Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC ("Velocity") has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Cisco Systems, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. Velocity is identified as a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE) that has amassed a portfolio of over 220 wireless communication patents from companies such as Marvell, NXP, Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., Blackberry, and ZTE. Cisco Systems, Inc. is a multinational technology conglomerate known for developing, manufacturing, and selling networking hardware, software, telecommunications equipment, and other high-technology services and products, including routers, switches, firewalls, and wireless solutions.

The asserted patent in this specific case is U.S. Patent No. 8,675,570, which generally relates to communication management in wireless systems. This patent is part of a larger portfolio of eleven patents asserted by Velocity in a widespread enforcement campaign against various technology companies. The accused products, services, or technologies are devices that support the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard, including access points, computers, laptops, routers, and smartphones. Velocity alleges that Cisco's Wi-Fi 6 products infringe these patents, claiming willful infringement.

The case is currently active in the Eastern District of Texas, specifically before District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III (Case No. 5:25-cv-00101). The Eastern District of Texas is a prominent venue for patent litigation, often favored by plaintiffs due to its reputation for faster trial tracks, specialized local rules for patent cases, and a history of plaintiff-friendly verdicts. This venue also has a tendency to limit early case dispositions and discovery streamlining, making it predictably expensive for defendants. This case is notable as part of a broader "Wi-Fi 6 patent enforcement campaign" launched by Velocity, which involves 11 separate patent infringement disputes against numerous hardware manufacturers over the same 11 patents, highlighting a significant NPE assertion pattern in the wireless communication industry.

Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Cisco Systems, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on July 9, 2025, asserting U.S. Patent 8,675,570, along with ten other patents related to Wi-Fi 6 technology. The case, assigned case number 5:25-cv-00101, is part of a broader litigation campaign initiated by Velocity against multiple defendants over these patents.

Key Legal Developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (July 9, 2025): Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC filed its complaint for patent infringement against Cisco Systems, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint specifically asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,675,570, among others, alleging infringement by Cisco's Wi-Fi 6 compatible products. Velocity also demanded a jury trial.
• Extension of Time to Answer (July 16, 2025): Cisco Systems, Inc. filed an unopposed application for an extension of time to answer the complaint, pushing the agreed new answer date to September 19, 2025.
• Parallel Litigation and Patent Assertions: The '570 patent is one of eleven wireless communication patents (8,213,870; 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) that Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC has asserted against multiple defendants in the Eastern District of Texas and Delaware. These patents cover technologies related to the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard. Velocity acquired most of these patents from NXP Semiconductors and the '570 patent from NCH 93, LLC, which had previously received it from ZTE.
• Case Status (as of August 4, 2026): While the specific docket for Velocity v. Cisco (5:25-cv-00101) does not explicitly state a dismissal as of the current date in the provided snippets, a related case, Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. [D-Link Corp.](/litigations/by-defendant/D-Link%20Corp.) (5:25-cv-00103), which involved the same '570 patent, was dismissed with prejudice on January 23, 2026, based on an Agreed Motion to Dismiss. Another related case, Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Netgear, Inc. (1:25-cv-00894), also asserting the '570 patent, was terminated as "Case Dismissed" on June 25, 2026, with Velocity's claims dismissed with prejudice. These dismissals, particularly the "with prejudice" aspect for Velocity's claims, suggest negotiated resolutions in the broader campaign. The status of the Velocity v. Cisco case is currently marked as "Closed" in some databases, filed on 07/09/25.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

