DCT

5:25-cv-00100

Velocity Communication Tech LLC v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:25-cv-00100, E.D. Tex., 11/29/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation, and the court has personal jurisdiction. The complaint asserts personal jurisdiction based on Defendant’s regular and systematic business activities in Texas, including the sale of accused products through established distribution channels to residents of the judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products compliant with the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard infringe eleven U.S. patents related to various wireless communication technologies, which Plaintiff claims are essential to the standard.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves foundational aspects of modern wireless local area networks (WLANs), specifically improvements in spectral efficiency, signal quality, beamforming, and data handling incorporated into the widely adopted Wi-Fi 6 standard.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant had knowledge of patents related to the 802.11ax standard from third parties (NXP, ZTE) through Letters of Assurance submitted to the IEEE standards body. It further alleges direct knowledge of Plaintiff’s portfolio and infringement claims via a pre-suit notice letter, as well as knowledge from the filing of the original complaint in this action.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-12-20 U.S. Patent No. 8,270,343 Earliest Priority Date
2005-12-07 U.S. Patent No. 8,265,573 Earliest Priority Date
2006-03-09 U.S. Patent No. 8,238,859 Earliest Priority Date
2007-03-23 U.S. Patent No. 8,675,570 Earliest Priority Date
2007-08-28 U.S. Patent No. 8,238,832 Earliest Priority Date
2007-10-15 U.S. Patent Nos. 8,213,870; 8,644,765; 9,083,401; 10,200,096 Earliest Priority Date
2008-09-15 U.S. Patent No. 8,260,213 Earliest Priority Date
2012-06-29 U.S. Patent No. 9,596,648 Earliest Priority Date
2020-09-29 NXP submits Letter of Assurance to IEEE regarding 802.11ax patents
2024-03-04 ZTE submits Letter of Assurance to IEEE regarding 802.11ax patents
2025-01-14 ASUS press release regarding Wi-Fi 6E products
2025-04-15 Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant regarding patents-in-suit
2025-07-09 Original Complaint filed in the action
2025-11-29 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

  • Issued: March 18, 2014.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses 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, wasting usable spectrum. This inefficiency arose partly because the spacing of signal subcarriers was not mathematically aligned with standard channel bandwidths, forcing some subcarriers at the channel edges to be left empty (Compl. ¶35-37; ’570 Patent, col. 6:27-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for allocating bandwidth using a common, precisely chosen subcarrier spacing that is mathematically aligned with both the channel raster and all nominal channel bandwidths. This alignment allows multiple channels or carriers to be aggregated contiguously with reduced or eliminated guard bands, thereby minimizing interference and maximizing the use of the available spectrum (Compl. ¶38).
  • Technical Importance: This approach improves the throughput and operational efficiency of wireless systems by enabling more flexible and dense allocation of bandwidth for single or multiple users (Compl. ¶39-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1, among others (Compl. ¶178).
  • Claim 1 of the ’570 patent includes the following essential elements:
    • A method for allocating spectral bandwidth for an OFDM or OFDMA system.
    • Choosing a common subcarrier spacing for orthogonal subcarriers.
    • Selecting a sampling frequency that is equal to or greater than a given nominal channel bandwidth.
    • Using subcarriers within the given nominal channel bandwidth for signal transmission without assigning subcarriers as guard subcarriers at both ends of the nominal channel bandwidth.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-6, 9, 12, and 13 (Compl. ¶178).

