreement,", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "TexasLDPC has not ceased its business operations, and", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "1 Honorable Cathy Bissoon, Chief District Judge,", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "United States District Court for the Western District of", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "Case: 25-1074 Document: 60 Page: 2 Filed: 09/14/2026", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "TEXASLDPC INC. v. BROADCOM INC. 3", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "thus the Agreement did not terminate when TexasLDPC", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "shifted its business to enforcement. We also conclude that", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "the Agreement conveyed “all substantial rights” in the as-", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "serted patents to TexasLDPC, thereby entitling Tex-", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "asLDPC to sue for infringement in its own name. Because", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "A&M is not otherwise a necessary party under FED. R. CIV.", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "P. 19(a), we reverse the district court’s dismissal.", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "BACKGROUND", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "TexasLDPC holds an exclusive license to the asserted", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "patents and copyrights. Each of the five asserted patents2", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "relates to low density parity check (LDPC) code technology,", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "a type of error correction code. Error correction codes are", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "useful in transmitting data signals because they automat-", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "ically detect and correct errors in a received signal. The", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "patents disclose improvements in LDPC technology like", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "“improved throughput” and “reduction . . . in message stor-", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "age memory.” ’023 patent col. 1 ll. 50–53. The three as-", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "serted copyrights cover source code programs that", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "implement LDPC code functionality. See J.A. 7667–70.", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "Dr. Kiran Gunnam developed the technology that", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "would become the licensed patents and copyrights as a doc-", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "toral candidate at A&M. Decision, 2023 WL 6387974, at", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "*1. A&M patented Dr. Gunnam’s LDPC technology and", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "gave Marvell International, Ltd. (Marvell) a non-exclusive", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "license. Id. at *1, *7.", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "After graduating, Dr. Gunnam worked for Defendant", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "LSI Corporation (LSI). Id. at *1. While there, he at-", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "tempted to persuade LSI to license his inventions from", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "A&M, but LSI refused. Id. After leaving LSI, Dr. Gunnam", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "2 The patents are U.S. Patent No. 8,418,023 (’023 pa-", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "tent); U.S. Patent No. 8,555,140; U.S. Patent", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "No. 9,112,530; U.S. Patent No. 8,359,522; and U.S. Patent", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "No. 8,656,250.", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "Case: 25-1074 Document: 60 Page: 3 Filed: 09/14/2026", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "TEXASLDPC INC. v. BROADCOM INC.4", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "“expressed interest in starting a company to further de-", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "velop and sublicense his invention.” Id. In late 2014,", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "Dr. Gunnam’s wife, Annapurna Yarlagadda, co-founded", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "TexasLDPC. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "I. A&M-TexasLDPC Agreement", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "On June 18, 2015, A&M and TexasLDPC entered into", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "the Agreement. A&M granted TexasLDPC an exclusive li-", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "cense to the asserted patents and copyrights in exchange", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "for equity in TexasLDPC, a percentage of sublicense royal-", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "ties, and a percentage of any money recovered from enforc-", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "ing the asserted patents and copyrights. J.A. 21218–26", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "(Agreement).", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "Specifically, the Agreement grants TexasLDPC “an ex-", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "clusive license” to (a) “make, have made, use, import, ex-", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "port . . . , offer for sale, and sell the licensed products” and", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "(b) “grant sublicenses of the same scope.” Id. at 21217–18,", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "§ 2.01 (citation modified). It also grants TexasLDPC the", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "exclusive right to sue for patent and copyright infringe-", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "ment and to “collect damages for past, present[,] and future", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "infringement.” Id.; see also id. at 21225, § 11.01 (“Licensee", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "shall have the first and only right to enforce the patent", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "rights and copyrights against any infringement by a third", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "party.” (citation modified)). Aside from conditional termi-", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "nation provisions, the rights-grant remains in effect for the", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "life of the patents. Id. at 21222, § 8.01.", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "These rights are subject to the non-exclusive license", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "previously granted to Marvell. Id. at 21217, §§ 1.08, 2.01.", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "A&M also reserves the right “to practice the grant made in", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "[§] 2.01 for research and educational purposes,” to join ac-", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "tions “which might degrade the value” of the asserted pa-", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "tents and copyrights, and to approve assignment of the", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "Agreement, “not . . . unreasonably withheld.” Id. at 21218,", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "§ 2.02; id. at 21225, § 11.02; id. at 21226, § 12.06.", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "The Agreement establishes certain milestones for Tex-", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "asLDPC to meet related to raising capital and developing", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "Case: 25-1074 Document: 60 Page: 4 Filed: 09/14/2026", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "TEXASLDPC INC. v. BROADCOM INC. 5", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "the LDPC technology. See id. at 21220–21, § 5.01. A&M", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "maintains the option to terminate the Agreement if Tex-", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "asLDPC “fails to exert commercially reasonable efforts to", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "achieve any milestone” by the established deadline. Id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "21221, § 5.02(a) (citation modified). And if TexasLDPC", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "failed to record net sales or sublicensing revenue by 2021,", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "A&M also had the option to terminate the Agreement “un-", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "less [TexasLDPC] is exercising commercially reasonable ef-", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "forts to enforce Copyrights or Patent Rights or seek", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "collections.” Id. at 21221, § 5.02(d) (citation modified). The", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "Agreement defines “commercially reasonable efforts” as", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "meaning TexasLDPC “has expended resources . . . reason-", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "ably necessary to meet a milestone or to enforce Copyrights", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "or Patent Rights by the deadline established in this Agree-", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "ment.” Id. at 21217, § 1.10 (citation modified). The Agree-", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "ment also lists various conditions for “[i]mmediate[]”", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "termination “without the necessity of any action being", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "taken by” either A&M or TexasLDPC. Id. at 21223,", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "§ 8.03(a). If the Agreement terminates, TexasLDPC’s sub-", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "licensing and “ma[ke], us[e], [and] sell[]” rights revert back", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "to A&M. Id. at § 8.04(a)–(c).", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "Though TexasLDPC undisputedly met the milestones", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "outlined in § 5.01,3 by summer 2019, TexasLDPC ex-", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "hausted its capital and had been unable to secure any cus-", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "tomers or sublicensees. Decision, 2023 WL 6387974, at *2.", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "At that time, TexasLDPC re-focused its efforts solely on en-", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "forcing its rights through litigation. