Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. HP Enterprise

Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC (VCT) has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against HP Enterprise (HPE), specifically targeting its Aruba Networks subsidiary, in the Eastern District of Texas. VCT is identified as a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), formed in Delaware in March 2024, which holds a portfolio of over 220 patent assets primarily related to wireless communications. These patents were acquired from prominent technology companies such as NXP Semiconductors, Marvell Technology, Freescale Semiconductor, BlackBerry Ltd., and ZTE Corporation, with NXP being the source for the majority of the asserted patents. HP Enterprise (HPE) is a major global information technology company, and its Aruba Networks division specializes in networking and security products, including network switches, access points, hotspots, and wireless controllers.

The lawsuit alleges infringement of eleven wireless communication patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870, titled "Beamforming using predefined spatial mapping matrices." Other asserted patents cover technologies such as "Scalable OFDM and OFDMA bandwidth allocation in communication systems" (U.S. Patent No. 8,675,570), "Antenna optimum beam forming for multiple protocol coexistence on a wireless device" (U.S. Patent No. 8,238,832), and "Broadcasting of textual and multimedia information" (U.S. Patent No. 8,270,343). The accused products are devices that support the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard, encompassing a wide range of hardware such as access points, computers, laptops, routers, and smartphones offered by HP Enterprise's Aruba Networks.

This case, assigned to District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III under case number 5:25-cv-00105, is part of a broader patent assertion campaign by VCT, which launched 11 lawsuits in 2025 against various technology companies like Acer, ASUSTek, Cisco, and LG Electronics, largely in the Eastern District of Texas. The Eastern District of Texas is a historically popular venue for patent plaintiffs, especially NPEs, known for its fast-paced "rocket docket" and perceived plaintiff-friendly procedures and juries. The notability of this litigation stems from VCT's NPE status and its assertion of patents that were originally developed by major operating companies and are alleged to relate to the widely adopted Wi-Fi 6 standard. The fact that NXP and ZTE previously submitted Letters of Assurance (LOAs) to the IEEE indicating that some of these patents may be essential to the 802.11ax standard suggests potential standard-essential patent (SEP) implications, adding a layer of complexity and significance to the campaign across the wireless industry.

Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against HP Enterprise (Aruba Networks) (Case No. 5:25-cv-00105) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on July 9, 2025. This case was part of a broader litigation campaign launched by Velocity Communication Technologies (VCT), asserting 11 wireless communications patents that VCT claims are essential to the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard. The specific patent at issue in this case, as highlighted in the prompt, is U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870, among others.

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

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed (2025-07-09): Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC filed its complaint for patent infringement against HP Enterprise (Aruba Networks). The complaint asserted 11 U.S. patents, including 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, and 10,200,096. These patents largely originated from NXP Semiconductors and ZTE. VCT alleged that HP Enterprise's devices, which support the Wi-Fi 6 standard, infringe these patents.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

• No substantive pre-trial motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay specifically related to the '870 patent in this particular case (5:25-cv-00105) were found to have been extensively litigated to a public outcome before the case's dismissal.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• The case was dismissed relatively early in its lifecycle (less than a year after filing), and no Markman hearing or claim construction ruling was publicly reported or reached prior to the dismissal.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• No specific strategically significant discovery milestones were publicly reported for this case before its dismissal.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

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

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• Case Dismissed (2026-07-08): The case was dismissed by an "Order Dismissing Case ~Util - Terminate Motions" (Docket Entry 42) in the Eastern District of Texas. A Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120) was also filed on the same day (Docket Entry 43). While the specific terms are not publicly disclosed in the provided search results, such a dismissal, especially when occurring across multiple related cases in a plaintiff's campaign, typically indicates a confidential settlement between the parties.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• While the case involved patents related to the Wi-Fi 6 standard, and the general context of VCT's litigation campaign was noted, no specific parallel PTAB Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings directly initiated by HP Enterprise against the asserted Patent No. 8,213,870 or any of the other patents in this specific case (5:25-cv-00105) were found to have concluded or significantly impacted this litigation prior to its dismissal.

Outcome in Related Cases:

• A related case filed by VCT against Netgear, Inc. (Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Netgear, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00894) in the District of Delaware, asserting the same 11 patents, was also dismissed by stipulation of the parties on June 25, 2026. In that case, VCT's claims were dismissed with prejudice, Netgear's counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, and each party bore its own costs. This parallel dismissal further supports the likelihood of a confidential settlement in the HP Enterprise case.

Plaintiff Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC is represented by a team of attorneys from DLA Piper (US), Haltom & Doan, Berger & Hipskind LLP, and Capshaw DeRieux LLP.

The counsel of record for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC includes:

• Angela Whitesell

  • Firm: DLA Piper (US)
  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred from general practice in patent litigation and firm's representation)
  • Location: (Information not immediately available in search results, generally DLA Piper has multiple offices. Further specific search would be needed to pinpoint her primary office for this case).
  • Experience: DLA Piper has an active intellectual property and patent litigation practice.

• Sean C. Cunningham

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US)
  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred from general practice in patent litigation and firm's representation)
  • Location: (Information not immediately available in search results. Further specific search would be needed).
  • Experience: DLA Piper is a global law firm with extensive experience in patent litigation.

