DCT

1:25-cv-00850

Velocity Communication Tech LLC v. Dell Tech Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bayard, P.A.
Case Identification: Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Dell Technologies Inc., 1:25-cv-00850, D. Del., 07/09/2025
Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted as proper in the District of Delaware on the basis that Defendant is a Delaware corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products incorporating Wi-Fi 6 (IEEE 802.11ax) functionality infringe eleven U.S. patents related to wireless communication technologies.
Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns technologies implemented in the IEEE 802.11ax standard, a foundational protocol for modern high-efficiency wireless local area networks (WLANs) marketed as Wi-Fi 6.
Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant had knowledge of patents essential to the 802.11ax standard based on Letters of Assurance submitted to the IEEE by patent originators NXP and ZTE. It further alleges direct knowledge of the patents-in-suit based on a letter sent to Dell by Plaintiff's counsel approximately three months prior to the complaint's filing.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-12-20	U.S. Patent No. 8,270,343 Priority Date
2005-12-07	U.S. Patent No. 8,265,573 Priority Date
2006-03-09	U.S. Patent No. 8,238,859 Priority Date
2007-03-23	U.S. Patent No. 8,675,570 Priority Date
2007-08-28	U.S. Patent No. 8,238,832 Priority Date
2007-10-15	U.S. Patent Nos. 8,213,870; 8,644,765; 9,083,401; 10,200,096 Priority Date
2008-09-15	U.S. Patent No. 8,260,213 Priority Date
2012-06-29	U.S. Patent No. 9,596,648 Priority Date
2012-07-03	U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870 Issued
2012-08-07	U.S. Patent No. 8,238,832 Issued
2012-08-07	U.S. Patent No. 8,238,859 Issued
2012-09-04	U.S. Patent No. 8,260,213 Issued
2012-09-11	U.S. Patent No. 8,265,573 Issued
2012-09-18	U.S. Patent No. 8,270,343 Issued
2014-02-04	U.S. Patent No. 8,644,765 Issued
2014-03-18	U.S. Patent No. 8,675,570 Issued
2015-07-14	U.S. Patent No. 9,083,401 Issued
2017-03-14	U.S. Patent No. 9,596,648 Issued
2019-02-05	U.S. Patent No. 10,200,096 Issued
2020-09-29	NXP submits Letter of Assurance to IEEE for 802.11ax patents (Compl. ¶22)
2024-03-04	ZTE submits Letter of Assurance to IEEE for 802.11ax patents (Compl. ¶22)
2025-04-15	Plaintiff’s counsel sends letter to Dell regarding patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶23)
2025-07-09	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,675,570 - Scalable OFDM and OFDMA Bandwidth Allocation in Communication Systems

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent addresses wireless communication systems where the carrier distance between neighboring systems cannot be evenly divided by the subcarrier spacing, which can cause inter-carrier interference at the edge subcarriers (’570 Patent, col. 5:5-12). Conventional systems use guard bands to mitigate this interference, but this reduces spectral efficiency by wasting bandwidth (’570 Patent, col. 5:12-24).
The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for allocating bandwidth where a common subcarrier spacing is chosen to evenly divide all nominal carrier bandwidths, and subcarriers are aligned across the boundaries of adjacent carriers (’570 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:45-50). This technique allows for the reduction or elimination of guard bands, thereby improving spectral efficiency (’570 Patent, col. 5:35-42).
Technical Importance: This scalable bandwidth allocation approach is significant for high-density wireless environments, as it enables more efficient use of limited spectrum, a key goal of standards like 802.11ax. (Compl. ¶18, ¶71).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts at least independent claim 9 (Compl. ¶65, referencing claim 1, which depends on claim 9).
Essential elements of independent claim 9 include:
- dividing a frequency band into a plurality of channels with nominal channel bandwidths;
- dividing each channel into a plurality of subchannels each comprising a plurality of subcarriers separated by a common subcarrier spacing;
- wherein the common subcarrier spacing is aligned in frequency between boundaries of adjacent carriers to reduce or eliminate inter-carrier interference;
- and wherein the common subcarrier spacing can evenly divide each of multiple of different channel raster frequencies of one or more frequency bands.

