DCT

5:25-cv-00107

Velocity Communication Tech LLC v. Lenovo Group Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:25-cv-00107, E.D. Tex., 11/13/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants are foreign corporations, and the court has personal jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is based on Defendants purposefully directing infringing activities into Texas, including placing products into the stream of commerce with the knowledge they will be sold in the district, and deriving substantial revenue from such sales. The complaint specifically identifies an accused product as available for purchase and pickup at a retail location in Texarkana, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s extensive range of Wi-Fi 6-enabled devices infringes eleven patents related to various aspects of wireless communication technology, including bandwidth allocation, RF performance, and beamforming.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on technologies allegedly incorporated into the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard, which is critical for high-efficiency wireless networking in modern consumer and enterprise electronics.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant was aware of patents developed by NXP Semiconductors and ZTE Corporation related to the 802.11ax standard via Letters of Assurance submitted to the IEEE in 2020 and 2024. Plaintiff, having acquired patents from these and other portfolios, alleges it sent a letter to Defendant on April 15, 2025, identifying its ownership and inviting a license. The original complaint in this action 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, and ’096 Patents Priority Date
2008-09-15 ’213 Patent Priority Date
2012-07-03 ’870 Patent Issue Date
2012-08-07 ’832 and ’859 Patents Issue Date
2012-09-04 ’213 Patent Issue Date
2012-09-11 ’573 Patent Issue Date
2012-09-18 ’343 Patent Issue Date
2012-06-29 ’648 Patent Priority Date
2014-02-04 ’765 Patent Issue Date
2014-03-18 ’570 Patent Issue Date
2015-07-14 ’401 Patent Issue Date
2017-03-14 ’648 Patent Issue Date
2019-02-05 ’096 Patent Issue 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
2025-04-15 Plaintiff sends letter to Defendant identifying patents-in-suit
2025-07-09 Original Complaint Filing Date
2025-11-13 First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,675,570 - “Scalable OFDM and OFDMA Bandwidth Allocation in Communication Systems”

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses spectral inefficiency in wireless communication systems that use Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM). Conventional systems inserted non-data-bearing "guard bands" between channels to prevent interference, which created wasteful gaps in the usable spectrum (Compl. ¶¶57-58). This problem was exacerbated when subcarrier spacing could not evenly divide the nominal carrier bandwidths, forcing edge subcarriers to be left unused as guard subcarriers (’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 raster and all nominal channel bandwidths (Compl. ¶60). This technique creates a common, aligned subcarrier grid across different channel bandwidths, which allows multiple carriers to be aggregated with reduced or eliminated guard bands, thereby minimizing inter-carrier interference and maximizing spectrum use (Compl. ¶¶60, 62).
  • Technical Importance: This approach improves the throughput and operational efficiency of wireless systems by providing a scalable and spectrally efficient method for allocating bandwidth (Compl. ¶61).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least claim 1 of the ’570 Patent (Compl. ¶183).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires, in a communication system:
    • choosing a common subcarrier spacing of orthogonal subcarriers to evenly divide a given nominal carrier bandwidth;
    • selecting a sampling frequency equal to or greater than the nominal channel bandwidth; and
    • using subcarriers within the nominal bandwidth for signal transmission without assigning subcarriers as guard subcarriers at both ends of the carrier.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶186).

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

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses impedance mismatch and reactance drift in radio frequency (RF) transmission systems (Compl. ¶68). Tunable components like Voltage Variable Capacitors (VVCs) can experience a drift in reactance due to temperature changes or residual polarization, which degrades antenna performance and leads to inefficient power transfer and signal distortion (’213 Patent, col. 1:19-26).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides an adaptive tuning architecture that dynamically adjusts antenna system components in real-time (Compl. ¶71). The system 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. This circuit then generates a correction signal to compensate for the drift, ensuring the antenna system remains optimally tuned for high signal integrity and power efficiency (Compl. ¶72).
  • Technical Importance: The technology improves wireless transmitter performance, which is particularly beneficial in devices compliant with standards like 802.11ax that communicate over multiple frequencies and bandwidths (Compl. ¶73).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least claim 1 of the ’213 Patent (Compl. ¶201).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires, in a device:
    • 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 first element and generate a second signal representing that reactance; and
    • an error correction circuit to receive a control signal representing a desired reactance, detect a drift by comparing the signals, and generate a third signal to adjust the first element's reactance to achieve the desired reactance.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶204).