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "3 TexasLDPC highlights a July 2018 email from its", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "CTO marking its completion of the milestones. See Appel-", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "lant Br. 9 (citing J.A. 4730–32). Defendants do not chal-", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "lenge TexasLDPC’s milestone completion. See generally", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "Appellee Br.", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "Case: 25-1074 Document: 60 Page: 5 Filed: 09/14/2026", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "TEXASLDPC INC. v. BROADCOM INC.6", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "II. Procedural Background", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "In December 2018, three years after entering into the", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "Agreement and attempting to market and develop the tech-", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "nology, TexasLDPC sued Broadcom for patent and copy-", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "right infringement. Decision, 2023 WL 6387974, at *1. A", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "month later, TexasLDPC amended the complaint to in-", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "clude Broadcom’s parent company Avago and LSI, an", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "Avago subsidiary. Id. Defendants filed counterclaims in", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "2022 alleging noninfringement and invalidity of the pa-", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "tents, unenforceability of the patents and copyrights, and", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "state contract inducement of breach and interference", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "claims. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "On July 2, 2021, Defendants first filed a FED. R. CIV. P.", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "12(b)(7) motion to dismiss for failure to join A&M, alleging", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "that A&M was a necessary party under Rule 19. Id. at *2;", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "see also J.A. 2506, 2515. The district court denied Defend-", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "ants’ motion without prejudice, declining to rule on", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "whether A&M was a required party under Rule 19(a). J.A.", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "5147–48, 5151. Instead, because A&M was a state univer-", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "sity that could assert sovereign immunity, the district", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "court weighed the factors of Rule 19(b) and determined", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "that A&M could not be forced to join the litigation. Id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "5148–51.", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "In the early stages of the litigation, A&M, though not a", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "party, participated in discovery—providing documents in", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "response to a subpoena and offering a witness to be deposed", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "in early 2021. See J.A. 22055. Defendants served a sub-", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "poena on the university in 2022, seeking more documents", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "and testimony related to A&M’s licensing practices. J.A.", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "22135–39. In response, A&M moved to quash the subpoena", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "based on its assertion of sovereign immunity. The United", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "States District Court for the Southern District of Texas", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "granted A&M’s motion. See J.A. 21900–04.", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "Defendants renewed their Rule 12(b)(7) motion and in-", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "cluded a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "Case: 25-1074 Document: 60 Page: 6 Filed: 09/14/2026", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "TEXASLDPC INC. v. BROADCOM INC. 7", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "matter jurisdiction before the Delaware district court. De-", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "cision, 2023 WL 6387974, at *2. For the 12(b)(1) motion,", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "Defendants alleged that TexasLDPC’s pivot to enforce-", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "ment, which Defendants had learned through discovery,", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "triggered the Agreement’s immediate termination under", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "§ 8.03(a)(iii), because TexasLDPC “cease[d] its business op-", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "erations.” Id. After a hearing on Defendants’ 12(b)(1) ar-", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "gument, TexasLDPC filed a supplemental agreement", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "(nunc pro tunc agreement) between itself and A&M, assert-", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "ing the contract term “business operations” always in-", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "cluded enforcement. Id. TexasLDPC claimed this nunc pro", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "tunc agreement had retroactive effect and thus cured any", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "jurisdictional defect.", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "The district court acknowledged that when Tex-", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "asLDPC first filed its complaint, it had Article III standing", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "based on its Agreement with A&M. Id. at *3. However,", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "the district court ultimately determined that TexasLDPC", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "lost its legal interest in the case when it shifted its business", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "to enforcement, because the contract language and extrin-", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "sic evidence demonstrated that the contract ended auto-", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "matically. Id. *4–5. Further, the district court deemed the", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "nunc pro tunc agreement ineffectual. Id. at *6.", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "The district court took the extra step of determining", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "that, even if there was subject matter jurisdiction, dismis-", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "sal was still required due to failure to join a necessary", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "party. Id. at *7. The district court analyzed the Agree-", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "ment’s license grant and determined that TexasLDPC", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "could not maintain the suit without the patent owner be-", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "cause it did not possess “all substantial rights” in the pa-", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "tents-in-suit. Id. The district court found that the", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "Agreement conveyed “incomplete rights” because: (i) it", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "barred suit against Marvell; (ii) it reserved to A&M the ex-", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "clusive right to enforce the Marvell license; and (iii) it re-", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "served to A&M the right to develop the patented", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "technology. Id. The district court did not rely on copyright-", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "specific issues in its determination that the Agreement did", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "not grant “all substantial rights.”", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "Case: 25-1074 Document: 60 Page: 7 Filed: 09/14/2026", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "TEXASLDPC INC. v. BROADCOM INC.8", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "The district court further conducted an analysis under", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "Rule 19, determining that “A&M ha[d] shown a clear inter-", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "est in the case” through its participation in the nunc pro", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "tunc agreement and its legal and financial interests in the", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "litigation. Id. The district court also determined that", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "A&M’s assertion of sovereign immunity called into ques-", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "tion whether the court could “accord complete relief” in", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "A&M’s absence. Id. at *8 (citing Rule 19(a)(1)(A)). Because", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "TexasLDPC’s theory of damages relied on the Georgia-Pa-", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "cific factors, and those factors require, in part, information", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "about relevant licensing from the time of breach, the dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "trict court found that A&M’s lack of participation was con-", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "sequential. Id. (citing Ga.