DCT
1:25-cv-00894
Velocity Communication Tech LLC v. Netgear Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: NETGEAR, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bayard, P.A.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00894, D. Del., 11/26/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged as proper in the District of Delaware on the basis that Defendant NETGEAR, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wireless networking products compliant with the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard infringe eleven U.S. patents related to various aspects of wireless communication technology.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue pertains to foundational enhancements for Wireless Local Area Networks (WLANs), particularly those implemented in the IEEE 802.11ax standard, which is critical for providing high-efficiency wireless networking in dense device environments.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that NETGEAR had knowledge of patents potentially essential to the 802.11ax standard through Letters of Assurance submitted to the IEEE by NXP Semiconductors and ZTE Corporation, original assignors of certain patents-in-suit. Plaintiff also alleges it sent a letter to NETGEAR on April 15, 2025, identifying its patent portfolio and inviting a license. The original complaint in the action was filed on July 17, 2025.
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 |
| 2012-07-03 | U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870 Issue Date |
| 2012-08-07 | U.S. Patent No. 8,238,832 Issue Date |
| 2012-08-07 | U.S. Patent No. 8,238,859 Issue Date |
| 2012-09-04 | U.S. Patent No. 8,260,213 Issue Date |
| 2012-09-11 | U.S. Patent No. 8,265,573 Issue Date |
| 2012-09-18 | U.S. Patent No. 8,270,343 Issue Date |
| 2012-06-29 | U.S. Patent No. 9,596,648 Priority Date |
| 2014-02-04 | U.S. Patent No. 8,644,765 Issue Date |
| 2014-03-18 | U.S. Patent No. 8,675,570 Issue Date |
| 2015-07-14 | U.S. Patent No. 9,083,401 Issue Date |
| 2017-03-14 | U.S. Patent No. 9,596,648 Issue Date |
| 2019-02-05 | U.S. Patent No. 10,200,096 Issue Date |
| 2020-09-29 | NXP submits Letter of Assurance to IEEE for 802.11ax standard |
| 2024-03-04 | ZTE submits Letter of Assurance to IEEE for 802.11ax standard |
| 2025-04-15 | Velocity sends letter to NETGEAR inviting it to license patents |
| 2025-07-17 | Original Complaint filed |
| 2025-11-26 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
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 spectral inefficiency in wireless communication systems using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM). Conventional methods inserted non-data-bearing "guard bands" or "guard subcarriers" between channels to prevent interference, which wasted usable spectrum and limited network capacity. (Compl. ¶¶ 25-26). The specification notes that certain subcarrier spacings could not be divided evenly by nominal carrier bandwidths, resulting in unused edge subcarriers that lowered spectral efficiency. (’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 standard channel divisions ("channel raster") and all nominal channel bandwidths. (Compl. ¶ 28). This precise alignment allows for the aggregation of multiple carriers with reduced or eliminated guard bands, which in turn minimizes inter-carrier interference and maximizes the use of available spectrum. (’570 Patent, col. 1:44-53).
- Technical Importance: This technique enabled more flexible and dense bandwidth allocation, improving throughput and the operational efficiency of wireless systems by minimizing wasted spectrum. (Compl. ¶¶ 29-30).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 9, and 12, among other dependent claims. (Compl. ¶ 160).
- Independent Claim 1 includes the essential elements of:
- choosing a common subcarrier spacing for orthogonal subcarriers to evenly divide a given nominal carrier bandwidth;
- selecting a sampling frequency that is equal to or greater than the given nominal channel bandwidth; and
- using subcarriers within the bandwidth for signal transmission without assigning guard subcarriers at both ends of the carrier.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶ 160).
U.S. Patent No. 8,260,213 - "Method and Apparatus to Adjust a Tunable Reactive Element"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses impedance mismatch and "reactance drift" in wireless radio frequency (RF) systems. Specifically, tunable components like Voltage Variable Capacitors (VVCs) used in antenna matching networks can drift from their intended reactance due to changes in temperature or residual polarization, degrading antenna performance and reducing power transfer efficiency. (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 38; ’213 Patent, col. 1:19-26).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a self-correcting, closed-loop architecture for dynamically adjusting these tunable elements in real time. The system employs a reactance detection circuit to generate a signal representing the measured reactance, compares that signal to a desired reactance control signal, and uses an error integration circuit to generate a correction signal that is applied back to the tunable element to hold its reactance at the desired value. (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 46; ’213 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This adaptive tuning improves the performance of wireless transmitters by ensuring efficient and high-fidelity signal transmission, which is particularly beneficial in complex devices that must switch between multiple frequencies and bandwidths, such as those compliant with the 802.11ax standard. (Compl. ¶¶ 41, 48).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1, among other claims. (Compl. ¶ 177).
