DCT

5:25-cv-00108

Velocity Communication Tech LLC v. LG Electronics Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:25-cv-00108, E.D. Tex., 07/09/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. having a regular and established place of business in the district, and for Defendant LG Electronics Inc. as a foreign corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products compliant with the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard infringe eleven patents related to wireless communication technologies.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on technologies integral to the 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard, a key protocol for high-efficiency wireless local area networks (WLANs) used in a wide range of consumer electronics.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of relevant patents based on Letters of Assurance submitted to the IEEE standards body by NXP Semiconductors and ZTE Corporation, companies from which Plaintiff allegedly acquired patents. Plaintiff also alleges it provided direct pre-suit notice to Defendant via a letter offering to license the patents-in-suit.

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 Patent Family Priority Date
2008-09-15 ’213 Patent Priority Date
2012-06-29 ’648 Patent Priority Date
2020-02-26 Example Accused Product (LG V60 ThinQ 5G) Announced
2020-09-29 NXP submits Letter of Assurance to IEEE for 802.11ax
2021-02-09 IEEE 802.11ax Standard receives final approval
2024-03-04 ZTE submits Letter of Assurance to IEEE for 802.11ax
2025-04-15 Plaintiff sends letter to Defendant offering patent license
2025-07-09 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”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of spectral inefficiency in wireless communication systems like OFDM and OFDMA, where "guard subcarriers" are used to prevent interference between adjacent frequency channels but consume valuable bandwidth without transmitting data (Compl. ¶¶ 20-21; ’570 Patent, col. 1:26-40).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for allocating bandwidth that reduces or eliminates the need for these guard subcarriers. It achieves this by defining a common subcarrier spacing that evenly divides both the nominal channel bandwidths and the channel raster of the frequency band, ensuring that adjacent channels remain orthogonal and non-interfering even when placed directly next to each other (’570 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-14). This allows for a more compact and efficient use of the available spectrum.
  • Technical Importance: This approach directly increases the amount of data that can be transmitted within a given frequency band, a critical improvement for high-density wireless environments where spectrum is a constrained resource (Compl. ¶ 21).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 ('570 Patent, col. 11:8-41; Compl. ¶ 67).
  • Claim 1 requires a method of allocating spectral bandwidth that includes:
    • dividing available bandwidth into a channel raster and nominal channels;
    • choosing a common subcarrier spacing that evenly divides the channel bandwidths and the raster; and
    • allocating multiple carriers next to each other with reduced or no guard bands, where the subcarriers are aligned to reduce interference.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶ 67).

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes how tunable reactive elements, such as voltage variable capacitors (VVCs) used in antenna matching networks, can experience a "drift in reactance" due to environmental factors like temperature changes. This drift can cause a mismatch and degrade antenna performance (’213 Patent, col. 1:20-29).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a self-correcting apparatus. It uses a "reference tunable reactive element" exposed to the same conditions as the primary tunable element. A control circuit continuously measures the reactance of this reference element, compares it to a desired value, and generates an error correction signal to adjust both the reference and primary elements, thereby compensating for any drift in real-time (’213 Patent, Abstract; FIG. 5).
  • Technical Importance: This technology enables more stable and reliable RF performance in wireless devices that operate in changing environments, which is fundamental to the operation of mobile products like smartphones and laptops (Compl. ¶ 14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (’213 Patent, col. 7:50-65; Compl. ¶ 85).
  • Claim 1 requires a device comprising:
    • a signal source coupled to a first tunable reactive element (the "reference" element);
    • a reactance detection circuit to generate a signal representing the measured reactance of the reference element; and
    • an error correction circuit to compare the measured reactance to a desired reactance, generate a correction signal, and apply it to adjust the reactance of the reference element.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶ 85).

Multi-Patent Capsule Summaries

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

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for a wireless device supporting multiple protocols (e.g., Bluetooth and WLAN) to form distinct antenna beam patterns for each protocol. The system determines the angle of arrival for signals of each protocol and creates optimized beam patterns that maximize signal strength for the intended protocol while minimizing interference along the communication path of the other protocol (’832 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 18 is asserted (Compl. ¶ 103).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Access Points compliant with the 802.11ax standard infringe the patent (Compl. ¶ 97).

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

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to a method for broadcasting information that contains both textual (semantic) and multimedia (presentation) data. The system separates the textual and multimedia information and transmits them in multiple data bursts, where each burst contains the complete textual portion and a sub-block of the multimedia portion, allowing a receiver to quickly access the core textual information (’343 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 10 is asserted (Compl. ¶ 121).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that all devices practicing the 802.11ax standard infringe the patent (Compl. ¶ 115).