-Pac. Corp. v. U.S. Plywood", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116, 1120 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)).", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "Because A&M could not be forced to join the litigation,", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "the district court weighed whether it could proceed with", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "the parties under Rule 19(b). Id. at *8–9. It concluded that", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "the factors weighed towards dismissal, noting harm to De-", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "fendants and A&M would occur if the court proceeded with-", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "out A&M’s participation, and there were adequate", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "remedies for TexasLDPC after dismissal. Id. The district", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "court thus dismissed TexasLDPC’s claims and Defendants’", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "federal counterclaims, allowing Defendants’ two state", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "counterclaims and attorneys’ fees motion to continue. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "After a brief period of additional discovery, Defendants vol-", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "untarily dismissed all counterclaims.", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "TexasLDPC appeals the district court’s dismissal. We", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "STANDARD OF REVIEW", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "Federal Circuit law governs “issues of substantive pa-", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "tent law and certain procedural issues unique to patent", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "law,” while regional circuit law governs non-patent issues.", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "Union Pac. Res. Co. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., 236 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "684, 693 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). Dismissals for", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "lack of standing, under Third Circuit and Federal Circuit", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "law, are reviewed de novo. Barclift v. Keystone Credit", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "Case: 25-1074 Document: 60 Page: 8 Filed: 09/14/2026", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "TEXASLDPC INC. v. BROADCOM INC. 9", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "Servs., LLC, 93 F.4th 136, 141 (3d Cir. 2024) (citation omit-", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "ted); A.L.M. Holding Co. v. Zydex Indus. Priv. Ltd., 176", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "F.4th 1326, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2026) (citation omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "The Third Circuit reviews “questions of contract con-", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "struction” de novo. Scanlan v. Am. Airlines Grp., Inc., 102", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "F.4th 164, 170 (3d Cir. 2024) (citation omitted). The Agree-", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "ment states that Texas law governs. See J.A. 21226,", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "§ 12.09. Under Texas law, interpretation of an unambigu-", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "ous contract is a question of law, reviewed de novo. Bar-", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "row-Shaver Res. Co. v. Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc., 590 S.W.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "471, 479 (Tex. 2019) (citing Tawes v. Barnes, 340 S.W.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "419, 425 (Tex. 2011)).", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "Whether an exclusive licensee may bring a patent in-", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "fringement action in its name alone under 35 U.S.C. § 281", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "without joining the patent owner is a question of law we", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "review de novo. Diamond Coating Techs., LLC v. Hyundai", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "Motor Am., 823 F.3d 615, 617 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "“[T]he procedural issue of joinder under Rule 19 is not", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "unique to patent law, and we thus review its application", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "under the law of the regional circuit.” Gensetix, Inc. v. Bd.", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "of Regents of Univ. of Tex. Sys., 966 F.3d 1316, 1321 (Fed.", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "Cir. 2020). Under Third Circuit law, Rule 19(a) determi-", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "nations premised on a conclusion of law are reviewed de", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "novo. Gen. Refractories Co. v. First State Ins. Co., 500 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "306, 312 (3d Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Subsidiary find-", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "ings of fact are reviewed for clear error. Id. (citation omit-", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "ted).", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "DISCUSSION", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "TexasLDPC argues (i) the Agreement has not termi-", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "nated, (ii) the rights-grant in the Agreement effectively as-", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "signed A&M’s patents to TexasLDPC, and (iii) A&M need", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "not be joined. We address each argument in turn.", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "Case: 25-1074 Document: 60 Page: 9 Filed: 09/14/2026", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "TEXASLDPC INC. v. BROADCOM INC.10", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "I. Contract Interpretation", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "Under Texas law, contract language is accorded its", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "“‘plain, ordinary, and generally accepted meaning’ unless", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "the instrument directs otherwise.” URI, Inc. v. Kleberg", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "Cnty., 543 S.W.3d 755, 764 (Tex. 2018) (citation omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "In addition, “[u]nder Texas law, contracts are read as a", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "whole to give meaning to the parties’ intent as expressed in", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "the writing, and an agreement is considered ambiguous", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "only where the language of the contract is subject to two or", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "more reasonable interpretations or meanings.” Intell. Tech", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "LLC v. Zebra Techs. Corp., 101 F.4th 807, 813 (Fed. Cir.", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "2024) (citing Gonzalez v. Denning, 394 F.3d 388, 392 (5th", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "Cir. 2004)). Only where a contract is first determined to be", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "ambiguous may the courts admit extrinsic evidence to de-", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "termine the true meaning, i.e., “a meaning consistent with", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "that to which [the contract language is] reasonably suscep-", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "tible.” Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. CBI", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520–21 (Tex. 1995) (citation", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "TexasLDPC first argues that the district court erred in", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "concluding TexasLDPC “cease[d] its business operations”", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "by limiting its activity solely to enforcement of the asserted", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "patents and copyrights. Appellant Br. 22. TexasLDPC", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "highlights various provisions of the Agreement that con-", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "template that TexasLDPC would engage in enforcement of", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "the licensed intellectual property. Id. at 23–27. Applying", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "the rules of Texas contract law, we agree with Tex-", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "asLDPC’s interpretation and hold the Agreement did not", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "terminate in 2019, because TexasLDPC’s “business opera-", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "tions” under the Agreement include enforcement activity.", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "Section 8.03(a) lists five scenarios in which the Agree-", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "ment terminates “[i]mmediately without the necessity of", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "any action being taken” by TexasLDPC or A&M: (i) bank-", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "ruptcy, (ii) liquidation, (iii) if TexasLDPC “ceases its busi-", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "ness operations,” (iv) creditor assignment, or", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "(v) receivership. J.A. 21223 (emphasis added). We agree", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "Case: 25-1074 Document: 60 Page: 10 Filed: 09/14/2026", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "TEXASLDPC INC. v. BROADCOM INC. 11", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "with the district court that each item in the list should take", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "on a separate meaning. See Decision, 2023 WL 6387974, at", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "*4 (citing Balandran v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 972 S.W.2d", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "738, 741 (Tex. 1998)). Further, we agree that the phrase", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "“ceases its business operations” does not identify what", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "types of efforts the parties intended to include in Tex-", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "asLDPC’s “business operations,” so we must broaden our", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "view to the rest of the Agreement. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "The Agreement explicitly includes enforcement under", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "its definition of “commercially reasonable efforts.” See J.A.", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "21217, § 1.10 (“‘Commercially reasonable efforts’ means", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "that licensee has expended resources . . . reasonably neces-", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "sary to meet a milestone or to enforce Copyrights or Patent", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "Rights by the deadline established in this Agreement.” (em-", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "phasis added and citation modified)). It further bars ter-", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "mination of the Agreement for “fail[ing] to record net sales", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "or sublicensing revenue by calendar year[] 2021” if Tex-", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "asLDPC is “exercising commercially reasonable efforts to", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "enforce copyrights or patent rights or seek collections.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "at 21221, § 5.02(d) (citation modified). Thus, this provision", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "accounts for periods where TexasLDPC eschews pursuing", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "sales or sublicense revenue while focusing its business ac-", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "tivity on enforcement, and, during those periods of enforce-", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "ment activity, TexasLDPC would still be exercising", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "“commercially reasonable efforts.”", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "The Agreement also grants TexasLDPC its right to use,", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "sublicense, and sue under the patents without elevating", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "one right above the others. See id. at 21217–18, § 2.01. An-", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "other provision lists three different types of consideration", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "TexasLDPC will provide in exchange for the license grant:", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "(1) equity in TexasLDPC, (2) a percentage of sublicense", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "royalties, and (3) a portion of any monetary recovery", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "earned through enforcement actions. Id. at 21218, §§ 3.01–", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "3.03. Together, these provisions demonstrate that the", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "Agreement unambiguously contemplates enforcement as", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "one of TexasLDPC’s business operations.", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "Case: 25-1074 Document: 60 Page: 11 Filed: 09/14/2026", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "TEXASLDPC INC. v. BROADCOM INC.12", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "Citing Clear Lake City Water Authority v. Kirby Lake", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "Development, Ltd., 123 S.W.3d 735, 748–49 (Tex. App.", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "2003), the district court turned to the Agreement’s", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "“whereas” clauses, highlighting those that referred to", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "“A&M’s desire to commercialize the intellectual property", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "for the public benefit and welfare” and TexasLDPC’s “ex-", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "pertise in commercialization and development.” Decision,", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "2023 WL 6387974, at *4. The district court noted that en-", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "forcement was not discussed in these recitals nor listed in", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "§ 8.04, the set of actions TexasLDPC must cease when the", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "contract terminates. Id. The district court concluded that", "paragraph_id": "para_407" }, { "text": "enforcement could only be considered an “ancillary” action,", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "rather than a “core business operation[].” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "The district court accorded the Agreement’s recitals too", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "much weight and settled on an overly narrow view of “busi-", "paragraph_id": "para_411" }, { "text": "ness operations.” Under Texas law, “[r]ecitals in a con-", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "tract . . . will not control the operative phrases of the", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "contract unless those phrases are ambiguous.” Furmanite", "paragraph_id": "para_414" }, { "text": "Worldwide, Inc. v. NextCorp, Ltd., 339 S.W.3d 326, 336", "paragraph_id": "para_415" }, { "text": "(Tex. App. 2011) (citing Gardner v. Smith, 168 S.W.2d 278,", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "280 (Tex. Civ. App. 1942)). Furthermore, “recitals, espe-", "paragraph_id": "para_417" }, { "text": "cially when ambiguous, cannot control the clearly ex-", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "pressed stipulations of the parties.” Country Cmty.", "paragraph_id": "para_419" }, { "text": "Timberlake Vill., L.P. v. HMW Special Util. Dist. of Harris,", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "438 S.W.3d 661, 669 (Tex. App. 2014) (first citing Gardner,", "paragraph_id": "para_421" }, { "text": "168 S.W.2d at 280; and then citing Furmanite, 339 S.W.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_422" }, { "text": "at 336). Here, the Agreement as a whole is unambiguous;", "paragraph_id": "para_423" }, { "text": "the recitals—which indicate only that the purpose of the", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "Agreement is to “commercialize” A&M’s IP “for the public", "paragraph_id": "para_425" }, { "text": "benefit” by leveraging TexasLDPC’s capabilities—are not.", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "These statements are of such a broad and generic quality", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "that they cannot be said to displace the Agreement’s con-", "paragraph_id": "para_428" }, { "text": "templated “commercially reasonable efforts” TexasLDPC", "paragraph_id": "para_429" }, { "text": "Case: 25-1074 Document: 60 Page: 12 Filed: 09/14/2026", "paragraph_id": "para_430" }, { "text": "TEXASLDPC INC. v. BROADCOM INC. 13", "paragraph_id": "para_431" }, { "text": "must undertake in carrying out its business. Thus, the re-", "paragraph_id": "para_432" }, { "text": "citals cannot control. See Furmanite, 339 S.W.3d at 336.4", "paragraph_id": "para_433" }, { "text": "The district court also cited § 8.04’s “Effect of Termina-", "paragraph_id": "para_434" }, { "text": "tion” for its focus on “commercial activities” and lack of ex-", "paragraph_id": "para_435" }, { "text": "plicit discussion of litigation or enforcement. Decision,", "paragraph_id": "para_436" }, { "text": "2023 WL 6387974, at *4. Defendants cite the milestones", "paragraph_id": "para_437" }, { "text": "in § 5.01 for similar reasons, arguing that the Agreement", "paragraph_id": "para_438" }, { "text": "lacks any milestone related to enforcement. See Appellee", "paragraph_id": "para_439" }, { "text": "Br. 28. However, the district court and Defendants fail to", "paragraph_id": "para_440" }, { "text": "adequately address other contract provisions which", "paragraph_id": "para_441" }, { "text": "demonstrate that enforcement is one of TexasLDPC’s con-", "paragraph_id": "para_442" }, { "text": "templated business operations. See, e.g., J.A. 21217–18,", "paragraph_id": "para_443" }, { "text": "§§ 2.01, 3.01–3.03. The district court’s dismissal of these", "paragraph_id": "para_444" }, { "text": "provisions was in error, because they indicate the parties’", "paragraph_id": "para_445" }, { "text": "intent for TexasLDPC to exercise its enforcement rights,", "paragraph_id": "para_446" }, { "text": "even if it abandoned efforts to further develop the technol-", "paragraph_id": "para_447" }, { "text": "ogy or sublicense A&M’s intellectual property in the pro-", "paragraph_id": "para_448" }, { "text": "cess.", "paragraph_id": "para_449" }, { "text": "4 Moreover, Clear Lake is inapposite. That case sug-", "paragraph_id": "para_450" }, { "text": "gests that recitals which clearly support a specific interpre-", "paragraph_id": "para_451" }, { "text": "tation show that the contract “contemplate[d]” said", "paragraph_id": "para_452" }, { "text": "interpretation. 