DCT

1:25-cv-00912

Velocity Communication Tech LLC v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00912, D. Del., 07/21/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant Ericsson Inc. is 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 wireless communication technologies, including bandwidth allocation, beamforming, and power control.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves foundational elements of the IEEE 802.11ax standard, a significant upgrade to Wi-Fi technology designed to improve efficiency and performance in dense network environments.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of relevant patents through Letters of Assurance submitted to the IEEE by technology contributors NXP Semiconductors and ZTE Corporation. It further alleges Defendant had knowledge of the patents-in-suit since at least April 15, 2025, via a direct notice letter from Plaintiff.

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 Nos. 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
2014-02-04 U.S. Patent No. 8,644,765 Issued
2014-03-18 U.S. Patent No. 8,675,570 Issued
2014 IEEE 802.11ax Task Group Formed
2015-07-14 U.S. Patent No. 9,083,401 Issued
2016-03 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 regarding 802.11ax patents
2021-02-09 IEEE 802.11ax Standard receives final approval
2024-03-04 ZTE submits Letter of Assurance to IEEE regarding 802.11ax patents
2025-04-15 Velocity counsel sends letter to Ericsson regarding patents-in-suit
2025-07-21 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," Issued Mar. 18, 2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses inefficient spectrum use in wireless communication systems like OFDM and OFDMA, where "guard subcarriers" between channels consume bandwidth without transmitting useful information, and where standard subcarrier spacing may not align cleanly with nominal channel bandwidths, further reducing efficiency (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 18; ’570 Patent, col. 1:21-2:24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for bandwidth allocation where a common subcarrier spacing is chosen that evenly divides the nominal carrier bandwidth. This allows multiple carriers to be placed adjacent to one another with reduced or no guard bands in between, thereby enabling more efficient use of the available spectrum and increasing data throughput (’570 Patent, col. 3:1-12, col. 4:45-56).
  • Technical Importance: This approach to scalable and flexible bandwidth allocation is presented as a way to improve spectral efficiency, a critical goal in modern wireless standards designed for high-density environments (Compl. ¶ 19).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 ('570 Patent, col. 10:47-11:5).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A method for allocating spectral bandwidth for an OFDM, OFDMA, or SC-FDMA system.
    • Dividing available spectral bandwidth into a channel raster and a plurality of nominal channels.
    • Choosing a common subcarrier spacing of orthogonal subcarriers that divides the multiple nominal channel bandwidths and the channel raster evenly.
    • Allocating multiple carriers to be one next to another in the same frequency band with reduced guard bands or without guard bands in between.
    • Wherein the common subcarrier spacing is aligned in frequency between boundaries of adjacent carriers to reduce or eliminate inter-carrier interference.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 8,260,213 - "Method and Apparatus to Adjust a Tunable Reactive Element," Issued Sep. 4, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem where tunable reactive components in RF circuits, such as Voltage Variable Capacitors (VVCs), can experience a "drift in reactance" due to factors like temperature changes or residual polarization. This drift can degrade performance, for example by causing an impedance mismatch in an antenna circuit (’213 Patent, col. 1:21-29).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a self-correcting system. It uses a reference reactive element coupled to a signal source and a feedback loop. A "reactance detection circuit" measures the reactance of the reference element, and an "error correction circuit" compares this measurement to a desired value to detect any drift. The error correction circuit then generates a correction signal to adjust the main tunable reactive element, thereby compensating for the drift in real-time without external calibration (’213 Patent, col. 2:1-19; Fig. 5).
  • Technical Importance: This self-calibration technique allows for more stable and reliable performance of RF front-ends in devices that operate in varying environmental conditions, a common scenario for mobile wireless devices (Compl. ¶ 12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (’213 Patent, col. 14:49-15:2).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A device comprising 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 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 by comparing the control signal to the second signal, and generate a third signal to adjust the reactance of the first tunable element to achieve the desired reactance.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

Multi-Patent Capsule: 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 Aug. 7, 2012.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses interference between co-located wireless protocols on a single device, such as WLAN (Wi-Fi) and Bluetooth. The invention describes a method for forming antenna beam patterns that creates a high-gain path for one protocol's signal while simultaneously creating a low-gain path (a null) in the direction of the other protocol's signal, thereby minimizing interference and allowing for simultaneous operation (’832 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 18 (Compl. ¶ 98).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Ericsson's Access Points that practice the IEEE 802.11ax standard infringe the patent (Compl. ¶ 95).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,270,343