There is no specific information available from the provided search results regarding any parallel PTAB IPR or PGR proceedings specifically initiated by Cisco Systems, Inc. against US Patent 8,675,570 in the context of this Velocity case. While Cisco has been involved in numerous PTAB challenges and patent litigation in other cases, including those with Centripetal Networks and Portsmouth Network Corp., the provided information does not link these to the '570 patent or this particular lawsuit. Therefore, the effect of any such proceedings on this specific litigation is not known from the available data.Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Cisco Systems, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on July 9, 2025, asserting US Patent 8,675,570, among ten other patents related to Wi-Fi 6 technology. This case, designated as 5:25-cv-00101, is part of a broader enforcement campaign by Velocity against multiple manufacturers of Wi-Fi 6 compatible devices.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (July 9, 2025): Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC filed its complaint for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,675,570, titled "Scalable OFDM and OFDMA bandwidth allocation in communication systems," along with ten other related wireless communication patents. Velocity alleged that Cisco's Wi-Fi 6 compliant products infringed these patents and demanded a jury trial.
• Extension of Time to Answer (July 16, 2025): Cisco Systems, Inc. secured an unopposed extension to file its answer to the complaint, with the new deadline set for September 19, 2025.
• Broader Litigation Context: The asserted patents (8,213,870; 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) are part of a portfolio acquired by Velocity, primarily from NXP Semiconductors, with the '570 patent specifically transferred from NCH 93, LLC (which had previously received it from ZTE). Velocity concurrently filed similar lawsuits against several other companies, including Acer, ASUSTek, D-Link, HP, Juniper Networks, Lenovo, LG Electronics, OnePlus, and TP-Link.
• Case Status – Active with Related Dismissals: As of the current date, the specific docket details for Velocity v. Cisco (5:25-cv-00101) beyond its filing and an extension to answer are not publicly detailed in the provided search results. However, the case status is listed as "Closed" in some databases, having been filed on July 9, 2025. Notably, other parallel cases in Velocity's campaign involving the same '570 patent have reached early resolutions:
  • Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. D-Link Corp. (5:25-cv-00103): This case was dismissed with prejudice on January 23, 2026, following an Agreed Motion to Dismiss by the parties. D-Link's counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, and no damages or injunctive relief were publicly disclosed, indicating a negotiated settlement.
  • Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Netgear, Inc. (1:25-cv-00894): This case, filed in the District of Delaware and also asserting the '570 patent, was terminated as "Case Dismissed" on June 25, 2026. Velocity's claims were dismissed with prejudice, while Netgear's counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice.
    These parallel dismissals with prejudice for Velocity's claims suggest a common pattern of negotiated resolutions across its litigation campaign.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

No information regarding specific PTAB IPR or PGR proceedings challenging U.S. Patent 8,675,570, specifically in relation to Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., was found in the provided search results. While Cisco has engaged in PTAB proceedings in other patent disputes, there is no evidence presented here to indicate such actions concerning the '570 patent in this particular case. Therefore, any effect of such proceedings on this litigation cannot be determined from the available data.

The patent litigation case "Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc." (5:25-cv-00101, E.D. Tex.) was filed on July 9, 2025. Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC (VCT), a non-practicing entity (NPE), has initiated a broad patent enforcement campaign, filing 11 separate patent infringement lawsuits against various technology companies, including Cisco Systems, Inc.. The asserted patents, which include US patent 8675570, target devices that support the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard, such as access points, computers, laptops, routers, and smartphones.

According to reports from RPX and ip fray, VCT has collected over 220 patents, many of which were acquired from NXP Semiconductors and ZTE Corporation. The specific patent 8675570, along with ten other wireless communications patents, is being asserted against each defendant in this campaign. While most of the patents originated from NXP, patent 8675570 was assigned to VCT by NCH 93, LLC in January 2025, after NCH 93 had received it from ZTE in December 2019. The lawsuits against Acer, ASUSTek, Cisco, D-Link, HP, HP Enterprise (HPE), Juniper Networks, Lenovo, LG Electronics, OnePlus, and TP-Link were primarily filed in the Eastern District of Texas, with Dell being sued in Delaware.

At this early stage of the litigation, there is no public reporting on damages sought or awarded, or any settlement terms specifically related to the "Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc." case. The available news and analysis primarily focus on the initiation of VCT's comprehensive patent litigation campaign and the origin of its patent portfolio. Publications like RPX Empower and ip fray have highlighted VCT as an NPE and the strategic nature of its multi-defendant filings in the Eastern District of Texas.Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC (VCT) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Cisco Systems, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on July 9, 2025, asserting US patent 8675570. This action is part of a broader patent enforcement campaign launched by VCT, a non-practicing entity (NPE), which includes 11 separate lawsuits against various technology companies. The defendants in these lawsuits, in addition to Cisco, include Acer, ASUSTek, D-Link, Dell, HP, HP Enterprise (HPE) (Aruba Networks), Juniper Networks, Lenovo (Motorola Mobile Communication Technology), LG Electronics, OnePlus, and TP-Link.

The asserted patents, including 8675570, are focused on devices that support the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard, encompassing products such as access points, computers, laptops, motherboards, routers, smartphones, and workstations. VCT's patent portfolio reportedly comprises over 220 patent assets, many of which were acquired from NXP Semiconductors. Specifically, patent 8675570 was transferred to VCT in January 2025 from NCH 93, LLC, which had previously received it from ZTE Corporation in December 2019. The strategic choice of the Eastern District of Texas as the primary venue for these lawsuits is a notable aspect of VCT's litigation strategy.

As of the current date, news and analysis coverage primarily report on the initiation and scope of this multi-defendant patent campaign. There are no reported numbers regarding damages sought or awarded, nor any details of settlement terms specifically related to the "Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc." case. Coverage from outlets like RPX Empower and ip fray has identified VCT as an NPE and detailed the origins of its patent portfolio, highlighting the acquisition of patents from former operating companies like NXP and ZTE.

