DCT

5:25-cv-00101

Velocity Communication Tech LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:25-cv-00101, E.D. Tex., 10/02/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Cisco has regular and established places of business in Allen and Richardson, Texas, employs full-time personnel including sales and engineering staff, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products compliant with the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard infringe ten U.S. patents relating to wireless communication technologies, including methods for efficient bandwidth allocation and managing signal interference.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit centers on the IEEE 802.11ax standard (Wi-Fi 6), a cornerstone of modern wireless networking designed to improve efficiency, capacity, and performance in dense device environments.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant had knowledge of patents potentially essential to the 802.11ax standard via Letters of Assurance submitted to the IEEE by NXP Semiconductors and ZTE Corporation. Plaintiff also alleges providing direct notice to Defendant via a letter on April 15, 2025, prior to the original complaint filing on July 9, 2025.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-12-20 ’343 Patent Priority Date
2005-12-07 ’573 Patent Priority Date
2006-03-09 ’859 Patent Priority Date
2007-03-23 ’570 Patent Priority Date
2007-08-28 ’832 Patent Priority Date
2007-10-15 ’870, ’765, ’401, and ’096 Patents Priority Date
2012-06-29 ’648 Patent Priority Date
2012-07-03 ’870 Patent Issue Date
2012-08-07 ’832 and ’859 Patents Issue Date
2012-09-11 ’343 and ’573 Patents Issue Date
2014-01-01 IEEE forms Task Group AX to develop 802.11ax standard
2014-02-04 ’765 Patent Issue Date
2014-03-18 ’570 Patent Issue Date
2015-07-14 ’401 Patent Issue Date
2016-03-01 First draft of the 802.11ax Standard is published
2017-03-14 ’648 Patent Issue Date
2019-02-05 ’096 Patent Issue Date
2020-09-29 NXP submits Letter of Assurance to IEEE for 802.11ax patents
2021-02-09 IEEE grants final approval for the 802.11ax Standard
2024-03-04 ZTE submits Letter of Assurance to IEEE for 802.11ax patents
2025-04-15 Velocity sends letter to Cisco regarding patents-in-suit
2025-07-09 Original Complaint Filed
2025-10-02 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 spectral inefficiency in wireless communication systems using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) and Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) (Compl. ¶28). This inefficiency arises from the conventional use of non-data-bearing "guard bands" or "guard subcarriers" to prevent interference between channels, creating wasteful gaps in the usable spectrum (Compl. ¶29). The specification notes that this problem is exacerbated when the subcarrier spacing cannot be evenly divided by nominal carrier bandwidths, resulting in unused edge subcarriers ('570 Patent, col. 6:27-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for allocating spectral bandwidth that uses a common, precisely chosen subcarrier spacing that is mathematically aligned with both the channel raster and all nominal channel bandwidths (Compl. ¶32). This technique allows multiple carriers to be aggregated with reduced or eliminated guard bands, which minimizes inter-carrier interference and improves spectral efficiency (Compl. ¶32).
  • Technical Importance: This approach improves the throughput and operational efficiency of wireless systems by enabling more flexible and dense bandwidth allocation while maximizing the use of available spectrum (Compl. ¶33-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶144, ¶147).
  • Based on the patent’s description, the essential elements of a representative method claim appear to involve:
    • 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 the ends of the channel.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent confronts the technical problem of signal interference (crosstalk) that occurs when a single wireless device must simultaneously communicate with multiple remote devices using different wireless protocols, such as Wi-Fi and Bluetooth (Compl. ¶38). The patent’s background identifies that traditional antenna beamforming methods often fail to adequately suppress such interference, leading to reduced link quality and degraded throughput (Compl. ¶39).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention teaches a system for generating and shaping multiple antenna beam patterns so that each beam not only directs its signal to the intended recipient but also actively suppresses its signal strength in the direction of other simultaneous communications ('832 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶41). This is achieved through the calculation of "intelligent steering matrix" values that optimize beam patterns for coexistence ('832 Patent, col. 2:1-13; Compl. ¶43).
  • Technical Importance: This technology enhances the performance of wireless devices in complex radio frequency environments by enabling distinct, reliable communication paths with multiple remote devices, thereby increasing throughput and minimizing interference (Compl. ¶41, ¶43).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 18 (Compl. ¶163, ¶166).
  • Based on the patent's description, the essential elements of a representative apparatus claim appear to involve:
    • An antenna array.
    • A first interface for receiving data of a first wireless protocol.
    • A second interface for receiving data of a second wireless protocol.
    • A beamform controller configured to control the antenna array to transmit/receive first protocol data along a first communication path while minimizing interference along a second path, and simultaneously transmit/receive second protocol data along the second path while minimizing interference along the first path.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