  • Beamforming Family - U.S. Patent Nos. 8,213,870; 8,644,765; 9,083,401; 10,200,096

    • Title: All titled “Beamforming Using Predefined Spatial Mapping Matrices,” issued between July 3, 2012 and February 5, 2019.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent family describes a beamforming technique where a transmitter sends data packets to a receiver using a series of predefined spatial mapping matrices from a codebook. The receiver provides feedback on the reception quality for each matrix, and the transmitter selects the matrix with the highest quality of reception for subsequent data transmissions, optimizing the communication link without traditional channel training (’096 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 of each patent is asserted (Compl. ¶¶ 139, 157, 175, 193).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Access Points compliant with the 802.11ax standard infringe these patents (Compl. ¶¶ 133, 151, 169, 187).

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

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for configuring a radio receiver that has at least one adjustable component (e.g., a tunable capacitor). The method involves systematically setting the component to different values, measuring the received signal quality at each value, and determining the optimal value that provides the highest signal quality, thereby self-calibrating the receiver (’859 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶ 211).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that all devices practicing the 802.11ax standard infringe the patent (Compl. ¶ 205).

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

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a power control method for a wireless transmitter. To improve performance during a "ramp-down" operation at the end of a transmission burst, the power control function is arranged to perform a "back-off" (a slight reduction) of the output power a specified time prior to the completion of the burst, which helps the power amplifier transition more smoothly and avoid spectral degradation (’573 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claim 12 is asserted (Compl. ¶ 229).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that all devices practicing the 802.11ax standard with the 6E extension infringe the patent (Compl. ¶ 223).

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

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a "unified beacon format" for wireless networks that supports both short beacons and full beacons. The format includes a first portion that is common to both beacon types and a second portion that varies. This allows devices to process beacons more efficiently, for example by parsing only the common portion to save power (’648 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶ 247).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Access Points compliant with the 802.11ax standard infringe the patent (Compl. ¶ 241).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are a wide range of LG devices that practice the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard, including but not limited to various models of Smart TVs, smartphones (e.g., LG V60 ThinQ), laptops (e.g., LG gram), and other client computers and display boards (Compl. ¶¶ 61, 79).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused functionality is the implementation of the IEEE 802.11ax standard in Defendant's products (Compl. ¶ 64). This standard is a major architectural upgrade to Wi-Fi, designed to improve throughput and performance in dense network environments (Compl. ¶¶ 21-22).
  • Key technical features of the standard cited in the complaint as central to the infringement allegations include Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) for subdividing channels, uplink and downlink multi-user multiple-input multiple-output (MU-MIMO), and beamforming for improving signal strength and spatial efficiency (Compl. ¶ 22).
  • The complaint alleges Defendant markets these products as compliant with the 802.11ax standard and its Wi-Fi 6/6E designations (Compl. p. 19, fn. 1). The complaint also asserts that Defendant LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. has a significant physical presence in the judicial district, providing a photograph of a facility in Fort Worth, Texas, as support for its venue allegations (Compl. p. 3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference external claim chart exhibits for each asserted patent, which were not provided for this analysis (Compl. ¶¶ 67, 85). The infringement theory is based on the allegation that the functionality recited in the patents has been incorporated into the IEEE 802.11ax standard, and that Defendant's products infringe by practicing this standard (Compl. ¶¶ 64, 82). The following tables are constructed based on the language of the asserted independent claims and the complaint's description of the 802.11ax standard.

’570 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
dividing available spectral bandwidth into a channel raster and a plurality of nominal channels Operation in compliance with the 802.11ax standard, which uses OFDMA to subdivide wireless channels for simultaneous transmission to multiple users. ¶22, ¶64 col. 3:20-24
choosing a common subcarrier spacing of orthogonal subcarriers that divides the multiple nominal channel bandwidths and the channel raster evenly Implementation of the 802.11ax standard, which the complaint alleges incorporates the patented functionality to improve MAC layer efficiency and throughput. ¶22, ¶64 col. 3:1-14
allocating multiple carriers to be one next to another as a group in the same frequency band with reduced guard bands or without guard bands in between The use of OFDMA in the 802.11ax standard to allocate resource units composed of subcarriers, which the complaint alleges embodies the claimed efficiency improvements. ¶22, ¶64 col. 4:45-56
  • Identified Points of Contention: A primary question will be whether the specific parameters of the 802.11ax standard (e.g., its defined subcarrier spacings and channel structures) meet the claim limitation of "choosing a common subcarrier spacing... that divides the... channel raster evenly." The dispute may center on the proper construction of "evenly" and whether the standard's implementation falls within that scope. An evidentiary question will be whether Defendant’s products practice every step of the claimed method merely by being compliant with the standard.