• Brian K. Erickson

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US)
  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred from general practice in patent litigation and firm's representation)
  • Location: (Information not immediately available in search results. Further specific search would be needed).
  • Experience: DLA Piper represents clients in various intellectual property disputes.

• Michael D. Jay

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US)
  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred from general practice in patent litigation and firm's representation)
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience: DLA Piper is noted for its intellectual property litigation capabilities.

• Jackob Ben-Ezra

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US)
  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred from general practice in patent litigation and firm's representation)
  • Location: (Information not immediately available in search results. Further specific search would be needed).
  • Experience: DLA Piper engages in various patent infringement cases.

• Erin P. Gibson

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US)
  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred from general practice in patent litigation and firm's representation)
  • Location: (Information not immediately available in search results. Further specific search would be needed).
  • Experience: DLA Piper handles complex patent litigation.

• Helena D. Kiepura

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US)
  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred from general practice in patent litigation and firm's representation)
  • Location: (Information not immediately available in search results. Further specific search would be needed).
  • Experience: DLA Piper has a broad intellectual property practice.

• Joshua Reed Thane

  • Firm: Haltom & Doan
  • Role: Local Counsel (Haltom & Doan is a prominent local firm in the Eastern District of Texas for patent litigation).
  • Location: Texarkana, TX (Haltom & Doan's primary office).
  • Experience: Haltom & Doan frequently acts as local counsel in patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Jennifer Haltom Doan

  • Firm: Haltom & Doan
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Location: Texarkana, TX
  • Experience: A founding partner of Haltom & Doan, she is a well-known patent litigator in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Daniel P. Hipskind

  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP
  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred from firm name and representation)
  • Location: Beverly Hills, CA
  • Experience: Berger & Hipskind LLP is a firm that practices in patent litigation.

• Dorian S. Berger

  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Location: Beverly Hills, CA
  • Experience: Berger & Hipskind LLP is involved in intellectual property disputes.

• Erin Elizabeth McCracken

  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP
  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred from firm's representation)
  • Location: Beverly Hills, CA
  • Experience: Berger & Hipskind LLP handles patent litigation matters.

• Elizabeth L. DeRieux

  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP
  • Role: Local Counsel (Capshaw DeRieux LLP is a well-established local firm in the Eastern District of Texas)
  • Location: Longview, TX (Capshaw DeRieux LLP's primary office).
  • Experience: Capshaw DeRieux LLP frequently serves as local counsel in high-stakes patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

Counsel of record representing HP Enterprise in Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. HP Enterprise, Case No. 5:25-cv-00105 in the Eastern District of Texas, include attorneys from DLA Piper LLP (US) and Haltom & Doan. The appearances were noted around the filing date of July 9, 2025.

Here are the identified attorneys:

1. Michael D. Jay

• Role: Counsel (likely lead counsel at the time of initial appearance).
• Firm & Office: At the time of appearance (July 9, 2025), he was with DLA Piper LLP (US), Los Angeles, CA. (As of July 1, 2026, he joined Vinson & Elkins as a partner in Los Angeles).
• Experience: A first-chair trial lawyer with over 20 years of experience in patent and trade secret disputes. His experience spans various technologies, including media, technology, energy transition, and life sciences. He has litigated cases in federal district courts, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

2. Angela Whitesell

• Role: Counsel.
• Firm & Office: DLA Piper LLP (US). Office location not specified in available records.
• Experience: Further specific details on her patent litigation experience for this role are not immediately available without direct PACER access to her specific appearance details.

3. Sean C. Cunningham

• Role: Counsel.
• Firm & Office: DLA Piper LLP (US). Office location not specified in available records.
• Experience: Further specific details on his patent litigation experience for this role are not immediately available without direct PACER access to his specific appearance details.

4. Brian K. Erickson

• Role: Counsel.
• Firm & Office: DLA Piper LLP (US). Office location not specified in available records.
• Experience: Further specific details on his patent litigation experience for this role are not immediately available without direct PACER access to his specific appearance details.

5. Jackob Ben-Ezra

• Role: Counsel.
• Firm & Office: DLA Piper LLP (US). Office location not specified in available records.
• Experience: Further specific details on his patent litigation experience for this role are not immediately available without direct PACER access to his specific appearance details.

6. Erin P. Gibson

• Role: Counsel.
• Firm & Office: DLA Piper LLP (US). Office location not specified in available records.
• Experience: Further specific details on her patent litigation experience for this role are not immediately available without direct PACER access to her specific appearance details.

7. Helena D. Kiepura

• Role: Counsel.
• Firm & Office: DLA Piper LLP (US). Office location not specified in available records.
• Experience: Further specific details on her patent litigation experience for this role are not immediately available without direct PACER access to her specific appearance details.

8. Jennifer Haltom Doan

• Role: Local Counsel.
• Firm & Office: Haltom & Doan, Texarkana, TX.
• Experience: She is a highly experienced attorney frequently serving as local counsel in patent litigation cases within the Eastern District of Texas.

9. Joshua Reed Thane

• Role: Local Counsel.
• Firm & Office: Haltom & Doan, Texarkana, TX.
• Experience: He is also associated with Haltom & Doan and likely serves as local counsel in EDTX patent litigation.