DCT

5:25-cv-00100

Velocity Communication Tech LLC v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:25-cv-00100, E.D. Tex., 07/09/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation subject to personal jurisdiction in the district. Allegations supporting personal jurisdiction include Defendant’s substantial business in Texas and the district, purposeful direction of infringing activities at Texas residents, and sales of accused products through established distribution channels, including a specific retail location in Texarkana, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products compliant with the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) wireless networking standard infringe eleven U.S. patents related to wireless communication technologies, including OFDMA bandwidth allocation, beamforming, antenna tuning, power control, and beacon formatting.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns the 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard, a foundational technology for high-efficiency wireless local area networks (WLANs) that supports the increasing density of connected devices and high-throughput applications.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of patents essential to the 802.11ax standard based on Letters of Assurance submitted to the IEEE by original patent owners NXP Semiconductors and ZTE Corporation. Plaintiff also alleges providing direct notice to Defendant via a letter on April 15, 2025, which identified the patent portfolio and invited licensing discussions.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-12-20 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,270,343
2005-12-07 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,265,573
2006-03-09 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,238,859
2007-03-23 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,675,570
2007-08-28 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,238,832
2007-10-15 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,213,870; 8,644,765; 9,083,401; 10,200,096
2008-09-15 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,260,213
2012-06-29 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,596,648
2020-09-29 NXP submits Letter of Assurance to IEEE for 802.11ax essential patents
2024-03-04 ZTE submits Letter of Assurance to IEEE for 802.11ax essential patents
2025-01-14 ASUS press release regarding Wi-Fi 6E products
2025-04-15 Velocity sends notice letter to ASUS
2025-07-09 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 need for improved spectral efficiency and flexibility in wireless communication systems like Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) (’570 Patent, col. 1:21-40). Traditional systems often use fixed channel bandwidths and subcarrier spacings, which can lead to wasted spectrum and interference when deploying multiple carriers next to each other (’570 Patent, col. 1:41-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes methods for scalable bandwidth allocation where a common subcarrier spacing is chosen to evenly divide various nominal channel bandwidths (e.g., 5, 10, 20 MHz) (’570 Patent, col. 3:1-14). This allows carriers to be placed adjacent to each other without guard bands, as the subcarriers remain orthogonal across the boundary, thereby improving spectral efficiency and simplifying multi-carrier deployment (’570 Patent, Fig. 3B; col. 8:42-54).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for more flexible and efficient use of the radio spectrum, a critical resource for wireless standards like 802.11ax that are designed for dense, high-capacity environments (Compl. ¶¶25-27).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶72).
  • Essential elements of a representative independent claim include:
    • A method for allocating spectral bandwidth for an OFDMA system.
    • Choosing a common subcarrier spacing for orthogonal subcarriers.
    • Selecting a sampling frequency based on a nominal channel bandwidth.
    • Using subcarriers within the nominal channel bandwidth for signal transmission without assigning subcarriers as guard bands at the ends of the channel.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but infringement of "one or more claims" is alleged (Compl. ¶72).

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of "drift in reactance" in tunable reactive elements, such as Voltage Variable Capacitors (VVCs), used in radio frequency (RF) circuits (’213 Patent, col. 1:20-24). This drift, caused by factors like temperature changes or residual polarization, can degrade the performance of components like antennas, leading to signal mismatch and reduced efficiency (’213 Patent, col. 1:24-29).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method and apparatus to actively correct this drift. A control circuit measures the actual reactance of a tunable element and compares it to a desired reactance value. An error correction circuit then generates a correction signal to adjust the tunable element, reducing the difference between the measured and desired reactance and thereby maintaining optimal performance (’213 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 11).
  • Technical Importance: This technology is significant for maintaining the high performance required in advanced wireless transceivers, such as those used in 802.11ax devices, which must operate reliably across various environmental conditions (Compl. ¶¶6, 25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶90).
  • Essential elements of a representative independent claim include:
    • 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.
    • Applying a third signal, derived from the difference signal, to the tunable element to reduce the difference between measured and desired reactance.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’213 patent (Compl. ¶90).

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: This patent describes a system for using beamforming—directing wireless signals in a specific direction—to manage interference between co-located wireless protocols, such as Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, operating on the same device. The invention determines the angle of arrival for each protocol's signal and creates antenna beam patterns that maximize the desired signal while creating nulls (areas of low signal strength) in the direction of the interfering signal (’832 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 18 is asserted (Compl. ¶108).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses ASUS Access Points that practice the 802.11ax standard, which includes mandatory beamforming capabilities, of infringing the ’832 patent (Compl. ¶¶102, 105; Compl. ¶27).

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 patent addresses methods for efficiently broadcasting information, such as an electronic service guide (ESG), that contains both textual (semantic) data and multimedia (presentation) data. The invention separates the more frequently updated semantic data from the larger, more static presentation data and transmits the semantic data in every data burst, allowing a receiver to quickly acquire essential information while progressively downloading the less critical multimedia content (’343 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 10 is asserted (Compl. ¶126).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that ASUS devices practicing the 802.11ax standard, which is used to broadcast information, infringe the ’343 patent (Compl. ¶¶120, 123).

