DCT

1:25-cv-00912

Velocity Communication Tech LLC v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00912, D. Del., 11/26/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because two of the three named Ericsson defendants are 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 patents related to various aspects of wireless communication, including bandwidth allocation, RF component tuning, and beamforming.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue relates to high-efficiency wireless local area networks (WLANs), a critical field for supporting the increasing density of connected devices and high-bandwidth applications.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of relevant patents through Letters of Assurance submitted to the IEEE by the original patent assignees (NXP Semiconductors and ZTE Corporation) declaring patents potentially essential to the 802.11ax standard. Plaintiff also alleges it provided direct notice to Defendant via a letter dated April 15, 2025. This action is a First Amended Complaint, following an Original Complaint filed on July 21, 2025.

Case Timeline

Date Event
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
2012-08-07 U.S. Patent No. 8,238,832 Issued
2012-08-07 U.S. Patent No. 8,238,859 Issued
2012-08-21 U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870 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 standard
2021-02-09 IEEE 802.11ax Standard receives final approval
2024-03-04 ZTE submits Letter of Assurance to IEEE for 802.11ax standard
2025-04-15 Plaintiff sends letter to Defendant identifying patent portfolio
2025-07-21 Original Complaint filed in the case
2025-11-26 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 wireless communication systems using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM), non-data-bearing "guard bands" are inserted between channels to prevent interference, which creates wasteful gaps and reduces spectral efficiency (Compl. ¶¶ 28-29). The patent specification notes that this problem arises when the subcarrier spacing cannot be divided evenly by nominal carrier bandwidths, forcing some edge subcarriers to be unused guard bands (’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 available channel bandwidths and the channel raster. This precise alignment allows multiple carriers to be aggregated with reduced or eliminated guard bands, which in turn minimizes inter-carrier interference and makes more efficient use of the available spectrum (Compl. ¶ 31; ’570 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This approach directly improves the spectral efficiency, data capacity, and overall performance of wireless networks by minimizing the amount of spectrum wasted on guard bands (Compl. ¶¶ 32-33).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 12 (Compl. ¶ 161).
  • Claim 1 (Method):
    • choosing a common subcarrier spacing of orthogonal subcarriers;
    • wherein the subcarrier spacing is chosen to evenly divide a given nominal carrier bandwidth.
  • Claim 12 (Apparatus):
    • a transmitter configured to transmit signals based on a common subcarrier spacing of orthogonal subcarriers;
    • wherein the subcarrier spacing evenly divides a given nominal carrier bandwidth.

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Radio frequency (RF) circuits suffer from impedance mismatch and "reactance drift" in tunable components like Voltage Variable Capacitors (VVCs), caused by changes in temperature or residual polarization (’213 Patent, col. 1:19-21). This drift degrades antenna performance, reduces power efficiency, and can cause signal distortions (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 41).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a self-correcting, closed-loop control system. This system uses a reactance detection circuit to generate a signal representing the measured reactance of a tunable element. An error correction circuit then compares this measured value to a desired value, integrates the resulting error signal, and generates a correction signal that is applied back to the tunable element to hold its reactance at the desired value (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 49; ’213 Patent, col. 4:2-4, Figs. 5-6).
  • Technical Importance: This adaptive tuning architecture allows RF hardware to maintain optimal performance and high signal integrity across the multiple frequencies, bandwidths, and operating modes characteristic of modern wireless standards like 802.11ax (Compl. ¶¶ 44, 51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 178).
  • Claim 1 (Method):
    • 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.

