Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Dell

Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC (VCT), a non-practicing entity (NPE), initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Dell, a major technology operating company, in the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:25-cv-00850). VCT asserts U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870, titled "Beamforming using predefined spatial mapping matrices," along with ten other patents related to wireless communication technologies. The patents-in-suit generally cover technologies incorporated into the IEEE 802.11ax, or Wi-Fi 6, standard, including beamforming, UL MU-MIMO, OFDMA, and TPC. Dell is accused of infringing these patents through its provision of various devices that support the Wi-Fi 6 standard, such as access points, computers, laptops, routers, and workstations.

The case is currently before Judge Gregory B. Williams in the District of Delaware. This venue is significant as the District of Delaware became a primary forum for patent litigation following the Supreme Court's 2017 TC Heartland decision, which restricted venue to a defendant's state of incorporation or where it has a regular and established place of business. As many major U.S. technology companies are incorporated in Delaware, it frequently serves as a mandatory forum, boasting an experienced patent bench and a mature body of patent-specific precedent.

This litigation is part of a broader patent enforcement campaign launched by VCT in 2025, targeting a dozen prominent technology companies, including Acer, ASUSTek, Cisco, HP, Lenovo, LG Electronics, OnePlus, and TP-Link, primarily for alleged infringement of Wi-Fi 6 standards-essential patents. VCT's patent portfolio, comprising over 220 assets, was largely acquired from operating companies like NXP Semiconductors, Marvell, Freescale Semiconductor, BlackBerry, and ZTE Corporation, signaling a strategic effort to monetize these wireless communication innovations. Several related cases in this campaign, such as those against Acer and Netgear, have already concluded with joint stipulations of dismissal, indicating potential settlements or licensing agreements.

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

Case Caption: Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Dell
Case Number: 1:25-cv-00850
Court: District of Delaware
Plaintiff(s): Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC
Defendant(s): Dell
Patents at Issue: 8213870 (among others)

Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC (VCT), a non-practicing entity (NPE), initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Dell in the District of Delaware on July 9, 2025. This case is part of a broader litigation campaign launched by VCT in 2025, asserting 11 wireless communication patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870, against multiple technology companies for alleged infringement related to IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard products. [cite: 2, 7, "Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Netgear, Inc — Patent Lawsuit"]

As of August 4, 2026, the specific legal developments for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Dell, case number 1:25-cv-00850, beyond its initial filing, are not publicly detailed in the readily available search results (e.g., specific docket entries for answers, counterclaims, or substantive pre-trial motions like motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay). The case remains listed as "open" in the federal court system. [cite: "Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Netgear, Inc — Patent Lawsuit"]

However, a related case from VCT's campaign, Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Netgear, Inc. (1:25-cv-00894), also filed in the District of Delaware on July 17, 2025, provides some insight into potential outcomes for VCT's litigation. The Netgear case, which also asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870 among others, was dismissed by stipulation of the parties on June 25, 2026. In that dismissal, the plaintiff's claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the defendant's counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs. This suggests a potential settlement or early resolution for VCT's cases. [cite: "Velocity v. Netgear: 11-Patent Wireless Infringement Action Dismissed After 343 Days. Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC filed suit against Netgear, Inc. in the District of Delaware, asserting 11 patents spanning wireless communication, mesh networking, and mobile connectivity across hundreds of Netgear product SKUs. The case was dismissed by stipulation of the parties after 343 days, with plaintiff's claims dismissed with prejudice and defendant's counterclaims dismissed without prejudice. Run FTO analysis Search patents. Resolution time. 343days. 343 days from filing to dismissal in the District of Delaware. Patents asserted. 11. US8644765B1 and 10 further patents asserted across Wi-Fi, mesh, and mobile networking technology. Outcome. Case Dismissed. Plaintiff's claims dismissed with prejudice; defendant's counterclaims dismissed without prejudice. Cost ruling. Each Party Bears Own Costs. All attorney's fees, court costs, and expenses borne by the party incurring them. Published by PatSnap Insights Team · July 28, 2026 Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data. Overview Timeline Patent Verdict Parties R&D signals. Similar cases. Case overview. 11 Wireless Patents, Hundreds of SKUs, One Stipulated Dismissal. Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC filed this patent infringement action against Netgear, Inc. on July 17, 2025, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware before Judge Gregory B. Williams. The complaint asserted 11 US patents — including US8644765B1, US8270343B2, US9596648B2, US8675570B2, US8213870B2, US8238832B1, US8238859B2, US9083401B2, US8260213B2, US8265573B2, and US10200096B2 — against an extensive range of Netgear products spanning Wi-Fi 6 and Wi-Fi 7 routers, Orbi mesh systems, business wireless access points, cable modems, mobile hotspots, range extenders, and Wi-Fi adapters. The case was terminated on June 25, 2026, recorded as 'Case Dismissed.' The docket stipulation states that plaintiff Velocity's"]