123 S.W.3d at 749. The court in Clear Lake", "paragraph_id": "para_453" }, { "text": "found support both for its interpretation as well as for an", "paragraph_id": "para_454" }, { "text": "alternative interpretation in the operative clauses of the", "paragraph_id": "para_455" }, { "text": "contract and concluded that the contract was ambiguous.", "paragraph_id": "para_456" }, { "text": "See id. at 750. Here, the operative clauses of the contract", "paragraph_id": "para_457" }, { "text": "contradict the district court’s interpretation.", "paragraph_id": "para_458" }, { "text": "Case: 25-1074 Document: 60 Page: 13 Filed: 09/14/2026", "paragraph_id": "para_459" }, { "text": "TEXASLDPC INC. v. BROADCOM INC.14", "paragraph_id": "para_460" }, { "text": "Therefore, we hold the Agreement did not terminate", "paragraph_id": "para_461" }, { "text": "when TexasLDPC shifted to only enforcement. The district", "paragraph_id": "para_462" }, { "text": "court therefore erred in dismissing under Rule 12(b)(1).5", "paragraph_id": "para_463" }, { "text": "II. All Substantial Rights", "paragraph_id": "para_464" }, { "text": "“A patent owner may transfer all substantial rights in", "paragraph_id": "para_465" }, { "text": "the patents-in-suit, in which case the transfer is tanta-", "paragraph_id": "para_466" }, { "text": "mount to an assignment of those patents to the exclusive", "paragraph_id": "para_467" }, { "text": "licensee, conferring standing to sue solely on the licensee.”", "paragraph_id": "para_468" }, { "text": "Alfred E. Mann Found. For Sci. Rsch. v. Cochlear Corp.,", "paragraph_id": "para_469" }, { "text": "604 F.3d 1354, 1358–59 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_470" }, { "text": "This court has not established a “complete list” of rights", "paragraph_id": "para_471" }, { "text": "that must be examined to determine whether the transfer", "paragraph_id": "para_472" }, { "text": "is tantamount to an assignment. Diamond Coating, 823", "paragraph_id": "para_473" }, { "text": "F.3d at 619 (citation omitted). Instead, we “examine the", "paragraph_id": "para_474" }, { "text": "‘totality’ of the agreement to determine whether a party", "paragraph_id": "para_475" }, { "text": "other than the original patentee has established that it ob-", "paragraph_id": "para_476" }, { "text": "tained all substantial rights in the patent.” Univ. of S. Fla.", "paragraph_id": "para_477" }, { "text": "Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Fujifilm Med. Sys. U.S.A., Inc., 19", "paragraph_id": "para_478" }, { "text": "F.4th 1315, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Lone Star Sili-", "paragraph_id": "para_479" }, { "text": "con Innovations LLC v. Nanya Tech. Corp., 925 F.3d 1225,", "paragraph_id": "para_480" }, { "text": "1229 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). “If not, however, an exclusive licen-", "paragraph_id": "para_481" }, { "text": "see must join the patentee to bring suit.” Luminara World-", "paragraph_id": "para_482" }, { "text": "wide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co., 814 F.3d 1343, 1349–50 &", "paragraph_id": "para_483" }, { "text": "n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that this requirement is", "paragraph_id": "para_484" }, { "text": "commonly referred to as “prudential standing”).", "paragraph_id": "para_485" }, { "text": "This joinder requirement exists for two reasons: (1) it", "paragraph_id": "para_486" }, { "text": "“protects the alleged infringer from facing multiple law-", "paragraph_id": "para_487" }, { "text": "suits on the same patent”; and (2) it “protects the patentee", "paragraph_id": "para_488" }, { "text": "5 Because we hold that the Agreement did not termi-", "paragraph_id": "para_489" }, { "text": "nate, we need not address the effect of A&M’s and Tex-", "paragraph_id": "para_490" }, { "text": "asLDPC’s nunc pro tunc agreement on the meaning of", "paragraph_id": "para_491" }, { "text": "§ 8.03(a)(iii)’s “business operations.”", "paragraph_id": "para_492" }, { "text": "Case: 25-1074 Document: 60 Page: 14 Filed: 09/14/2026", "paragraph_id": "para_493" }, { "text": "TEXASLDPC INC. v. BROADCOM INC. 15", "paragraph_id": "para_494" }, { "text": "from losing substantial rights if its patent claims are inval-", "paragraph_id": "para_495" }, { "text": "idated or the patent rendered unenforceable in an action in", "paragraph_id": "para_496" }, { "text": "which it did not participate.” Id. at 1350 (citations omit-", "paragraph_id": "para_497" }, { "text": "ted).", "paragraph_id": "para_498" }, { "text": "TexasLDPC asserts that it holds “all substantial", "paragraph_id": "para_499" }, { "text": "rights” to bring this action against Defendants. Appellant", "paragraph_id": "para_500" }, { "text": "Br. 44–47. TexasLDPC contends that the rights that it", "paragraph_id": "para_501" }, { "text": "holds are sufficient to maintain this lawsuit without join-", "paragraph_id": "para_502" }, { "text": "der, and A&M’s retained rights do not require a different", "paragraph_id": "para_503" }, { "text": "result. Id. We agree.6", "paragraph_id": "para_504" }, { "text": "The Agreement grants TexasLDPC “an exclusive li-", "paragraph_id": "para_505" }, { "text": "cense and right” to make, use, and sell licensed products;", "paragraph_id": "para_506" }, { "text": "grant sublicenses of the same scope; and to sue and collect", "paragraph_id": "para_507" }, { "text": "infringement damages for the life of the patents. None of", "paragraph_id": "para_508" }, { "text": "those exclusive rights are subject to A&M’s approval or", "paragraph_id": "para_509" }, { "text": "control. On the other hand, A&M retained the right to", "paragraph_id": "para_510" }, { "text": "practice the patents for “research and education”; the sole", "paragraph_id": "para_511" }, { "text": "right to bring infringement actions against Marvell; the", "paragraph_id": "para_512" }, { "text": "6 The district court decision and Defendants’ briefing", "paragraph_id": "para_513" }, { "text": "below and before this court focuses on the retained and", "paragraph_id": "para_514" }, { "text": "granted patent rights. See Decision, 2023 WL 6387974, at", "paragraph_id": "para_515" }, { "text": "*7; Appellee Br. 46–50; J.A. 2521–27 (Defendants’ motion", "paragraph_id": "para_516" }, { "text": "to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(7)). Thus, we decline to ad-", "paragraph_id": "para_517" }, { "text": "dress Defendants’ single-sentence, skeletal argument re-", "paragraph_id": "para_518" }, { "text": "garding the difference in duration between the copyrights", "paragraph_id": "para_519" }, { "text": "and patents. See Appellee Br. 48–49; Fresenius USA, Inc.", "paragraph_id": "para_520" }, { "text": "v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2009)", "paragraph_id": "para_521" }, { "text": "(“If a party fails to raise an argument before the trial court,", "paragraph_id": "para_522" }, { "text": "or presents only a skeletal or undeveloped argument to the", "paragraph_id": "para_523" }, { "text": "trial court, we may deem that argument waived on ap-", "paragraph_id": "para_524" }, { "text": "peal.”); see also United States v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New", "paragraph_id": "para_525" }, { "text": "York, 738 F.3d 1320, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“It is well es-", "paragraph_id": "para_526" }, { "text": "tablished that arguments that are not appropriately devel-", "paragraph_id": "para_527" }, { "text": "oped in a party’s briefing may be deemed waived.”).", "paragraph_id": "para_528" }, { "text": "Case: 25-1074 Document: 60 Page: 15 Filed: 09/14/2026", "paragraph_id": "para_529" }, { "text": "TEXASLDPC INC. v. BROADCOM INC.16", "paragraph_id": "para_530" }, { "text": "right to join certain infringement actions; the right to ap-", "paragraph_id": "para_531" }, { "text": "prove assignment of the Agreement; and the right to termi-", "paragraph_id": "para_532" }, { "text": "nate the Agreement based on TexasLDPC’s failure to", "paragraph_id": "para_533" }, { "text": "achieve milestones.", "paragraph_id": "para_534" }, { "text": "TexasLDPC argues the rights-grant in the Agreement", "paragraph_id": "para_535" }, { "text": "is similar in material respects to the one in Luminara, in", "paragraph_id": "para_536" }, { "text": "which we held that the licensee, Luminara, was granted", "paragraph_id": "para_537" }, { "text": "“all substantial rights.” See Appellant Br. at 44–47; Lu-", "paragraph_id": "para_538" }, { "text": "minara, 814 F.3d at 1349–51. In Luminara, we considered", "paragraph_id": "para_539" }, { "text": "the two purposes of joinder to guide our analysis. First, we", "paragraph_id": "para_540" }, { "text": "noted the licensor had granted to Luminara the “sole and", "paragraph_id": "para_541" }, { "text": "exclusive right” to sue infringers of the patents-in-suit un-", "paragraph_id": "para_542" }, { "text": "der the license agreement, which protected the alleged in-", "paragraph_id": "para_543" }, { "text": "fringer from multiple suits. Id. at 1350. In assessing the", "paragraph_id": "para_544" }, { "text": "second purpose of joinder, we explained that the licensor", "paragraph_id": "para_545" }, { "text": "maintained a “right . . . to practice the patents; title to the", "paragraph_id": "para_546" }, { "text": "patents; the responsibility to pay maintenance fees to keep", "paragraph_id": "para_547" }, { "text": "the patents in force; a financial interest in litigation and", "paragraph_id": "para_548" }, { "text": "licensing; and a right to notice of litigation and licensing", "paragraph_id": "para_549" }, { "text": "activities.” Id. at 1351 (footnote omitted). However, we de-", "paragraph_id": "para_550" }, { "text": "termined that “[n]one of these retained rights individually", "paragraph_id": "para_551" }, { "text": "or cumulatively are substantial enough to preclude Lu-", "paragraph_id": "para_552" }, { "text": "minara from bringing suit in its name alone.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_553" }, { "text": "Defendants, for their part, argue that A&M’s retained", "paragraph_id": "para_554" }, { "text": "rights are more analogous to those held by the licensor in", "paragraph_id": "para_555" }, { "text": "Propat International Corp. v. Rpost, Inc., in which we held", "paragraph_id": "para_556" }, { "text": "the licensee lacked “all substantial rights.” See Appellee", "paragraph_id": "para_557" }, { "text": "Br. 47–50; 473 F.3d 1187, 1190–92 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In", "paragraph_id": "para_558" }, { "text": "Propat, the patent owner retained ownership of the patent", "paragraph_id": "para_559" }, { "text": "itself; responsibility to maintain the patent; an economic", "paragraph_id": "para_560" }, { "text": "interest in the patent (percentage of licensing and litiga-", "paragraph_id": "para_561" }, { "text": "tion activities); and the right to veto licensing and litigation", "paragraph_id": "para_562" }, { "text": "decisions. 