Velocity Communication Tech LLC v. Acer Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Acer Inc. (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Berger & Hipskind LLP
• Case Identification: 5:25-cv-00099, E.D. Tex., 07/09/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Acer is a foreign corporation and conducts substantial business in the district, including placing accused products into the stream of commerce that are sold to Texas residents and are available for purchase at retail locations within the district, such as in Texarkana, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products compliant with the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard infringe eleven patents related to various wireless communication technologies.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on foundational technologies for modern high-efficiency wireless local area networks (WLANs), such as Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA), beamforming, and radio frequency component optimization, which are significant for network performance in dense device environments.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the original assignors of certain patents-in-suit, NXP Semiconductors N.V. and ZTE Corporation, submitted Letters of Assurance to the IEEE indicating that they owned patents which may be essential to the 802.11ax standard. Plaintiff also alleges it provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of the patents-in-suit via a letter dated April 15, 2025.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,675,570, "Scalable OFDM and OFDMA Bandwidth Allocation in Communication Systems," Issued March 18, 2014.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes how, in many wireless systems, the spacing between individual data-carrying subcarriers does not evenly divide the total available channel bandwidth, creating "un-necessary guard subcarriers" at the edges that waste spectrum and can cause interference between adjacent channels (’570 Patent, col. 1:12-2:5).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for designing and allocating bandwidth in OFDM and OFDMA systems by choosing a common subcarrier spacing that is mathematically selected to evenly divide the nominal channel bandwidths and the channel raster of the frequency band. This allows multiple channels to be placed contiguously without guard bands, thereby improving spectral efficiency and reducing inter-carrier interference (’570 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:54-67).
• Technical Importance: This method of scalable bandwidth allocation is intended to maximize the use of available spectrum, a key objective for high-density, high-throughput standards like IEEE 802.11ax (Compl. ¶26-27).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶69).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 (a method) include:
  • 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; and
  • allocating multiple carriers to be one next to another as a group in the same frequency band with reduced guard bands or without guard bands in between.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,260,213, "Method and Apparatus to Adjust a Tunable Reactive Element," Issued September 4, 2012.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a problem with tunable electronic components, such as Voltage Variable Capacitors (VVCs), where their electrical properties (reactance) can drift due to environmental factors like temperature or internal effects like residual polarization. This drift can detune critical radio frequency circuits, such as an antenna matching network, leading to reduced performance (’213 Patent, col. 1:21-30).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a self-correcting apparatus that includes a primary tunable element for the main circuit and a separate reference tunable element. A dedicated "reactance detection circuit" measures the drift of the reference element, and an "error correction circuit" generates a correction signal that is applied to the primary element to counteract the drift and maintain the desired reactance (’213 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:8-19). Figure 5 illustrates an embodiment where an AM/Peak Detector serves as the reactance detection circuit (504) and an Error Integration circuit (506) provides the correction signal.
• Technical Importance: This technology enables RF circuits in wireless devices to maintain stable performance despite environmental or operational variations, which is critical for ensuring reliable connectivity and power efficiency (Compl. ¶19).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶87).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 (a device) include:
  • a signal source coupled to a first tunable reactive element;
  • a reactance detection circuit to detect the reactance of the first tunable element and generate a second signal representing it; and
  • an error correction circuit to receive a control signal representing a desired reactance, compare it to the second signal to detect a drift, and generate a third signal to adjust the first tunable reactive element to achieve the desired reactance.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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 August 7, 2012.
• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses interference that occurs when a single wireless device operates multiple communication protocols simultaneously (e.g., Wi-Fi and Bluetooth). The invention determines the angle of arrival for signals of each protocol and creates optimized, directional antenna beam patterns that maximize reception for one protocol while minimizing interference from the other.
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 18 is asserted (Compl. ¶105).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Acer products that function as Access Points ("AP") and comply with the IEEE 802.11ax standard, alleging that their beamforming capabilities infringe (Compl. ¶102, 105).