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
As of the current date, there are no specific public records indicating that Dell or a third party has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) specifically targeting U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870 in connection with this Velocity v. Dell litigation. While Dell has been involved in other IPR proceedings for different patents in other cases, those are unrelated to the current litigation and the specific patent in question. [cite: "PTAB Rejects Dell's Challenges to 3 Video Tech Patents - Sterne Kessler", "PTAB May Disregard New Evidence Presented at Oral Argument - The National Law Review", "MyPAQ Holdings v. Dell Technologies: IPR Kills USB-C Power Patent Claims - Patsnap"] Unified Patents, an organization that challenges NPE patents, has filed numerous IPRs, but no IPRs for U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870 were found in publicly accessible databases.

Current Posture:
The case Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Dell (1:25-cv-00850) remains active in the District of Delaware as of August 4, 2026, without public information detailing further significant docket events beyond its initial filing. Given the dismissal of a similar VCT case against Netgear, the possibility of a settlement or other form of resolution for the Dell case cannot be ruled out.

Based on available public information, including firm profiles and legal news, attorneys from Farnan LLP are highly likely representing Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC as local counsel in this patent infringement case in the District of Delaware. While a specific docket entry explicitly listing plaintiff's counsel for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Dell, case number 1:25-cv-00850, was not directly retrieved from the provided search snippets, Farnan LLP is consistently noted for its role as Delaware counsel for patent-holding plaintiff corporations in the District of Delaware.

Here are the attorneys from Farnan LLP who would typically serve as counsel in such matters:

• Joseph J. Farnan Jr.

  • Role: Likely lead or senior counsel.
  • Firm: Farnan LLP, Wilmington, Delaware (919 North Market St., 12th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801).
  • Experience: Mr. Farnan founded Farnan LLP after serving as a United States District Judge for the District of Delaware from 1985 to 2010, including as Chief Judge. During his judicial tenure, he presided over hundreds of jury trials, including more than 160 patent jury trials. His current practice focuses on complex commercial matters, including patent litigation, and he also serves as an arbitrator and mediator in significant disputes.

• Brian E. Farnan

  • Role: Likely lead or co-counsel; frequently serves as Delaware local counsel.
  • Firm: Farnan LLP, Wilmington, Delaware (919 North Market St., 12th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801).
  • Experience: Brian Farnan's practice focuses on complex litigation, particularly patent litigation, often on behalf of plaintiffs. He has extensive experience in jury and bench trials in Delaware's federal and state courts and is recognized by publications like IAM Patent 1000 and Chambers USA for his work in this area.

• Michael J. Farnan

  • Role: Likely co-counsel.
  • Firm: Farnan LLP, Wilmington, Delaware (919 North Market St., 12th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801).
  • Experience: Michael Farnan is recognized as a Super Lawyer and by Chambers and Partners as "Up and Coming." He is admitted to The Million Dollar Advocates Forum. While specific patent litigation cases are less detailed in the provided snippets, his firm's focus and his accolades suggest involvement in complex litigation.

I'll research the docket and defense counsel for this case.

Key hits. Let me dig into the docket entries and confirm which firm represents which party.

Now let me find Dell's lead/national counsel and confirm who appeared for Dell at the outset.

Defense counsel of record — Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc., 1:25-cv-00850-GBW (D. Del.)

Note on the record: the named defendants are two Dell entities — Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc. — both represented by the same defense team; several of the substantive defense filings are captioned as filed by "Dell Inc., Dell Technologies Inc."

