Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Acer

Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC (VCT), identified as a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Acer Inc., a globally recognized manufacturer of computing and networking hardware. VCT was formed in Delaware in March 2024 and asserts a portfolio of over 220 patent assets, many of which were acquired from companies like NXP Semiconductors, Marvell Technology, Freescale Semiconductor, BlackBerry, and ZTE Corporation. The lawsuit accused Acer of infringing patents related to wireless communication technologies, specifically targeting Acer's extensive range of consumer and commercial devices, including laptops (e.g., Aspire and Predator series), Chromebooks, desktops, mini-PCs, mobile hotspots, routers, CPEs, and Wi-Fi dongles that support the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard.

The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870, is titled "Beamforming using predefined spatial mapping matrices." This patent is part of a group of eleven wireless communication patents (including US8644765B1, US8270343B2, US9596648B2, US8675570B2, US8238832B1, US8238859B2, US9083401B2, US8260213B2, US8265573B2, and US10200096B2) that VCT has collectively asserted against multiple defendants, all broadly relating to wireless communication, networking, and mobile connectivity, particularly as incorporated into the Wi-Fi 6 standard.

The case, filed as 5:25-cv-00099, was lodged in the Eastern District of Texas before District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III. This venue is frequently chosen by patent plaintiffs, especially NPEs, due to its reputation as a "rocket docket" with a faster path to trial and a history of plaintiff-friendly outcomes. The litigation, filed on July 9, 2025, was part of a larger campaign by VCT in 2025, asserting the same set of 11 patents against numerous other technology companies, mostly in the Eastern District of Texas. The case against Acer concluded on June 18, 2026, when the court granted a joint motion to dismiss. Velocity's claims against Acer were dismissed with prejudice, meaning VCT cannot re-assert these specific claims against Acer, while Acer's counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. The specific terms of this resolution remain undisclosed.

Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Acer (5:25-cv-00099) was a patent infringement lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The case, involving 11 patents related to wireless communication technologies, concluded with a joint motion to dismiss.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcome:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed (2025-07-09): Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC (VCT) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Acer Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, before Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III. The complaint asserted eleven U.S. patents, including US8213870, relating to wireless communication technologies, specifically targeting devices supporting the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard. The accused products included a wide range of Acer's consumer and commercial lineup, such as laptops, Chromebooks, desktops, and routers. VCT, a non-practicing entity (NPE), acquired most of these patents from NXP Semiconductors.
• Waiver of Service Returned (2025-07-23): Acer's waiver of service was sent on July 25, 2025, with its answer due by October 23, 2025.
• Consolidation Order (2026-01-28): The court ordered the consolidation of several related cases for pretrial issues only, with 5:25-CV-98-RWS (Velocity Communication Tech LLC v. OnePlus) designated as the lead case. All future pretrial filings, other than venue motions, were to be filed in the lead case.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Dismiss Granted-as-Modified (2026-02-13): The court granted Acer's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 13) as modified. Velocity's claims of (1) direct infringement of method claims and (2) pre-suit induced, contributory, and willful infringement in its Complaint (Docket No. 1) were dismissed without prejudice. Velocity was granted sixty days to file a first amended complaint with sufficient allegations to state plausible claims. Any claims not amended by the deadline would be dismissed.

Final Disposition:

• Case Dismissed (2026-06-18): The case was closed following the court's granting of the parties' joint motion to dismiss (Docket No. 27). Velocity's claims against Acer were dismissed with prejudice, meaning VCT is barred from refiling the same claims against Acer. Acer's counterclaims, defenses, and any other claims for relief against Velocity were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Acer's ability to pursue these in future proceedings. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and expenses, and all pending motions were denied as moot. The specific terms of the settlement were not disclosed in the public record. The case resolved in 344 days from filing to close.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• There is no information in the provided search results indicating any parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings specifically initiated by Acer against Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC for patent 8213870 in this case. General information about IPR proceedings and their termination due to settlement is available, but not directly linked to this specific case or patent.

It is worth noting that Acer itself filed patent infringement lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas against AT&T Inc., [Verizon Communications Inc.](/litigations/by-defendant/Verizon%20Communications%20Inc.), and T-Mobile USA Inc. in January 2026, asserting its own standard essential patents related to 4G and 5G wireless technologies. Additionally, Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC filed numerous other lawsuits against various companies, often asserting the same 11 patents, with some of these cases also reaching a dismissal by stipulation. For example, the case against Netgear (District of Delaware) and D-Link (Eastern District of Texas), both involving the same 11 patents, were also dismissed with prejudice for Velocity's claims and without prejudice for the defendants' counterclaims.

Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC is represented by attorneys from two firms in its patent infringement case against Acer in the Eastern District of Texas: Berger & Hipskind LLP and Capshaw Derieux LLP.

The counsel of record for the plaintiff includes:

• Daniel P. Hipskind

  • Role: Attorney in Charge (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP, Beverly Hills, California
  • Note: Daniel Hipskind's firm, Berger & Hipskind LLP, is frequently listed as representing Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in its patent litigation campaigns across various districts, including the Eastern District of Texas and the District of Delaware.

• Dorian S. Berger

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP, Beverly Hills, California
  • Note: Dorian Berger has been on record as counsel for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in patent infringement cases.

• Erin Elizabeth McCracken

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP, Beverly Hills, California
  • Note: Erin McCracken is also listed as counsel for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in its patent infringement filings.

• Elizabeth L. DeRieux

  • Role: Counsel (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Capshaw Derieux LLP, Longview, Texas.
  • Note: Capshaw Derieux LLP provides representation for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in its Eastern District of Texas lawsuits. Elizabeth DeRieux has appeared as counsel for VCT in other related cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record for this case.

I have strong leads. Let me verify the specific attorneys and their roles.

Let me dig into the docket entries and filings specific to this case to confirm all defense counsel.

Defense Counsel of Record — Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Acer Inc., No. 5:25-cv-00099-RWS (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line

The sole defendant, Acer Inc., was represented by a two-firm defense team that is Acer's standard patent-litigation structure nationwide: a Tyler, Texas IP boutique as local/lead trial counsel (Findlay Craft, P.C.) and a Redwood Shores, California IP boutique as lead national patent counsel (TechKnowledge Law Group LLP).

Note on procedural posture: this case was consolidated for pretrial purposes into the OnePlus lead case (5:25-cv-98-RWS) on January 28, 2026. Consistent with that order, Acer's January 29, 2026 Notice of Appearance was filed on the lead-case docket (5:25-cv-98, Dkt. 40), not on the -099 docket. That is the single most probative primary document I located for defense counsel.

Counsel of record

Likely-but-unconfirmed additional TechKnowledge attorneys: Kaiwen "Kai" Tseng (Cal. SBN 193756) and Jerry Chen (Cal. SBN 229318), and Hsiang ("James") H. Lin (SBN 241472), are the other TechKnowledge attorneys who routinely staff Acer's matters alongside Kaufman — Tseng, Kaufman, and Chen were identified as Acer's counsel in Acer's own January 2026 SEP suits in this district against PACCAR (and Acer's earlier suits against AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile). I found no document confirming Tseng, Chen, or Lin entered an appearance in 5:25-cv-00099, so I am not listing them as of record here.

In-house counsel: none recorded on the publicly available docket.

Sourcing caveats (important)

• I could not retrieve the PACER docket sheet for 5:25-cv-00099 directly. The free aggregator dockets I reached (Justia docket 239050) were last refreshed July 9, 2025 — i.e., before Acer appeared — so they show only plaintiff's counsel (Hipskind, DeRieux) and are useless for the defense side.
• The composite list of Acer-side attorneys (Kaufman, Findlay, Craft) comes from a docket-derived aggregator (Patsnap's litigation record), which states these names "appear as recorded in the docket." There is an internal inconsistency worth flagging: Patsnap's narrative says "Craig R. Kaufman, Eric Hugh Findlay and Roger Brian Craft appear for defendant Acer," but the only defense appearance document I could read verbatim — the January 29, 2026 Notice of Appearance — names only Eric H. Findlay. Kaufman's and Craft's formal appearances most plausibly came via a separate pro hac vice motion (Kaufman is California-barred, and this is the exact pattern in Ozmo) or a later notice; I could not verify those docket entries. Treat Kaufman and Craft as counsel of record per the docket extract, but with the appearance dates unverified.
• No sealed or withdrawn-counsel entries were identified. No motion to withdraw appears in the record I could access, even though the case closed on June 18, 2026. Because the case is now closed and all claims/counterclaims resolved (Dkt. 27), counsel technically remain of record subject to any withdrawal — a fact worth re-checking on PACER if you need current service contacts.
• Acer's answer included counterclaims (the joint dismissal order expressly disposes of "Defendant's counterclaims"), which confirms the Findlay Craft / TechKnowledge team litigated substantively — but the motion-to-dismiss (Dkt. 13) and answer signature blocks are behind PACER and were not retrievable here.

Consistency checks against the existing case summary

• The consolidation date in the prior section (2026-01-28) is corroborated: Findlay's Notice of Appearance is dated 2026-01-29 and was filed on the lead-case docket, one day after consolidation — exactly what the consolidation order contemplates.
• The prior section's PTAB point still holds: no IPR/PGR petition by Acer against the '870 patent was located. Acer's own affirmative SEP suits (against AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile in Jan. 2026; PACCAR later) are separate matters in which the same counsel (Findlay Craft + TechKnowledge) appear — useful context for evaluating Acer's posture, but not part of this docket.