- Independent Claim 1 includes the essential elements of:
- receiving a first signal from a signal source coupled to a first tunable reactive element;
- producing a second signal representing a measure of the element's reactance;
- 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; and
- applying the third signal to the tunable reactive element to reduce the difference between the measured and desired reactance.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶ 177).
U.S. Patent No. 8,238,832 - "Antenna Optimum Beam Forming for Multiple Protocol Coexistence on a Wireless Device"
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses signal interference that arises when a single wireless device communicates simultaneously with multiple devices using different protocols (e.g., Wi-Fi and Bluetooth). The invention provides a method for generating and shaping multiple antenna beam patterns so that each beam directs its signal to the intended recipient while actively suppressing its signal strength in the direction of other simultaneous communications to minimize crosstalk. (Compl. ¶¶ 52, 55).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 18 is asserted, among others. (Compl. ¶ 192).
- Accused Features: The beamforming functionalities implemented in Defendant's 802.11ax-compliant Access Points are accused of infringement. (Compl. ¶ 189).
U.S. Patent No. 8,270,343 - "Broadcasting of Textual and Multimedia Information"
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the inefficient broadcasting of files containing both textual and multimedia data, which prior art methods treated as a single large entity, leading to excessive latency. The invention teaches a method of packaging a single block of text with multiple sub-blocks of related multimedia data into time-sliced packets, enabling efficient simultaneous transmission and improving network throughput. (Compl. ¶¶ 62, 63, 64).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted, among others. (Compl. ¶ 209).
- Accused Features: The data handling and resource allocation functionalities within Defendant's 802.11ax-compliant products are accused of infringement. (Compl. ¶ 206).
U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870 - "Beamforming Using Predefined Spatial Mapping Matrices"
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses technical deficiencies in MIMO systems, such as inefficient sounding processes. The invention discloses a method of using a codebook of predefined spatial mapping matrices, iteratively transmitting data with different matrices, selecting a matrix for subsequent use based on measured reception quality, and re-selecting another matrix if performance metrics like packet-error-rate are not met. (Compl. ¶¶ 74, 76).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted, among others. (Compl. ¶ 226).
- Accused Features: The adaptive beamforming and MIMO functionalities in Defendant's 802.11ax-compliant Access Points are accused of infringement. (Compl. ¶ 223).
U.S. Patent No. 8,644,765 - "Beamforming Using Predefined Spatial Mapping Matrices"
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses shortcomings in traditional beamforming, which were range-limited and created overhead. The invention discloses a method of iteratively transmitting data packets using different predefined spatial mapping matrices, receiving channel estimates from the receiver, selecting the best matrix based on these estimates, and re-selecting another matrix if a packet error rate exceeds a defined threshold. (Compl. ¶¶ 88, 90).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted, among others. (Compl. ¶ 243).
- Accused Features: The adaptive beamforming functionalities within Defendant's 802.11ax-compliant Access Points are accused of infringement. (Compl. ¶ 240).
U.S. Patent No. 9,083,401 - "Beamforming Using Predefined Spatial Mapping Matrices"
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family as the '870 and '765 patents, addresses the inefficiency and range limitations of traditional beamforming. The solution involves iteratively transmitting data using predefined matrices from a codebook, selecting the best matrix based on received channel estimates, and adaptively re-selecting if a reception quality metric (e.g., packet error rate) falls below a threshold. (Compl. ¶¶ 99, 101).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted, among others. (Compl. ¶ 260).
- Accused Features: The adaptive MIMO and beamforming systems within Defendant's 802.11ax-compliant Access Points are accused of infringement. (Compl. ¶ 257).
U.S. Patent No. 10,200,096 - "Beamforming Using Predefined Spatial Mapping Matrices"
- Technology Synopsis: This patent also addresses the range and robustness problems of traditional sounding methods. The invention moves channel selection into the data path by using a codebook of predefined spatial mapping matrices, measuring a reception quality metric for each, and then selecting the matrix with the highest quality for subsequent transmissions. (Compl. ¶¶ 111, 113, 116).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 are asserted. (Compl. ¶ 277).
- Accused Features: The adaptive beamforming systems within Defendant's 802.11ax-compliant Access Points are accused of infringement. (Compl. ¶ 274).
U.S. Patent No. 8,238,859 - "Radio Receiver"
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses performance degradation in radio receivers operating in dynamic environments, often caused by manufacturing variations in components. The invention teaches a method for dynamically configuring a receiver through an iterative process of setting adjustable components to different values, measuring the resulting signal quality, and repeating the cycle to determine the optimal settings. (Compl. ¶¶ 122, 123, 125).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted, among others. (Compl. ¶ 294).
- Accused Features: The receiver tuning and configuration functionalities in Defendant's 802.11ax-compliant products are accused of infringement. (Compl. ¶ 291).
U.S. Patent No. 8,265,573 - "Wireless Subscriber Communication Unit and Method of Power Control with Back-Off Therefore"
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses interference and inefficient spectrum use in crowded wireless environments, particularly the difficulty of managing power control for high-power transmissions. The disclosed invention introduces advanced power control methods that adjust and back off transmitter output power in response to network conditions to improve the speed and efficiency of data transmission. (Compl. ¶¶ 134, 135, 137).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted, among others. (Compl. ¶ 311).
- Accused Features: The power control functionalities in Defendant's products that practice the 802.11ax standard with the 6E extension are accused of infringement. (Compl. ¶ 308).
U.S. Patent No. 9,596,648 - "Unified Beacon Format"
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the inefficiency of broadcasting network information using large, periodic beacon frames, which consumes excessive airtime and power. The invention discloses a unified beacon format that allows a device to determine whether to send a concise "short" beacon or a comprehensive "full" beacon, with an indicator specifying the type, thereby improving beacon transmission efficiency. (Compl. ¶¶ 145, 149).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted, among others. (Compl. ¶ 328).
- Accused Features: The beacon frame generation and transmission functionalities in Defendant's 802.11ax-compliant Access Points are accused of infringement. (Compl. ¶ 325).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are a broad range of NETGEAR's wireless networking devices that are alleged to practice the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard. (Compl. ¶ 155). These include, but are not limited to, products from the company's lines of Business Wireless Access Points, Cable Modems and Routers, Nighthawk gaming and consumer routers, Orbi mesh Wi-Fi systems, mobile hotspots, range extenders, and Wi-Fi adapters. (Compl. ¶¶ 155, 172).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are alleged to implement the 802.11ax standard, which is described in the complaint as a major architectural upgrade to Wi-Fi networks designed for higher capacity and performance in dense deployment scenarios. (Compl. ¶¶ 16-17). Key technical functionalities of the standard allegedly practiced by the products include Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA), Multi-User Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MU-MIMO), and beamforming. (Compl. ¶ 17). The complaint alleges that practicing the 802.11ax standard necessarily means practicing the technologies claimed in the patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶ 3). The products are marketed and sold to both business and individual consumers throughout the United States. (Compl. ¶ 159).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 8,675,570 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a method for allocating spectral bandwidth...comprising: choosing a common subcarrier spacing for orthogonal subcarriers to evenly divide a given nominal carrier bandwidth of a carrier; | The accused products, by complying with the 802.11ax standard, allegedly implement OFDMA technology that utilizes a precisely defined and common subcarrier spacing to enable resource allocation across various channel bandwidths. | ¶¶ 28, 158, 160 | col. 1:44-48 |
| selecting a sampling frequency that is equal to or greater than a given nominal channel bandwidth of a carrier; | The 802.11ax-compliant products allegedly operate using sampling frequencies specified by the standard that are mathematically related to and accommodate the nominal channel bandwidths (e.g., 20, 40, 80 MHz) used for signal processing. | ¶¶ 158, 160 | col. 2:10-14 |
| and using subcarriers within the given nominal channel bandwidth for signal transmission without assigning subcarriers as guard subcarriers at both ends of the given nominal channel bandwidth of the carrier. | The OFDMA implementation in the accused products is alleged to be designed for high spectral efficiency by using subcarriers across the bandwidth with reduced or eliminated "guard bands" compared to prior art systems, thereby maximizing spectrum usage. | ¶¶ 28, 30, 158, 160 | col. 1:49-53 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary point of contention may be the scope of the term "without assigning subcarriers as guard subcarriers." The defense may argue that the 802.11ax standard still utilizes null subcarriers at the edges of the band for reasons such as filter roll-off, and that these function as "guard subcarriers," raising the question of whether the accused method meets this negative limitation.
- Technical Questions: The analysis will likely focus on whether the specific parameters of the 802.11ax standard (e.g., its 78.125 kHz subcarrier spacing for High Efficiency operation) are coextensive with the "common subcarrier spacing" contemplated by the patent, which was filed when different technical conventions were prevalent.
U.S. Patent No. 8,260,213 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a method, comprising: receiving a first signal from a signal source coupled to a first tunable reactive element; | The accused products' RF hardware allegedly contains tunable elements (e.g., VVCs) in their antenna systems that are part of a closed-loop control architecture. | ¶¶ 43, 46, 175 | col. 4:51-53 |
| produce according to the first signal a second signal representing a measure of reactance of the first tunable reactive element; | The products are alleged to incorporate a reactance detection circuit that monitors the properties of the transmitted signal to generate a signal representing the measured reactance of the tunable element. | ¶¶ 40, 46, 175 | col. 5:2-6 |
| receive a control signal representing a desired reactance of the first tunable reactive element; | The products' control logic allegedly provides a target or desired reactance value for the tunable element to achieve optimal performance for a given operating mode. | ¶¶ 40, 46, 175 | col. 5:7-9 |
| compare the second signal to the control signal to produce a difference signal; | An error correction circuit within the accused products allegedly compares the measured reactance signal with the desired reactance signal to detect any drift. | ¶¶ 40, 46, 175 | col. 5:10-12 |
| integrate the difference signal to produce a third signal; and | The resulting difference or error signal is allegedly processed by an electronic integration circuit to generate a correction signal. | ¶¶ 44, 46, 175 | col. 5:13-14 |
| apply the third signal to the first tunable reactive element to reduce a difference between the measured reactance and the desired reactance. | The generated correction signal is allegedly applied to the tunable element to dynamically adjust its reactance in real time, compensating for drift and maintaining optimal performance. | ¶¶ 40, 46, 175 | col. 5:15-19 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the term "integrating" requires a specific analog or digital circuit that performs mathematical integration over time, or if it can be read more broadly to cover other forms of error accumulation or correction logic that a defendant might argue its products use instead.
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will turn on evidence of the accused products' actual hardware and software implementation. The key question is what evidence exists that NETGEAR's products employ the specific, multi-step closed-loop feedback system recited in the claim, as opposed to alternative, non-infringing antenna tuning methods such as pre-calibrated lookup tables or simpler open-loop adjustments.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’570 Patent
- The Term: "guard subcarriers"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement of the asserted method requires operating "without assigning subcarriers as guard subcarriers." The definition of this term will determine whether the use of any non-data-bearing subcarriers at the band edge in the 802.11ax standard falls outside the claim's scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint frames the problem solved by the patent as eliminating the "wasteful gaps in the usable spectrum" created by inserting non-data-bearing subcarriers between channels to prevent interference. (Compl. ¶ 25). This context may support an interpretation where "guard subcarriers" are limited to those intentionally inserted for inter-channel separation, as practiced in the prior art.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification is quoted as stating that when subcarrier spacing cannot evenly divide a bandwidth, "some of the edge subcarriers are left as guard subcarriers with no signal transmission." (’570 Patent, col. 6:31-33). This language may support an interpretation where any unused subcarrier at the band edge, regardless of its purpose (e.g., to accommodate filter roll-off), could be considered a "guard subcarrier."
For the ’213 Patent
- The Term: "integrating the difference signal"
- Context and Importance: This term recites a specific mathematical function within the claimed closed-loop control process. The infringement analysis depends on establishing that the accused products perform this precise step. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defense could argue its products use a different type of control logic (e.g., proportional or derivative control) that does not "integrate" the error signal as claimed.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's overall objective is to create a correction signal that compensates for drift over time. (Compl. ¶ 46). A broad interpretation could argue that any circuit or logic that accumulates an error value over time to generate a corrective output performs the function of "integrating."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint notes that the "integration" is performed by an "electronic integration circuit or processing logic" and references specific figures in the patent. (Compl. ¶ 44; ’213 Patent, Figs. 5-6, 9). This may support a narrower construction limited to the specific operational amplifier-based integrator circuits shown or their direct structural equivalents, rather than any general-purpose algorithm that achieves a similar result.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is primarily based on allegations that NETGEAR advertises its products as 802.11ax compliant and provides user manuals and support that instruct end-users on how to operate the products in their normal, infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶ 161, 178). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the accused components within the products are material to the inventions, are not staple articles of commerce, have no substantial non-infringing uses, and are known by NETGEAR to be especially adapted for infringement. (Compl. ¶¶ 165, 182).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The basis for pre-suit knowledge includes alleged notice from Letters of Assurance submitted by NXP and ZTE to the IEEE (as early as September 2020), a specific notice letter sent by Plaintiff to NETGEAR (April 15, 2025), and alleged willful blindness. (Compl. ¶¶ 162, 167, 179, 184). Post-suit knowledge is based on the filing of the original complaint on July 17, 2025. (Compl. ¶¶ 163, 180).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of technical implementation: Does compliance with the IEEE 802.11ax standard, as practiced in NETGEAR's products, necessarily result in infringement of the specific methods and apparatuses claimed across the eleven asserted patents? The case appears to be built on a theory of standard essentiality, which will require a detailed comparison of the standard's mandates against the precise limitations of each asserted claim.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: For patents claiming specific internal processes, such as the closed-loop reactance control of the ’213 Patent, what evidence will show that the accused products' hardware and software actually perform the claimed steps of real-time measurement, comparison, and integration, as opposed to employing alternative, non-infringing tuning or control methods?
- A third core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can terms rooted in the technical context of the patents' priority dates, such as "guard subcarriers" in the ’570 Patent, be construed to either read on or be distinguished from the technical structures and methods used in the modern 802.11ax standard, and will the interpretation of such terms be dispositive for infringement?