Multi-Patent Capsules

  • 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 wireless device communicates simultaneously with multiple remote devices using different protocols (Compl. ¶77). The claimed method generates and shapes multiple antenna beam patterns to direct a signal to its intended recipient while actively suppressing signal strength in the direction of other simultaneous communications, thereby increasing throughput (Compl. ¶80).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claim 18 is asserted (Compl. ¶219).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Access Points compliant with the 802.11ax standard, including certain of the Accused Products, infringe the ’832 patent (Compl. ¶216).

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

    • Technology Synopsis: The technology addresses the inefficient wireless broadcasting of files containing both textual and multimedia data (Compl. ¶87). The patent details a method where a block of text and multiple sub-blocks of related multimedia data are packaged together into time-sliced packets, enabling efficient, simultaneous transmission of disparate data types and improving network throughput (Compl. ¶89).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 11, 13, and 15 are asserted (Compl. ¶237).
    • Accused Features: All Accused Products that practice the 802.11ax standard are alleged to infringe the ’343 patent (Compl. ¶234).

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

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent claims improvements to wireless Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) systems by using a codebook of predefined spatial mapping matrices (Compl. ¶99). The system iteratively transmits data packets using different matrices, selects a matrix based on measured reception quality (e.g., packet error rate), and re-selects another matrix if quality thresholds are not met, thereby improving latency and throughput (Compl. ¶¶99, 102).
    • 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. ¶258).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Access Points that practice the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶252).

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

    • Technology Synopsis: A continuation of the ’870 Patent, this patent addresses shortcomings in traditional beamforming, such as range limitations and overhead from sounding processes (Compl. ¶¶110, 113). The invention discloses iteratively transmitting data packets using different predefined matrices, selecting a matrix based on received channel estimates, and re-selecting based on packet error rate, which extends range and reduces latency (Compl. ¶¶115-116).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 are asserted (Compl. ¶273).
    • Accused Features: Infringement is alleged against Access Points that practice the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶270).

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

    • Technology Synopsis: Another continuation in the same family, this patent also addresses the inefficiency and range limits of traditional beamforming (Compl. ¶¶121, 124). The solution involves iteratively transmitting data packets using matrices from a codebook, selecting a matrix based on received channel estimates, and adaptively re-selecting if a reception quality metric falls below a threshold (Compl. ¶126).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are asserted (Compl. ¶291).
    • Accused Features: Infringement is alleged against Access Points that practice the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶288).

  • 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 range/robustness problem where a non-directional sounding packet could not reliably reach the receiver at ranges where beamformed data would work (Compl. ¶136). The solution involves using a codebook of predefined matrices, measuring a reception quality metric for each, and selecting the matrix with the highest quality for subsequent transmissions (Compl. ¶138).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 are asserted (Compl. ¶309).
    • Accused Features: Infringement is alleged against Access Points that practice the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶306).

  • 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 wireless environments by overcoming issues like component variations from manufacturing (Compl. ¶¶148, 150). The invention teaches an iterative process of setting an adjustable component to different values, measuring the resulting signal quality for each setting, and repeating the cycle to determine the optimal configuration (Compl. ¶154).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18-22 are asserted (Compl. ¶327).
    • Accused Features: All Accused Products that practice the 802.11ax standard are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶324).

  • 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 technology is directed to solving interference and inefficient spectrum use in crowded wireless environments (Compl. ¶159). It introduces methods for advanced power control in transmitters, including adjusting and backing off output power in response to network conditions to prevent spectral degradation and interference with adjacent channels (Compl. ¶¶160, 163).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claim 12 is asserted (Compl. ¶345).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Accused Products that practice the 802.11ax standard with the 6E extension (Compl. ¶342).

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

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of inefficient broadcasting of network information via beacon frames, which can consume excessive airtime and power (Compl. ¶¶170, 172). The invention discloses a unified beacon format that can be sent as either a concise "short" beacon or a comprehensive "full" beacon, including an indication of which type is being sent to improve efficiency (Compl. ¶174).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶363).
    • Accused Features: Infringement is alleged against Access Points that practice the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶360).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are a wide range of Lenovo- and Motorola-branded laptops, desktops, tablets, smartphones, and other devices capable of operating on Wi-Fi 6 networks consistent with the IEEE 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶¶180, 198, 234). For certain patents, the accused products are more narrowly defined as those that can function as an "Access Point" (AP) (e.g., Compl. ¶216).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The core accused functionality is compliance with the IEEE 802.11ax standard, which provides high-efficiency wireless networking through technologies like Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA), multi-user multiple-input multiple-output (MU-MIMO), and beamforming (Compl. ¶49). The complaint alleges that Lenovo is a major global manufacturer and seller of these devices and that North America constitutes a significant source of its revenue (Compl. ¶¶6, 17, p. 8). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows a specific accused product, the Lenovo Yoga Tab Plus, advertised as available for in-store pickup within the Eastern District of Texas (Compl. p. 15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not attach claim chart exhibits detailing its infringement theories (Compl. ¶¶183, 201). The infringement allegations are primarily based on the assertion that compliance with the IEEE 802.11ax standard necessarily results in infringement of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶3).