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 September 18, 2012.
• Technology Synopsis: The technology aims to improve the efficiency of broadcasting information like an Electronic Service Guide (ESG) by separating the content into smaller textual ("semantic") data and larger multimedia ("presentation") data. The critical semantic data is then included in more frequent, smaller data bursts, allowing a receiving device to display essential information to the user much faster while the larger multimedia files download in the background.
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 10 is asserted (Compl. ¶123).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses all Acer devices that practice the IEEE 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶120, 123).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870, "Beamforming Using Predefined Spatial Mapping Matrices," Issued July 3, 2012.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a beamforming technique that avoids the overhead of traditional "sounding" procedures. A transmitter sends data using a selected spatial mapping matrix from a predefined "codebook" and, based on reception quality feedback from the receiver, can "hop" to a different, better-performing matrix for subsequent transmissions.
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶141).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Acer products that function as Access Points ("AP") and comply with the IEEE 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶138, 141).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,644,765

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,644,765, "Beamforming Using Predefined Spatial Mapping Matrices," Issued February 4, 2014.
• Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the '870 patent, this patent relates to the same beamforming technology using a "codebook" of predefined spatial mapping matrices to improve signal directionality and quality based on receiver feedback, reducing system overhead.
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶159).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Acer products that function as Access Points ("AP") and comply with the IEEE 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶156, 159).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,083,401

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,083,401, "Beamforming Using Predefined Spatial Mapping Matrices," Issued July 14, 2015.
• Technology Synopsis: As a continuation within the same family as the '870 and '765 patents, this patent describes beamforming using a "codebook" of predefined spatial mapping matrices. The system iteratively selects the best matrix based on feedback from the receiver to optimize signal transmission without traditional sounding packets.
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶177).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Acer products that function as Access Points ("AP") and comply with the IEEE 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶174, 177).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,200,096

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,200,096, "Beamforming Using Predefined Spatial Mapping Matrices," Issued February 5, 2019.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent is also part of the '870 patent family and concerns the same beamforming technology. It describes transmitting data using a selected matrix from a predefined set and then selecting a different matrix for subsequent transmissions based on reception quality feedback from the receiver.
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶195).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Acer products that function as Access Points ("AP") and comply with the IEEE 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶192, 195).

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,238,859, "Radio Receiver," Issued August 7, 2012.
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes an automated method for configuring a radio receiver. The method involves systematically setting an adjustable component (e.g., a capacitor) to different values from a predefined set, measuring the received signal quality at each setting, and then determining and using the value that provides the highest signal quality.
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶213).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses all Acer devices that practice the IEEE 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶210, 213).

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 September 11, 2012.
• Technology Synopsis: This technology addresses power control in wireless transmitters, particularly during the "ramp-down" phase at the end of a transmission burst. It describes a method of performing a power "back-off" a specified time before the ramp-down begins, which moves the power amplifier out of a non-responsive "dead-zone" and allows for a smoother power transition, thereby reducing spectral interference.
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 12 is asserted (Compl. ¶231).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Acer devices compliant with the 802.11ax standard that include the 6E extension (Compl. ¶228, 231).

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,596,648, "Unified Beacon Format," Issued March 14, 2017.
• Technology Synopsis: The invention describes a "unified beacon format" for wireless networks that simplifies beacon processing. The format includes a common first portion for all beacons and a variable second portion, allowing it to function as either a "short beacon" for associated devices or a "full beacon" with more information for new devices, without requiring two entirely different formats.
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶249).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Acer products that function as Access Points ("AP") and comply with the IEEE 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶246, 249).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Plaintiff accuses a broad range of Acer products that "practice the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard," including but not limited to Aspire, Predator, ENDURO, and Swift laptops; Chromebooks; various desktop computers and routers; and Wi-Fi dongles (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶66, 84, 102, 120, 138, 156, 174, 192, 210, 228, 246).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Accused Products incorporate and operate according to the mandatory requirements of the IEEE 802.11ax standard to provide high-efficiency wireless networking (Compl. ¶3, 5). This standard mandates key technologies such as Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA), multi-user multiple-input, multiple-output (MU-MIMO), and beamforming to improve network performance, especially in environments with many connected devices (Compl. ¶27). The complaint cites Acer's marketing, which touts the Accused Products' Wi-Fi 6 capabilities, such as high speeds and low latency (Compl. ¶6).
  No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits for each asserted patent (e.g., Exhibit 12 for the ’570 Patent, Exhibit 13 for the ’213 Patent) but does not include them with the filing. The narrative infringement theory presented is one of standard essentiality, where compliance with the 802.11ax standard is alleged to necessarily result in infringement of the patents-in-suit.