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

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’343 patent addresses the inefficient transmission of mixed-media content (e.g., files with both text and multimedia) in wireless broadcast systems (Compl. ¶48-49). It discloses 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 improves network throughput and reduces latency (Compl. ¶50, ¶53).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 11, 13, and 15 are asserted (Compl. ¶181, ¶184).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that devices practicing the 802.11ax standard, which is designed for high-density environments requiring efficient broadcast to multiple users, infringe by implementing techniques for structured data broadcasting that utilize improved data fragmentation and scheduling (Compl. ¶54-55).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’870 patent claims improvements to Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) systems to address deficiencies in prior art sounding and beamforming processes (Compl. ¶60, ¶62). The invention involves using a stored "codebook" of predefined spatial mapping matrices, iteratively transmitting packets using different matrices, and selecting the best matrix based on measured reception quality (e.g., packet error rate), thereby improving range, reliability, and throughput (Compl. ¶60, ¶63).
  • 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. ¶199, ¶202).
  • Accused Features: The functionality is alleged to be incorporated into the 802.11ax standard, which relies heavily on adaptive beamforming and MIMO technologies to manage communications in complex wireless environments (Compl. ¶199).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: A continuation of the ’870 patent, the ’765 patent is also directed to improving MIMO communications by using predefined spatial mapping matrices (Compl. ¶71, ¶73). The claimed solution involves iteratively transmitting data packets using different stored matrices, receiving channel estimates in response, selecting a matrix based on those estimates, and re-selecting another matrix if a packet error rate threshold is exceeded (Compl. ¶76).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 are asserted (Compl. ¶217, ¶220).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are the adaptive beamforming and MIMO functionalities integral to the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶217).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: As part of the same patent family as the ’870 and ’765 patents, the ’401 patent also addresses shortcomings in traditional beamforming by using a codebook-based approach (Compl. ¶82, ¶84-85). It discloses a method of iteratively transmitting data packets with different predefined matrices, selecting the best matrix based on received channel estimates, and adaptively re-selecting based on a reception quality metric like packet error rate falling below a threshold (Compl. ¶87).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are asserted (Compl. ¶235, ¶238).
  • Accused Features: The accused functionality is the adaptive, directional transmission technology (beamforming/MIMO) required by the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶235).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’096 patent, also from the same family, addresses the range limitations of traditional sounding packets, which could not reliably reach receivers at the full range of a beamformed channel (Compl. ¶96-97). The invention discloses using a codebook of predefined spatial mapping matrices, measuring a reception quality metric for each, and selecting the matrix with the highest quality for subsequent transmissions, thereby moving channel selection into the data path (Compl. ¶99, ¶102).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 are asserted (Compl. ¶253, ¶256).
  • Accused Features: The 802.11ax standard's implementation of directional probing and adaptive MIMO is alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶253).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’859 patent is directed to improving performance in radio receivers operating in dynamic environments by dynamically configuring the receiver (Compl. ¶108-109). It teaches 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 the optimal configuration, thereby compensating for issues like manufacturing variations (Compl. ¶110-111).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18-22 are asserted (Compl. ¶271, ¶274).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the adaptive radio technologies necessary for robust 802.11ax operation incorporate the patented method of dynamically optimizing receiver settings based on real-world performance feedback (Compl. ¶271).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses interference and inefficient spectrum use in crowded wireless environments by introducing advanced power control methods (Compl. ¶120-121). It discloses adjusting and backing off transmitter output power in response to network conditions to prevent "spectral degradation" and "unfavorable interference at adjacent channels," thereby enabling cleaner and more reliable transmissions (Compl. ¶121, ¶124).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 12 is asserted (Compl. ¶289, ¶292).
  • Accused Features: The power control and interference management mechanisms in the 802.11ax standard, particularly those related to the Wi-Fi 6E extension, are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶286, ¶289).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’648 patent is directed to solving the problem of inefficient broadcasting of network information via beacon frames, which can consume excessive airtime and power (Compl. ¶131). The invention discloses a "unified beacon format" that allows a device to determine whether to send a concise "short" beacon or a comprehensive "full" beacon, improving efficiency, reducing overhead, and saving power on listening devices (Compl. ¶135, ¶138).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶307, ¶310).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the 802.11ax standard incorporates advanced beaconing mechanisms that are designed to improve efficiency in complex environments and are covered by the patent (Compl. ¶307).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are a broad range of Defendant’s wireless networking devices that practice the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard (Compl. ¶141, ¶160). These include, but are not limited to, the Cisco Catalyst 9100, 9800, and IW9165/IW9167 series access points and wireless controllers, Cisco ISR 1131 series routers, and Meraki Wireless Cloud-Managed Access Points (Compl. ¶141).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products function as access points, wireless controllers, and routers that form the infrastructure for modern wireless local area networks. The complaint alleges that by being designed and marketed as compliant with the 802.11ax standard, these products necessarily implement key technologies of that standard, such as OFDMA, MU-MIMO, beamforming, and advanced power control and interference management (Compl. ¶3, ¶21, ¶144). These features are marketed as delivering "a better experience in typical environments with more predictable performance for advanced applications" (Compl. p. 40, n. 2). The complaint provides photographs of Defendant's Richardson office locations and Allen data center, presented as evidence of Defendant's established place of business and operational footprint within the district (Compl. p. 3-4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