For the ’570 Patent, the complaint alleges that the Accused Products, by complying with the 802.11ax standard, practice the claimed method of allocating bandwidth (Compl. ¶183). The narrative theory suggests that the standard’s implementation of OFDMA technology inherently uses the patented solution of a common, aligned subcarrier grid to eliminate wasteful guard bands (Compl. ¶¶56, 60, 186).

For the ’213 Patent, the complaint alleges that the Accused Products, which operate over multiple frequencies and bandwidths per the 802.11ax standard, infringe by employing an adaptive tuning architecture (Compl. ¶201). This architecture is alleged to dynamically adjust antenna components to compensate for reactance drift to maintain optimal RF performance, as required by the patent’s claims (Compl. ¶¶72, 73).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question for many of the asserted patents may be whether compliance with the IEEE 802.11ax standard necessarily requires practicing the specific methods and structures as claimed. The dispute may turn on whether standard-compliant implementations could exist that do not infringe the specific claim limitations.
    • Technical Questions: For patents concerning internal hardware operations, such as the RF tuning of the ’213 Patent, an evidentiary question is what proof demonstrates that the accused products' RF hardware actually performs the claimed steps of detecting reactance drift, comparing it to a desired state, and generating a specific correction signal.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term from the ’570 Patent: “evenly divide”

    • Context and Importance: This term from claim 1 is central to the invention's method of allocating subcarriers. The construction of "evenly divide" will determine whether the mathematical relationship between subcarrier spacing and carrier bandwidths used in the 802.11ax standard falls within the scope of the claim.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's background describes the problem as leaving "edge subcarriers ... as guard subcarriers with no signal transmission" (’570 Patent, col. 6:31-33). This may support an interpretation that "evenly divide" means a mathematical relationship that leaves no remainder of subcarriers that must be designated as unused guards.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification lists specific "nominal carrier bandwidths such as 1.25 MHZ, 2.5 MHZ, 5 MHZ, 10 MHZ, or 20 MHZ" that prior art systems could not evenly divide (’570 Patent, col. 6:29-31). This may support a narrower interpretation limited to the specific mathematical properties of these exemplary bandwidths.

  • Term from the ’213 Patent: “reactance detection circuit”

    • Context and Importance: This is a structural limitation in claim 1. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused devices contain a dedicated or identifiable circuit that performs this specific function, or if they achieve a similar result through a different, non-infringing mechanism. Practitioners may focus on this term because it tethers the functional claims to a specific apparatus.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint describes the function of this element as a circuit to "monitor the properties of the transmitted signal" (Compl. ¶72). This language could support an argument that any combination of components achieving this monitoring function meets the claim limitation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures depict specific circuit diagrams (e.g., ’213 Patent, Figs. 5-6). Language in the detailed description tied to these figures could support a narrower construction limited to the disclosed embodiments or their equivalents, as opposed to a more general-purpose signal monitoring system.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement by asserting that Defendant advertises its products as 802.11ax compliant and provides user manuals and other materials that instruct customers to use the products in their ordinary, infringing manner (i.e., for wireless networking) (Compl. ¶¶187, 190, 205). The complaint also alleges contributory infringement, stating that the accused components have no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶191, 209).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge from (1) Defendant's constructive knowledge, as an industry participant, of Letters of Assurance submitted by NXP and ZTE to the IEEE regarding patents essential to the 802.11ax standard (Compl. ¶¶188, 206), and (2) Plaintiff's direct notice letter sent to Defendant on April 15, 2025 (Compl. ¶¶188, 206). Post-suit knowledge is based on the service of the original complaint (Compl. ¶¶189, 207).

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

  • A central issue for many of the asserted patents will be one of definitional scope and necessity: does compliance with the IEEE 802.11ax standard necessarily require practicing the specific methods and structures as claimed in the patents, or can a device be standard-compliant without infringing?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: for claims directed to internal hardware operations, what evidence will demonstrate that the accused products' complex chipsets perform the specific, multi-step functions required by the claim limitations, as opposed to achieving a similar outcome through a different technical pathway?
  • The willfulness allegations may focus on the adequacy and timing of notice: did Defendant’s alleged awareness of Letters of Assurance submitted to a standards body by third parties constitute legally sufficient knowledge of the specific patents-in-suit, or did knowledge for willfulness purposes only attach upon receipt of Plaintiff’s direct notice letter or service of the complaint?