Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. ASUSTek

Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC (VCT) has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ASUSTek in the Eastern District of Texas. Velocity Communication Technologies is identified as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), holding a substantial portfolio of over 220 patents related to wireless communications, many of which were acquired from NXP Semiconductors and ZTE Corporation. ASUSTek, the defendant, is a global technology company known for manufacturing a wide range of electronic devices, including laptops, desktops, monitors, and networking equipment. The lawsuit alleges that ASUSTek's products infringe on VCT's intellectual property, specifically targeting devices that support the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard.

The primary patent at issue in this case is US Patent No. 8,213,870B2, which generally relates to beamforming using predefined spatial mapping matrices within multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) wireless communication systems. This litigation is part of a broader campaign initiated by VCT in 2025, involving 11 separate patent infringement disputes against various hardware manufacturers in the wireless communication industry. The choice of the Eastern District of Texas as the venue is significant due to its reputation as a "rocket docket," known for its expedited trial schedules and procedural rules that are often considered favorable to patent plaintiffs. While not explicitly confirmed for this specific case number (5:25-cv-00100), District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III has been noted as the presiding judge for other related VCT cases filed concurrently in the Eastern District of Texas. The specific division within the Eastern District of Texas is not explicitly stated in public search results.

This case is notable as it highlights an ongoing trend of NPEs asserting large patent portfolios, often acquired from former operating companies, against manufacturers of widely adopted communication technologies like Wi-Fi 6. The coordinated nature of VCT's enforcement campaign against multiple industry players suggests a strategic effort to license its extensive patent holdings, with the plaintiff-friendly forum of the Eastern District of Texas playing a key role in its litigation strategy.

Here's a summary of the key legal developments for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. ASUSTek, Case No. 5:25-cv-00100, in the Eastern District of Texas:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC (VCT) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ASUSTek in the Eastern District of Texas (5:25-cv-00100). This case was part of a larger campaign initiated by VCT in 2025, asserting eleven wireless communications patents against multiple defendants. The patent at issue in this specific case is 8,213,870, which is related to devices supporting the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard. The lawsuit against ASUSTek, along with others, was filed around July 2025.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

Specific details regarding motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay for this particular case (5:25-cv-00100) are not publicly available in the search results. Patent plaintiffs have often sued foreign parent corporations in the Eastern District of Texas without naming domestic subsidiaries to avoid the restrictions of the patent venue statute, and the court has frequently found personal jurisdiction in these cases. This strategy, leveraging the broader general venue statute for foreign defendants, was observed in over forty cases filed in the EDTX in 2025 alone.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

There is no publicly available information in the provided search results specifically detailing a Markman hearing or claim construction order for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. ASUSTek, Case No. 5:25-cv-00100.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

Details regarding specific discovery milestones for this case are not publicly available in the search results.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

The case does not appear to have reached the trial stage or resulted in a verdict or post-trial motions based on the available information.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

The current posture of the case is not explicitly stated as settled, dismissed, or having a final judgment or appeal in the provided search results.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

A search of PTAB proceedings for patent 8,213,870 did not reveal any active or concluded Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings specifically against this patent initiated by ASUSTek or any other party. The PTAB case lists show numerous IPR and PGR filings for various patents in 2026, but none are directly linked to patent 8,213,870.## Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. ASUSTek (5:25-cv-00100)

Caption: Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. ASUSTek
Case number: 5:25-cv-00100
Court: Eastern District of Texas
Plaintiff(s): Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC
Defendant(s): ASUSTek
Patents at issue: 8213870
Current as of: 2026-08-04

Legal Developments:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC (VCT) initiated this patent infringement lawsuit against ASUSTek Computer, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on July 9, 2025. This action is part of a broader litigation campaign launched by VCT in 2025, which included lawsuits against multiple technology companies.
• The lawsuit asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870, along with ten other wireless communications patents (8,238,832; 8,238,859; 8,260,213; 8,265,573; 8,270,343; 8,644,765; 8,675,570; 9,083,401; 9,596,648; 10,200,096). These patents are generally related to devices supporting the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard.
• Details regarding ASUSTek's answer or any counterclaims are not publicly available in the search results.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• No specific pre-trial motions, such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR, for this particular case (5:25-cv-00100) were found in the provided information. However, it's a recognized strategy in the Eastern District of Texas for patent plaintiffs to sue foreign parent corporations without their domestic subsidiaries to potentially circumvent patent venue restrictions. The court has frequently exercised personal jurisdiction in such cases.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• There is no publicly available information in the search results indicating that a Markman hearing has occurred or that a claim construction order has been issued in this case.

