Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. HP Inc.

Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. HP Inc. is a patent infringement lawsuit initiated on July 9, 2025, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff, Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC, is a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE) that specializes in acquiring and monetizing patent portfolios related to wireless communication technologies. Velocity Communication Technologies was formed in Delaware in March 2024 and asserts a portfolio of over 220 patents, many of which were acquired from companies like NXP Semiconductors, Marvell, Freescale Semiconductor, BlackBerry, and ZTE Corporation. The defendant, HP Inc., is a major American multinational information technology operating company headquartered in Palo Alto, California, known for developing personal computers, printers, and related supplies.

HP Inc. is accused of infringing the asserted patents through its wireless networking devices that comply with the 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) Standard. Specific accused products include various HP Chromebook, Chromebook Plus, Elite Mini 14th gen Desktops, and Envy lines. The central patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 8,644,765, is titled "Beamforming using predefined spatial mapping matrices". This patent is one of eleven wireless communication patents asserted by Velocity in this litigation, with the entire portfolio generally relating to wireless signal processing, transmission protocols, mesh networking, and communication management relevant to Wi-Fi 6 implementations.

The case is being heard in the Eastern District of Texas, with District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III assigned to preside. This venue is notable in patent litigation due to its reputation as a "rocket docket," known for fast trials, a plaintiff-friendly environment, and local rules that can make defending patent suits predictably expensive for accused infringers. The litigation against HP Inc. is part of a broader campaign by Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC, which simultaneously filed 11 separate patent infringement lawsuits against multiple Wi-Fi 6 hardware manufacturers, including Acer, ASUSTeK, Cisco, D-Link, Juniper Networks, Lenovo, LG Electronics, OnePlus, and TP-Link, asserting the same set of 11 patents. Many of these patents are alleged to be standard-essential patents (SEPs) for the 802.11ax standard. Several of Velocity's other cases in this campaign have been dismissed via stipulation, often with prejudice for the plaintiff's claims, suggesting negotiated resolutions without a full merits adjudication.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. HP Inc.

This patent infringement lawsuit, filed by Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC against HP Inc. on July 9, 2025, in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 5:25-cv-00104-RWS), centered on alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,644,765, among others. The case reached a swift resolution, culminating in a dismissal with prejudice for the plaintiff's claims less than a year after filing.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC initiated the lawsuit on July 9, 2025, asserting infringement of 11 patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,644,765, related to Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) wireless communication technologies. Velocity, a non-practicing entity (NPE), concurrently filed similar lawsuits against a dozen other defendants, including Acer, ASUSTeK, Cisco, Dell, LG Electronics, and others, predominantly in the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint accused HP Inc. of "willful, wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or characteristic of a pirate" patent infringement. While the specific details of HP Inc.'s answer and counterclaims are not explicitly detailed in the public records, the final dismissal order references "Defendants' defenses," indicating that such responsive pleadings were likely filed.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

On April 13, 2026, an "Order on Motion to Dismiss" (Docket Entry 41) was issued, though the specifics of this motion are not publicly detailed. There is no public record of significant pre-trial motions such as motions to transfer venue, stay pending inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or motions for summary judgment for this specific case in the provided information.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

The case was dismissed prior to reaching the claim construction (Markman) stage.

Discovery Milestones

No specific strategic discovery milestones for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. HP Inc. are detailed in the available public records.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

The case did not proceed to trial, verdict, or post-trial motions, as it was dismissed beforehand.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

The case was ultimately dismissed through a joint request by the parties. On July 8, 2026, District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III, signed an "ORDER OF DISMISSAL" (Docket No. 42). The order granted the parties' joint motions, dismissing Velocity's claims for relief against HP Inc. with prejudice, and dismissing HP Inc.'s defenses for relief against Velocity without prejudice. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and expenses. This type of asymmetric dismissal structure typically indicates a negotiated settlement. The termination of the case was officially noted with a "Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120) at termination of case" (Docket 43) on July 8, 2026. This outcome aligns with similar dismissals in parallel cases filed by Velocity against other defendants, such as D-Link (dismissed January 23, 2026) and Netgear (dismissed June 25, 2026), suggesting a broader settlement strategy by Velocity.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

A review of the available information and a targeted search for IPRs on U.S. Patent No. 8,644,765 did not reveal any inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) proceedings initiated by HP Inc. or related defendants against this patent within the timeframe of the litigation. While some articles mention the potential for defendants to challenge patents at the PTAB, no such challenges were found to have been actively pursued or concluded for patent 8,644,765 during this specific litigation. Therefore, no PTAB proceedings had a direct effect on the outcome of this litigation.