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,270,343, "Broadcasting of Textual and Multimedia Information," issued Sep. 18, 2012.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to efficiently broadcasting information that contains both textual (semantic) and multimedia (presentation) components, such as an Electronic Service Guide (ESG). The invention describes separating the more frequently updated textual data from the larger, more static multimedia data and packaging them into data sub-blocks, allowing a receiver to quickly access and display the essential textual information without waiting for the entire multimedia package to download (’343 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶ 116).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Ericsson devices compliant with the 802.11ax standard infringe the patent (Compl. ¶ 113).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,213,870; 8,644,765; 9,083,401; 10,200,096

  • Patent Identification: This family of four patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870, is titled "Beamforming Using Predefined Spatial Mapping Matrices," issued between Jul. 3, 2012 and Feb. 5, 2019.
  • Technology Synopsis: This technology concerns beamforming in MIMO wireless systems. Instead of relying solely on channel state information, the invention uses a "codebook" of predefined spatial mapping matrices. A transmitter sends data using different matrices, and based on feedback about reception quality from the receiver, it selects the optimal matrix for subsequent transmissions, a technique described as "matrix hopping" to improve signal directionality and reliability (’870 Patent, Abstract; ’096 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 of each patent (Compl. ¶¶ 134, 152, 170, 188).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Ericsson's Access Points that practice the IEEE 802.11ax standard infringe these patents (Compl. ¶¶ 131, 149, 167, 185).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,238,859

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,238,859, "Radio Receiver," issued Aug. 7, 2012.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for configuring a radio receiver that has an adjustable component, such as a tunable capacitor. The method involves systematically testing different settings for the component, measuring the resulting signal quality for each setting, and then determining and using the setting that provides the highest measured signal quality, effectively self-calibrating the receiver (’859 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 206).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses all Ericsson devices that practice the IEEE 802.11ax standard and are certified by the Wi-Fi Alliance (Compl. ¶ 203).

Multi-Patent Capsule: 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 Sep. 11, 2012.
  • Technology Synopsis: The technology relates to power control in a wireless transmitter, particularly during the "ramp-down" phase at the end of a transmission burst. The invention proposes a method where the output power is temporarily reduced ("backed-off") just before the ramp-down sequence begins, which is intended to move the power amplifier out of a sluggish "dead-zone" and allow for a smoother, more controlled power-down that meets spectral emission requirements (’573 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 12 (Compl. ¶ 224).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Ericsson devices that practice the IEEE 802.11ax standard with the 6E extension, specifically naming the Cradlepoint E400 and X20 5G products (Compl. ¶ 221).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,596,648

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,596,648, "Unified Beacon Format," issued Mar. 14, 2017.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a "unified beacon format" for wireless networks that supports both a "short beacon" and a "full beacon." The format includes a first portion that is common to both beacon types and a second portion that differs. This allows devices to efficiently process beacons, for instance by only needing to parse the common portion to get essential information, thereby saving power (’648 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 242).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses all of Ericsson's Access Points that practice the IEEE 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶ 239).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies a range of Ericsson's Cradlepoint-branded wireless networking products, including access points and routers such as the AP2600, E300, E3000, R1900, and X20 5G, among others (Compl. ¶¶ 59, 77, 95). Collectively, these are referred to as the "Accused Products."
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are all devices that practice the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard (Compl. ¶¶ 59, 62). The central technical allegation is that the patented technologies have been "incorporated into the 802.11ax Standard," and therefore any device compliant with the standard, such as the Accused Products, necessarily infringes (Compl. ¶ 3, 62, 80). The complaint asserts these products are sold to businesses and individuals throughout the United States and specifically within the District of Delaware (Compl. ¶¶ 63, 64). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 12 and 13) that are not provided in the filed document. Therefore, a tabular summary cannot be created. The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

The complaint's central infringement theory is that the patents-in-suit are essential to the IEEE 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶ 3). For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges that "[t]he functionality recited in the...Patent has been incorporated into the 802.11ax Standard" (Compl. ¶ 62, 80, 98, etc.). The infringement allegation therefore rests on the assertion that by making, using, and selling devices that comply with this standard, Ericsson directly infringes the patent claims (Compl. ¶ 65, 83). The complaint states that detailed descriptions of how the products infringe are contained in the unattached exhibits (Compl. ¶ 62, 80).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The case presents a question of whether practicing the 802.11ax standard necessarily requires practicing the asserted claims. A potential point of contention is whether the standard allows for non-infringing implementation alternatives that the Accused Products could have used.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint broadly alleges that the patented technologies are "incorporated" into the standard. A key question will be whether the specific technical operations of the Accused Products, when implementing the 802.11ax standard, map to each and every limitation of the asserted claims as construed by the court.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "reduced guard bands or without guard bands" (from claim 1 of the ’570 Patent).

  • Context and Importance: The core of the '570 patent's alleged innovation is improving spectral efficiency by minimizing or eliminating the unused frequency spectrum between channels. The definition of what constitutes a "reduced" guard band will be critical to determining the scope of infringement, particularly how it is measured and whether the 802.11ax standard's channel allocation scheme meets this limitation.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's general goal is to "reduce or eliminate unnecessary guard bands" and "increase the spectral efficiency," which may support a broader reading that covers any method within the standard that achieves this goal, regardless of the specific mechanism (’570 Patent, col. 5:25-27).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides specific examples of choosing a subcarrier spacing (e.g., 12.5 KHz) that evenly divides nominal bandwidths like 5, 10, or 20 MHz. A defendant may argue this term is limited to systems employing this specific mathematical relationship between subcarrier spacing and channel bandwidth (’570 Patent, Table 1).

  • The Term: "a drift in reactance" (from claim 1 of the ’213 Patent).

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the problem that the claimed invention purports to solve. Whether the Accused Products' circuits are designed to detect and correct for "a drift" will be central to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on whether this term is limited to specific physical causes of drift or covers any deviation from a setpoint.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad ("a drift"), suggesting it could cover any deviation from a desired reactance that the claimed error correction circuit is designed to correct.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The Background section explicitly identifies the sources of drift as "a change in temperature or residual polarization" (’213 Patent, col. 1:22-24). A defendant may argue that this context limits the scope of "a drift" to only those changes caused by these specific physical phenomena, as opposed to other sources of electrical variance.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for each patent-in-suit. Inducement allegations are based on Ericsson allegedly encouraging and providing instructions (e.g., user manuals, marketing materials) for customers to use the Accused Products in their normal, infringing manner (i.e., in compliance with the 802.11ax standard) (Compl. ¶¶ 66, 69, 84, 87). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused components are material to the inventions, are not staple articles of commerce, and are known by Ericsson to be specially adapted for infringing use (Compl. ¶¶ 70, 88).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge from at least two sources: (1) constructive knowledge from Letters of Assurance submitted to the IEEE by NXP and ZTE, which allegedly declared patents essential to the 802.11ax standard, with the original patents having been developed by those companies (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 71, 89); and (2) actual knowledge from a direct notice letter sent by Velocity to Ericsson on April 15, 2025, identifying the patent portfolio (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 67, 85). Post-suit knowledge is alleged from the service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶¶ 68, 86). The complaint further alleges Ericsson willfully blinded itself to its infringement and describes the infringement as "willful, wanton, malicious...or characteristic of a pirate" (Compl. ¶¶ 72-73, 90-91).

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

  • A central issue will be one of standards-essentiality: does compliance with the mandatory portions of the IEEE 802.11ax standard necessarily result in infringement of every limitation of the asserted patent claims, or do non-infringing alternatives for implementation exist within the standard?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of knowledge and intent: what was the extent of Ericsson's knowledge of the specific patents-in-suit prior to the lawsuit, and what steps, if any, did it take to assess infringement after receiving notice via industry-wide LOAs and a direct letter from the Plaintiff? The resolution of this question will be critical to the claim for willful infringement.
  • A fundamental question of claim construction will determine the scope of the inventions. For example, will the court construe terms like "scalable...bandwidth allocation" in the '570 patent broadly to cover the general methods in the 802.11ax standard, or narrowly limit them to the specific mathematical relationships and embodiments described in the patent's specification?