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

  • Patent Identification: A family of patents including U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870 (issued Jul. 3, 2012) and U.S. Patent No. 10,200,096 (issued Feb. 5, 2019), all titled "Beamforming Using Predefined Spatial Mapping Matrices."
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent family relates to beamforming in Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) systems. The technology involves using a "codebook" of predefined spatial mapping matrices. A transmitter can iteratively send data packets using different matrices from the codebook and, based on feedback from the receiver about reception quality, select the optimal matrix for subsequent transmissions, thereby improving signal directionality and reliability without requiring a full channel sounding procedure each time (’870 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted for each patent in this family (Compl. ¶¶144, 162, 180, 198).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses ASUS Access Points practicing the 802.11ax standard, which utilizes MIMO and beamforming, of infringing this patent family (Compl. ¶¶138, 156, 174, 192; Compl. ¶27).

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 a method for configuring a radio receiver by automatically adjusting a tunable component, such as a capacitor bank, to optimize signal quality. The receiver iteratively changes the component's value, measures the resulting signal quality, and determines the optimal setting that provides the highest quality, thereby calibrating the receiver for a particular frequency (’859 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶216).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that all ASUS devices certified for the 802.11ax standard, which contain radio receivers, infringe the ’859 patent (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: The patent discloses a power control method for a wireless transmitter, particularly during the "ramp-down" phase at the end of a transmission burst. To prevent spectral degradation caused by a sluggish power amplifier response at high power, the method introduces a "back-off" of the target power level a specified time before the ramp-down is initiated, bringing the amplifier out of its non-responsive "dead-zone" and allowing for a smoother power transition (’573 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 12 is asserted (Compl. ¶234).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses ASUS devices that practice the 802.11ax standard with the 6E extension of infringing the ’573 patent (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 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 varies. An indication in the beacon frame or its physical layer header specifies whether it is a short or full beacon, simplifying beacon processing for client devices (’648 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶252).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses ASUS Access Points that practice the 802.11ax standard, which transmit beacon frames to manage the network, of infringing the ’648 patent (Compl. ¶¶246, 249).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint accuses a broad range of ASUS products that "practice the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard" (Compl. ¶66). These include, but are not limited to, computers, smartphones, routers, motherboards, and laptops across various ASUS product lines such as ROG (Republic of Gamers), Prime, TUF Gaming, Zenbook, and Vivobook (Compl. ¶¶66, 84, 102, 120, 138, 156, 174, 192, 210, 228, 246).
  • Functionality and Market Context:
    • The accused functionality is the implementation of the 802.11ax standard, also known as Wi-Fi 6 and Wi-Fi 6E (Compl. ¶3). This standard includes key technologies such as Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA), Multi-User Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MU-MIMO), and beamforming, which are designed to improve wireless network efficiency, capacity, and performance, especially in dense environments (Compl. ¶27). The complaint alleges ASUS markets these products by touting the advantages of Wi-Fi 6 technology, such as "great performance and flexibility by accessing high-speed 6GHz channels" (Compl. ¶6).
    • The complaint alleges these products are sold throughout the United States and Texas via established distribution channels, including online and brick-and-mortar retailers (Compl. ¶¶5, 14). The complaint provides a screenshot from a retailer's website allegedly showing the accused ASUS RT-BE3600 and RT-BE92U routers available for purchase and pickup in Texarkana, Texas (Compl. p. 6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

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

The complaint references an infringement chart in Exhibit 12, which was not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶69). The narrative theory is that the accused products necessarily practice the claimed invention because the functionality is incorporated into the mandatory sections of the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶69).

Claim Element (from a representative Independent Claim) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method for allocating spectral bandwidth . . . comprising: choosing a common subcarrier spacing for orthogonal subcarriers The accused products operate according to the 802.11ax standard, which defines specific subcarrier spacings for its OFDMA implementation to maintain orthogonality between users and channels. ¶¶27, 69, 78 col. 3:1-4
selecting a sampling frequency that is equal to or greater than a given nominal channel bandwidth of a carrier The 802.11ax standard specifies various channel bandwidths (e.g., 20, 40, 80, 160 MHz) and corresponding sampling frequencies required for operation. ¶¶27, 69 col. 3:5-8
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 accused products, by implementing OFDMA as defined in the 802.11ax standard, allocate resources across the entire channel bandwidth, a practice the complaint alleges aligns with the patent's teaching of eliminating unnecessary guard bands between adjacent carriers. ¶¶69, 78 col. 3:9-14
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "without assigning subcarriers as guard subcarriers" means a complete absence of guard bands, or if it can be construed to cover the 802.11ax standard's specific implementation, which may have its own methods for managing edge-of-band emissions.
    • Technical Questions: The dispute may turn on whether the specific subcarrier spacing and bandwidth allocation rules of the 802.11ax standard are technically equivalent to the method claimed in the ’570 Patent, or if they represent a distinct, non-infringing approach to spectrum management.