  • As the complaint references claim chart exhibits that are not provided, the infringement allegations are summarized below in prose.
  • U.S. Patent No. 8,675,570 Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that any device operating in compliance with the 802.11ax standard directly infringes at least claim 1 of the ’570 patent (Compl. ¶144, ¶147). The narrative theory is that the 802.11ax standard’s adoption of OFDMA for multi-user access inherently requires the patented method of allocating bandwidth. Specifically, it is alleged that the standard’s method of partitioning a channel into numerous subcarriers for simultaneous user transmissions embodies the claimed invention of using a common, aligned subcarrier spacing to aggregate channel widths without wasteful guard bands, thereby improving spectral efficiency (Compl. ¶28, ¶32, ¶144).
  • U.S. Patent No. 8,238,832 Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the accused 802.11ax-compliant access points infringe at least claim 18 of the ’832 patent (Compl. ¶163, ¶166). The infringement theory centers on the standard's use of MU-MIMO and beamforming. The complaint suggests that for an access point to communicate with multiple client devices simultaneously in a dense environment—a core feature of Wi-Fi 6—it must generate multiple, optimized beam patterns that not only focus signals toward intended recipients but also actively suppress interference toward other, non-targeted devices, thus practicing the claimed invention (Compl. ¶41, ¶163).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: For both patents, a central point of contention will likely be whether compliance with the 802.11ax standard necessarily constitutes infringement. For the ’570 patent, this raises the question of whether the specific numerology and channel structures of the 802.11ax standard fall within the scope of the claim term "a common, precisely chosen subcarrier spacing." For the ’832 patent, a similar question arises: Does the 802.11ax standard mandate beamforming that "actively suppresses" interference, or does it merely specify beam steering that has an incidental effect of creating nulls in other directions?
    • Technical Questions: A key technical question for the ’570 patent will be the exact function of subcarriers at the edges of 802.11ax channels. The analysis may explore whether these subcarriers perform any signaling function that would prevent them from being classified as "guard subcarriers with no signal transmission." For the ’832 patent, the dispute may involve what technical evidence demonstrates that the accused products’ beamforming algorithms perform the specific function of calculating and imposing suppression patterns, as opposed to simply maximizing signal strength for a target user.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "guard subcarriers with no signal transmission" (from the technological description of the ’570 patent)

    • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement allegation hinges on the claim that the patented invention eliminates such wasteful elements. Defendant may argue that subcarriers at the channel edge in 802.11ax systems are not "with no signal transmission" but are used for other functions (e.g., signaling, measurement), thereby placing their implementation outside the claim scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification's focus on solving the problem of "lower spectrum usage or spectral efficiency" and "wasteful gaps" could support a construction where any subcarrier not carrying primary user data is considered a "guard subcarrier" for the purpose of the invention (Compl. ¶31; ’570 Patent, col. 6:33-34).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification may contain specific embodiments or definitions that characterize "no signal transmission" more literally. If the accused 802.11ax standard specifies any signal (even a low-power pilot or control signal) on these subcarriers, it could support a narrower construction that favors non-infringement.

  • The Term: "actively suppresses its signal strength" (from the technological description of the ’832 patent)

    • Context and Importance: This term is critical as it distinguishes the invention from conventional beamforming that merely focuses a signal. The infringement analysis will likely turn on whether the accused MU-MIMO implementation in Wi-Fi 6 products involves a specific, affirmative step to create nulls toward other users, or whether such nulls are merely a natural byproduct of beam steering.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Language in the specification describing the invention as a "technological solution aimed at solving the specific technical problem of signal interference and crosstalk" could support a broader, more functional interpretation where any beamforming technique that measurably reduces crosstalk qualifies as "actively suppress[ing]" (Compl. ¶40).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description might disclose specific algorithms or methods for calculating "steering matrices to suppress interference" (Compl. ¶39). Such disclosure could support a narrower construction requiring the use of a similar, explicit null-steering calculation, potentially limiting the claim's reach.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendant encourages and instructs customers and end-users to utilize the accused products in their 802.11ax-compliant mode through advertisements, user manuals, and product support (Compl. ¶148, ¶167). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused components are material to the inventions, are not staple articles of commerce, and are known by Defendant to be especially adapted for infringement (Compl. ¶152, ¶171).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on alleged pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts pre-suit knowledge from at least three events: (1) industry-wide notice from Letters of Assurance submitted to the IEEE by NXP and ZTE concerning patents essential to the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶153, ¶172); (2) a direct notice letter sent by Plaintiff to Defendant on April 15, 2025 (Compl. ¶153, ¶172); and (3) service of the original complaint on or after July 9, 2025 (Compl. ¶150, ¶169). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant continued to infringe without a good faith belief that the patents were invalid or not infringed (Compl. ¶154, ¶173).

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

  • A core issue will be one of standard-essentiality and claim scope: The case will likely depend on whether compliance with the mandatory specifications of the IEEE 802.11ax standard necessarily results in infringement of the asserted patent claims. This will require a detailed comparison between the technical requirements of the standard for features like OFDMA and MU-MIMO beamforming and the specific limitations recited in the patent claims, such as the ’570 patent's method of subcarrier allocation or the ’832 patent’s requirement for "active suppression."
  • A second central question will be one of knowledge and willfulness: A significant portion of the dispute may focus on what level of knowledge can be imputed to an implementer of a complex standard like 802.11ax. The court will need to evaluate whether industry-wide declarations of potentially essential patents to a standards body, combined with a direct notice letter, are sufficient to meet the high bar for establishing the knowledge and intent required to prove indirect infringement and willful infringement.