473 F.3d. at 1190–91. The patent owner also", "paragraph_id": "para_563" }, { "text": "had the right to terminate the contract if the licensee failed", "paragraph_id": "para_564" }, { "text": "to meet certain benchmarks. Id. at 1191–92.", "paragraph_id": "para_565" }, { "text": "Case: 25-1074 Document: 60 Page: 16 Filed: 09/14/2026", "paragraph_id": "para_566" }, { "text": "TEXASLDPC INC. v. BROADCOM INC. 17", "paragraph_id": "para_567" }, { "text": "While the “all substantial rights” inquiry in this case is", "paragraph_id": "para_568" }, { "text": "a close call, the rights-grant in this case is most comparable", "paragraph_id": "para_569" }, { "text": "to Luminara.", "paragraph_id": "para_570" }, { "text": "Here, TexasLDPC holds an exclusive right to make,", "paragraph_id": "para_571" }, { "text": "use, and sell licensed products while A&M retains a lim-", "paragraph_id": "para_572" }, { "text": "ited, non-commercial use right. See J.A. 21217–18, § 2.01.", "paragraph_id": "para_573" }, { "text": "Critical to our analysis, TexasLDPC also holds “the first", "paragraph_id": "para_574" }, { "text": "and only right to enforce” the asserted patents and copy-", "paragraph_id": "para_575" }, { "text": "rights against third parties and “the exclusive right to col-", "paragraph_id": "para_576" }, { "text": "lect damages for past, present, and future infringement.”", "paragraph_id": "para_577" }, { "text": "Id. at 21225, § 11.01; id. at 21217–18, § 2.01; see Luminara,", "paragraph_id": "para_578" }, { "text": "814 F.3d at 1350 (“Because one purpose of the joinder re-", "paragraph_id": "para_579" }, { "text": "quirement is to protect the alleged infringer from multiple", "paragraph_id": "para_580" }, { "text": "lawsuits, the transfer of the right to sue for infringement", "paragraph_id": "para_581" }, { "text": "is critical.”). TexasLDPC’s right to sue is essentially unfet-", "paragraph_id": "para_582" }, { "text": "tered, thereby protecting Defendants from the possibility", "paragraph_id": "para_583" }, { "text": "of facing multiple lawsuits on the same patents. A&M re-", "paragraph_id": "para_584" }, { "text": "tains the right to participate in certain lawsuits, but", "paragraph_id": "para_585" }, { "text": "A&M’s participation is limited by consent from Texas’s At-", "paragraph_id": "para_586" }, { "text": "torney General, and A&M can only initiate litigation", "paragraph_id": "para_587" }, { "text": "against Marvell. See J.A. 21225, §§ 11.01, 11.02.", "paragraph_id": "para_588" }, { "text": "We have previously emphasized that “the exclusive", "paragraph_id": "para_589" }, { "text": "right to make, use, and sell, as well as the nature and scope", "paragraph_id": "para_590" }, { "text": "of the patentee’s retained right to sue accused infringers", "paragraph_id": "para_591" }, { "text": "are the most important considerations in determining", "paragraph_id": "para_592" }, { "text": "whether a license agreement transfers sufficient rights to", "paragraph_id": "para_593" }, { "text": "render the licensee the owner of the patent.” Univ. of S.", "paragraph_id": "para_594" }, { "text": "Fla., 19 F.4th at 1320 (citing Diamond Coating, 823 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_595" }, { "text": "at 619); see also Alfred E. Mann, 604 F.3d at 1360–61.", "paragraph_id": "para_596" }, { "text": "While we do not hold these rights alone are sufficient to", "paragraph_id": "para_597" }, { "text": "confer all substantial rights, both of those considerations", "paragraph_id": "para_598" }, { "text": "in this case point heavily in TexasLDPC’s favor, and A&M’s", "paragraph_id": "para_599" }, { "text": "retained rights are not enough to warrant an alternative", "paragraph_id": "para_600" }, { "text": "conclusion.", "paragraph_id": "para_601" }, { "text": "Defendants rely heavily on Propat, but that case is dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_602" }, { "text": "tinguishable. Though the Propat patent owner’s retained", "paragraph_id": "para_603" }, { "text": "Case: 25-1074 Document: 60 Page: 17 Filed: 09/14/2026", "paragraph_id": "para_604" }, { "text": "TEXASLDPC INC. v. BROADCOM INC.18", "paragraph_id": "para_605" }, { "text": "rights are similar to many of the ones retained by A&M", "paragraph_id": "para_606" }, { "text": "here, the patent owner also retained the right to veto", "paragraph_id": "para_607" }, { "text": "Propat’s licensing and litigation decisions. See 473 F.3d at", "paragraph_id": "para_608" }, { "text": "1191. This “significant restriction on Propat’s interest in", "paragraph_id": "para_609" }, { "text": "the patent” impinged upon Propat’s ability to file suit and", "paragraph_id": "para_610" }, { "text": "settle ongoing litigations. Moreover, the patent owner in", "paragraph_id": "para_611" }, { "text": "Propat did not convey the right to “make, use, or sell” the", "paragraph_id": "para_612" }, { "text": "patented invention, only the rights to enforce and subli-", "paragraph_id": "para_613" }, { "text": "cense the patents. See id. at 1190–91. A&M retained no", "paragraph_id": "para_614" }, { "text": "similar rights in this case.", "paragraph_id": "para_615" }, { "text": "The district court determined the Agreement did not", "paragraph_id": "para_616" }, { "text": "grant “all substantial rights” because A&M retained the", "paragraph_id": "para_617" }, { "text": "right to practice the patents and the sole ability to enforce", "paragraph_id": "para_618" }, { "text": "the Marvell license. Decision, 2023 WL 6387974, at *7.", "paragraph_id": "para_619" }, { "text": "This was error. In accordance with Luminara, A&M’s re-", "paragraph_id": "para_620" }, { "text": "tained right to practice the asserted patents is not a “sub-", "paragraph_id": "para_621" }, { "text": "stantial right requiring joinder,” because the threat of the", "paragraph_id": "para_622" }, { "text": "patents’ invalidation does not endanger that right. 814", "paragraph_id": "para_623" }, { "text": "F.3d at 1351. “Rather, if the claims were invalidated or the", "paragraph_id": "para_624" }, { "text": "patent held unenforceable, everyone, including [A&M] . . . ,", "paragraph_id": "para_625" }, { "text": "could freely practice the patent.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_626" }, { "text": "While A&M retains the sole right to bring suit against", "paragraph_id": "para_627" }, { "text": "Marvell, this retained right as to just a single previous li-", "paragraph_id": "para_628" }, { "text": "censee has limited effect on TexasLDPC’s substantial pa-", "paragraph_id": "para_629" }, { "text": "tent rights. A&M’s right to enforce the Marvell license has", "paragraph_id": "para_630" }, { "text": "no effect on the first purpose of joinder—to protect the al-", "paragraph_id": "para_631" }, { "text": "leged infringer from multiple lawsuits—since only Tex-", "paragraph_id": "para_632" }, { "text": "asLDPC may sue Defendants for infringement.", "paragraph_id": "para_633" }, { "text": "Defendants are not at risk of multiple patent infringement", "paragraph_id": "para_634" }, { "text": "suits. Further, the second purpose of joinder is also not", "paragraph_id": "para_635" }, { "text": "implicated. Potential invalidation of the asserted patents", "paragraph_id": "para_636" }, { "text": "only endangers A&M’s sublicensing revenue from the Mar-", "paragraph_id": "para_637" }, { "text": "vell license, but we have long held that “a [patent owner’s]", "paragraph_id": "para_638" }, { "text": "financial interest in litigation and licensing without more", "paragraph_id": "para_639" }, { "text": "does not amount to a substantial right forcing joinder of the", "paragraph_id": "para_640" }, { "text": "patentee.” Id. (citing Propat, 473 F.3d at 1191). Im-", "paragraph_id": "para_641" }, { "text": "portantly, when considering the nature of the broad and", "paragraph_id": "para_642" }, { "text": "Case: 25-1074 Document: 60 Page: 18 Filed: 09/14/2026", "paragraph_id": "para_643" }, { "text": "TEXASLDPC INC. v. BROADCOM INC. 19", "paragraph_id": "para_644" }, { "text": "substantial rights granted to TexasLDPC to practice, en-", "paragraph_id": "para_645" }, { "text": "force, and sublicense the patents and copyrights, we do not", "paragraph_id": "para_646" }, { "text": "see the effect of the Marvell license as undermining the", "paragraph_id": "para_647" }, { "text": "conclusion that the Agreement transferred all substantial", "paragraph_id": "para_648" }, { "text": "rights.", "paragraph_id": "para_649" }, { "text": "Lone Star is not to the contrary. Defendants argue", "paragraph_id": "para_650" }, { "text": "Lone Star compels a different conclusion because, in that", "paragraph_id": "para_651" }, { "text": "case, we determined that Lone Star’s ability to only sue", "paragraph_id": "para_652" }, { "text": "third-party entities on a pre-approved list indicated the pa-", "paragraph_id": "para_653" }, { "text": "tent owner did not transfer “all substantial rights.” Appel-", "paragraph_id": "para_654" }, { "text": "lee Br. 47 (citing 925 F.3d at 1232). Because the patent", "paragraph_id": "para_655" }, { "text": "owner retained the right over whether Lone Star could sue", "paragraph_id": "para_656" }, { "text": "unlisted targets, the patent owner possessed significant", "paragraph_id": "para_657" }, { "text": "power over the scope of Lone Star’s enforcement activities.", "paragraph_id": "para_658" }, { "text": "See Lone Star, 925 F.3d at 1231–32. The Marvell license", "paragraph_id": "para_659" }, { "text": "in this case is materially different in scale compared to re-", "paragraph_id": "para_660" }, { "text": "strictions on Lone Star’s ability to file suit.", "paragraph_id": "para_661" }, { "text": "A&M’s other retained rights, to approve assignment of", "paragraph_id": "para_662" }, { "text": "the Agreement or terminate the Agreement based on Tex-", "paragraph_id": "para_663" }, { "text": "asLDPC’s failure to complete the benchmarks, do not", "paragraph_id": "para_664" }, { "text": "change the outcome. First, the assignment provision,", "paragraph_id": "para_665" }, { "text": "which notes that consent “shall not be unreasonably with-", "paragraph_id": "para_666" }, { "text": "held,” see J.A. 21226, § 12.06, echoes the assignment provi-", "paragraph_id": "para_667" }, { "text": "sion in Luminara, which we found was not a “substantial", "paragraph_id": "para_668" }, { "text": "right” requiring joinder. 