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• No specific discovery milestones for this case have been identified in the provided search results.

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

• The case has not yet reached the trial stage, and therefore, there is no information regarding a verdict or post-trial motions.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The current disposition of the case (e.g., settlement, dismissal, or judgment) is not specified in the available public information. The case appears to be ongoing.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• A comprehensive search for Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings specifically targeting U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870 did not yield any results. While general information about the PTAB process, including its purpose as a faster and cheaper alternative to litigation for challenging patent validity based on prior art, is available, no such challenges have been identified for this specific patent. The PTAB applies the Phillips claim construction standard, similar to district courts, and requires a preponderance of the evidence to prove unpatentability.

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

Erin E. McCracken

• Role: Likely Lead Counsel
• Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP
• Office Location: Beverly Hills, California
• Experience Note: Ms. McCracken specializes in intellectual property litigation and has obtained multi-million dollar verdicts for her clients in state and federal courts. She was a partner at Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP prior to joining Berger & Hipskind. She has filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance on behalf of Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in a closely related case, 5:25-cv-00099, which is part of the same series of lawsuits.

Devlin Law Firm

• Role: Likely Local Counsel (Eastern District of Texas)
• Firm: Devlin Law Firm
• Office Location: Wilmington, Delaware (with experience in Houston, TX)
• Experience Note: Devlin Law Firm is a Delaware-based firm recognized for its patent litigation expertise, representing patent owners and handling complex technology litigation. Many of their attorneys have experience in both patent prosecution and litigation. The firm has attorneys admitted to practice in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, making them suitable for local counsel roles.

An attorney from Devlin Law Firm with relevant experience includes:

• Robert Kiddie
  • Role: Attorney (likely acting as local counsel)
  • Firm: Devlin Law Firm
  • Office Location: Wilmington, Delaware (though admitted to practice in Texas)
  • Experience Note: Mr. Kiddie is a partner at Devlin Law Firm with experience in patent enforcement, licensing, and strategic litigation planning. He is admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and has represented plaintiffs in patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

As of the current date, based on typical appearances in similar patent litigation, it's highly probable that ASUSTek is represented by experienced patent litigation counsel. While specific filings for this exact case (5:25-cv-00100) are not immediately available through direct web searches, ASUSTek has a history of being represented by Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP in patent infringement cases.

Here's an educated projection of the counsel likely representing ASUSTek, based on their past involvement and expertise:

Likely Counsel for ASUSTek

• Jonathan K. Waldrop

  • Role: Lead Counsel (highly probable, based on past cases)
  • Firm: Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, San Francisco, CA or New York, NY
  • Note: Mr. Waldrop has consistently led teams representing ASUSTek in various patent infringement cases, including securing a rarely granted stay in one instance. His experience covers a broad range of technologies, including those related to wireless communication and digital devices.

• Marcus A. Barber

  • Role: Of Counsel/Supporting Counsel (highly probable, based on past cases)
  • Firm: Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, San Francisco, CA or New York, NY
  • Note: Mr. Barber has worked alongside Mr. Waldrop in defending ASUSTek in patent infringement actions.

• ThucMinh Nguyen

  • Role: Special Counsel/Supporting Counsel (highly probable, based on past cases)
  • Firm: Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, San Francisco, CA or New York, NY
  • Note: Ms. Nguyen has been part of the Kasowitz team representing ASUSTek in patent litigation.

• Fria R. Kermani

  • Role: Associate/Supporting Counsel (highly probable, based on past cases)
  • Firm: Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, San Francisco, CA or New York, NY
  • Note: Ms. Kermani has also been noted as part of the legal team representing ASUSTek.

It is important to note that specific local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas would also be engaged. However, without direct access to the docket for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. ASUSTek (5:25-cv-00100), the exact local counsel cannot be identified at this time.

ASUSTek has been a frequent defendant in patent infringement suits, often involving technologies related to wireless communication standards like IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6), which is relevant to the patents asserted by Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC. Their consistent use of Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP suggests a well-established relationship for defending against such claims.