DCT

5:25-cv-00104

Velocity Communication Tech LLC v. HP Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:25-cv-00104, E.D. Tex., 10/02/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant HP maintains a regular and established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas, citing a prior court case where HP allegedly conceded this point after discovery, as well as public tax records showing HP owns and pays taxes on significant business personal property in Collin County, 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.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns foundational technologies for Wireless Local Area Networks (WLANs), specifically improvements related to the 802.11ax standard, which was developed to increase network capacity and efficiency in dense environments.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that HP had knowledge of relevant patents through Letters of Assurance submitted to the IEEE standards body by NXP Semiconductors and ZTE Corporation, both original assignees of some of the patents-in-suit. Plaintiff also alleges providing direct notice to HP via a letter dated April 15, 2025. The original complaint in this matter was filed 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, ’096 Patents Priority Date
2008-09-15 ’213 Patent Priority Date
2012-06-29 ’648 Patent Priority Date
2016-03-01 First draft of 802.11ax Standard published
2020-09-29 NXP submits Letter of Assurance to IEEE for 802.11ax
2021-02-09 IEEE Std 802.11ax-2021 receives final approval
2024-03-04 ZTE submits Letter of Assurance to IEEE for 802.11ax
2025-04-15 Velocity sends notice letter to HP
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) (Compl. ¶29). Conventional systems inserted unused "guard bands" or "guard subcarriers" between channels to prevent interference, which wasted valuable spectrum (Compl. ¶29-30). This problem was exacerbated when the subcarrier spacing did not evenly divide into the nominal channel bandwidths, forcing edge subcarriers to be left unused (’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 grid and all nominal channel bandwidths (Compl. ¶32). This precise alignment across a common grid allows for the aggregation of multiple carriers with reduced or eliminated guard bands, which minimizes inter-carrier interference and maximizes the use of available spectrum (Compl. ¶32, ¶34).
  • Technical Importance: This approach improves spectral efficiency, data capacity, and throughput by enabling more flexible and dense allocation of bandwidth in wireless networks (Compl. ¶33).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶158).
  • The complaint does not provide the claim language, but based on its description, the essential elements of claim 1 appear to involve:
    • Choosing a common subcarrier spacing for orthogonal subcarriers.
    • Selecting a sampling frequency based on the nominal channel bandwidth.
    • Using subcarriers within the nominal channel bandwidth for signal transmission without assigning subcarriers as guard subcarriers at the channel ends.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses impedance mismatch and reactance drift in radio frequency (RF) transmission systems (Compl. ¶40). Tunable components like Voltage Variable Capacitors (VVCs) can experience a drift in reactance due to environmental factors such as temperature changes, which degrades performance and can "cause a mismatch which in turn results in a reduction in antenna performance" (’213 Patent, col. 1:19-26; Compl. ¶42).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses an adaptive tuning architecture that dynamically adjusts antenna components in real time (Compl. ¶43). It employs a "reactance detection circuit" to monitor the transmitted signal's properties and an "error correction circuit" to detect any drift from a desired reactance, which then generates a correction signal to compensate for the drift and maintain optimal tuning (Compl. ¶44).
  • Technical Importance: This system ensures efficient and high-fidelity signal transmission, which is particularly beneficial in devices that operate over multiple frequencies and bandwidths, such as those compliant with the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶45).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶176).
  • The complaint does not provide the claim language, but based on its description, the essential elements of claim 1 appear to involve a method of:
    • Receiving a signal from a source coupled to a tunable reactive element.
    • Producing a second signal that represents a measure of the element's reactance.
    • Receiving a control signal representing a desired reactance.
    • Comparing the measured reactance signal to the desired reactance signal to produce a difference signal.
    • Applying a signal derived from this difference to the tunable element to reduce the drift.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

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 (crosstalk) that arises when a single wireless device must simultaneously communicate with multiple remote devices using different protocols (Compl. ¶49-50). The solution involves generating and shaping multiple antenna beam patterns to direct a signal to its intended recipient while actively suppressing signal strength in the direction of other simultaneous communications (Compl. ¶52).

  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 18 is asserted (Compl. ¶194).

  • Accused Features: The functionality is alleged to be incorporated into the 802.11ax standard, particularly in products functioning as Access Points (Compl. ¶188, ¶191).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,270,343, "Broadcasting of Textual and Multimedia Information," issued September 25, 2012.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the inefficient broadcasting of files containing both textual and multimedia data, where prior art methods treated the entire transmission as a single large entity, leading to high latency (Compl. ¶59-60, ¶62). The solution involves packaging a single block of text with multiple sub-blocks of related multimedia data into time-sliced packets for efficient, simultaneous transmission (Compl. ¶61, ¶66).

  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 11, 13, and 15 are asserted (Compl. ¶212).

  • Accused Features: The functionality is alleged to have been incorporated into the 802.11ax standard, which improves efficiency in high-density environments where structured data is broadcast to multiple users (Compl. ¶209, ¶66).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870, "Beamforming Using Predefined Spatial Mapping Matrices," issued August 7, 2012.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses deficiencies in prior art MIMO beamforming, such as range-limited sounding processes and fixed, non-adaptive mapping that wasted throughput (Compl. ¶73, ¶85-86). The invention claims a method of iteratively transmitting data packets using different predefined spatial mapping matrices from a stored codebook, selecting a matrix based on measured reception quality (e.g., packet error rate), and re-selecting if performance falls below a threshold (Compl. ¶71).