Based on the web searches conducted, I found no substantive press coverage of Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. HP Inc. (5:25-cv-00104-RWS). Searches combining the case caption, party names, the asserted patent number (8,644,765), and keywords such as "settlement," "Wi-Fi 6," and "802.11ax" returned no hits in Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, JD Supra, The Verge, Ars Technica, EFF Deeplinks, or other trade/mainstream outlets. The only results that surfaced were raw litigation documents — for example, the Delaware complaint in a parallel Velocity case hosted on CourtListener and the LG Electronics complaint in the related EDTX campaign hosted on an ExParte docket aggregator — neither of which constitutes news or analysis.

Because no articles were located, there are no reported figures (damages sought, settlement terms, or market impact), no analyst or executive commentary, and no industry reactions to summarize or reconcile with the court record. The absence of coverage is itself unsurprising: this case was one of roughly a dozen nearly identical complaints filed the same day by a patent assertion entity, it resolved by stipulated dismissal with prejudice in under a year, and it produced no substantive rulings, trial, or damages award that would typically attract press attention. Any statement about how the press characterized this litigation would require fabricating citations, which the record does not support.

Sources

• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

The initial search queries successfully identified several attorneys and law firms representing Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in similar patent infringement cases and also specifically in Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. HP Inc. (5:25-cv-00104-RWS).

Based on the search results, the following attorneys and firms appear to be representing the plaintiff:

• Daniel P. Hipskind and Dorian S. Berger, and Erin Elizabeth McCracken from Berger & Hipskind LLP are listed as representing Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in a case against Netgear, Inc. in the District of Delaware (5:25-cv-00894) where patent 8644765 is also at issue. Daniel P. Hipskind is also noted as the attorney in charge in a case against Charter Communications, Inc. (5:26-cv-00104). For Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. HP Inc. (5:25-cv-00104), Berger & Hipskind LLP is mentioned as providing representation, with Daniel P. Hipskind listed as the attorney in charge.
• Elizabeth L. DeRieux from Capshaw DeRieux LLP is also listed as providing representation for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in the HP Inc. case (5:25-cv-00104-RWS) and other related cases. She also filed a notice of appearance in Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc. (5:26-cv-00104).
• T. John Ward Jr. and Wesley Hill from Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC are frequently mentioned in the context of patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. While the search results mention their firm in the context of the Eastern District of Texas and general patent litigation, I need to confirm if they are specifically on record for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. HP Inc. (5:25-cv-00104-RWS). However, it seems Wesley Hill and his firm Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC were withdrawn as counsel in another case. T. John Ward Jr. is an attorney who frequently litigates patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas and his practice focuses on patent and other complex commercial cases.

I need to consolidate the information and ensure the roles, firms, and locations are correctly attributed to each attorney and provide a concise note on their experience. I also need to be careful with the source which mentions several DLA Piper attorneys, but those are likely for the defendant based on the context of the document. I will focus on the attorneys explicitly linked to Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC.

Let's refine the information for each identified attorney representing the plaintiff.

Daniel P. Hipskind

• Role: Attorney in Charge (likely lead counsel)
• Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP
• Office Location: Beverly Hills (implied from Berger & Hipskind LLP's listing)
• Experience: Represents Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in multiple patent infringement cases involving wireless communication, mesh networking, and mobile connectivity, including cases asserting patent 8644765.

Dorian S. Berger

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP
• Office Location: Beverly Hills (implied from Berger & Hipskind LLP's listing)
• Experience: Represents Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in multiple patent infringement campaigns.

Erin Elizabeth McCracken

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP
• Office Location: Beverly Hills (implied from Berger & Hipskind LLP's listing)
• Experience: Represents Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in patent infringement litigation.

Elizabeth L. DeRieux

• Role: Counsel (likely local counsel in EDTX)
• Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP
• Office Location: Likely Texas, as Capshaw DeRieux LLP is mentioned in the context of Texas representation.
• Experience: Provides representation for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

I need to confirm if T. John Ward Jr. or Wesley Hill from Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC are specifically counsel of record for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. HP Inc. (5:25-cv-00104-RWS). The current search results link Berger & Hipskind LLP and Capshaw DeRieux LLP more directly to the plaintiff in this specific case and related cases. The information about Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC is more general to the Eastern District of Texas patent litigation landscape. The reference from PacerMonitor lists counsel for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in 5:25-cv-00104 as Daniel P. Hipskind, Dorian S. Berger, Elizabeth L DeRieux, and Erin Elizabeth McCracken. It does not list T. John Ward Jr. or Wesley Hill for this specific case. Therefore, I will exclude them unless further targeted search explicitly puts them on record for this specific case.

I will use the confirmed information from regarding the direct representation in the specified case and closely related ones.

Final check of roles and experience based on provided snippets.

• Daniel P. Hipskind is designated as "Attorney in Charge". This usually means lead counsel.
• Dorian S. Berger and Erin Elizabeth McCracken are listed as making "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance".
• Elizabeth L DeRieux also filed a "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance".

The notes on experience should be concise and relevant to patent litigation, specifically for the plaintiff.Counsel of record representing the plaintiff, Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC, in Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. HP Inc. (5:25-cv-00104-RWS) include attorneys from Berger & Hipskind LLP and Capshaw DeRieux LLP.

The following attorneys are on record for the plaintiff:

• Daniel P. Hipskind

  • Role: Attorney in Charge (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP, Beverly Hills, CA (office location implied)
  • Note: Mr. Hipskind represents Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in multiple patent infringement cases, including those asserting patent 8644765, focusing on wireless communication and networking technologies.

• Dorian S. Berger

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP, Beverly Hills, CA (office location implied)
  • Note: Mr. Berger provides representation for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in patent litigation campaigns involving wireless communication patents.

• Erin Elizabeth McCracken

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP, Beverly Hills, CA (office location implied)
  • Note: Ms. McCracken is listed as counsel for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in patent infringement litigation.

• Elizabeth L. DeRieux

  • Role: Counsel (likely local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas)
  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP, Texas (office location implied)
  • Note: Ms. DeRieux provides local representation for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in patent infringement actions filed in the Eastern District of Texas.

Here is the counsel of record representing the defendant HP Inc. in Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. HP Inc., Case number: 5:25-cv-00104-RWS, based on appearances in a related consolidated case and firm expertise:

Lead Counsel (DLA Piper LLP (US))

• Sean C. Cunningham

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Global Co-Chair and US Chair of Intellectual Property & Technology practice)
  • Firm & Office Location: DLA Piper LLP (US), Washington, D.C.
  • Relevant Experience: First-chair trial lawyer with experience representing clients like Microsoft, Lenovo, and Motorola in International Trade Commission (ITC) investigations and district court cases.

• Erin P. Gibson

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Chair of the firm's ITC practice and Global Co-Chair of the Technology sector)
  • Firm & Office Location: DLA Piper LLP (US), Washington, D.C.
  • Relevant Experience: Handled over 50 ITC cases and has represented clients including Hewlett-Packard, Ricoh, Netlist, and Microsoft in patent litigation. Served as first-chair ITC trial counsel for NXP Semiconductors.

• Helena D. Kiepura

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: DLA Piper LLP (US), Washington, D.C.
  • Relevant Experience: Prolific as ITC defense counsel, praised for being detail-oriented and strong on procedure, particularly in preparing witnesses for depositions.

• Angela Whitesell

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: DLA Piper LLP (US)
  • Relevant Experience: Listed as appearing for Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company in a related case.

• Brian K. Erickson

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: DLA Piper LLP (US)
  • Relevant Experience: Listed as appearing for Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company in a related case.

• Michael D. Jay

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: DLA Piper LLP (US), Los Angeles
  • Relevant Experience: Listed as appearing for Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company in a related case.

• Jackob Ben-Ezra

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: DLA Piper LLP (US)
  • Relevant Experience: Listed as appearing for Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company in a related case.

Local Counsel (Haltom & Doan)

• Jennifer Haltom Doan

  • Role: Local Counsel / Co-Counsel (Founding Partner)
  • Firm & Office Location: Haltom & Doan, Texarkana, TX-AR
  • Relevant Experience: Well-regarded litigator in patent infringement and validity claims, regularly acting for large technology companies. Secured complete defense verdicts in patent infringement cases for Hewlett-Packard. Double board certified in Civil Trial Law and Personal Injury Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.

• Joshua Reed Thane

  • Role: Local Counsel / Co-Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Haltom & Doan, Texarkana, TX
  • Relevant Experience: Practices in Intellectual Property Litigation, Civil Litigation, Business Litigation, and General Litigation.

The PacerMonitor docket for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al (5:25-cv-00105), an associated case, lists these attorneys as having appearances. Given that 5:25-cv-00104-RWS is explicitly listed as an associated case and future pretrial filings are consolidated in a lead case, these attorneys are expected to represent HP Inc. The DLA Piper firm specifically names HP Inc. as a key client and has defended them in prior patent and business tort litigation. Haltom & Doan has also secured defense verdicts for Hewlett-Packard in patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas.