UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

OPTIMORPHIX, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

BROADCOM INC., 

 Defendant. 

Civil Action No. 5:23-cv-134-RWS-JBB

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF OPTIMORPHIX, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO

BROADCOM INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

Case 5:23-cv-00134-RWS-JBB Document 24 Filed 02/23/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 407
1

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss should be denied as moot. On November 20, 2023,

Plaintiff OptiMorphix, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “OptiMorphix”) filed its Complaint in this case against 

Defendant Broadcom Inc. (“Defendant” or “Broadcom”). On January 26, 2024, Broadcom filed a

Motion to Dismiss OptiMorphix’s Original Complaint. Dkt. No. 13.

Through meeting and conferring, OptiMorphix, Broadcom, and Broadcom’s subsidiary, 

CA, Inc., agreed that OptiMorphix would file a First Amended Complaint substituting CA, Inc. 

for Broadcom. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), OptiMorphix obtained 

Broadcom and CA, Inc.’s written consent to file the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in this 

action.

OptiMorphix’s FAC directs the infringement allegations against a new party (CA, Inc.).

Upon its filing, the FAC became the operative complaint, rendering Broadcom’s Motion to 

Dismiss (Dkt. No. 13) moot. See, e.g., Stragent v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

156076, at *3-4 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2017) (Schroeder, J.) (denying a motion to dismiss as moot 

because “[a]n amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders the original 

complaint as having no legal effect.”) (citing King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994));

Oscar Private Equity Invs. v. Allegiance Telecom, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4169, *7-8 (N.D. Tex. 

Mar. 17, 2004) (explaining “Plaintiffs inform the Court that they intend to file an amended 

complaint and that the amended complaint will set forth additional allegations . . . Because 

Plaintiffs will file an amended complaint, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as moot.”).

Because the First Amended Complaint has superseded the Original Complaint and become 

the operative pleading, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss the Original Complaint as moot. Stragent, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156076, at *3-4. 

Case 5:23-cv-00134-RWS-JBB Document 24 Filed 02/23/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 408
2 

Dated: February 23, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Daniel P. Hipskind____________________

Dorian S. Berger (CA SB No. 264424) 

Daniel P. Hipskind (CA SB No. 266763) 

Erin E. McCracken (CA SB No. 244523) 

BERGER & HIPSKIND LLP

9538 Brighton Way, Ste. 320 

Beverly Hills, CA 90210 

Telephone: 323-886-3430 

Facsimile: 323-978-5508 

E-mail: dsb@bergerhipskind.com 

E-mail: dph@bergerhipskind.com 

E-mail: eem@bergerhipskind.com 

Elizabeth L. DeRieux

State Bar No. 05770585 

Capshaw DeRieux, LLP 

114 E. Commerce Ave. 

Gladewater, TX 75647

Telephone: 903-845-5770 

E-mail: ederieux@capshawlaw.com

Attorneys for OptiMorphix, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that on February 23, 2024, a copy of the 

foregoing document was served on all counsel who have appeared in this case via email.

/s/ Daniel P. Hipskind

 Daniel P. Hipskind

Case 5:23-cv-00134-RWS-JBB Document 24 Filed 02/23/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 409