Untitled case

The litigation involves Velocity Communication Technologies LLC as the plaintiff, a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE). Velocity Communication Technologies LLC was formed in Delaware on March 15, 2024, and has rapidly accumulated a patent portfolio of over 220 patent assets across 46 distinct patent families, primarily sourced from companies like Marvell Technology, Inc., NXP Semiconductors N.V., Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., BlackBerry Ltd., and ZTE Corporation. These patents are described as covering technologies developed by "leading pioneers from across the globe in the field of wireless communications." The defendant in this specific case (5:25-cv-00098) is OnePlus, one of multiple technology companies sued by Velocity Communication Technologies. The accused products, services, or technology are devices that support the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard, including a wide range of products such as access points, computers, laptops, motherboards, routers, smartphones, TVs, and workstations. The plaintiff explicitly states its patent portfolio covers technologies "incorporated into the IEEE 802.11ax (i.e., Wi-Fi 6) standard," including Uplink Multi-User Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (UL MU-MIMO), Basic Service Set (BSS) Coloring, Target Wake Time (TWT), Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA), Longer OFDM Symbol Duration, Beamforming, and Transmit Power Control (TPC).

The primary patent at issue in this case is US Patent 8,270,343, which is broadly titled "Broadcasting of textual and multimedia information." This patent is part of a larger set of 11 wireless communication patents that Velocity Communication Technologies has asserted across its multiple infringement lawsuits against various defendants. The case is being heard in the Eastern District of Texas (5:25-cv-00098), which has historically been, and recently re-emerged as, a popular venue for patent infringement litigation, especially for NPEs. This district is known for its expedited case timelines and a perceived plaintiff-friendly environment, contributing to its attractiveness for patent holders. Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III is presiding over this case, and it has been consolidated with other related cases for pretrial issues, with 5:25-CV-00098 serving as the lead case.

The case is notable as part of a broader campaign by Velocity Communication Technologies, which burst onto the patent litigation scene in 2025 by filing numerous lawsuits against major technology companies like Acer, ASUSTek, Cisco, D-Link, Dell, HP, HPE (Aruba Networks), Juniper Networks, Lenovo, LG Electronics, OnePlus, and TP-Link. This aggressive assertion pattern by a newly formed NPE, utilizing a substantial portfolio of acquired wireless communication patents, highlights current trends in patent monetization, particularly in the Wi-Fi 6 technology space. The consolidation of multiple cases in the Eastern District of Texas under a lead case for pretrial matters further underscores the coordinated nature of this enforcement effort. While a separate case filed by Velocity against Netgear involving the same set of patents was dismissed with prejudice for the plaintiff's claims, indicating a resolution (terms undisclosed), the broader litigation campaign continues against other defendants, including OnePlus.

Patent Infringement Litigation: Velocity Communication Technologies LLC v. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al.

Case Number: 5:25-cv-00098
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Patents at Issue: US Patent 8270343 (among others)
Status: Ongoing for the lead defendant (OnePlus); dismissed without prejudice for several other consolidated defendants.

This patent infringement lawsuit, initiated by Velocity Communication Technologies LLC (Velocity), primarily involves US Patent 8270343, alongside ten other wireless communication patents (8,213,870; 8,238,832; 8,238,859; 8,260,213; 8,265,573; 8,644,765; 8,675,570; 9,083,401; 9,596,648; 10,200,096). The cases target the provision of devices supporting the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Velocity Communication Technologies LLC filed its initial complaint on July 9, 2025, against OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas, establishing case 5:25-cv-00098. This case was designated as the lead case for a series of related infringement lawsuits filed by Velocity against multiple defendants, including LG Electronics Inc., TP-Link Corporation PTE. Ltd., Lenovo Group Limited, Acer, ASUSTek, Cisco Systems, Inc., D-Link, Dell, HP, HP Enterprise (Aruba Networks), and Juniper Networks.
• Waiver of Service: A waiver of service for Lenovo PC HK Limited was returned on August 12, 2025, with an answer due by November 10, 2025.
• Motions to Dismiss Pre-Suit Willful and Indirect Infringement Claims: On November 30, 2025, a motion was filed by Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC to dismiss claims related to the '859 patent and pre-suit willful and indirect infringement.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Consolidation Order: On January 28, 2026, District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III signed a consolidation order. This order consolidated several related cases (including 5:25-cv-00101, 5:25-cv-00104, 5:25-cv-00105, 5:25-cv-00106, 5:25-cv-00107, 5:25-cv-00108, and 5:25-cv-00109) for pretrial issues, with 5:25-cv-00098-RWS designated as the lead case. The order stipulated that all future pretrial filings, excluding venue motions, should be filed in the lead case. The individual member cases, however, would remain active for venue motions and trial.
• Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Cisco Case): On April 13, 2026, an order was issued in the Cisco Systems, Inc. case (5:25-cv-00101, associated with the lead case), granting in part and denying in part a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Velocity's claims of pre-suit indirect and willful infringement in its First Amended Complaint were dismissed without prejudice, with leave to file a Second Amended Complaint within thirty days with sufficient allegations.
• Motion to Dismiss (Hewlett Packard Enterprise Case): On April 13, 2026, an order was issued in the Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company case (5:25-cv-00105, associated with the lead case), granting in part and denying in part a motion to dismiss.

3. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• Dismissal of Lenovo: An unopposed motion for dismissal without prejudice, filed by Velocity, was granted for Lenovo Group Limited. All claims by Velocity against Lenovo and all counterclaims by Lenovo against Velocity were dismissed without prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs and expenses. This order did not impact claims between Velocity and other defendants in the lead case.
• Dismissal of Multiple Defendants: On July 8, 2026, an order signed by District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III dismissed without prejudice the cases against Cisco Systems, Inc. (5:25-cv-00101), HP (5:25-cv-00104), Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (5:25-cv-00105), Juniper Networks (5:25-cv-00106), Lenovo Group Limited (5:25-cv-00107), LG Electronics Inc. (5:25-cv-00108), and TP-Link Corporation PTE. Ltd. (5:25-cv-00109). Each party was to bear its own costs and expenses, and any pending motions were denied as moot.
• Current Posture: While many of the consolidated cases have been dismissed without prejudice, the lead case 5:25-cv-00098 against OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. was not listed among those dismissed in the July 8, 2026 order, indicating it remains active. The consolidation order also specified that "The originally filed member cases will remain active for venue motions and trial."

4. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
As of the current date, no information regarding parallel PTAB IPR (Inter Partes Review) or PGR (Post-Grant Review) proceedings specifically challenging US Patent 8270343 has been found in the search results. IPRs and PGRs are often used by accused infringers to challenge patent validity, and an IPR petition must typically be filed within one year after the complaint has been served. Since the initial complaint was filed on July 9, 2025, the window for filing IPRs by the defendants who were served would generally be open until July 2026. Velocity Communication Technologies LLC initiated a patent infringement lawsuit, 5:25-cv-00098, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, asserting US Patent 8270343 along with ten other wireless communication patents. The litigation, filed on July 9, 2025, primarily targeted devices supporting the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard. The case against OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. serves as the lead action for several consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Here's a chronological breakdown of the key legal developments:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed (2025-07-09): Velocity Communication Technologies LLC filed the initial complaint against OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas, marking the commencement of case 5:25-cv-00098. This case was subsequently designated as the lead case for pretrial issues involving multiple other defendants, including LG Electronics Inc., TP-Link Corporation PTE. Ltd., Lenovo Group Limited, Acer, ASUSTek, Cisco Systems, Inc., D-Link, HP, HP Enterprise (Aruba Networks), and Juniper Networks, all accused of infringing the same portfolio of patents.
• Waiver of Service (2025-08-12): A waiver of service was executed and returned for Lenovo PC HK Limited, setting its answer due date for November 10, 2025.
• Motion to Dismiss Pre-Suit Willful and Indirect Infringement Claims (2025-11-30): Velocity filed a motion to dismiss claims related to the '859 patent and pre-suit willful and indirect infringement. Responses and replies concerning this motion were also filed in November 2025.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Consolidation Order (2026-01-28): District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III issued an order consolidating several related cases for pretrial issues, with 5:25-cv-00098-RWS designated as the lead case. This order mandated that all future pretrial filings, except for venue motions, be made in the lead case. However, the individual member cases were to remain active for venue motions and potential trials.
• Order on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Cisco Case) (2026-04-13): In the associated Cisco Systems, Inc. case (5:25-cv-00101), an order was entered granting in part and denying in part a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Velocity's claims of pre-suit indirect and willful infringement in its First Amended Complaint were dismissed without prejudice, with a provision allowing Velocity thirty days to file a Second Amended Complaint with adequate allegations.
• Order on Motion to Dismiss (Hewlett Packard Enterprise Case) (2026-04-13): A similar order was issued in the Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company case (5:25-cv-00105), granting in part and denying in part a motion to dismiss.

3. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• Dismissal of Lenovo Group Limited (Date Unspecified, but after 2025-08-12): Velocity's unopposed motion for dismissal without prejudice against Lenovo Group Limited was granted. This resulted in the dismissal of all claims by Velocity against Lenovo and all counterclaims by Lenovo against Velocity, with each party bearing its own costs. This dismissal did not affect claims against other defendants in the lead case.
• Dismissal of Multiple Defendants (2026-07-08): District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III signed an order dismissing without prejudice the cases against Cisco Systems, Inc. (5:25-cv-00101), HP (5:25-cv-00104), Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (5:25-cv-00105), Juniper Networks (5:25-cv-00106), Lenovo Group Limited (5:25-cv-00107), LG Electronics Inc. (5:25-cv-00108), and TP-Link Corporation PTE. Ltd. (5:25-cv-00109). All parties were directed to bear their own costs, and any pending motions in these specific cases were denied as moot.
• Current Posture: As of the latest information, the lead case, 5:25-cv-00098, against OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., was not explicitly listed among those dismissed in the July 8, 2026, order, indicating that it remains active. The consolidation order also affirmed that member cases would continue for venue motions and trial purposes.

4. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
No public records or reports of parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) specifically targeting US Patent 8270343 have been identified in the provided search results. Accused infringers typically have a one-year window from the service of a complaint to file an IPR petition. Given the complaint's filing date of July 9, 2025, this window would have generally remained open until July 2026 for served defendants.

Velocity Communication Technologies LLC, the plaintiff in patent infringement case 5:25-cv-00098 in the Eastern District of Texas, is represented by attorneys from several firms. This case has been consolidated for pretrial issues with other related cases, with 5:25-cv-00098 serving as the lead case.

The counsel of record for Velocity Communication Technologies LLC includes:

• Daniel P. Hipskind

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Designated Attorney in Charge in some related filings)
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP, Beverly Hills (implied, as the firm is listed as "Berger & Hipskind Llp - Beverly Hills" in some entries)
  • Experience Note: Regularly represents Velocity Communication Technologies LLC in its patent litigation campaigns.

• Dorian S. Berger

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP, Beverly Hills (implied)
  • Experience Note: Frequently involved in litigation for entities linked to Brooks Borchers, a figure associated with multiple patent litigation campaigns.

• Erin E. McCracken

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP, Beverly Hills (implied)
  • Experience Note: Appears on record for Velocity Communication Technologies in multiple related patent disputes.

• Elizabeth L. Derieux

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Capshaw Derieux LLP (office location not specified, but typically Texas for local counsel in EDTX)
  • Experience Note: Capshaw Derieux LLP often provides local representation in Texas for Borchers-linked entities in patent cases.

The case 5:25-cv-00098, Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., was terminated on July 8, 2026. The court issued an order dismissing Plaintiff's claims with prejudice and Defendants' defenses without prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs and expenses.

However, prior to dismissal, the following counsel were involved in the consolidated cases (5:25-CV-98, 5:25-CV-100, 5:25-CV-101, 5:25-CV-104, 5:25-CV-105, 5:25-CV-106, 5:25-CV-107, 5:25-CV-108, and 5:25-CV-109) where 5:25-CV-00098 served as the lead case for pretrial issues.

Based on available records, the following counsel have been associated with cases involving OnePlus:

• Dorian S. Berger (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP - Beverly Hills
  • Note: Berger & Hipskind LLP frequently represents Borchers-linked entities in patent litigation.
• Daniel P. Hipskind (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP - Beverly Hills
  • Note: Berger & Hipskind LLP frequently represents Borchers-linked entities in patent litigation.
• Erin Elizabeth McCracken (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP - Beverly Hills
• Elizabeth L. DeRieux (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP
  • Note: Capshaw DeRieux LLP provides representation in Texas cases for Borchers-linked entities.

It is also worth noting that OnePlus has been represented by Mayer Brown in other patent infringement suits, such as a significant trial victory against Pantech in the Eastern District of Texas. In that case, Mayer Brown's trial team included partners James A. (Tripp) Fussell III and Graham (Gray) M. Buccigross, counsel Tiffany A. Miller, and associates Clark S. Bakewell and Courtney Krawice. While these attorneys were involved in other OnePlus litigation, their specific appearance in 5:25-cv-00098 is not explicitly stated in the provided search results for this case.