Confirmed Delaware counsel of record

Sourcing: Tigan is the ECF filer on every defense-side entry on the docket — Dell's Rule 26 Initial Disclosures (D.I. 37, entered 2/27/2026), Notice of Subsequent Authority (D.I. 43, 3/11/2026), responses to VCT's common interrogatories and RFPs (D.I. 45, 4/6/2026), and Dell's Core Technical Documents (D.I. 47, 4/14/2026), all reflected as "(Tigan, Jeremy)" on the CourtListener docket for 1:25-cv-00850 (docket). Tigan's firm block also appears on the joint Stipulation and Order Staying the case (D.I. 52/53, dated 4/17/2026, So Ordered 4/20/2026), where the Morris Nichols signature is labeled "Attorney for Defendants Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc." (PDF).

Likely lead / national counsel — NOT confirmed by a docket appearance

• Kirkland & Ellis LLP — Searching turned up an attorney-to-case association between Robert Endrizzi (Kirkland & Ellis, IP litigation associate, New York/Chicago) and Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Dell Technologies Inc., 1:25-cv-00850 (D. Del.), in a third-party litigation-analytics database (Ex Parte attorney profile). That same database shows Kirkland attorneys associated with VCT's parallel suits against Lenovo, OnePlus, and TP-Link.
  • Caveat: I could not locate a Notice of Appearance, pro hac vice motion, or signature block placing Kirkland (or Endrizzi) on the Dell docket in this case. The database entry also labels the role "Challenger," which may reflect a PTAB/IPR-side or data-aggregation artifact rather than a district-court appearance. Treat Kirkland as a probable but unverified lead-counsel candidate.

Dell's separate PTO/IPR counsel (not shown to be counsel in this case)

• Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP — Brian M. Buroker (lead, Reg. 39,125; Washington, D.C.), Paul Torchia (backup; New York), Nathan R. Curtis (backup; Dallas), with service address Dell-IPRService@gibsondunn.com. These attorneys appear as Dell Inc.'s appointed counsel in Dell's inter partes review filings (e.g., IPR2020-01160, Dell Inc. v. 3G Licensing S.A.; IPR2025-00606/00608/00609/00610) (PTAB power of attorney). This is Dell's standing PTAB team; I found no record tying Gibson Dunn to 1:25-cv-00850, and no IPR/petition against U.S. Pat. No. 8,213,870 was located.

In-house

• Anthony Peterman, Vice President, IP & IP Litigation, Dell Inc. — signed Dell's PTAB power of attorney in prior Dell IPRs. The complaint in this case (D.I. 1) does not identify Dell in-house counsel, and no case-specific in-house appearance was found.

---

Contradiction to flag against the earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section

The previously generated section states that Farnan LLP is "highly likely" plaintiff's Delaware counsel. The record contradicts this:

• The complaint (D.I. 1, filed 7/9/2025) was filed by Stephen B. Brauerman of Bayard, P.A., and Bayard's Brauerman (#4952) and Ronald P. Golden III (#6254) are the ECF filers on essentially all plaintiff-side docket entries (e.g., D.I. 40, 41, 46).
• RPX/industry coverage of the VCT campaign identifies VCT's Delaware counsel as Bayard PA, with Berger & Hipskind LLP and Capshaw Derieux LLP as national counsel (Mondaq/RPX, "Velocity Overtakes Two More Defendants").
• The Farnan LLP attorneys named in that section (Joseph J. Farnan Jr., Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan) do not appear on this docket in any filing I located.

That section should be corrected: plaintiff's Delaware counsel is Bayard, P.A., not Farnan LLP.

Procedural note bearing on counsel analysis

The earlier section said no post-filing developments were publicly available as of 8/4/2026. The docket shows otherwise: Dell filed a Renewed Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (D.I. 22; opening brief D.I. 23), VCT noticed a Notice of Subsequent Authority (D.I. 24), the court entered a scheduling order with Markman set for 1/29/2027 (later rescheduled to 2/2/2027), and — critically — the parties filed a Stipulation and Order Staying the Case on 4/20/2026 stating they had "reached agreement in principle to resolve this case" and were finalizing a settlement, with a dismissal or status report due ~5/18/2026. Because a stay/dismissal was in progress, the absence of additional pro hac vice appearances or a formal lead-counsel designation on the docket is not surprising, and it is possible no further defense appearances were ever entered.

Bottom line: The only attorney I can confirm as counsel of record for Dell is Jeremy A. Tigan of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Wilmington, DE), with Kirkland & Ellis the best-supported but unverified candidate for national/lead defense counsel and Gibson Dunn serving as Dell's separately-retained PTAB counsel. I found no case-specific in-house appearance; if any additional defense appearances were filed after the April 2026 stay, they were not visible in the sources retrieved.