Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Aruba Networks, LLC.

Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC (VCT) is a patent assertion entity (PAE), also commonly referred to as a non-practicing entity (NPE), formed in Delaware in March 2024. VCT states it holds a portfolio of over 220 patent assets across 46 distinct patent families, acquired from significant wireless communication innovators such as Marvell Technology, Inc., NXP Semiconductors N.V., Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., BlackBerry Ltd., and ZTE Corporation. Aruba Networks, LLC, a subsidiary of Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), is the defendant. Aruba Networks, founded in 2002, is a Santa Clara, California-based company that provides edge-to-cloud solutions, including networking, security, and AI operations, serving various sectors such as healthcare, hospitality, and government.

The core of the dispute revolves around alleged infringement of US Patent 8,675,570, titled "Scalable OFDM and OFDMA bandwidth allocation in communication systems". This patent generally relates to methods and systems for efficiently allocating bandwidth in wireless communication systems using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) and Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA). Velocity Communication Technologies alleges that Aruba Networks' products, particularly those supporting the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard, infringe this patent. Accused products typically include Wi-Fi 6 compatible access points, routers, and other networking devices. The '570 patent was assigned to VCT in January 2025 from NCH 93, LLC, which had previously received it from ZTE in December 2019.

This case is part of a broader, multi-defendant patent infringement campaign launched by Velocity Communication Technologies. The plaintiff filed eleven separate lawsuits against various technology companies, including Acer, ASUSTek, Cisco, D-Link, Dell, HP, Juniper Networks, Lenovo, LG Electronics, OnePlus, and TP-Link. All cases were filed in the Eastern District of Texas, except for the Dell case, which was filed in Delaware. The Eastern District of Texas is a well-known venue for patent litigation due to its established patent docket and experienced judges, often favored by NPEs. The widespread nature of this litigation, targeting numerous companies over Wi-Fi 6 related patents, highlights an active trend of NPEs asserting patents in the wireless communication space.

Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Aruba Networks, LLC: Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Case Caption: Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Aruba Networks, LLC.
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Case Number: 5:25-cv-00105
Patents at issue: US Patent 8,675,570, among others.
Status: Closed (Dismissed)

Legal Developments:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed (2025-07-09): Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC (Velocity) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company and its subsidiary, Aruba Networks, LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. This action was part of a broader campaign by Velocity, a non-practicing entity (NPE), asserting 11 patents related to Wi-Fi 6 (IEEE 802.11ax) technology against multiple defendants. The asserted patents, including US Patent 8,675,570, were largely acquired by Velocity from NXP Semiconductors and ZTE Corporation. Velocity alleged willful infringement, claiming defendants were aware of the patents due to prior Letters of Assurance to the IEEE by NXP and ZTE, and subsequent notification letters from Velocity's counsel.
• Answer Due and Extensions (2025-10-24, 2025-09-19): An initial deadline for Aruba Networks, LLC and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company to file their answer was set for October 24, 2025. However, an unopposed motion for an extension of time was filed, agreeing to a new answer date of September 19, 2025.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (2025-12-02): Aruba Networks, LLC and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company filed a "Renewed Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement." A motion hearing on this motion was held before District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III on December 2, 2025.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• There is no available information regarding specific Markman claim construction outcomes for this particular case against Aruba Networks, LLC. Given the relatively short duration of the litigation, it is unlikely a Markman hearing was held before the case's dismissal.

4. Discovery Milestones:

• No specific strategic discovery milestones are readily available in the public records for this case prior to its dismissal.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• The case did not proceed to trial.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• Case Dismissed (2026-07-08): The case was dismissed by an "Order Dismissing Case" on July 8, 2026. While the specific terms of the dismissal for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Aruba Networks, LLC are not publicly detailed, related cases within Velocity's broader Wi-Fi 6 patent campaign against other defendants (such as D-Link and Acer) were dismissed with prejudice for Velocity's claims and without prejudice for the defendants' counterclaims, with each party bearing its own costs. This "asymmetric dismissal structure" suggests a negotiated resolution.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• No specific information regarding parallel PTAB IPR or PGR proceedings directly challenging US Patent 8,675,570 in relation to the Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Aruba Networks, LLC case was found in the conducted searches.

Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC is represented by the following counsel:

• Daniel P. Hipskind (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP (Beverly Hills) and Bayard PA (Delaware)
  • Note: Daniel P. Hipskind has been designated as the attorney in charge for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in multiple patent infringement cases. He is also listed as counsel for Velocity in an 11-patent wireless infringement action against Netgear, which included patent 8675570 and was dismissed after 343 days.

• Dorian S. Berger (Counsel)

  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP (Beverly Hills) and Bayard PA (Delaware)
  • Note: Dorian S. Berger has appeared on behalf of Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in multiple patent infringement suits.

• Elizabeth L. DeRieux (Counsel)

  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP (Texas)
  • Note: Elizabeth L. DeRieux has filed notices of appearance on behalf of Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Erin E. McCracken (Counsel)

  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP (Beverly Hills) and Bayard PA (Delaware)
  • Note: Erin E. McCracken has appeared as counsel for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in patent infringement cases.

• Ronald P. Golden III (Counsel)

  • Firm: Bayard PA (Delaware)
  • Note: Ronald P. Golden III represented Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in a patent infringement case against Netgear.

• Stephen B. Brauerman (Counsel)

  • Firm: Bayard PA (Delaware)
  • Note: Stephen B. Brauerman represented Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in a patent infringement case against Netgear.

Aruba Networks, LLC is represented by attorneys from several firms in its patent infringement case against Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company is also a defendant in this specific case, 5:25-cv-00105.

The identified counsel of record for Aruba Networks, LLC (and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company in this joint case) includes:

• Brian K. Erickson

  • Role: Attorney of Record (likely lead or significant counsel).
  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US).
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided snippets, but DLA Piper has multiple offices.
  • Experience Note: DLA Piper (US) attorneys Sean C. Cunningham, Michael D. Jay, Jackob Ben-Ezra, Erin P. Gibson, and Helena D. Kiepura are also listed as contacts or attorneys in relation to Aruba Networks' federal litigation filings, indicating DLA Piper's significant involvement in Aruba's patent defense.

• Daniel P. Hipskind

  • Role: Attorney of Record (likely lead or significant counsel).
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP - Beverly Hills.
  • Office Location: Beverly Hills, CA.
  • Experience Note: Erin Elizabeth McCracken and Dorian S. Berger from Berger & Hipskind LLP are also listed as contacts in connection with Aruba Networks' litigation.

• Elizabeth L. DeRieux

  • Role: Attorney of Record (likely local counsel due to Eastern District of Texas venue).
  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP.
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided snippets, but typically local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Experience Note: Capshaw DeRieux LLP is a Texas-based firm with experience in intellectual property litigation.

• Joshua Reed Thane

  • Role: Attorney of Record (likely local counsel due to Eastern District of Texas venue).
  • Firm: Haltom & Doan.
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided snippets, but Haltom & Doan is a Texas-based firm.
  • Experience Note: Jennifer Haltom Doan from Haltom & Doan is also listed as a contact, suggesting the firm's role in the case. Haltom & Doan is recognized for its patent litigation work in the Eastern District of Texas.

Additionally, while not explicitly listed as counsel of record for this specific case, other firms and attorneys have represented Aruba Networks and Hewlett Packard Enterprise in previous patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas and other venues. For example:

• Brian Rosenthal of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP has served as lead trial counsel for companies like Cisco and NVIDIA in patent cases, including in the Western and Eastern Districts of Texas, and has represented NXP Semiconductors, a prior owner of some patents asserted by Velocity Communication Technologies.
• AZA Law (Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing) has represented clients like Acer Inc. in multi-district patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, indicating their experience in the venue and with similar technologies.
• Potter Minton Law Firm has extensive experience in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, often serving as lead or local counsel.

It is important to note that the case was filed on July 9, 2025, and the information about attorney appearances is as of July 9, 2025. New counsel may appear or roles may shift as the case progresses.