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 and crosstalk that occurs when a single wireless device must communicate simultaneously with multiple remote devices using different protocols (e.g., Wi-Fi and Bluetooth) (Compl. ¶ 55). The solution involves generating and shaping multiple antenna beam patterns to direct a signal toward its intended recipient while actively suppressing signal strength in the direction of other simultaneous communications (Compl. ¶ 58).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 18 is asserted (Compl. ¶ 195).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are Access Points compliant with the 802.11ax standard, which includes mandatory capabilities for downlink multi-user MIMO and beamforming (Compl. ¶¶ 192, 195, 48 n.3).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the inefficient transmission of mixed-media content, where large files containing both text and multimedia lead to high latency and poor bandwidth utilization (Compl. ¶ 66). The invention packages a single block of text with multiple sub-blocks of related multimedia data into "time-sliced packets," enabling more efficient, simultaneous transmission of different data types (Compl. ¶¶ 67, 70).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 10 are asserted (Compl. ¶ 212).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are devices compliant with the 802.11ax standard, which are used in high-density environments to broadcast structured data to multiple users (Compl. ¶¶ 72, 209).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: The technology is directed to improving MIMO systems by moving beyond fixed or slow-adapting transmission schemes (Compl. ¶ 79). The invention involves iteratively transmitting data packets using different predefined spatial mapping matrices from a stored codebook, measuring the reception quality for each, and selecting the best-performing matrix for subsequent transmissions, with re-selection occurring if quality falls below a defined threshold (Compl. ¶ 77).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 5, 12, and 16 are asserted (Compl. ¶ 229).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are 802.11ax-compliant Access Points that employ MIMO and beamforming technologies (Compl. ¶¶ 226, 229).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family as the ’870 patent, addresses shortcomings in traditional beamforming, which delayed data transmission and had limited range (Compl. ¶ 91). The solution involves iteratively transmitting data using predefined matrices, receiving channel estimates from the receiver, selecting a matrix based on those estimates, and re-selecting another matrix if the packet error rate exceeds a threshold (Compl. ¶ 93).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 7, 12, and 15 are asserted (Compl. ¶ 246).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are 802.11ax-compliant Access Points using MIMO and beamforming (Compl. ¶¶ 243, 246).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: Continuing the same patent family, this invention targets the overhead and range limitations of traditional beamforming sounding procedures (Compl. ¶ 102). The solution combines channel estimate-driven selection with reception quality metric-based re-selection, using a stored codebook of predefined directional matrices to adapt dynamically to link conditions (Compl. ¶¶ 101, 104).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 7, 15, and 17 are asserted (Compl. ¶ 263).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are 802.11ax-compliant Access Points using MIMO and beamforming (Compl. ¶¶ 260, 263).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: Also in the same family, this patent addresses the problem of non-directional sounding packets having a shorter effective range than the beamformed data channel they are intended to establish (Compl. ¶ 114). The solution involves using a codebook of predefined spatial mapping matrices, measuring a reception quality metric (e.g., packet error rate) for each, and then selecting the matrix with the highest quality for subsequent transmissions (Compl. ¶ 116).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 are asserted (Compl. ¶ 280).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are 802.11ax-compliant Access Points using MIMO and beamforming (Compl. ¶¶ 277, 280).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses performance degradation in radio receivers caused by component variations from manufacturing and unpredictable wireless environments (Compl. ¶¶ 126, 128). The solution is a method for dynamically configuring the receiver by iteratively setting adjustable hardware components to different values, measuring the resulting signal quality for each setting, and repeating the cycle to determine the optimal configuration (Compl. ¶ 132).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 7, 12, 18, and 21 are asserted (Compl. ¶ 297).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are devices certified by the Wi-Fi Alliance as compliant with the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶¶ 294, 297).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to solving problems of interference and inefficient spectrum use, particularly addressing the instability of power control loops during high-power transmissions where the system cannot track reference signals quickly enough (Compl. ¶¶ 137, 140). The solution is a method of power control that implements a power "back-off" prior to the completion of a transmission burst to prevent spectral degradation and interference (Compl. ¶¶ 138, 141).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 12 are asserted (Compl. ¶ 314).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are 802.11ax devices with the 6E extension, which involves specific power control requirements (Compl. ¶ 311).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the inefficiency of broadcasting network information via lengthy, one-size-fits-all beacon frames, which consumes excessive airtime and drains power on listening devices (Compl. ¶¶ 148-149). The solution is a "unified beacon format" that allows a transmitter to dynamically determine whether to send a concise "short" beacon or a comprehensive "full" beacon, with an indicator within the frame specifying its type (Compl. ¶ 152).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 8 are asserted (Compl. ¶ 331).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are 802.11ax-compliant Access Points that manage and broadcast network information (Compl. ¶¶ 328, 331).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are a range of Ericsson's wireless networking products, sold under the Cradlepoint brand, that are designed, marketed, and operate in compliance with the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard (Compl. ¶¶ 158, 175, 192). Specific product series named include the AP2600, E300, R1900, and X20 5G (Compl. ¶ 158).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are enterprise-grade access points and routers that provide wireless connectivity. The complaint alleges that by implementing the mandatory and optional features of the 802.11ax standard, these products necessarily practice the technologies claimed in the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶ 3). The 802.11ax standard itself is described as a "major architectural upgrade" to Wi-Fi, introducing key innovations like Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) and enhanced multi-user MIMO to improve efficiency and performance in dense network environments (Compl. ¶¶ 19-20). The complaint alleges these products are sold to businesses and individuals throughout the United States (Compl. ¶ 162).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement claim charts by reference as exhibits, which were not provided. The following tables summarize the infringement allegations for the lead patents based on the complaint's narrative theory that compliance with the IEEE 802.11ax standard constitutes infringement.