814 F.3d at 1346; see also", "paragraph_id": "para_669" }, { "text": "Speedplay, Inc. v. Bebop, Inc., 211 F.3d 1245, 1251–52 (Fed.", "paragraph_id": "para_670" }, { "text": "Cir. 2000). Second, neither party disputes that Tex-", "paragraph_id": "para_671" }, { "text": "asLDPC did in fact meet the benchmarks in § 5.01, and", "paragraph_id": "para_672" }, { "text": "thus A&M’s right to terminate due to incomplete mile-", "paragraph_id": "para_673" }, { "text": "stones no longer encumbers TexasLDPC’s license. See su-", "paragraph_id": "para_674" }, { "text": "pra note 3.", "paragraph_id": "para_675" }, { "text": "Accordingly, we hold that the Agreement granted Tex-", "paragraph_id": "para_676" }, { "text": "asLDPC “all substantial rights,” and the district court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_677" }, { "text": "contrary finding cannot sustain a Rule 12(b)(7) dismissal.", "paragraph_id": "para_678" }, { "text": "Case: 25-1074 Document: 60 Page: 19 Filed: 09/14/2026", "paragraph_id": "para_679" }, { "text": "TEXASLDPC INC. v. BROADCOM INC.20", "paragraph_id": "para_680" }, { "text": "III. Necessary Party Under Rule 19(a)", "paragraph_id": "para_681" }, { "text": "A.", "paragraph_id": "para_682" }, { "text": "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a) requires joinder", "paragraph_id": "para_683" }, { "text": "of an absent party if:", "paragraph_id": "para_684" }, { "text": "(A) in that person’s absence, the court cannot ac-", "paragraph_id": "para_685" }, { "text": "cord complete relief among existing parties; or", "paragraph_id": "para_686" }, { "text": "(B) that person claims an interest relating to the", "paragraph_id": "para_687" }, { "text": "subject of the action and is so situated that dispos-", "paragraph_id": "para_688" }, { "text": "ing of the action in the person’s absence may:", "paragraph_id": "para_689" }, { "text": "(i) as a practical matter impair or impede", "paragraph_id": "para_690" }, { "text": "the person’s ability to protect the interest;", "paragraph_id": "para_691" }, { "text": "or", "paragraph_id": "para_692" }, { "text": "(ii) leave an existing party subject to a sub-", "paragraph_id": "para_693" }, { "text": "stantial risk of incurring double, multiple,", "paragraph_id": "para_694" }, { "text": "or otherwise inconsistent obligations be-", "paragraph_id": "para_695" }, { "text": "cause of the interest.", "paragraph_id": "para_696" }, { "text": "FED. R. CIV. P. 19(a)(1).", "paragraph_id": "para_697" }, { "text": "If the party is necessary under Rule 19(a) and joinder", "paragraph_id": "para_698" }, { "text": "is not feasible, then we weigh the factors in Rule 19(b) to", "paragraph_id": "para_699" }, { "text": "“determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the ac-", "paragraph_id": "para_700" }, { "text": "tion should proceed.” FED. R. CIV. P. 19(b).", "paragraph_id": "para_701" }, { "text": "The Third Circuit divides Rule 19 analysis into three", "paragraph_id": "para_702" }, { "text": "steps: (1) “Considering the qualifications under Rule", "paragraph_id": "para_703" }, { "text": "19(a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B), should the absent party be", "paragraph_id": "para_704" }, { "text": "joined?”; (2) “If so, is joinder feasible—that is, can the party", "paragraph_id": "para_705" }, { "text": "be joined without depriving the court of the ability to hear", "paragraph_id": "para_706" }, { "text": "the case?”; and (3) “If joining the party is not feasible,", "paragraph_id": "para_707" }, { "text": "should the action continue in the party’s absence or be dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_708" }, { "text": "missed?” Epsilon Energy USA, Inc. v. Chesapeake Appala-", "paragraph_id": "para_709" }, { "text": "chia, LLC, 80 F.4th 223, 232 (3d Cir. 2023) (citation", "paragraph_id": "para_710" }, { "text": "omitted). According to the Third Circuit, “[t]he goal of our", "paragraph_id": "para_711" }, { "text": "inquiry . . . is to give effect to the rule maker’s aim.” Id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_712" }, { "text": "Case: 25-1074 Document: 60 Page: 20 Filed: 09/14/2026", "paragraph_id": "para_713" }, { "text": "TEXASLDPC INC. v. BROADCOM INC. 21", "paragraph_id": "para_714" }, { "text": "230 (citation omitted). Our analysis in this case focuses on", "paragraph_id": "para_715" }, { "text": "Epsilon Energy step one.", "paragraph_id": "para_716" }, { "text": "We have previously stated that our joinder analysis un-", "paragraph_id": "para_717" }, { "text": "der § 281 is “consistent with the policies underlying [Rule]", "paragraph_id": "para_718" }, { "text": "19.” Abbott Lab’ys v. Diamedix Corp., 47 F.3d 1128, 1133", "paragraph_id": "para_719" }, { "text": "(Fed. Cir. 1995); see also AsymmetRx, Inc. v. Biocare Med.,", "paragraph_id": "para_720" }, { "text": "LLC, 582 F.3d 1314, 1321–22 (Fed. Cir. 2009). We have", "paragraph_id": "para_721" }, { "text": "also noted that, because the “all substantial rights” inquiry", "paragraph_id": "para_722" }, { "text": "addresses the same concerns as Rule 19, “the same facts", "paragraph_id": "para_723" }, { "text": "upon which we rely to conclude that [a licensee] can pro-", "paragraph_id": "para_724" }, { "text": "ceed in the absence of” the patent owner may also support", "paragraph_id": "para_725" }, { "text": "a finding that the patent owner is not an indispensable", "paragraph_id": "para_726" }, { "text": "party under Rule 19. Luminara, 814 F.3d at 1351 n.5.", "paragraph_id": "para_727" }, { "text": "We conclude, as we suggested in Luminara, that A&M", "paragraph_id": "para_728" }, { "text": "is not a necessary party to this litigation under Rule", "paragraph_id": "para_729" }, { "text": "19(a)(1)(B) for the same reasons we used to determine Tex-", "paragraph_id": "para_730" }, { "text": "asLDPC possesses all substantial rights to the patents-in-", "paragraph_id": "para_731" }, { "text": "suit. See 814 F.3d at 1351 n.5. Because A&M has trans-", "paragraph_id": "para_732" }, { "text": "ferred “all substantial rights” in the asserted patents to", "paragraph_id": "para_733" }, { "text": "TexasLDPC, its absence does not “impair or impede”", "paragraph_id": "para_734" }, { "text": "A&M’s ability to protect its interest, see Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(i),", "paragraph_id": "para_735" }, { "text": "nor does it leave Defendants “subject to a substantial risk", "paragraph_id": "para_736" }, { "text": "of incurring double, multiple or otherwise inconsistent ob-", "paragraph_id": "para_737" }, { "text": "ligations,” see Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(ii).", "paragraph_id": "para_738" }, { "text": "B.", "paragraph_id": "para_739" }, { "text": "However, the district court also found that A&M was a", "paragraph_id": "para_740" }, { "text": "necessary party under Rule 19(a)(1)(A), because the court", "paragraph_id": "para_741" }, { "text": "could not “accord complete relief” to the parties without", "paragraph_id": "para_742" }, { "text": "A&M due to discovery concerns in the wake of A&M’s as-", "paragraph_id": "para_743" }, { "text": "sertion of sovereign immunity. Decision, 2023 WL", "paragraph_id": "para_744" }, { "text": "6387974, at *8. We find that a separate inquiry regarding", "paragraph_id": "para_745" }, { "text": "whether an absent party is necessary under Rule", "paragraph_id": "para_746" }, { "text": "19(a)(1)(A) may be required where the question of accord-", "paragraph_id": "para_747" }, { "text": "ing “complete relief” is not factually tied to the rights-grant", "paragraph_id": "para_748" }, { "text": "from patent owner to licensee. We now turn to that ques-", "paragraph_id": "para_749" }, { "text": "tion.", "paragraph_id": "para_750" }, { "text": "Case: 25-1074 Document: 60 Page: 21 Filed: 09/14/2026", "paragraph_id": "para_751" }, { "text": "TEXASLDPC INC. v. BROADCOM INC.22", "paragraph_id": "para_752" }, { "text": "TexasLDPC argues that A&M is not a necessary party", "paragraph_id": "para_753" }, { "text": "because the district court can accord complete relief to the", "paragraph_id": "para_754" }, { "text": "parties without A&M’s participation. Appellant Br. 47.", "paragraph_id": "para_755" }, { "text": "TexasLDPC insists that the district court’s reliance on the", "paragraph_id": "para_756" }, { "text": "inability to obtain certain discovery information from A&M", "paragraph_id": "para_757" }, { "text": "was in error, because it is unrelated to whether the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_758" }, { "text": "can be accorded proper relief. Id. at 47–48. We agree.", "paragraph_id": "para_759" }, { "text": "Third Circuit precedent demonstrates that Rule", "paragraph_id": "para_760" }, { "text": "19(a)(1)(A)’s reference to “complete relief” means that the", "paragraph_id": "para_761" }, { "text": "court must only “avoid partial or hollow relief.” Sindia Ex-", "paragraph_id": "para_762" }, { "text": "pedition, Inc. v. Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel, Known as", "paragraph_id": "para_763" }, { "text": "The Sindia, 895 F.2d 116, 121 (3d Cir. 1990). Joinder is", "paragraph_id": "para_764" }, { "text": "not required where “certain forms of relief are unavailable", "paragraph_id": "para_765" }, { "text": "due to a party’s absence,” but “meaningful relief can still be", "paragraph_id": "para_766" }, { "text": "provided.” Id. (citing 3 MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 19.07", "paragraph_id": "para_767" }, { "text": "(2d ed. 1989)).", "paragraph_id": "para_768" }, { "text": "Accordingly, we ask whether A&M’s absence would", "paragraph_id": "para_769" }, { "text": "provide Defendants and TexasLDPC, the parties to this lit-", "paragraph_id": "para_770" }, { "text": "igation, only with “hollow” relief. Defendants and the dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_771" }, { "text": "trict court both suggest that TexasLDPC’s reliance upon a", "paragraph_id": "para_772" }, { "text": "damages theory consisting of a reasonable royalty based on", "paragraph_id": "para_773" }, { "text": "a hypothetical negotiation—assessed using the Georgia-", "paragraph_id": "para_774" }, { "text": "Pacific factors—has made evidence controlled by A&M es-", "paragraph_id": "para_775" }, { "text": "sential to the district court’s damages calculation. Deci-", "paragraph_id": "para_776" }, { "text": "sion, 2023 WL 6387974, at *8–9; Appellee Br. 50–52.", "paragraph_id": "para_777" }, { "text": "Defendants contend that accessing “A&M’s licensing infor-", "paragraph_id": "para_778" }, { "text": "mation” is