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 addresses the problem of "reactance drift" in radio frequency (RF) circuits, where tunable components like Voltage Variable Capacitors (VVCs) change their properties due to temperature shifts or residual polarization. This drift causes impedance mismatches, which degrade antenna performance, reduce power efficiency, and distort the transmitted signal (’213 Patent, col. 1:19-26; Compl. ¶46, ¶48).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a closed-loop, self-correcting architecture to dynamically maintain the desired reactance of a tunable element. The system employs a reactance detection circuit to monitor the transmitted signal's properties, an error correction circuit to compare the measured reactance against a desired value, and an integration circuit to generate a correction signal that adjusts the tunable element in real time to compensate for any drift (Compl. ¶50, ¶56, ¶63; ’213 Patent, Figs. 5-6, 9).
  • Technical Importance: This adaptive tuning improves the performance and reliability of wireless transmitters, particularly in devices that operate across multiple frequencies and bandwidths (like those compliant with the 802.11ax standard) where maintaining optimal RF performance is challenging (Compl. ¶51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1, among others (Compl. ¶196).
  • Claim 1 of the ’213 patent recites an apparatus with these essential elements:
    • A signal source coupled to a first tunable reactive element to generate a first signal.
    • A reactance detection circuit to detect the reactance of the element from the first signal and generate a second signal representing that reactance.
    • An error correction circuit to receive a control signal representing a desired reactance, compare it to the second signal to produce a difference signal, and generate a third signal to adjust the first tunable reactive element's reactance.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-4, 6, 8-10, 12-14, 16, and 17 (Compl. ¶196).

Multi-Patent Capsules

  • 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 is directed to solving signal interference when a single device communicates simultaneously using multiple wireless protocols (e.g., Wi-Fi and Bluetooth). The invention teaches generating and shaping multiple antenna beam patterns that not only direct a signal to its intended recipient but also actively suppress signal strength in the direction of other simultaneous communications to reduce crosstalk (Compl. ¶69, ¶72).

  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 18 is asserted, along with dependent claims 22-23, 25-32, and 34-35 (Compl. ¶214).

  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that ASUS Access Points compliant with the 802.11ax standard, which utilize multi-user technologies like MU-MIMO and beamforming, practice the claimed inventions (Compl. ¶208, ¶211).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,270,343, “Broadcasting of Textual and Multimedia Information,” issued September 18, 2012.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses inefficient broadcasting of mixed-media files. The invention describes a method where a single block of text and multiple sub-blocks of related multimedia data are packaged together into time-sliced packets, enabling simultaneous and efficient transmission that maintains a "low bandwidth occupation" (Compl. ¶79, ¶81, ¶84).

  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 7, and 15 are asserted, along with dependent claims 3, 10, 11, and 13 (Compl. ¶232).

  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that ASUS devices practicing the 802.11ax standard, particularly in high-density environments, use the claimed efficient broadcast methods (Compl. ¶226, ¶229).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870, “Beamforming Using Predefined Spatial Mapping Matrices,” issued July 3, 2012.

  • Technology Synopsis: The technology relates to improving MIMO communications by using a "codebook" of predefined spatial mapping matrices. The system iteratively transmits data using different matrices, measures the reception quality, selects an optimal matrix for subsequent use, and re-selects another if performance metrics like Packet Error Rate (PER) fall below a threshold (Compl. ¶91).

  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 5, 12, and 16 are asserted, along with others (Compl. ¶250).

  • Accused Features: ASUS Access Points compliant with the 802.11ax standard are alleged to use the claimed adaptive, codebook-based beamforming techniques (Compl. ¶244, ¶247).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,644,765, “Beamforming Using Predefined Spatial Mapping Matrices,” issued February 4, 2014.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’870 patent, also describes improving MIMO reliability and range via directional transmissions using a codebook of predefined matrices. The system iteratively transmits data packets, receives channel estimates in response, selects a matrix based on those estimates, and adaptively re-selects if a packet error rate threshold is exceeded (Compl. ¶104, ¶107).

  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 12 are asserted, along with others (Compl. ¶268).

  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that ASUS Access Points compliant with the 802.11ax standard practice the claimed inventions (Compl. ¶262, ¶265).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,083,401, “Beamforming Using Predefined Spatial Mapping Matrices,” issued July 14, 2015.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, also in the same family as the ’870 and ’765 patents, claims an adaptive beamforming solution. The system iteratively transmits using different predefined matrices, selects the best matrix based on received channel estimates, and continues to adapt by selecting another matrix if a reception quality metric (like PER or data rate) falls below a threshold (Compl. ¶118).