• ’570 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the functionality required by the 802.11ax standard has "incorporated" the invention of the ’570 Patent (Compl. ¶69). The theory suggests that in order for the Accused Products to achieve the scalable bandwidth and efficient channel use required by the standard's OFDMA implementation, they must practice the claimed method of using a common subcarrier spacing that evenly divides the nominal channel bandwidths (Compl. ¶69, 72).
• ’213 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the functionality recited in the ’213 patent has been "incorporated into the 802.11ax Standard" (Compl. ¶87). The infringement theory appears to be that the high-performance RF transceivers necessary for Wi-Fi 6 operation require active compensation for reactance drift in tunable components to maintain signal integrity, and that this functionality is met by the apparatus claimed in the ’213 Patent (Compl. ¶87, 90).
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Standard Essentiality: A central issue for all asserted patents will be whether compliance with the mandatory provisions of the 802.11ax standard necessarily requires practicing the claimed inventions. The defense may argue that the patented methods or structures are merely optional implementations permitted, but not required, by the standard.
  • Evidentiary Basis: For apparatus claims such as in the ’213 Patent, a potential point of contention is whether the complaint provides sufficient factual allegations that the accused Acer products contain the specific claimed structures (e.g., a "reactance detection circuit" and "error correction circuit"), as opposed to making a conclusory allegation that standard compliance necessitates a particular hardware design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term from ’570 Patent (Claim 1): "choosing a common subcarrier spacing ... that evenly divides"

  • Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement allegation for the ’570 Patent may depend on whether the mathematical constraint of "evenly divides" is a strict requirement of the 802.11ax standard. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant will likely argue that the standard provides for flexibility in subcarrier allocation that does not meet this precise limitation, while Plaintiff will argue it is inherent to the standard's scalable OFDMA framework.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Language in the specification emphasizing the overall goal of "reduc[ing] or eliminat[ing] unnecessary guard bands" and improving "spectral efficiency" could support a broader, more functional interpretation of the term (’570 Patent, col. 2:60-61).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description provides specific numerical examples and formulas relating subcarrier spacing, FFT size, and nominal bandwidth (’570 Patent, col. 6:10-40, Tables 1-2). This could support a narrower, more literal interpretation requiring a strict mathematical divisibility.

• Term from ’213 Patent (Claim 1): "a reactance detection circuit"

  • Context and Importance: The scope of this term will be critical to determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine what types of circuitry in the Accused Products can satisfy this limitation. Plaintiff may argue for a broad functional definition covering any circuit that measures reactance, while Defendant may seek to limit the term to the specific embodiments disclosed in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself uses the general term "circuit" without specifying a particular type, which may suggest a broader scope covering any structure that performs the recited function of detecting reactance.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly describes specific embodiments, such as an "amplitude or peak detector" and a "frequency discriminator," as examples of the reactance detection circuit (’213 Patent, col. 4:32-37, Figs. 5, 7, 8). This disclosure of specific structures could be used to argue that the claim scope should be limited to these disclosed embodiments or their equivalents.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and contributory infringement under § 271(c). Inducement allegations are based on claims that Acer advertises, provides user manuals for, and otherwise encourages customers to use the Accused Products in their ordinary, standard-compliant mode, which allegedly constitutes direct infringement (e.g., Compl. ¶73, 91). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused components are material to the inventions, not staple articles of commerce, and are known by Acer to be especially adapted for infringement (e.g., Compl. ¶77, 95).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for each patent, asserting that Acer had knowledge of the patents-in-suit from at least three sources: (1) constructive knowledge of the patent landscape through Letters of Assurance submitted to the IEEE by the original patent owners (NXP and ZTE) for the 802.11ax standard (e.g., Compl. ¶74, 92); (2) actual pre-suit knowledge from a notice letter sent by Velocity on April 15, 2025 (e.g., Compl. ¶74, 92); and (3) knowledge from the service of the complaint itself (e.g., Compl. ¶75, 93). It is alleged that Acer continued its infringing activities despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶79-80).

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

• A core issue will be one of technical mapping: does compliance with the mandatory specifications of the IEEE 802.11ax standard necessarily require practicing the specific methods and apparatus structures recited in the asserted claims, or do the claims cover technologies that are merely optional implementations under the standard?
• The case will also turn on claim construction: the dispute over infringement will likely focus on the court's interpretation of key claim terms, such as the precise mathematical relationship required by "evenly divides" in the ’570 patent and the structural scope of terms like "reactance detection circuit" in the ’213 patent.
• A key factual question for willfulness will be the sufficiency of knowledge: the case raises the question of whether knowledge of a predecessor’s patent portfolio, through standard-setting body disclosures, can establish the requisite knowledge of specific patents for a claim of willful infringement against a subsequent accused infringer.