DCT

5:25-cv-00098

Velocity Communication Tech LLC v. OnePlus Technology Shenzhen Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:25-cv-00098, E.D. Tex., 11/21/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas based on Defendant’s regular and substantial business in the state, including the sale of accused products through established distribution channels and at specific retail locations within the district, such as in Texarkana, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphones, tablets, and other devices capable of operating on Wi-Fi 6 networks infringe eleven U.S. patents relating to foundational wireless communication technologies allegedly incorporated into the IEEE 802.11ax standard.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue is the IEEE 802.11ax standard, known commercially as Wi-Fi 6, which was developed to improve throughput and efficiency in dense wireless networking environments.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of certain patents-in-suit through Letters of Assurance submitted to the IEEE by the original patent assignees (NXP Semiconductors and ZTE Corporation) and through a direct pre-suit notice letter from Plaintiff inviting Defendant to take a license.

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 Priority Date for '870, '765, '401, '096 Patents
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
2014-01-01 IEEE forms Task Group AX to develop 802.11ax
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 the 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 patents potentially essential to 802.11ax
2021-02-09 IEEE grants final approval for Std 802.11ax-2021
2024-03-04 ZTE submits Letter of Assurance to IEEE regarding patents potentially essential to 802.11ax
2025-04-15 Velocity counsel sends letter to OnePlus inviting it to license the patents-in-suit
2025-07-09 Original Complaint filed in the action
2025-11-21 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: The patent addresses the problem of spectral inefficiency in wireless communication systems using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM). Conventional systems inserted non-data-bearing "guard bands" between channels to prevent interference, creating wasteful gaps in the usable spectrum (Compl. ¶¶ 35-36). This problem was exacerbated when subcarrier spacing could not be divided evenly by nominal carrier bandwidths, forcing some edge subcarriers to be left unused as guard subcarriers (’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 and all nominal channel bandwidths (Compl. ¶38). 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 (Compl. ¶38).
  • Technical Importance: This technique improves the data capacity and overall efficiency of wireless networks by enabling more flexible and dense bandwidth allocation (Compl. ¶¶ 39-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶171).
  • The complaint does not provide the text of the asserted claims, referencing instead an external exhibit not attached to the filing. Therefore, a breakdown of the claim's essential elements cannot be provided.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims of the ’570 Patent (Compl. ¶171).

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses performance degradation in radio frequency (RF) circuits caused by "reactance drift" in tunable components like Voltage Variable Capacitors (VVCs) (’213 Patent, col. 1:19-21). This drift, which can result from changes in temperature or residual polarization, leads to impedance mismatch, causing reduced power transfer efficiency and signal distortion (Compl. ¶¶ 46-48).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes an adaptive, closed-loop control system to dynamically correct for this drift in real time (Compl. ¶49). The system employs a reactance detection circuit to monitor the transmitted signal's properties, compares the measured reactance to a desired value, and uses an error correction circuit to generate a correction signal that retunes the component, thereby maintaining optimal signal quality and power efficiency (Compl. ¶¶ 50, 56; ’213 Patent, Figures 5-6).
  • Technical Importance: This self-correcting architecture improves wireless transmitter performance, which is particularly valuable for devices compliant with modern standards like 802.11ax that frequently switch between different frequencies, bandwidths, and operating modes (Compl. ¶51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17, which suggests Claim 1 is independent (Compl. ¶186).
  • The complaint does not provide the text of the asserted claims, referencing instead an external exhibit not attached to the filing. Therefore, a breakdown of the independent claim's essential elements cannot be provided.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims of the ’213 Patent (Compl. ¶189).

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

Technology Synopsis

The patent is directed to solving signal interference and crosstalk that arises when a single wireless device must simultaneously communicate with multiple remote devices using different wireless protocols (Compl. ¶62). The solution involves generating and shaping multiple antenna beam patterns so that each beam is directed toward its intended recipient while its signal strength is actively suppressed in the direction of other simultaneous communications (Compl. ¶65).

Asserted Claims

At least claim 18 is asserted (Compl. ¶204).

Accused Features

The accused features are the functionalities in Defendant's Access Points compliant with the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶201).

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

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses the inefficient broadcast of files containing both textual and multimedia data, which can cause excessive transmission time and latency (Compl. ¶¶ 72-73). The invention describes packaging a single block of text and multiple sub-blocks of related multimedia data together into "time-sliced packets," enabling efficient, simultaneous transmission of different data types (Compl. ¶¶ 74, 77).

Asserted Claims

At least claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 11, 13, and 15 are asserted (Compl. ¶222).

Accused Features

The accused features are the functionalities in Defendant's devices compliant with the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶219).

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

Technology Synopsis

The patent claims improvements to Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) systems by using a stored codebook of predefined spatial mapping matrices (Compl. ¶84). The system iteratively transmits packets using different matrices, measures reception quality (e.g., packet-error-rate), and selects the best-performing matrix for subsequent transmissions, adapting the choice if quality drops below a threshold (Compl. ¶¶ 84, 86).