  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 15 are asserted, along with others (Compl. ¶286).

  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by ASUS Access Points that practice the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶280, ¶283).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,200,096, “Beamforming Using Predefined Spatial Mapping Matrices,” issued February 5, 2019.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, also in the same family, describes a method to overcome range limitations of traditional sounding procedures. It teaches 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 data transmissions, moving the channel selection process "into the data path" (Compl. ¶128, ¶130, ¶133).

  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 are asserted, along with others (Compl. ¶304).

  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by ASUS Access Points that practice the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶298, ¶301).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,238,859, “Radio Receiver,” issued August 7, 2012.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent is directed to improving radio receiver performance in dynamic environments by systematically optimizing component settings. The claimed method involves an iterative process of setting an adjustable hardware component to different values, measuring the resulting signal quality for each setting, and repeating the cycle to determine and apply the optimal configuration (Compl. ¶139, ¶146).

  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 7, and 18 are asserted, along with others (Compl. ¶322).

  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that ASUS Wi-Fi 6 certified devices use the claimed iterative self-improvement methods to maintain reliable connections in changing RF conditions (Compl. ¶316, ¶319).

  • 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 addresses interference and inefficiency in crowded wireless environments through advanced power control. It teaches a method for a transmitter to adjust and "back off" its output power in response to network conditions, particularly when high-power transmissions risk causing "spectral degradation" or "unfavorable interference at adjacent channels" (Compl. ¶152, ¶154-155).

  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1-9 and 11-19 are asserted (Compl. ¶340).

  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by ASUS devices compliant with the Wi-Fi 6E extension, which operate in new, potentially crowded spectrum and require advanced power control (Compl. ¶334, ¶337).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,596,648, “Unified Beacon Format,” issued March 14, 2017.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent seeks to solve inefficiency caused by large, periodic beacon frames in wireless networks. It discloses a unified beacon format that can be transmitted as either a concise "short" beacon (for routine updates to connected devices) or a comprehensive "full" beacon (for new devices or significant network changes), with an indicator specifying the type, thereby reducing airtime consumption and power drain (Compl. ¶162, ¶166).

  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted, along with dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 (Compl. ¶358).

  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by ASUS Access Points that practice the 802.11ax standard, which must efficiently manage network information broadcasts (Compl. ¶352, ¶355).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names a broad range of Defendant’s products that are designed to operate in compliance with the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard. These include, but are not limited to, ASUS-branded computers, smartphones, laptops, routers, and motherboards (collectively, the “Accused Products”) (Compl. ¶172, ¶190).

Functionality and Market Context

The core accused functionality is the implementation of the 802.11ax standard, which the complaint alleges incorporates the technologies claimed by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶3, ¶175, ¶193). The complaint alleges Defendant markets these products by promoting the advantages of Wi-Fi 6 and Wi-Fi 6E technology, such as "great performance and flexibility by accessing high-speed 6GHz channels" (Compl. ¶6). The complaint further alleges that these products are sold throughout the United States and within the judicial district, for example, at a Best Buy location in Texarkana, Texas (Compl. ¶5, ¶14). A screenshot from the Best Buy website shows Accused Products available for in-store pickup at that location, supporting the allegation of sales within the district (Compl. p. 6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, detailed claim chart exhibits mapping claim limitations to the Accused Products (Compl. ¶175, ¶193). The infringement theory is therefore summarized in prose.