U.S. Patent No. 8,260,213 - Method and Apparatus to Adjust a Tunable Reactive Element

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes that tunable reactive elements, such as Voltage Variable Capacitors (VVCs), can experience a "drift in reactance" due to factors like changes in temperature or residual polarization (’213 Patent, col. 1:21-25). This drift can degrade the performance of devices that rely on these components, such as antennas in wireless transceivers (’213 Patent, col. 1:28-31).
The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method and apparatus to automatically adjust a tunable reactive element. A signal source is coupled to a reference reactive element to generate a signal, and a detection circuit measures the reactance of this reference element. An error correction circuit then compares this measured reactance to a desired reactance, and generates a correction signal to adjust a primary tunable reactive element, thereby reducing the difference between its measured and desired reactance (’213 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:8-19).
Technical Importance: This self-correcting mechanism allows wireless devices to maintain optimal antenna performance despite environmental changes or component aging, which is critical for ensuring reliable connectivity.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶83).
Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- a signal source coupled to a first tunable reactive element to generate a first signal;
- a reactance detection circuit to detect a reactance of the first tunable reactive element from the first signal and generate a second signal representing the reactance;
- an error correction circuit to receive a control signal representing a desired reactance, detect a drift from the desired reactance based on a comparison, and generate a third signal to adjust the reactance of the first tunable reactive element.

U.S. Patent No. 8,238,832 - Antenna Optimum Beam Forming for Multiple Protocol Coexistence on a Wireless Device

Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for a wireless device with multiple antennas to simultaneously communicate using different protocols (e.g., WLAN and Bluetooth) by forming distinct antenna beam patterns. It determines the angle of arrival for each protocol's signal and creates optimized beam patterns that maximize signal strength for the intended path while minimizing interference along the other protocol's path. (Compl. ¶31; ’832 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 18 (Compl. ¶101).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that all Dell Access Points that practice the IEEE 802.11ax standard infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶95).

U.S. Patent No. 8,270,343 - Broadcasting of Textual and Multimedia Information

Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a method for broadcasting information that contains both textual (semantic) and multimedia (presentation) data. The system separates the two data types and transmits them in multiple bursts, where each burst contains the complete textual portion and a sub-block of the multimedia portion, allowing a receiver to quickly access and display the essential textual information before the full multimedia content is downloaded. (Compl. ¶34; ’343 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶119).
Accused Features: The complaint accuses all Dell devices that practice the 802.11ax standard of infringement. (Compl. ¶113).

U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870 - Beamforming Using Predefined Spatial Mapping Matrices

Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for transmitting data packets to a receiver using a set of predefined spatial mapping matrices from a codebook. The system iteratively transmits packets using different matrices and, based on feedback regarding the quality of reception, selects an optimal matrix for subsequent transmissions, improving beamforming performance without traditional channel training overhead. (Compl. ¶37; ’870 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶137).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Dell's Access Points that practice the 802.11ax standard infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶131).

U.S. Patent No. 8,644,765 - Beamforming Using Predefined Spatial Mapping Matrices

Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the '870 patent family, this patent further details a method for beamforming where data packets are iteratively transmitted using predefined spatial mapping matrices. Channel estimates are received from the receiver in response, and one of the predefined matrices is selected for transmitting additional data packets based on those estimates. (Compl. ¶40; ’765 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶155).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Dell's Access Points that practice the 802.11ax standard infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶149).

U.S. Patent No. 9,083,401 - Beamforming Using Predefined Spatial Mapping Matrices

Technology Synopsis: Also in the '870 patent family, this patent describes a method where a transmission controller iteratively transmits data packets in different directions using predefined spatial mapping matrices. Based on channel estimates received from the receiver, the controller selects an optimal matrix for subsequent data transmissions. (Compl. ¶43; ’401 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶173).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Dell's Access Points that practice the 802.11ax standard infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶167).

U.S. Patent No. 10,200,096 - Beamforming Using Predefined Spatial Mapping Matrices

Technology Synopsis: A further continuation in the '870 patent family, this patent describes transmitting data packets using predefined spatial mapping matrices until each matrix is used. Based on quality of reception feedback for each, one matrix is selected as having the highest quality for transmitting additional data packets. (Compl. ¶46; ’096 Patent, Claim 1).
Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶191).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Dell's Access Points that practice the 802.11ax standard infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶185).

U.S. Patent No. 8,238,859 - Radio Receiver

Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses a method of configuring a radio receiver that has at least one adjustable component. The method involves systematically setting the component to different values from a plurality of options, measuring the quality of a received signal at each setting, and determining the optimal value that provides the highest measured signal quality, thereby auto-calibrating the receiver. (Compl. ¶49; ’859 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶209).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that all Dell devices that practice the 802.11ax standard and are certified by the Wi-Fi Alliance infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶203).

U.S. Patent No. 8,265,573 - Wireless Subscriber Communication Unit and Method of Power Control with Back-Off Therefore

Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method of power control for a wireless transmitter, particularly during the "ramp-down" phase at the end of a transmission burst. To improve performance, the system performs a "back-off" of the output power (a slight reduction) a specified time prior to the completion of the burst, which allows the power amplifier to exit its "dead-zone" and track the ramp-down signal more smoothly. (Compl. ¶52; ’573 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 12 (Compl. ¶227).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Dell devices that practice the 802.11ax standard with the 6E extension. (Compl. ¶221).

U.S. Patent No. 9,596,648 - Unified Beacon Format

Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to a unified format for beacon frames in a wireless network that accommodates both "short beacons" and "full beacons." The format includes a first portion that is common to both beacon types and a second portion that varies, along with an indication of whether the frame is a short or full beacon, simplifying beacon processing for client devices. (Compl. ¶55; ’648 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶245).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Dell's Access Points that practice the 802.11ax standard infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶239).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification: The complaint accuses a broad range of Dell products, including those under the Alienware, Inspiron, Latitude, Precision, XPS, Vostro, and OptiPlex brands, that are capable of practicing the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶59, ¶77).
Functionality and Market Context: The core accused functionality is the implementation of the IEEE 802.11ax standard in Dell’s products (Compl. ¶62, ¶80). The complaint alleges that compliance with this standard necessarily practices the inventions of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶3). The complaint includes a screenshot from Dell's website that promotes the benefits of Wi-Fi 6, such as "faster wireless speeds, reduced latency, improved network efficiency, and increased device capacity" (Compl. ¶21). This screenshot from Dell's marketing materials is presented as evidence that Dell touts Wi-Fi 6 as a key selling point for its computers. (Compl. ¶21). The complaint asserts these products are sold and used throughout the United States (Compl. ¶63).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits detailing its infringement theories for the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶62, ¶80). The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

U.S. Patent No. 8,675,570 Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s theory of infringement for the ’570 Patent is predicated on the assertion that the patent is essential to the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶3). It alleges that the functionality recited in the patent, specifically relating to OFDMA technology developed by ZTE, was incorporated into the standard (Compl. ¶62, ¶71). Therefore, by making, using, and selling devices that practice the 802.11ax standard, Dell is alleged to directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’570 Patent (Compl. ¶65).

U.S. Patent No. 8,260,213 Infringement Allegations

Similar to the ’570 patent, the infringement argument for the ’213 Patent is based on its alleged essentiality to the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶3). The complaint alleges that the functionality recited in the patent has been incorporated into the standard, and that Dell’s 802.11ax-compliant devices directly infringe at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶80, ¶83). The complaint does not specify which component of the 802.11ax standard or the accused products performs the claimed function of adjusting a tunable reactive element.

Identified Points of Contention

Scope Questions: The core of the dispute appears to be one of standards-essentiality. A primary question for the court will be whether compliance with the mandatory provisions of the IEEE 802.11ax standard necessarily requires practicing every limitation of the asserted patent claims.
Technical Questions: The complaint’s broad allegations raise the question of what specific technical evidence will be presented to map claim elements to the operation of the accused products. For the ’213 Patent, a key technical question is what structure within a standard Wi-Fi 6 chipset performs the function of a "tunable reactive element" that is adjusted according to the specific error-correction feedback loop required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For U.S. Patent No. 8,675,570

The Term: "common subcarrier spacing"
Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to the invention, as it dictates the relationship between adjacent channels and carriers. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the subcarrier spacing used in the 802.11ax standard as implemented by Dell meets the "common" and alignment requirements of the claim across different channel bandwidths.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not limit "common" to a single, fixed numerical value but rather to a spacing that is shared and aligned between adjacent carriers to reduce interference (’570 Patent, col. 8:30-45). This may support an interpretation that covers any spacing scheme that achieves the functional goal of alignment.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, such as 12.5 KHz and 10 KHz, that are shown to evenly divide various nominal channel bandwidths (e.g., 5, 10, 20, 40 MHz) (’570 Patent, Tables 1 & 2). A defendant may argue that the term should be construed in light of these exemplary embodiments.

For U.S. Patent No. 8,260,213

The Term: "tunable reactive element"
Context and Importance: This term defines the physical component being adjusted. The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether this term is construed broadly to cover any adjustable RF component in a transceiver or is limited to the specific types of components disclosed in the specification.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is general, not specifying a particular type of component. The specification mentions that the element "can utilize" technologies like Voltage Variable Capacitors (VVCs), semiconductor varactors, or MEMS switches, suggesting these are examples rather than an exhaustive list (’213 Patent, col. 3:32-38).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: All detailed embodiments and figures appear to focus on Voltage Variable Capacitors, particularly those using tunable dielectric materials like Barium Strontium Titanate (BST) (’213 Patent, col. 4:5-15; FIGs. 4-6). An argument could be made that the invention is limited to the technologies actually described and enabled.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Dell advertises and encourages users to utilize the 802.11ax functionality of the Accused Products through marketing, user manuals, and product support, with the knowledge that this use would constitute infringement (Compl. ¶66, ¶69). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the accused components are not staple articles of commerce, have no substantial non-infringing uses, and are known by Dell to be especially adapted for use in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶70, ¶88).
Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Dell's purported knowledge of the patents-in-suit prior to the lawsuit. This knowledge is alleged to arise from at least three sources: (1) Letters of Assurance submitted to the IEEE by NXP and ZTE concerning patents essential to the 802.11ax standard, dating back to September 2020 (Compl. ¶22, ¶67); (2) a letter from Velocity’s counsel to Dell on April 15, 2025, which allegedly identified the patents and invited Dell to take a license (Compl. ¶23, ¶67); and (3) knowledge from the service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶68).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

A core issue will be one of standards-essentiality: will the plaintiff be able to prove that the asserted claims of all eleven patents are essential to mandatory implementations of the IEEE 802.11ax standard, such that any standards-compliant Dell product necessarily infringes?
A key evidentiary question will be one of technical specificity: beyond general allegations of standards compliance, what specific evidence will demonstrate how the accused Dell products meet each limitation of the asserted claims, particularly for patents with specific circuit-level or method-step requirements like the ’213 and ’573 patents?
The dispute over willfulness will likely center on the question of pre-suit knowledge: did the industry-wide Letters of Assurance and the plaintiff's single pre-suit letter provide Dell with knowledge of infringement that was sufficiently specific and credible to meet the high bar for willful infringement?