Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company.

Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE) often described as a "patent troll," initiated this patent infringement lawsuit against Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (HPE) on July 9, 2025. Velocity Communication Technologies (VCT) owns a significant portfolio of over 220 patent assets across 46 distinct families, acquired from prominent wireless communication pioneers such as Marvell Technology, NXP Semiconductors, Freescale Semiconductor, BlackBerry Ltd., and ZTE Corporation. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, a global information technology vendor, specializes in providing hardware and software solutions to enterprises, encompassing compute servers, storage arrays, and networking equipment, including its Aruba Networks brand. The lawsuit alleges that HPE's products, specifically those supporting the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard, infringe upon VCT's intellectual property. The accused technologies relate to various Wi-Fi 6 features such as Uplink Multi-User Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (UL MU-MIMO), Basic Service Set (BSS) Coloring, Target Wake Time (TWT), Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA), Beamforming, and Transmit Power Control (TPC).

The sole patent asserted in this litigation, as per the case metadata, is U.S. Patent No. 8,675,570. This patent generally pertains to "Scalable OFDM and OFDMA bandwidth allocation in communication systems." The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, under case number 5:25-cv-00105, and was assigned to District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III. The Eastern District of Texas is a well-known venue for patent infringement cases, frequently chosen by plaintiffs for its reputation in handling such disputes efficiently.

This litigation is part of a broader and notable enforcement campaign by Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC, which has concurrently filed similar patent infringement suits against numerous other technology companies, including Acer, ASUSTek, Cisco, D-Link, Dell, HP, Juniper Networks, Lenovo, LG Electronics, OnePlus, TP-Link, Ericsson, and Netgear. This widespread assertion against multiple defendants targeting Wi-Fi 6 technology underscores VCT's strategy as an NPE to monetize its extensive patent portfolio. While the case was active, recent docket entries indicate that an "Order Dismissing Case" was entered on July 8, 2026, suggesting the litigation may have concluded.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company

The patent infringement lawsuit Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, Civil Action No. 5:25-cv-00105, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on July 9, 2025. The plaintiff, Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC ("Velocity"), asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,675,570, along with ten other patents, against Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company ("HPE") and Aruba Networks, LLC. These patents generally relate to technologies incorporated into the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard.

Filing & Initial Pleadings (July 9, 2025)

Velocity, identified as a non-practicing entity (NPE), initiated a patent enforcement campaign across the Eastern District of Texas and Delaware, asserting a portfolio of patents primarily acquired from NXP Semiconductors and ZTE Corporation. The '570 patent, specifically, was assigned to Velocity in January 2025 from NCH 93, LLC, which had previously received it from ZTE in December 2019. The complaint accused HPE and Aruba Networks of infringing the eleven patents through their provision of devices supporting the Wi-Fi 6 standard. Velocity alleged that the defendants had knowledge of the asserted patents since at least April 15, 2025, when counsel sent a letter inviting them to license the patents.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance

Docket entries indicate that a motion hearing was scheduled for December 2, 2025. However, detailed outcomes of specific pre-trial motions, such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay, are not publicly available in the provided search results beyond general docket events.

Claim Construction (Markman)

No specific Markman hearing dates or claim construction outcomes for this particular case (5:25-cv-00105) have been publicly reported yet. Given the active nature of the case (until recently) and the typical litigation timeline, a Markman hearing would likely have been scheduled in late 2025 or early 2026 had the case progressed through the typical schedule.

Discovery Milestones

No specific strategic discovery milestones are available in the public search results.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

The case did not proceed to trial.

Final Disposition or Present Posture (Dismissal - July 8, 2026)

On July 8, 2026, the case was dismissed. The docket reflects an "Order Dismissing Case ~Util - Terminate Motions." While the specific terms of the dismissal (e.g., with or without prejudice for HPE) are not fully detailed in the provided snippets, a similar, parallel case filed by Velocity against D-Link Corporation (5:25-cv-00103) was dismissed with prejudice for the plaintiff's claims and without prejudice for D-Link's counterclaims on January 23, 2026. This earlier dismissal indicates a negotiated resolution and suggests a likely settlement for the HPE case as well, resulting in the termination of pending motions. The dismissal with prejudice typically means Velocity cannot re-file the same infringement claims against HPE on these patents.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

As of the current date, no Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings specifically targeting US Patent 8,675,570 have been found in the available public records. The possibility of IPRs is a common strategy in patent litigation, especially in cases involving Wi-Fi standards. However, without specific filings, it cannot be confirmed if HPE or Aruba Networks pursued this avenue.

Here is the counsel of record representing Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company:

• Daniel P. Hipskind

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Designated Attorney in Charge in related filings)
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP, Beverly Hills, CA
  • Experience Note: Regularly represents plaintiffs in patent infringement litigation, including other cases for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC involving wireless communication patents.

• Dorian S. Berger

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP, Beverly Hills, CA
  • Experience Note: Represents plaintiffs in patent infringement disputes, appearing alongside Daniel P. Hipskind in Velocity Communication Technologies' patent enforcement campaigns.

• Erin Elizabeth McCracken

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP, Beverly Hills, CA
  • Experience Note: Appears on record for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in patent litigation.

• Elizabeth L. DeRieux

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Capshaw Derieux LLP
  • Experience Note: Frequently serves as local counsel in patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas for patent assertion entities.

• Jennifer Haltom Doan

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Haltom & Doan
  • Experience Note: A prominent attorney in the Eastern District of Texas, often acting as local counsel in patent infringement lawsuits.

• Joshua Reed Thane

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Haltom & Doan
  • Experience Note: Appears as local counsel in patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

Case Status Contradiction:

The provided case metadata states the case status as "Active." However, recent web search results from PacerMonitor indicate that an "Order Dismissing Case" was filed on July 8, 2026, for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al (5:25-cv-00105). This suggests the case is no longer active and has been dismissed.

---

Defendant Representatives:

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (HPE) is represented by counsel from DLA Piper LLP (US). The case, filed in the Eastern District of Texas, bore the case number 5:25-cv-00105.

The following attorneys were identified as counsel for Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company:

• Angela Whitesell

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US)
  • Experience Note: Angela Whitesell is listed as counsel for Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company in this case.

• Sean C. Cunningham

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US)
  • Experience Note: Sean Cunningham is noted as counsel for Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. He is a partner at DLA Piper and has extensive experience in patent litigation, including representing technology companies.

• Brian K. Erickson

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US)
  • Experience Note: Brian Erickson is listed as counsel for Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. He is a partner at DLA Piper with experience in intellectual property litigation.

• Michael D. Jay

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US) - Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: Michael Jay is identified as counsel from DLA Piper's Los Angeles office for Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company.

• Jackob Ben-Ezra

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US)
  • Experience Note: Jackob Ben-Ezra is listed as counsel for Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company in this matter.

• Erin P. Gibson

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US)
  • Experience Note: Erin Gibson is listed as counsel for Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company.

• Helena D. Kiepura

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US)
  • Experience Note: Helena Kiepura is listed as counsel for Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company.

It is important to note that while Joshua Reed Thane and Jennifer Haltom Doan (from Haltom & Doan) were also listed in one search result associated with the case, they were previously identified as local counsel for the plaintiff, Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC. Therefore, the DLA Piper attorneys are confirmed as representing the defendant, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company.