  • 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. ¶230).

  • Accused Features: The beamforming and matrix selection functionality is alleged to be incorporated into 802.11ax-compliant Access Points (Compl. ¶224, ¶227).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is a continuation of the ’870 patent and addresses similar problems of range-limited and inefficient beamforming (Compl. ¶82, ¶85-86). The solution involves iteratively transmitting data packets using different predefined matrices, receiving channel estimates in response, selecting a matrix based on those estimates, and re-selecting another matrix if a packet error rate exceeds a threshold (Compl. ¶87).

  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 are asserted (Compl. ¶248).

  • Accused Features: The adaptive, matrix-based beamforming is alleged to be incorporated into 802.11ax-compliant Access Points (Compl. ¶242, ¶245).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,083,401, "Beamforming Using Predefined Spatial Mapping Matrices," issued August 11, 2015.

  • Technology Synopsis: As part of the same family as the ’870 and ’765 patents, this patent also addresses inefficient and range-limited traditional beamforming techniques (Compl. ¶93, ¶96-97). The solution combines channel estimate-driven selection with reception quality metric-based re-selection, requiring both CSI-driven selection and quality-driven adaptation across stored directional matrices (Compl. ¶98, ¶101).

  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are asserted (Compl. ¶266).

  • Accused Features: The adaptive, matrix-based beamforming is alleged to be incorporated into 802.11ax-compliant Access Points (Compl. ¶260, ¶263).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: Also in the same family, this patent addresses the problem of sounding packets having a shorter effective range than the beamformed data channel they are meant to establish (Compl. ¶108). The solution is to use a codebook of predefined spatial mapping matrices, measure a reception quality metric for each, and then select the matrix with the highest quality for subsequent transmissions, moving channel selection into the data path (Compl. ¶110, ¶113).

  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 are asserted (Compl. ¶284).

  • Accused Features: The adaptive, matrix-based beamforming is alleged to be incorporated into 802.11ax-compliant Access Points (Compl. ¶278, ¶281).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent is directed to improving performance in radio receivers operating in dynamic environments, where component variations due to manufacturing or other factors can lead to poorly tuned antennas and degraded reception (Compl. ¶120, ¶122). The solution is a multi-step iterative process of setting an adjustable component, measuring the resulting signal quality, adjusting the component, and repeating the process to determine an optimal setting (Compl. ¶121, ¶124).

  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18-22 are asserted (Compl. ¶302).

  • Accused Features: The iterative self-configuration functionality is alleged to be incorporated into devices practicing the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶296, ¶299).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,265,573, "Wireless Subscriber Communication Unit and Method of Power Control with Back-Off Therefore," issued September 4, 2012.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses interference and inefficient spectrum use in crowded wireless environments, particularly problems with power control for high-power transmissions where closed-loop systems may not track reference signals rapidly enough (Compl. ¶131, ¶134). The invention provides for adjusting and backing off output power in response to network conditions prior to the completion of a transmission burst to control interference (Compl. ¶132, ¶137).

  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 12 is asserted (Compl. ¶320).

  • Accused Features: The power back-off functionality is alleged to be incorporated into devices practicing the 802.11ax standard with the 6E extension (Compl. ¶314, ¶317).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses inefficiencies in broadcasting network information via beacon frames, which can become large, consume excessive airtime, and cause high power consumption for listening devices (Compl. ¶142, ¶144). The solution is a unified beacon format that allows for distinct "short" and "full" subformats, dynamically varying content while maintaining a consistent base format and including an indicator of the beacon type (Compl. ¶146-147).

  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶338).

  • Accused Features: The unified beacon format is alleged to be incorporated into 802.11ax-compliant Access Points (Compl. ¶332, ¶335).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are a wide range of HP devices that practice the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard (Compl. ¶152). These include, but are not limited to, HP's lines of notebooks, laptops, desktops, All-in-One computers, and Chromebooks, such as the EliteBook, Envy, Pavilion, ProBook, OMEN, and ZBook series (Compl. ¶152, ¶170). For certain patents, the allegations are directed more specifically to devices that function as 802.11ax Access Points (APs) (Compl. ¶188).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused functionality is the implementation of the 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard, which the complaint alleges "necessarily practiced" the inventions of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶3). The 802.11ax standard is described as a "major architectural upgrade" to Wi-Fi, designed to address the growing demand for higher capacity and performance in dense deployment scenarios (Compl. ¶20-21). Key technical innovations of the standard cited in the complaint include Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA), multi-user multiple-input multiple-output (MU-MIMO), and beamforming (Compl. ¶21). The complaint alleges that all accused products are advertised as complying with this standard (Compl. ¶162, n.1). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references external exhibits containing detailed claim charts, which were not provided for this analysis (Compl. ¶155, ¶173). The following summary is constructed based on the complaint’s narrative infringement theory and the described technology of the lead patents.