’213 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a signal source coupled to a first tunable reactive element The complaint alleges that devices practicing the 802.11ax standard, which require stable RF performance for features like MU-MIMO and beamforming, incorporate the claimed functionality. ¶22, ¶82 col. 5:55-60
a reactance detection circuit to... generate a second signal that represents the reactance The accused products allegedly contain the necessary circuitry to implement the 802.11ax standard, which the complaint asserts includes the claimed features. ¶82 col. 6:1-5
an error correction circuit to: receive a control signal that represents a desired reactance... detect... a drift from the desired reactance, and generate a third signal to adjust the reactance The accused products allegedly operate according to the 802.11ax standard, which necessitates hardware capable of performing the claimed real-time adjustments to maintain signal integrity. ¶22, ¶82 col. 6:6-16
  • Identified Points of Contention: The central point of contention will likely be factual: does the 802.11ax standard mandate the specific three-part architecture (signal source, reactance detector, error correction circuit) operating on a "reference" tunable element as claimed? The complaint does not specify how the standard allegedly incorporates this feature. A key technical question will be whether Defendant’s products contain this specific architecture or use an alternative method for compensating for reactance drift.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "reference tunable reactive element" (’213 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the claim requires a specific architecture where a "reference" element is used to calibrate a primary element. The infringement analysis will depend on whether this requires a physically separate component dedicated to measurement, or if it can be read on systems that use other feedback mechanisms to correct drift in a single operational element. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to define a structural limitation that may not be present in all tuning circuits.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses the goal of correcting for drift generally, which could support an interpretation focused on the function of referencing a desired state rather than requiring a specific component (’213 Patent, col. 1:20-29).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures and detailed description illustrate the invention using two distinct VVCs, one for the primary circuit (VVC1B) and one for the reference and correction circuit (VVC1A), suggesting the "reference" element is a separate physical component (’213 Patent, FIG. 5; col. 5:12-21).

The Term: "choosing a common subcarrier spacing... that divides the multiple nominal channel bandwidths and the channel raster evenly" (’570 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The inventive concept hinges on this specific method of selecting a subcarrier spacing to achieve spectral efficiency. The definition of "evenly" will be dispositive for infringement, as Defendant may argue that the 802.11ax standard's parameters do not meet a strict mathematical definition of the term.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s summary describes the invention as providing a method for allocating bandwidth "to reduce or eliminate un-necessary guard bands," which could support a construction that covers any spacing scheme that achieves this functional result (’570 Patent, col. 2:58-64).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides tables with specific numerical examples of subcarrier spacings (e.g., 12.5 KHz) and their relationship to channel bandwidths, which could be used to argue for a narrow, more mathematically rigid interpretation of "divides... evenly" (’570 Patent, col. 7-8, Tables 1-2).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on Defendant's advertising, user manuals, and product support that encourage and instruct customers to use the accused products in their 802.11ax-compliant mode, thereby performing the claimed methods (Compl. ¶¶ 68, 71). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused components have no substantial non-infringing uses and are especially adapted for infringement (Compl. ¶ 72).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the patents-in-suit prior to the lawsuit. This alleged knowledge stems from (1) Letters of Assurance submitted to the IEEE by NXP and ZTE concerning patents essential to the 802.11ax standard, which Plaintiff now owns (Compl. ¶¶ 73, 91); (2) a direct notice letter sent by Plaintiff to Defendant on April 15, 2025, inviting Defendant to take a license (Compl. ¶¶ 69, 91); and (3) knowledge from the service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶ 70).

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

  • A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: can the Plaintiff demonstrate that mere compliance with the 802.11ax standard necessarily requires practicing the specific methods and apparatus structures claimed in each of the eleven diverse patents, or will infringement analysis require a product-specific technical showing that goes beyond the standard itself?
  • The case will likely turn on claim construction: for the '570 patent, what is the scope of "divides... evenly," and for the '213 patent, does the term "reference tunable reactive element" require a physically distinct component not used for primary signal transmission? The answers will determine if the 802.11ax implementation falls within the claims' boundaries.
  • A key question for damages will be willfulness: did Defendant's alleged awareness of industry-wide Letters of Assurance to the IEEE and a direct pre-suit notice from the Plaintiff constitute knowledge sufficient to make its alleged infringement objectively reckless and thus willful?