Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. D-Link

This patent infringement litigation involved Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC (Velocity) as the plaintiff and D-Link Corp. as the defendant. Velocity is identified as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE) that has amassed a portfolio of over 220 patent assets from various companies prominent in wireless communications, including Marvell, NXP, Freescale, BlackBerry, and ZTE. D-Link, a Taiwanese multinational corporation, is a globally recognized manufacturer of networking hardware and telecommunications equipment, providing solutions for digital home consumers, small offices, and enterprises. The accused products in this case were D-Link's Wi-Fi 6-compliant devices, specifically its AX1800, AX3000, AX5400, AX6000 routers, mesh extenders, access points, and cellular gateways. These products were alleged to infringe patents covering technologies incorporated into the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard.

The litigation, specifically case 5:25-cv-00103, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas before Chief Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III. The Eastern District of Texas is frequently utilized by NPE plaintiffs due to its established intellectual property docket and experienced patent judges. While the prompt mentions only patent 8644765, the case actually involved eleven U.S. patents spanning wireless communication technologies. U.S. Patent No. 8,644,765, the primary patent at issue for this specific analysis, is generally described as pertaining to wireless signal processing and more specifically to "Beamforming using predefined spatial mapping matrices". The patents asserted in this and related cases collectively address critical technical domains underlying modern Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) implementations, such as wireless signal processing, transmission protocols, mesh networking, and communication management.

This case is notable as it represents part of a broader, multi-defendant patent enforcement campaign by Velocity targeting numerous Wi-Fi 6 hardware manufacturers, including Acer, ASUSTeK, Cisco, HP, Juniper Networks, Lenovo, LG Electronics, OnePlus, and TP-Link. The dismissal of Velocity's claims against D-Link with prejudice, and D-Link's counterclaims without prejudice, suggests a negotiated settlement, the terms of which were not publicly disclosed. This pattern of NPE assertion against Wi-Fi 6 implementers highlights ongoing IP risks for networking hardware manufacturers and reinforces the prevalence of pre-trial resolutions in complex, multi-patent cases within the Eastern District of Texas.

The patent infringement litigation between Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC (Velocity) and D-Link Corp., case 5:25-cv-00103 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, involved eleven U.S. patents related to Wi-Fi 6 technologies. The case concluded with a dismissal on January 23, 2026.

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

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2025-07-09: Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC filed its complaint against D-Link Corp. in the Eastern District of Texas. This was part of a broader patent enforcement campaign by Velocity against multiple Wi-Fi 6 hardware manufacturers. The complaint alleged willful infringement of eleven patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,644,765, and accused D-Link's Wi-Fi 6-compliant devices. Velocity asserted that it had acquired a portfolio of over 220 patent assets from various companies, including NXP Semiconductors, and had notified defendants of its patent portfolio covering Wi-Fi 6 standards and invited licensing.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• No specific substantive pre-trial motions (such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR) were publicly disclosed as having been decided or extensively litigated prior to the dismissal. The quick resolution suggests such motions may not have been fully briefed or ruled upon.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• There is no indication that the case progressed to a claim construction (Markman) hearing or ruling. The dismissal occurred relatively early in the litigation lifecycle, before such a stage would typically be reached.

Discovery Milestones:

• No specific discovery milestones with strategic significance have been publicly disclosed. Given the early dismissal, it is unlikely that extensive discovery took place.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• The case did not proceed to trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• 2026-01-23: Chief Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III, granted an Agreed Motion to Dismiss filed by the parties (Docket No. 25). Velocity's claims against D-Link were dismissed with prejudice, meaning Velocity cannot refile the same infringement claims against D-Link on these patents. Any counterclaims D-Link may have asserted were dismissed without prejudice, preserving D-Link's ability to pursue them separately if needed. The dismissal did not disclose any details regarding damages, royalty figures, or injunctive relief, indicating a negotiated settlement. The absence of a finding for exceptional case or fee award to either party is consistent with a good-faith resolution.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• There is no public information indicating that any parallel PTAB IPR or PGR proceedings were initiated against the asserted patents by D-Link in connection with this specific litigation. However, the dismissal of D-Link's counterclaims without prejudice allows D-Link to revive any challenges, including at the PTAB, if these patents are asserted against them again in the future.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Velocity Communication Technologies LLC v. D-Link 5:25-cv-00103 counsel", "Velocity Communication Technologies LLC v. D-Link EDTX PACER", "Jason W. Cook patent litigation experience", "David F. Johnson patent litigation experience", "Jonathan E. Ruddy patent litigation experience", "Matthew C. Van Eman patent litigation experience", "Ward, Smith & Hill PLLC location", "Aziz & Bhatti LLC location", "Law Office of A. David Seuss location"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record for the plaintiff, Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC, in the case "Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. D-Link", case number 5:25-cv-00103 in the Eastern District of Texas. I need to find the names of the attorneys, their roles, their firms and office locations, and a one-line note on their relevant patent litigation experience. I will use the provided search queries to find this information.

I will start by searching for the counsel of record for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in the specified case. Then, for each attorney identified, I will search for their firm, office location, and relevant patent litigation experience.The following attorneys represented Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. D-Link:

• Jason W. Cook

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill PLLC (Longview, Texas)
  • Experience Note: Focuses on patent and complex commercial litigation in the Eastern District of Texas and other jurisdictions.

• David F. Johnson

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill PLLC (Longview, Texas)
  • Experience Note: Handles a variety of intellectual property litigation matters.

• Jonathan E. Ruddy

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Aziz & Bhatti LLC (Washington, D.C.)
  • Experience Note: Represents clients in patent litigation across various technologies.

• Matthew C. Van Eman

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Aziz & Bhatti LLC (Washington, D.C.)
  • Experience Note: Litigates patent cases, particularly those involving complex technology.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Velocity Communication Technologies v. D-Link 5:25-cv-00103 EDTX PACER counsel", "Velocity Communication Technologies v. D-Link D-Link counsel", "D-Link patent litigation counsel"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing D-Link in the case "Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. D-Link".
I need to identify the names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant patent litigation experience for each attorney.
I will use web search with keywords like "PACER counsel", "D-Link counsel", and "patent litigation counsel" to find this information.
I will look for filings, docket sheets, and legal news sources.

Based on the prompt, the case was terminated on 2026-01-23, so counsel would have already appeared.
I will focus on identifying counsel from the Eastern District of Texas since that's where the case was filed.The case "Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. D-Link," case number 5:25-cv-00103 in the Eastern District of Texas, was dismissed on January 23, 2026, due to an agreed motion to dismiss. While the public record indicates a negotiated resolution, the specific terms, including counsel details, are not readily available in the provided search results. The search results primarily discuss the patents at issue, the dismissal outcome, and D-Link's involvement in other patent infringement cases. Without access to the actual docket or specific attorney appearance filings, identifying the precise counsel of record for D-Link in this specific case is not possible with the current information.

However, D-Link is a frequent defendant in patent litigation. In other patent cases where D-Link was a defendant in the Eastern or Western District of Texas, such as American Patents LLC v. D-Link Corporation (4:19-cv-00764 E.D. Tex.) and Atlas Global Technologies v. D-Link (6:22-cv-00520 W.D. Tex.), various firms and attorneys have represented them. For instance, Brooks Kushman is a firm that frequently handles IP litigation, and it is plausible D-Link would engage such a firm. Without specific docket entries for the Velocity Communication Technologies case, it is not possible to definitively state who represented D-Link in that particular matter.

Therefore, as filings are not explicitly detailed for counsel in this specific case from the provided search results, the counsel of record representing D-Link cannot be identified with certainty.