necessary, noting that a patent owner’s “techno-", "paragraph_id": "para_779" }, { "text": "logically and economically comparable” licenses are", "paragraph_id": "para_780" }, { "text": "relevant to the hypothetical negotiation analysis. Appellee", "paragraph_id": "para_781" }, { "text": "Br. 51–52 (citing Bio-Rad Lab’ys, Inc. v. 10X Genomics,", "paragraph_id": "para_782" }, { "text": "Inc., 967 F.3d 1353, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2020)). This argument", "paragraph_id": "para_783" }, { "text": "fails for two reasons.", "paragraph_id": "para_784" }, { "text": "First, Rule 19 is not a discovery tool. The Third Circuit", "paragraph_id": "para_785" }, { "text": "notes the joinder rules “direct courts to determine which", "paragraph_id": "para_786" }, { "text": "parties are really needed” in a litigation. Epsilon Energy,", "paragraph_id": "para_787" }, { "text": "80 F.4th at 227. Other regional circuits have explicitly", "paragraph_id": "para_788" }, { "text": "Case: 25-1074 Document: 60 Page: 22 Filed: 09/14/2026", "paragraph_id": "para_789" }, { "text": "TEXASLDPC INC. v. BROADCOM INC. 23", "paragraph_id": "para_790" }, { "text": "stated that the necessary party inquiry is “something quite", "paragraph_id": "para_791" }, { "text": "different” from “the questions and problems associated", "paragraph_id": "para_792" }, { "text": "with obtaining evidence.” Costello Pub. Co. v. Rotelle, 670", "paragraph_id": "para_793" }, { "text": "F.2d 1035, 1044 (D.C. Cir. 1981); see also Johnson v. Smith-", "paragraph_id": "para_794" }, { "text": "sonian Inst., 189 F.3d 180, 188–89 (2d Cir. 1999) (noting it", "paragraph_id": "para_795" }, { "text": "would be “[im]proper” to find a party was necessary merely", "paragraph_id": "para_796" }, { "text": "because the plaintiff needed to obtain evidence from the", "paragraph_id": "para_797" }, { "text": "party); Hefley v. Textron, Inc., 713 F.2d 1487, 1498 (10th", "paragraph_id": "para_798" }, { "text": "Cir. 1983) (“We have found no cases which approve of the", "paragraph_id": "para_799" }, { "text": "use of [R]ule 19 simply to allow greater discovery, and we", "paragraph_id": "para_800" }, { "text": "can discern no policy which such an expansion of the rule", "paragraph_id": "para_801" }, { "text": "would promote.”). We agree that Rule 19 “does not list the", "paragraph_id": "para_802" }, { "text": "need to obtain evidence from an entity or individual as a", "paragraph_id": "para_803" }, { "text": "factor bearing upon whether or not a party is necessary or", "paragraph_id": "para_804" }, { "text": "indispensable to a just adjudication.” Costello, 670 F.2d at", "paragraph_id": "para_805" }, { "text": "1044. Neither the district court nor Defendants point to", "paragraph_id": "para_806" }, { "text": "any contrary authority.", "paragraph_id": "para_807" }, { "text": "Second, Defendants’ alleged need for evidence from", "paragraph_id": "para_808" }, { "text": "A&M is undercut by evidence in the record and Defendants’", "paragraph_id": "para_809" }, { "text": "filings. Georgia-Pacific lists fifteen non-exclusive factors,", "paragraph_id": "para_810" }, { "text": "only one of which specifically asks for information in the", "paragraph_id": "para_811" }, { "text": "licensor’s sole control. See 318 F. Supp. at 1120.", "paragraph_id": "para_812" }, { "text": "However, even if we agreed with Defendants that addi-", "paragraph_id": "para_813" }, { "text": "tional licensing information held exclusively by A&M is rel-", "paragraph_id": "para_814" }, { "text": "evant to other Geogia-Pacific factors, Defendants conceded", "paragraph_id": "para_815" }, { "text": "that A&M already produced the only two A&M licenses di-", "paragraph_id": "para_816" }, { "text": "rectly related to the asserted patents: (i) the A&M-Tex-", "paragraph_id": "para_817" }, { "text": "asLDPC Agreement and (ii) the A&M-Marvell agreement.7", "paragraph_id": "para_818" }, { "text": "Moreover, Defendants’ damages expert, Mr. Brian Napper,", "paragraph_id": "para_819" }, { "text": "submitted a report analyzing each Georgia-Pacific factor", "paragraph_id": "para_820" }, { "text": "without the additional information the district court and", "paragraph_id": "para_821" }, { "text": "Defendants argue is necessary. See generally J.A. 22263,", "paragraph_id": "para_822" }, { "text": "7 See Oral Arg. at 26:23–46, available at", "paragraph_id": "para_823" }, { "text": "http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1074_060", "paragraph_id": "para_824" }, { "text": "22026.mp3.", "paragraph_id": "para_825" }, { "text": "Case: 25-1074 Document: 60 Page: 23 Filed: 09/14/2026", "paragraph_id": "para_826" }, { "text": "TEXASLDPC INC. v. BROADCOM INC.24", "paragraph_id": "para_827" }, { "text": "22265–303. Mr. Napper’s ability to form a damages con-", "paragraph_id": "para_828" }, { "text": "clusion without the missing information suggests addi-", "paragraph_id": "para_829" }, { "text": "tional evidence from A&M would, at most, be supplemental", "paragraph_id": "para_830" }, { "text": "rather than necessary. Therefore, we conclude that the dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_831" }, { "text": "trict court may accord complete relief to the existing par-", "paragraph_id": "para_832" }, { "text": "ties without A&M’s participation.", "paragraph_id": "para_833" }, { "text": "While there may be circumstances where a patent", "paragraph_id": "para_834" }, { "text": "owner that has granted all substantial rights to a licensee", "paragraph_id": "para_835" }, { "text": "could be a necessary party under Rule 19, that is not the", "paragraph_id": "para_836" }, { "text": "case here because Defendants seek only discovery from", "paragraph_id": "para_837" }, { "text": "A&M. The mere fact that A&M may possess certain infor-", "paragraph_id": "para_838" }, { "text": "mation does not turn an absent party into one that is nec-", "paragraph_id": "para_839" }, { "text": "essary under Rule 19(a).8 Defendants have failed to", "paragraph_id": "para_840" }, { "text": "demonstrate that the district court “cannot accord com-", "paragraph_id": "para_841" }, { "text": "plete relief” in A&M’s absence.", "paragraph_id": "para_842" }, { "text": "Because we have reached our conclusion under Rule", "paragraph_id": "para_843" }, { "text": "19(a), we need not reach the district court’s balancing of the", "paragraph_id": "para_844" }, { "text": "Rule 19(b) factors. We hold A&M is not a necessary party", "paragraph_id": "para_845" }, { "text": "and, thus, the district court erred in dismissing the suit un-", "paragraph_id": "para_846" }, { "text": "der Rule 12(b)(7).", "paragraph_id": "para_847" }, { "text": "CONCLUSION", "paragraph_id": "para_848" }, { "text": "We have reviewed Defendants’ other arguments and", "paragraph_id": "para_849" }, { "text": "find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we find the Agree-", "paragraph_id": "para_850" }, { "text": "ment did not terminate when TexasLDPC became an en-", "paragraph_id": "para_851" }, { "text": "forcement entity, the Agreement granted TexasLDPC “all", "paragraph_id": "para_852" }, { "text": "substantial rights,” and A&M is not otherwise a necessary", "paragraph_id": "para_853" }, { "text": "8 For these same reasons we find Defendants’ argu-", "paragraph_id": "para_854" }, { "text": "ment that they would be prejudiced if the case proceeded", "paragraph_id": "para_855" }, { "text": "without A&M due to its control over discoverable infor-", "paragraph_id": "para_856" }, { "text": "mation related to Defendants’ counterclaims, see Appellee", "paragraph_id": "para_857" }, { "text": "Br. 54–55, which the district court did not base its dismis-", "paragraph_id": "para_858" }, { "text": "sal order upon, unavailing.", "paragraph_id": "para_859" }, { "text": "Case: 25-1074 Document: 60 Page: 24 Filed: 09/14/2026", "paragraph_id": "para_860" }, { "text": "TEXASLDPC INC. v. BROADCOM INC. 25", "paragraph_id": "para_861" }, { "text": "party. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district", "paragraph_id": "para_862" }, { "text": "court’s dismissal of this action.", "paragraph_id": "para_863" }, { "text": "REVERSED", "paragraph_id": "para_864" }, { "text": "COSTS", "paragraph_id": "para_865" }, { "text": "Costs to Appellant.", "paragraph_id": "para_866" }, { "text": "Case: 25-1074 Document: 60 Page: 25 Filed: 09/14/2026", "paragraph_id": "para_867" } ], "word_count": 7189, "cites": [ "236 F.3d\n684", "93 F.4th 136", "176\nF.4th 1326", "102\nF.4th 164", "823 F.3d 615", "966 F.3d 1316", "500 F.3d\n306", "101 F.4th 807", "394 F.3d 388", "604 F.3d 1354", "19\nF.4th 1315", "925 F.3d 1225", "814 F.3d 1343", "582 F.3d 1288", "738 F.3d 1320", "473 F.3d 1187", "211 F.3d 1245", "80 F.4th 223", "47 F.3d 1128", "582 F.3d 1314", "895 F.2d 116", "967 F.3d 1353", "670\nF.2d 1035", "189 F.3d 180", "713 F.2d 1487" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "1f41872d6cb6703e9e96b9313053446d9ea4a5f5b11d55de8685470365083483", "source_url": "https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1074.OPINION.9-14-2026_2754669.pdf", "fetched_at": "2026-10-06T09:14:31.266+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/cafc-25-1074-2026-09-14", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:cafc-25-1074-2026-09-14", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:cafc-25-1074-2026-09-14", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:cafc-25-1074-2026-09-14", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "1f41872d6cb6703e9e96b9313053446d9ea4a5f5b11d55de8685470365083483", "recomputed_sha256": "1f41872d6cb6703e9e96b9313053446d9ea4a5f5b11d55de8685470365083483", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-12T09:50:38.381Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:ac62e43b65ea8188e632707c30f2150ab0a43c6dd88ead68a1d614faa0c30244", "version": "legal-2026-10-12", "expires": "2026-10-13T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-12+legal-2026-10-12+2026-10-12T09:45:31", "content_hash": "sha256:ac62e43b65ea8188e632707c30f2150ab0a43c6dd88ead68a1d614faa0c30244", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-12T10:50:38.601Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:cafc-25-1074-2026-09-14", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:cafc-25-1074-2026-09-14" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:cafc-25-1074-2026-09-14" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:cafc-25-1074-2026-09-14" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }