DCT

1:25-cv-00850

Velocity Communication Tech LLC v. Dell Tech Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00850, D. Del., 10/31/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant entities are organized and existing under the laws of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s extensive portfolio of laptops, desktops, and workstations compliant with the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard infringes eleven patents related to wireless communication technologies, including bandwidth allocation, RF tuning, beamforming, and data broadcasting.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue pertains to fundamental aspects of modern high-efficiency wireless local area networks (WLANs), which are foundational to connectivity for a vast range of consumer and enterprise electronic devices.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the patents-in-suit, originating from companies including NXP Semiconductors and ZTE Corporation, cover technologies incorporated into the mandatory sections of the 802.11ax standard. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant had knowledge of the patents through industry-standard Letters of Assurance submitted to the IEEE, a direct notice letter from Plaintiff dated April 15, 2025, and the filing of the original complaint on July 9, 2025. These allegations form the basis for claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-12-20 ’343 Patent Priority Date
2005-12-07 ’573 Patent Priority Date
2006-03-09 ’859 Patent Priority Date
2007-03-23 ’570 Patent Priority Date
2007-08-28 ’832 Patent Priority Date
2007-10-15 ’870, ’765, ’401, ’096 Patents Priority Date
2008-09-15 ’213 Patent Priority Date
2012-07-03 U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870 Issued
2012-08-07 U.S. Patent No. 8,238,832 and 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
2012-06-29 ’648 Patent Priority Date
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
2016-03-01 First draft of 802.11ax Standard published
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
2021-02-09 IEEE approves final 802.11ax Standard
2024-03-04 ZTE submits Letter of Assurance to IEEE
2025-04-15 Velocity sends notice letter to Dell
2025-07-09 Original Complaint Filed
2025-10-31 First Amended 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: In conventional wireless communication systems using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM), non-data-bearing "guard bands" were inserted between frequency channels to prevent interference, creating wasteful gaps in the usable spectrum and reducing data capacity (Compl. ¶¶27-28). The patent specification notes this problem arose because subcarrier spacing could not be divided evenly by nominal carrier bandwidths, forcing some subcarriers at the channel edges to be left unused ('570 Patent, col. 6:27-34).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using a common, precisely chosen subcarrier spacing that is mathematically aligned with both the channel raster (the grid of center frequencies) and all nominal channel bandwidths (Compl. ¶30). This precise alignment allows multiple carriers to be aggregated with reduced or eliminated guard bands, which minimizes inter-carrier interference and maximizes the use of available spectrum (Compl. ¶¶30, 32).
    • Technical Importance: This technique improves spectral efficiency, enabling flexible aggregation of different channel widths and supporting multiple simultaneous users with minimal wasted spectrum, thereby enhancing the data capacity and overall efficiency of a wireless network (Compl. ¶¶31-32).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶155).
    • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
      • Allocating multiple different nominal channels sequentially next to one another without guard bands in between.
      • Assigning all subcarriers in the channels to have a common subcarrier spacing and to be aligned across the channels.
      • Selecting an appropriate sampling frequency.
      • Using subcarriers for signal transmission without assigning guard subcarriers at the ends of the nominal channel bandwidth.
    • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims of the ’570 Patent, including at least claim 1" (Compl. ¶155).

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

  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: Radio frequency (RF) transmission systems suffer from impedance mismatch and "reactance drift," where the properties of tunable components like Voltage Variable Capacitors (VVCs) change due to factors such as temperature or residual polarization ('213 Patent, col. 1:19-21). This drift degrades performance, causing poor power transfer, signal distortion, and reduced antenna performance (Compl. ¶¶38, 40).
    • The Patented Solution: The patent describes an adaptive tuning system that dynamically corrects for reactance drift in real time (Compl. ¶41). The system employs a reactance detection circuit to monitor the transmitted signal's properties and an error correction circuit that compares the measured reactance to a desired value, generating a correction signal to adjust the tunable element and maintain optimal tuning ('213 Patent, Abstract).
    • Technical Importance: This solution provides for efficient and high-fidelity signal transmission by ensuring the antenna system remains optimally tuned, which is particularly beneficial in modern devices compliant with standards like 802.11ax that communicate over multiple frequencies and bandwidths (Compl. ¶43).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶172).
    • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
      • Receiving a first signal from a signal source coupled to a first tunable reactive element.
      • Producing a second signal representing a measure of reactance of the element.
      • Receiving a control signal representing a desired reactance.
      • Comparing the second signal to the control signal to produce a difference signal.
      • Integrating the difference signal to produce a third signal.
      • Applying the third signal to the tunable reactive element to reduce the difference between the measured and desired reactance.
    • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims of the ’213 Patent, including at least claim 1" (Compl. ¶172).

Multi-Patent Capsule Summaries

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,238,832

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,238,832, Antenna Optimum Beam Forming for Multiple Protocol Coexistence on a Wireless Device, issued August 7, 2012.
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses signal interference (crosstalk) that arises when a single wireless device must communicate simultaneously with multiple remote devices using different protocols (Compl. ¶47). The claimed solution is a method of generating optimized antenna beam patterns that not only direct a signal to its intended recipient but also actively suppress signal strength in the direction of other simultaneous communications, thereby increasing throughput and reliability (Compl. ¶50).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claim 18 (Compl. ¶189).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are Dell's Wi-Fi 6-compliant products that function as Access Points (APs) and allegedly practice the claimed beamforming methods (Compl. ¶184).

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,270,343

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,270,343, Broadcasting of Textual and Multimedia Information, issued September 18, 2012.
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the inefficiency of broadcasting mixed-media content, where conventional methods treated large transmissions as a single entity, leading to high latency and poor bandwidth utilization (Compl. ¶58). The solution involves packaging a single block of text with multiple sub-blocks of related multimedia data into "time-sliced packets," enabling efficient, unified transmission of disparate data types (Compl. ¶59).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 11, 13, and 15 (Compl. ¶206).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are Dell's Wi-Fi 6-compliant devices that allegedly use the patented data packaging and broadcasting techniques (Compl. ¶201).

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870, Beamforming Using Predefined Spatial Mapping Matrices, issued August 21, 2012.
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses technical deficiencies in MIMO system beamforming, including inefficient "sounding" processes that added overhead and delayed data transmission (Compl. ¶71). The claimed solution is an adaptive, codebook-based method that iteratively transmits data using different predefined spatial mapping matrices, selects the best matrix based on measured reception quality (e.g., packet-error-rate), and re-selects if quality falls below a threshold (Compl. ¶¶71-72).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1, 2, 3, 5-10, 12-14, and 16-20 (Compl. ¶223).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are Dell's Wi-Fi 6-compliant Access Points, which are alleged to use these adaptive, codebook-based beamforming methods (Compl. ¶218).

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,644,765

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,644,765, Beamforming Using Predefined Spatial Mapping Matrices, issued February 4, 2014.
    • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the '870 patent family, this patent addresses similar problems of control overhead and range limitations in traditional beamforming (Compl. ¶84). The disclosed solution involves iteratively transmitting data packets using different predefined spatial mapping matrices, selecting a matrix based on channel estimates received from the receiver, and adaptively re-selecting another matrix if a packet error rate threshold is exceeded (Compl. ¶85).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1-4, 7-10, 12, and 14-17 (Compl. ¶240).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are Dell's Wi-Fi 6-compliant Access Points that allegedly implement this adaptive beamforming functionality (Compl. ¶235).

  • U.S. Patent No. 9,083,401

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,083,401, Beamforming Using Predefined Spatial Mapping Matrices, issued July 14, 2015.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent, also in the '870 family, addresses the inefficiency and overhead of traditional beamforming sounding procedures (Compl. ¶94). The invention requires both channel-estimate-driven selection and reception-quality-metric-based re-selection among a codebook of predefined directional matrices to improve range, reduce overhead, and increase throughput (Compl. ¶¶96, 99).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, and 15-18 (Compl. ¶257).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are Dell's Wi-Fi 6-compliant Access Points (Compl. ¶252).

  • U.S. Patent No. 10,200,096

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,200,096, Beamforming Using Predefined Spatial Mapping Matrices, issued February 5, 2019.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent, also in the '870 family, identifies a range and robustness problem in prior art sounding methods where the sounding packet could not reliably reach the receiver at ranges where beamformed data would work (Compl. ¶106). The solution involves using a codebook of predefined spatial mapping matrices, measuring a reception quality metric (e.g., packet error rate) for each, and selecting the matrix with the highest quality for subsequent transmissions (Compl. ¶108).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 (Compl. ¶274).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are Dell's Wi-Fi 6-compliant Access Points (Compl. ¶269).

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,238,859

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,238,859, Radio Receiver, issued August 7, 2012.
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses poor performance in radio receivers caused by manufacturing variations in components and operation in dynamic wireless environments (Compl. ¶¶118, 120). The invention is an iterative method for dynamically configuring a receiver by setting an adjustable component to different values, measuring the resulting signal quality for each setting, and repeating the cycle to determine the optimal configuration (Compl. ¶124).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18-22 (Compl. ¶291).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are Dell's Wi-Fi 6 certified devices that allegedly use this iterative self-configuration method (Compl. ¶286).

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,265,573

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,265,573, Wireless Subscriber Communication Unit and Method of Power Control with Back-Off Therefore, issued September 11, 2012.
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses challenges in managing transmitter power output, particularly in high-power transmissions where closed-loop control systems may not operate with sufficient bandwidth to track reference signals rapidly enough (Compl. ¶¶131-132). The solution involves methods for advanced power control, including backing off output power, to prevent spectral degradation and interference with adjacent channels (Compl. ¶¶130, 133).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claim 12 (Compl. ¶308).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are Dell's Wi-Fi 6 devices that support the 6E extension, which are alleged to use the claimed power control methods (Compl. ¶303).

  • U.S. Patent No. 9,596,648

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,596,648, Unified Beacon Format, issued March 14, 2017.
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of inefficient broadcasting of network information via beacon frames, which can become large, consume excessive airtime, and drain power on battery-operated devices (Compl. ¶¶140-141). The solution is a "unified beacon format" that allows for distinct and concise "short" beacons and more comprehensive "full" beacons, improving efficiency and reducing power consumption (Compl. ¶144).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶325).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are Dell's Wi-Fi 6-compliant Access Points that allegedly generate and transmit beacons using this unified format (Compl. ¶320).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies a broad range of Dell's laptops, desktops, and workstations that practice the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard. These include products from the Alienware, Inspiron, Latitude, Precision, XPS, Vostro, and OptiPlex product lines (Compl. ¶¶150, 167, 184, 201, 218, 235, 252, 269, 286, 303, 320).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The core accused functionality is the implementation of the 802.11ax standard, which Plaintiff alleges necessarily incorporates the patented technologies (Compl. ¶3). The complaint asserts that these products are marketed and sold to businesses and individuals across the United States, indicating wide commercial distribution (Compl. ¶¶154, 171). For certain patents, the allegations are directed specifically at products functioning as "Access Points" (APs) or those supporting the "6E extension" of the standard (Compl. ¶¶184, 303).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 12 and 13) detailing the infringement allegations for the lead patents. The analysis below summarizes the narrative infringement theory presented in the complaint.

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

  • Narrative Summary: The complaint alleges that the functionality recited in the ’570 Patent "has been incorporated into the 802.11ax Standard" (Compl. ¶153). The core theory is that any device practicing the standard, including the Accused Products, necessarily uses a scalable bandwidth allocation method with a common subcarrier spacing that is mathematically aligned across channel bandwidths to reduce or eliminate guard bands, thereby infringing at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶30, 153, 155). The complaint states that a detailed chart applying each limitation of claim 1 is attached as Exhibit 12, which was not provided (Compl. ¶155).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Standard-Essentiality: A primary question will be whether compliance with the 802.11ax standard requires practicing every element of the asserted claims. The analysis may explore whether alternative, non-infringing implementations of the standard are possible.
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may center on the construction of claim terms such as "mathematically aligned with both the channel raster and all nominal channel bandwidths." The court may need to determine if the specific subcarrier and channel structure of the 802.11ax standard meets this limitation as it is defined in the patent's specification.

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

  • Narrative Summary: The complaint similarly alleges that the functionality of the ’213 Patent has been incorporated into the 802.11ax Standard (Compl. ¶170). The infringement theory is that devices compliant with the 802.11ax standard, which must communicate over multiple frequencies and bandwidths, necessarily employ an adaptive tuning architecture to compensate for reactance drift in RF components (Compl. ¶43). This functionality allegedly includes detecting reactance, comparing it to a desired state, and generating a correction signal, thereby practicing the feedback loop method of at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶42, 172). The complaint states that a detailed analysis is provided in the non-included Exhibit 13 (Compl. ¶170).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused Dell products actually perform the specific steps of the claimed method. For instance, what evidence demonstrates that the products "produc[e] ... a second signal representing a measure of reactance" and "integrate the difference signal," as required by claim 1, rather than using a different metric or algorithm for antenna tuning?
    • Functional Mismatch: The analysis may raise the question of whether the digital signal processing techniques used in modern Wi-Fi 6 chipsets for antenna tuning are fundamentally different in operation from the specific analog-centric feedback circuit described in the patent's specification and figures.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "a common, precisely chosen subcarrier spacing" (’570 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to the infringement case for the ’570 Patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement allegation appears to rest on the assertion that the specific subcarrier spacing defined in the 802.11ax standard (e.g., 78.125 kHz) meets this "precisely chosen" and "mathematically aligned" limitation. The construction will determine whether the standard's design falls within the claim's scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's background describes the general problem of spectral inefficiency from guard bands (Compl. ¶28). A party could argue that any subcarrier spacing intentionally selected to enable aggregation and reduce guard bands across multiple channel widths is "precisely chosen."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a negative example, stating that a 9.6 kHz spacing "cannot be divided evenly by nominal carrier bandwidths such as 1.25 MHZ, 2.5 MHZ," leading to wasted spectrum ('570 Patent, col. 6:27-34). A party could argue this implies that "mathematically aligned" requires perfect, integer divisibility, a standard the 802.11ax specification might not meet in all configurations.

The Term: "producing... a second signal representing a measure of reactance" (’213 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This step defines the specific nature of the feedback signal in the claimed auto-tuning loop. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern digital RF systems may use indirect metrics like bit-error rate or signal-to-noise ratio to optimize performance, rather than directly generating a signal that explicitly represents a physical "measure of reactance" (e.g., in Farads or Ohms).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's objective is to correct for reactance drift (Compl. ¶38). A party may argue that any signal within a feedback loop that is used to compensate for the effects of that drift implicitly serves as a "measure of reactance," regardless of the specific units or method of generation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses specific circuit embodiments for generating this signal, such as an AM/Peak Detector or a Frequency Discriminator that processes a signal from a voltage divider containing the tunable element ('213 Patent, Figs. 5, 6). A party may argue the claim should be construed as limited to these direct measurement techniques or their close equivalents, not indirect performance metrics.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is primarily based on allegations that Dell advertises, provides user manuals for, and otherwise encourages customers to use the accused products in their normal, 802.11ax-compliant manner, which Plaintiff claims constitutes direct infringement (e.g., Compl. ¶¶156, 159). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis 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 infringement (e.g., Compl. ¶160).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge stemming from (1) industry-wide Letters of Assurance submitted to the IEEE by the original patent owners (NXP, ZTE), and (2) a direct notice letter sent from Velocity to Dell on April 15, 2025 (e.g., Compl. ¶¶157, 161). Post-suit knowledge is alleged from the service of the original complaint (e.g., Compl. ¶158). The complaint further alleges Dell "willfully blinded itself to its infringement" (e.g., Compl. ¶162).

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

This case presents a large-scale infringement assertion against a major technology manufacturer, centered on a widely adopted industry standard. The litigation will likely turn on the following high-level questions:

  • A core issue will be one of standard-essentiality and proof of infringement: For each patent, can Plaintiff demonstrate that compliance with the mandatory provisions of the IEEE 802.11ax standard necessarily results in infringement of the asserted claims? This will require a highly technical, element-by-element comparison of the standard's requirements against the patent claims, particularly since the complaint's claim chart exhibits were not provided.

  • A second central battleground will be claim construction and technological evolution: The case will test whether claim language drafted for technologies from the mid-to-late 2000s can be construed to read on the specific, complex digital signal processing and RF management techniques implemented in modern Wi-Fi 6 chipsets. A key question will be one of definitional scope: for instance, can the adaptive tuning methods in a 2020s-era Wi-Fi chip be said to "produce a signal representing a measure of reactance" in the manner contemplated by the '213 patent from 2008?

  • A final key question will be the impact of alleged pre-suit knowledge: The allegations regarding Dell's awareness of standard-essential patents via IEEE Letters of Assurance and a direct notice letter will be critical to Plaintiff's claim for willful infringement and potential enhanced damages. The court will need to evaluate whether these notices provided Dell with sufficient knowledge of likely infringement to create a duty to investigate and avoid infringement.