8,675,570 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
choosing a common subcarrier spacing of orthogonal subcarriers Accused products implementing the 802.11ax standard utilize OFDMA, which is based on a defined grid of orthogonal subcarriers with a common spacing. ¶¶ 20, 27, 161 col. 2:54-61
wherein the subcarrier spacing is chosen to evenly divide a given nominal carrier bandwidth The 802.11ax standard specifies subcarrier spacings and channel bandwidths that are mathematically aligned to enable scalable and efficient bandwidth allocation, as taught by the patent. ¶¶ 31-33, 161 col. 2:54-61

8,260,213 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving a first signal from a signal source coupled to a first tunable reactive element The RF front-end of the accused 802.11ax devices contains tunable reactive elements in their antenna matching networks that are driven by internal signal sources for tuning and calibration. ¶¶ 42-43, 178 col. 3:55-63
producing, according to the first signal, a second signal representing a measure of reactance of the first tunable reactive element The accused products employ reactance detection circuits to monitor the properties of the transmitted signal and generate a signal representing the measured reactance. ¶¶ 43, 49, 178 col. 4:2-4
receiving a control signal representing a desired reactance of the first tunable reactive element The control logic in the accused products sets a desired or target reactance state for the tunable elements to achieve optimal performance for a given operating frequency or bandwidth. ¶¶ 44, 49, 178 col. 4:2-4
comparing the second signal to the control signal to produce a difference signal The accused products' error correction circuits compare the measured reactance signal to the desired reactance signal to detect drift and generate an error or difference signal. ¶¶ 43, 49, 178 col. 4:2-4
integrating the difference signal to produce a third signal An error integration circuit or equivalent logic in the accused products processes the difference signal over time to generate a correction signal. ¶¶ 49, 51, 178 col. 4:2-10
applying 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 applied to the tunable element to compensate for drift and maintain its reactance at the desired value. ¶¶ 43, 51, 178 col. 4:11-16

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question for the '570 patent will be the construction of "evenly divide." The analysis may explore whether the specific subcarrier spacing and channel bandwidth combinations defined in the 802.11ax standard meet the patent's definition of this term, or if there is a technical distinction.
  • Technical Questions: For the '213 patent, a key question may be whether the adaptive tuning mechanisms in the accused products perform the specific five-step closed-loop process recited in Claim 1, including the explicit step of "integrating the difference signal," or if they employ a technically different method for drift compensation that falls outside the claim scope. The complaint's assertion that the recited signals are "electronic or digital signals" and the integration is performed by "electronic integration circuit or processing logic" suggests an anticipation of arguments over hardware versus software implementation (Compl. ¶ 47).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