Asserted Claims

At least claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are asserted (Compl. ¶240).

Accused Features

The accused features are the functionalities in Defendant's Access Points compliant with the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶237).

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

Technology Synopsis

Related to the '870 patent, this patent addresses shortcomings in traditional beamforming where sounding processes had limited range and created overhead (Compl. ¶¶ 97-99). The solution involves iteratively transmitting data packets using different predefined spatial mapping matrices, receiving channel estimates from the receiver, selecting a matrix based on those estimates, and re-selecting another matrix if a packet error rate threshold is exceeded (Compl. ¶100).

Asserted Claims

At least claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 are asserted (Compl. ¶258).

Accused Features

The accused features are the functionalities in Defendant's Access Points compliant with the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶255).

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

Technology Synopsis

Also related to the '870 patent family, this patent describes a method for improving MIMO communications by iteratively transmitting data using matrices from a stored codebook (Compl. ¶111). The system selects the best matrix based on received channel estimates and adaptively re-selects a different matrix if a measured reception quality metric (like packet error rate) falls below a defined threshold (Compl. ¶111).

Asserted Claims

At least claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are asserted (Compl. ¶276).

Accused Features

The accused features are the functionalities in Defendant's Access Points compliant with the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶273).

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

Technology Synopsis

This patent, also from the same family, addresses the problem of sounding packets not being able to reliably reach a receiver at ranges where beamformed data would work (Compl. ¶121). The solution involves 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. ¶123).

Asserted Claims

At least claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 are asserted (Compl. ¶294).

Accused Features

The accused features are the functionalities in Defendant's Access Points compliant with the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶291).

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

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses performance issues in radio receivers operating in dynamic environments, particularly those arising from manufacturing variations in components that traditional tuning methods fail to adequately compensate for (Compl. ¶¶ 133, 135). The invention teaches a multi-step iterative process of setting an adjustable component, measuring the resulting signal quality, adjusting the setting, and repeating the cycle to determine the optimal configuration for robust data reception (Compl. ¶¶ 134, 137).

Asserted Claims

At least claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18-22 are asserted (Compl. ¶312).

Accused Features

The accused features are the functionalities in Defendant's devices compliant with the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶309).

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

Technology Synopsis

The patent is directed to solving problems of interference and inefficient spectrum use in crowded wireless environments (Compl. ¶144). It specifically addresses challenges in managing power control for high-power transmissions where closed-loop systems may not track reference signals quickly enough (Compl. ¶147). The solution involves methods for advanced power control, including adjusting and backing off output power in response to network conditions (Compl. ¶145).

Asserted Claims

At least claim 12 is asserted (Compl. ¶330).

Accused Features

The accused features are the functionalities in Defendant's devices compliant with the 802.11ax standard with the 6E extension (Compl. ¶327).

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

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses the inefficiency and high power consumption associated with processing large, lengthy beacon frames in wireless networks (Compl. ¶¶ 155-157). The invention teaches a unified beacon format that can be used for either a concise "short" beacon or a comprehensive "full" beacon, with an indicator specifying which type is being sent, thereby improving the efficiency of beacon transmissions (Compl. ¶159).

Asserted Claims

At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶348).

Accused Features

The accused features are the functionalities in Defendant's Access Points compliant with the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶345).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are a wide range of Defendant’s electronic devices that practice the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard, including but not limited to the OnePlus 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 series smartphones, as well as the OnePlus Open, Pad, Pad 2, and Pad 3 devices (Compl. ¶¶ 165, 183).

Functionality and Market Context

The core accused functionality is the devices' implementation of and compliance with the IEEE 802.11ax standard, which Plaintiff alleges incorporates the patented technologies (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 168). Defendant markets these products as having "advanced Wi-Fi 6 performance" (Compl. ¶6). The complaint alleges these products are manufactured outside the U.S., imported, and sold to end-users throughout the United States and Texas via an established distribution channel that includes online stores and brick-and-mortar retailers (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 14). An excerpt from a submission to the Federal Communications Commission shows OnePlus as the applicant and manufacturer for a OnePlus device, evidencing its role in bringing the products to the U.S. market (Compl. p. 5). A screenshot from a retailer's website is provided as evidence of an accused product, the OnePlus 12, being available for purchase at a specific Best Buy location in Texarkana, Texas (Compl. p. 7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references external exhibits containing detailed claim charts for each asserted patent (e.g., Ex. 12 for the ’570 Patent, Ex. 13 for the ’213 Patent), but these exhibits were not provided with the complaint. As such, claim chart tables cannot be constructed. The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

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

The complaint alleges that the functionality recited in the ’570 Patent has been incorporated into the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶168). Therefore, by manufacturing and selling devices that practice the 802.11ax standard, OnePlus is alleged to directly infringe at least claim 1 of the patent (Compl. ¶¶ 168, 171). The theory is that compliance with the standard necessitates use of the patented method for scalable bandwidth allocation.

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

Similarly, the complaint alleges that the functionality recited in the ’213 Patent has been incorporated into the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶186). The infringement theory is that devices compliant with the standard necessarily employ the claimed method and apparatus for dynamically adjusting a tunable reactive element to maintain RF performance, thereby infringing at least claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17 of the patent (Compl. ¶189).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central dispute for all asserted patents will likely be whether compliance with the IEEE 802.11ax standard necessarily requires infringement of the patent claims as properly construed. The complaint's position is that the patented technologies are "essential to, and necessarily infringed by" devices compliant with the standard (Compl. ¶2), which raises the core question of the patents' essentiality.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’213 Patent, a potential point of contention may be whether the accused products' RF chipsets contain a "reactance detection circuit" and "error correction circuit" (Compl. ¶50) that meet the specific structural and functional requirements of the claims, or whether they achieve adaptive tuning through a technically distinct, non-infringing method. For the ’570 Patent, a question may be whether the specific "mathematically aligned" subcarrier spacing taught by the patent is actually mandated by the 802.11ax standard or is merely one of several implementation options.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a definitive analysis, as the text of the asserted claims is not included. However, based on the narrative description of the inventions, the following terms may be central to the dispute.

For the ’570 Patent

  • The Term: "a common, precisely chosen subcarrier spacing that is mathematically aligned with both the channel raster and all nominal channel bandwidths"
  • Context and Importance: This phrase appears to be the core of the invention described in the complaint (Compl. ¶38). The definition of what constitutes being "mathematically aligned" will likely be critical to determining the scope of the claim and whether the 802.11ax standard mandates such an alignment.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint's description of the invention as improving "flexible aggregation of different channel widths" (Compl. ¶39) may support an interpretation that covers any subcarrier spacing scheme that achieves this functional goal.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's discussion of a prior art problem where a specific 9.6 kHz spacing "cannot be divided evenly by nominal carrier bandwidths" (’570 Patent, col. 6:27-34) may suggest the claims are directed to solving this specific mathematical divisibility problem, potentially narrowing the scope to specific numerical relationships.

For the ’213 Patent

  • The Term: "reactance detection circuit"
  • Context and Importance: The complaint describes the invention as employing "dedicated components" including this circuit (Compl. ¶50). Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute could turn on whether the accused devices, which use highly integrated multi-function chipsets, contain a distinct and identifiable circuit that performs this function, as opposed to a more generalized monitoring process.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's goal of "detecting reactance drift and dynamically correcting it" (Compl. ¶45) could support a functional definition, where any circuitry that achieves this detection and correction function falls within the claim's scope.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint’s reference to Figures 5-6 and 9 of the patent and its description of a "self-correcting architecture" with specific processing steps (Compl. ¶¶ 54, 56) could be used to argue for a narrower construction requiring the specific circuit implementation and signal processing path disclosed in the embodiments.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is based on Defendant allegedly encouraging and providing instructions to end-users on how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes (i.e., operating them in compliance with the 802.11ax standard), through advertising, user manuals, and product support (Compl. ¶¶ 172, 175, 190, 193). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the Wi-Fi 6 chipset and associated firmware are material components especially adapted for infringement, are not staple articles of commerce, and have no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶ 176, 194).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit knowledge is alleged based on: (1) Letters of Assurance submitted to the IEEE by original patent assignees (NXP and ZTE) as early as September 2020, which allegedly put OnePlus on notice of patents essential to the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶¶ 173, 191); (2) a direct notice letter sent from Plaintiff to OnePlus on April 15, 2025 (Compl. ¶¶ 173, 191); and (3) knowledge from the filing of the original complaint on July 9, 2025 (Compl. ¶¶ 174, 192).

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

  • A primary issue will be one of standard-essentiality and infringement: Does compliance with the mandatory sections of the IEEE 802.11ax standard necessarily require practicing the asserted patent claims as properly construed? This question will require a detailed comparison of the standard's technical requirements against the scope of the claims.
  • A second core issue will be one of claim construction and technical mapping: For apparatus claims, such as those related to the RF tuning of the ’213 Patent or the beamforming architecture of the '832 Patent, a key question will be whether the specific "circuits" and "modules" recited in the claims can be identified within the highly integrated, multi-functional chipsets of the accused smartphones, or if there is a fundamental mismatch between the claimed architecture and the accused implementation.
  • A third key question will relate to willfulness and pre-suit knowledge: The court will likely examine whether knowledge of a standards body's intellectual property rights database and Letters of Assurance from original patent owners creates a duty for an implementer to investigate and clear rights for patent portfolios that are later acquired and asserted by a non-practicing entity.