Sources

• stanford.edu
• exparte.com
• pacermonitor.com
• justia.com
• rpxcorp.com
• ipfray.com
• mondaq.com

Based on available docket information for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Case No. 5:25-cv-00101) in the Eastern District of Texas, the following attorneys are identified as counsel of record for the plaintiff:

Elizabeth L. DeRieux

• Role: Local Counsel
• Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP
• Office Location: Longview, Texas (implied by typical E.D. Tex. local counsel practice).
• Experience: Elizabeth DeRieux is a recognized patent litigator in the Eastern District of Texas.

Daniel P. Hipskind

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP
• Office Location: Beverly Hills, California
• Experience: Daniel Hipskind is a patent litigator with experience in intellectual property disputes.

Dorian S. Berger

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP
• Office Location: Beverly Hills, California
• Experience: Dorian Berger is involved in patent litigation, representing plaintiffs in patent infringement cases.

Erin Elizabeth McCracken

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP
• Office Location: Beverly Hills, California
• Experience: Erin McCracken practices in patent litigation.

The following counsel of record represent Cisco Systems, Inc. in Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas:

External Counsel:

• Michael E. Jones (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Potter Minton LLP
  • Office Location: Tyler, Texas
  • Experience: Potter Minton has represented Cisco Systems, Inc. in patent litigation, including a trial victory in the Western District of Texas.

• Shaun William Hassett (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Potter Minton LLP
  • Office Location: Tyler, Texas

• Robert N. Kang (Counsel)

  • Firm: Winston & Strawn LLP
  • Office Location: The search results indicate "Winston & Strawn Llp - New York" and "Winston & Strawn/chicago" for other attorneys, but a specific office for Mr. Kang in this context is not explicitly stated.
  • Experience: Mr. Kang is listed as counsel for Cisco.

• Zachary Bass (Counsel)

  • Firm: Winston & Strawn LLP
  • Office Location: The search results mention "Winston & Strawn/chicago" in association with Mr. Bass.
  • Experience: Mr. Bass is listed as counsel for Cisco.

• Krishnan Padmanabhan (Counsel)

  • Firm: Winston & Strawn LLP
  • Office Location: New York, New York.
  • Experience: Mr. Padmanabhan is listed as counsel for Cisco.

• J. Derek Vandenburgh (Counsel)

  • Firm: Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh & Lindquist PA / Carlson Caspers Vandenburgh Lindquist Schuman PA
  • Office Location: The firm is located in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  • Experience: Mr. Vandenburgh is listed as counsel for Cisco.

• William F. Bullard (Counsel)

  • Firm: Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh & Lindquist PA
  • Office Location: The firm is located in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  • Experience: Mr. Bullard is listed as counsel for Cisco.

• Samuel A. Hamer (Counsel)

  • Firm: Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh & Lindquist PA
  • Office Location: The firm is located in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  • Experience: Mr. Hamer is listed as counsel for Cisco.

• Peter M. Kohlhepp (Counsel)

  • Firm: Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh & Lindquist PA
  • Office Location: The firm is located in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  • Experience: Mr. Kohlhepp is listed as counsel for Cisco.

• Scott M. Border (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results, but Fenwick & West has multiple offices.
  • Experience: Mr. Border is listed as counsel for Cisco.

In-House Counsel (roles with Cisco's IP Group):

• Jennifer Yokoyama (Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel for Intellectual Property and Technology)

  • Firm: Cisco Systems, Inc. (In-house)
  • Office Location: Redmond, United States (based on previous roles, current office not specified but likely San Jose, CA or Redmond, WA).
  • Experience: Extensive experience in IP and technology law, including senior roles at Microsoft, Apple (Principal Counsel for Patent Litigation), and Nike.

• Sarita Venkat (VP & Deputy General Counsel of Global Litigation)

  • Firm: Cisco Systems, Inc. (In-house)
  • Office Location: Not specified, but likely at a Cisco legal department.
  • Experience: Manages complex patent and commercial litigations worldwide; previously held in-house positions at Apple, ServiceNow, and Abbott Laboratories Inc.

• John Zhu (Director, Associate General Counsel, Intellectual Property Group)

  • Firm: Cisco Systems, Inc. (In-house)
  • Office Location: Not specified, but his biography mentions living in Brooklyn, suggesting an East Coast presence or remote work.
  • Experience: Leads the patent marketplace team in evaluating third-party IP threats, works on patent strategy, manages patent litigation, and negotiates IP licenses. Previously worked at O'Melveny & Myers LLP and Mayer Brown LLP defending against NPEs.