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

The complaint references an infringement chart in Exhibit 13, which was not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶87). The narrative theory is that the functionality recited in the patent has been incorporated into the 802.11ax standard, and by making and selling devices compliant with that standard, ASUS infringes (Compl. ¶¶87, 90).

Claim Element (from a representative Independent Claim) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving a first signal from a signal source coupled to a first tunable reactive element Accused products contain RF transceivers with tunable elements (e.g., in the antenna matching network) that are subject to control signals for optimizing performance. ¶¶87, 90 col. 11:10-12
producing . . . a second signal representing a measure of reactance of the first tunable reactive element The control circuitry within the accused products' RF front-ends is alleged to be capable of measuring RF characteristics that correspond to the reactance of tunable components. ¶¶87, 90 col. 11:13-16
receiving a control signal representing a desired reactance Firmware or hardware in the accused products' transceivers sets target performance parameters, which correspond to a desired reactance for the tunable elements. ¶¶87, 90 col. 11:17-19
applying the third signal to the first tunable reactive element to reduce a difference between the measured reactance and the desired reactance The accused products allegedly contain feedback loops that generate and apply corrective control signals to the tunable elements to maintain optimal RF performance against a target value. ¶¶87, 90 col. 11:23-26
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A key question will be whether the general functionality of an RF front-end in a standard-compliant device meets the specific claim limitations. For example, does the term "tunable reactive element" as used in the patent read on the specific components used in the accused ASUS products?
    • Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify how the accused products perform the claimed steps. A point of contention will be what evidence exists that the accused products' general RF optimization functions perform the specific steps of generating a "measure of reactance" and creating a "difference signal" to actively correct for drift, as required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

  • The Term: "without assigning subcarriers as guard subcarriers"
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the infringement theory hinges on the 802.11ax standard's efficient use of spectrum. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant may argue that the 802.11ax standard does, in fact, use a form of guard band or other edge-of-band management technique, even if not explicitly labeled as such, which would place its products outside the scope of the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's focus on improving spectral efficiency by allowing carriers to be placed adjacent to each other could support a construction that covers any method achieving this goal, regardless of the precise mechanism at the band edge (’570 Patent, col. 8:42-54).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The explicit language "without assigning" could be interpreted narrowly to require a complete absence of any subcarriers designated for guard purposes. Specific embodiments or figures showing carriers directly abutting with no unused subcarriers in between could support this narrower view (’570 Patent, Fig. 3B).

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

  • The Term: "a second signal representing a measure of reactance"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the dispute because it requires a specific technical operation—measuring reactance. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant could argue its products' RF control systems optimize for general signal quality (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio or received signal strength) without ever explicitly measuring or representing "reactance" as required by the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification may describe the "measure of reactance" in functional terms related to its effect on a signal's amplitude or phase. This could support a broader interpretation where any signal measurement that is functionally dependent on reactance (e.g., an AM/Peak Detector output) meets the limitation (’213 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 4:55-61).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed description of circuits like frequency discriminators or peak detectors might be used to argue that the term requires a specific type of measurement signal directly corresponding to a component's capacitive or inductive properties, not just a general signal quality metric (’213 Patent, col. 5:34-40).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is alleged based on Defendant’s affirmative acts of advertising, marketing, and providing instructional materials (e.g., user manuals) that encourage end-users to operate the accused products in their normal, standard-compliant (and thus allegedly infringing) manner (e.g., Compl. ¶¶73, 76). Contributory infringement is 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 Defendant to be especially adapted for use in an infringing way (e.g., Compl. ¶77).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for each patent. Willfulness is predicated on alleged pre-suit knowledge stemming from (1) Letters of Assurance submitted to the IEEE by the original patent owners, which allegedly put industry participants like ASUS on notice of patents essential to the 802.11ax standard, and (2) a direct notice letter sent by Plaintiff to ASUS on April 15, 2025 (e.g., Compl. ¶¶74, 78-80). Post-suit willfulness is also alleged based on knowledge gained from the filing of the complaint itself (e.g., Compl. ¶75).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical necessity and claim scope: For each asserted patent, can Plaintiff demonstrate that compliance with the mandatory provisions of the 802.11ax standard inherently requires practicing the specific methods recited in the patent claims? For patents covering general concepts like antenna tuning or power control, the case may turn on whether the broadly-phrased claims can be construed to read on the specific, complex implementations within modern Wi-Fi chipsets.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of knowledge and intent: Will the alleged constructive notice from IEEE Letters of Assurance and the direct notice from Plaintiff’s letter be sufficient to establish the knowledge and intent required for indirect infringement and the "wanton, malicious, bad-faith" conduct required to prove willfulness?
  • A third central question will be one of patent aggregation: Given that eleven patents from multiple distinct families are asserted against a wide array of products based on a single technical standard, the case will test the strategy of bundling numerous patents to cover the multifaceted operation of a complex standard-compliant product. The court will need to analyze infringement on a patent-by-patent, claim-by-claim basis, raising the question of whether each asserted patent truly maps to the accused standard-compliant functionality.