'570 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that HP products compliant with the 802.11ax standard directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’570 patent because the standard's use of OFDMA technology incorporates the claimed invention (Compl. ¶155, ¶164). The core of the allegation is that the 802.11ax standard specifies a subcarrier spacing and channel structure that aligns with the method taught by the patent to improve spectral efficiency.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether the 802.11ax standard's use of null subcarriers at the edges of the band or for other purposes constitutes "assigning subcarriers as guard subcarriers," which the claim forbids. The construction of "guard subcarrier" will be critical to determining infringement.
    • Technical Questions: The analysis may question whether the specific mathematical alignment of subcarrier spacing with channel bandwidths as implemented in 802.11ax is functionally identical to the method claimed in the patent, or if it represents a parallel but distinct technical evolution.

'213 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that HP's 802.11ax-compliant products infringe at least claim 1 of the ’213 patent because the functionality is incorporated into the standard (Compl. ¶173). The theory appears to be that the RF hardware in these devices, which must operate efficiently across multiple frequencies and bandwidths, necessarily includes an adaptive tuning architecture to compensate for reactance drift as claimed.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the general-purpose signal monitoring and power control circuitry within a modern Wi-Fi chipset constitutes the specific "reactance detection circuit" and "error correction circuit" recited in the claims. The defense may argue these terms should be limited to the specific embodiments disclosed in the patent.
    • Technical Questions: An evidentiary question will be whether the plaintiff can demonstrate that the accused devices actually perform the claimed closed-loop process of measuring reactance drift (as opposed to a more general signal quality metric) and generating a specific, corresponding correction signal in real time.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Patent: ’570 Patent

    • The Term: "without assigning subcarriers as guard subcarriers"
    • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is central to the infringement claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant could argue that the 802.11ax standard, while efficient, still utilizes certain non-data subcarriers at channel edges or for interference mitigation that function as "guard subcarriers," thereby avoiding infringement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes guard subcarriers as creating "wasteful gaps in the usable spectrum" and having "no signal transmission" (’570 Patent, col. 6:27-34; Compl. ¶29). This may support an interpretation that the claim only prohibits leaving subcarriers completely empty at the band edge, as was common in the prior art.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s objective is to maximize "spectral efficiency" (Compl. ¶31). This could support an interpretation where any subcarrier not used for data transmission, even if used for other functions like pilot tones, could be construed as a type of "guard subcarrier" if its primary purpose is to protect the integrity of adjacent data-carrying subcarriers.

  • Patent: ’213 Patent

    • The Term: "reactance detection circuit"
    • Context and Importance: The infringement analysis will likely depend heavily on whether the circuitry in HP's products performs the function of this claimed element. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a functional limitation that requires identifying a corresponding structure in the accused device.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint describes the invention as employing components to "monitor the properties of the transmitted signal" (Compl. ¶44). This language could support a broader definition covering any circuitry that measures signal characteristics from which reactance can be inferred, such as reflected power or voltage standing wave ratio (VSWR).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification likely discloses specific embodiments of the circuit that performs this function, such as the AM/Peak Detector or Frequency Discriminator shown in figures of related patents in the family. A defendant may argue that the term's scope should be limited to these disclosed structures and their equivalents, potentially excluding the more general-purpose monitoring circuits found in modern Wi-Fi chips.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is based on allegations that HP advertises and provides user manuals, product support, and training materials that encourage customers to use the accused products in their infringing, 802.11ax-compliant manner (Compl. ¶159, ¶162, ¶177, ¶180). 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 HP to be especially adapted for infringement (Compl. ¶163, ¶181).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit knowledge is alleged to arise from HP's awareness of Letters of Assurance submitted to the IEEE by NXP and ZTE concerning patents essential to the 802.11ax standard, with ZTE being the original assignee of the ’570 patent (Compl. ¶160, ¶164). Direct pre-suit knowledge is also alleged based on a notice letter Velocity sent to HP on April 15, 2025 (Compl. ¶160). Post-suit knowledge is based on the service of the original complaint (Compl. ¶161). The complaint characterizes HP's conduct as "willful, wanton, malicious... or characteristic of a pirate" (Compl. ¶166).

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

  • A central issue will be one of infringement by standard: Can the plaintiff prove that compliance with the 802.11ax standard necessarily requires practicing the specific methods claimed in the patents, or can the defendant demonstrate that the standard can be implemented in a non-infringing manner? This will require a granular comparison of the standard's mandatory requirements against the patents' claim limitations.
  • A key validity question will be obviousness in the context of technological evolution: Will the patented solutions, conceived years before the 802.11ax standard was finalized, be viewed as non-obvious breakthroughs, or will they be characterized as predictable advancements that would have been obvious to skilled engineers working to solve the known problems of spectrum efficiency and RF performance that the standard was created to address?
  • The willfulness claim will likely turn on the imputation of knowledge: Does a company's participation in a standards body like IEEE, where third parties declare potentially essential patents, create a legal duty to investigate those patents, or is knowledge only established upon direct notice from the patentee? The court's decision on this point could have significant implications for damages.