The complaint’s central theory of infringement is that the patents-in-suit are essential to the mandatory portions of the IEEE 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶3). Therefore, it is alleged that any ASUS product that practices the standard necessarily infringes the asserted claims. For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges that the functionality recited in the claims has been incorporated into the 802.11ax standard and is practiced by the Accused Products when they are made, used, or sold (Compl. ¶175, ¶193, ¶211).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A principal point of contention will likely be whether compliance with the 802.11ax standard is, in fact, sufficient to establish infringement of the specific limitations of each asserted claim. The defense may argue that the standard can be practiced without infringing the patents, or that the accused products implement the standard in a non-infringing manner.
    • Technical Questions: For each patent, the analysis will raise factual questions about the technical operation of the accused devices. For the ’570 Patent, a question is whether the 802.11ax standard mandates the specific mathematical relationship between subcarrier spacing and channel bandwidths as claimed. For the ’213 Patent, an evidentiary question is whether ASUS’s devices actually perform the claimed closed-loop process of detecting reactance drift, comparing the drift to a desired value, and generating a specific correction signal to compensate.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "common subcarrier spacing" (from ’570 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the asserted invention in the ’570 Patent. Its construction will determine whether the specific method of frequency allocation used in the 802.11ax standard falls within the claim's scope. Practitioners may focus on whether "common" implies a single, universal spacing value or a spacing that shares a specific mathematical property (e.g., divisibility) across different channel bandwidths.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the solution as using "a common, precisely chosen subcarrier spacing that is mathematically aligned" with channel rasters and bandwidths, which may suggest that any aligned system uses a "common" spacing (Compl. ¶38).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background explicitly criticizes a prior art system where the "subcarrier spacing is 9.6 kHZ and cannot be divided evenly by nominal carrier bandwidths" (’570 Patent, col. 6:27-34). This may support a narrower construction requiring that the "common subcarrier spacing" must be evenly divisible into all relevant bandwidths.

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

  • Context and Importance: This is a functional limitation, and its construction will be critical to determining infringement. The dispute will likely center on what specific structure or algorithm constitutes a "reactance detection circuit" as opposed to a general-purpose calibration or feedback mechanism. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint alleges infringement based on compliance with a standard, but the standard may not specify the exact circuit structure claimed.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention at a high level as an "adaptive tuning architecture" capable of dynamic adjustment, which could support a broader functional definition (Compl. ¶49).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a specific sequence where the circuit monitors a signal, generates a second signal "representing measured reactance," and an error integration circuit compares this to a desired value (Compl. ¶50, ¶56). Figures 5, 6, and 9 of the patent, cited in the complaint, depict specific circuit implementations for performing these functions, which may support a narrower construction tied to such structures (Compl. ¶54, ¶61).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each patent-in-suit, the complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The allegations are based on Defendant advertising, marketing, and providing instructions (e.g., user manuals) that encourage and teach end-users to operate the Accused Products in their normal, standard-compliant (and thus allegedly infringing) manner (Compl. ¶179, ¶182, ¶197). Contributory infringement is also alleged on the basis that the accused components are material to the inventions, not staple articles of commerce, and are known by ASUS to be especially adapted for infringement (Compl. ¶183, ¶201).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The complaint bases this on alleged pre-suit knowledge stemming from multiple sources: (i) constructive or actual knowledge of third-party patents (later acquired by Plaintiff) declared potentially essential to the 802.11ax standard in Letters of Assurance to the IEEE, dating back to at least September 29, 2020; (ii) direct notice of the patents-in-suit and allegations of infringement from a letter sent by Plaintiff on April 15, 2025; and (iii) knowledge from the filing of the original complaint on July 9, 2025 (Compl. ¶180-181, ¶184-185, ¶198-199).

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

  • A central issue will be one of standard-essentiality versus infringement: does compliance with the mandatory specifications of the IEEE 802.11ax standard necessarily require practicing the limitations of the asserted claims? The case may depend on a detailed technical comparison between the patent claims and the standard's requirements, rather than just the general functionalities offered by Wi-Fi 6.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what is the specific structure and method of operation of the accused circuitry and software within ASUS's products? For functional claims, such as those in the ’213 and ’859 patents, the infringement analysis will likely turn on whether the accused devices perform the precise, multi-step processes recited, or whether they achieve a similar result through a different, non-infringing technical approach.
  • The analysis of willfulness and indirect infringement will likely focus on the scope and timing of Defendant’s knowledge. A primary question for the court will be whether knowledge of patents declared potentially essential to a standard by third parties, prior to an acquisition by Plaintiff and direct notice, is sufficient to establish the requisite knowledge and intent for enhanced damages and indirect infringement liability.