  • The Term: "evenly divide"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the central limitation of the asserted independent claims. The infringement case for this patent turns on whether the relationship between the subcarrier spacing and the nominal channel bandwidths in the 802.11ax standard constitutes an "even division" as contemplated by the patent. Practitioners may focus on whether this requires a perfect integer relationship without any remainder or if it encompasses a broader functional alignment that achieves the patent's goal of reducing guard bands.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's background criticizes a prior art system where the spacing "cannot be divided evenly," leading to wasted subcarriers (’570 Patent, col. 6:27-34). An argument may be made that any system of spacing and bandwidth that avoids this specific problem satisfies the "evenly divide" limitation, regardless of the precise mathematical relationship.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent emphasizes a "precisely chosen subcarrier spacing that is mathematically aligned" (Compl. ¶ 31). A party could argue that this requires a strict, integer-based mathematical division and that any implementation in the 802.11ax standard that deviates from this (e.g., through minor offsets or non-integer relationships) does not "evenly divide."

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

  • The Term: "integrating the difference signal"
  • Context and Importance: This is a specific functional step within the closed-loop control method of claim 1. The infringement analysis may hinge on whether the accused products' adaptive tuning algorithms perform a function that can be properly characterized as "integrating." Practitioners may focus on this term because modern digital signal processing can use various control loop algorithms (e.g., proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers, simple lookup tables, or other logic) that may or may not include a true mathematical integration step.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function as generating a correction signal to compensate for drift over time (Compl. ¶¶ 49, 51). An argument could be made that any process that accumulates error over time to derive a correction performs the function of "integrating," even if it is not a formal mathematical integration.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent illustrates an "Error Integration" circuit block (e.g., ’213 Patent, Fig. 5, element 506; Fig. 9). A party may argue that the term should be construed as being limited to the structure of an analog integrator circuit or its direct digital equivalent, rather than any generic error-correction logic.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement against Ericsson for encouraging and instructing customers to use the accused products in their normal, 802.11ax-compliant manner, through advertisements, user manuals, and product support (Compl. ¶¶ 164, 167). Contributory infringement is also alleged, on the basis that the accused components are material to the inventions, are not staple articles of commerce, have no substantial non-infringing uses, and are known by Ericsson to be especially adapted for infringement (Compl. ¶ 168).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. The asserted bases for knowledge include (1) Letters of Assurance submitted to the IEEE by original assignees of the patents (NXP and ZTE) as early as September 2020; (2) a direct notice letter from Plaintiff to Ericsson on April 15, 2025; and (3) service of the original complaint on or after July 21, 2025 (Compl. ¶¶ 165-166, 169-170). The complaint alleges that Ericsson proceeded to infringe despite this knowledge or, at a minimum, was willfully blind to its infringement (Compl. ¶ 170).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical implementation: does compliance with the broad IEEE 802.11ax standard necessarily require infringement of every specific limitation of the asserted patent claims? For instance, with respect to the '213 patent, the court will have to determine if the standard mandates the specific "compare-integrate-apply" feedback loop of claim 1, or if standard-compliant devices can and do use alternative, non-infringing methods for RF tuning.
  • A second central question will be one of definitional scope: how will key claim terms like "evenly divide" ('570 patent) and "integrating" ('213 patent) be construed? The outcome of claim construction will be critical in determining whether the specific mathematical relationships and control algorithms used in the 802.11ax standard fall within the scope of the patent claims.
  • A third key question will relate to knowledge and intent: what was the nature and timing of Ericsson's knowledge regarding the patents-in-suit? The case may explore whether notice of potentially essential patents to a standards body from third parties (NXP, ZTE) is sufficient to establish the knowledge required for willful infringement against a standard implementer, prior to direct notice from the current patent owner.