Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. LG Electronics

Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC (VCT) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against LG Electronics (LGE) in the Eastern District of Texas. VCT is identified as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), engaged in monetizing acquired patent portfolios rather than developing products. LG Electronics is a global operating company known for manufacturing a wide array of consumer electronics and mobile communications devices.

The litigation alleges infringement of patents related to wireless communication technologies, specifically targeting devices that support the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard. The accused products include various Wi-Fi 6 enabled devices such as access points, computers, laptops, motherboards, routers, smartphones, TVs, and workstations. The primary patent at issue, 8,213,870, is titled "Method and Apparatus for Transmit Beamforming," describing techniques for optimizing data transmission in wireless networks. This case is part of a broader campaign by VCT asserting a total of eleven wireless communications patents, including 8,213,870; 8,238,832 ("Antenna optimum beam forming for multiple protocol coexistence on a wireless device"); 8,238,859; 8,260,213 ("Method and apparatus to adjust a tunable reactive element"); 8,265,573; 8,270,343 ("Broadcasting of textual and multimedia information"); 8,644,765; 8,675,570 ("Scalable OFDM and OFDMA bandwidth allocation in communication systems"); 9,083,401; 9,596,648; and 10,200,096. These patents were largely acquired by VCT from NXP Semiconductors and, for one patent, from ZTE via an intermediary.

The case, numbered 5:25-cv-00108, was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs due to its reputation for expedient trials and plaintiff-friendly outcomes. While the 2017 TC Heartland Supreme Court decision imposed stricter venue requirements, the Eastern District of Texas has experienced a resurgence in patent filings, partly attributed to its judges' extensive experience in patent cases and their commitment to rapid trial adjudication. The specific judge assigned to this case is not definitively stated in public records, but other related cases filed by VCT around the same time in the same district list Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III. This lawsuit is notable as it is one of eleven separate patent infringement complaints launched by VCT in July 2025 against major technology companies over Wi-Fi 6 related patents, highlighting a prevalent NPE assertion pattern and contributing to an ongoing wave of litigation in the Wi-Fi 6 technology sector.

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

Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC (VCT) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against LG Electronics (LGE) in the Eastern District of Texas, case number 5:25-cv-00108. This action, filed in July 2025, is part of a broader litigation campaign by VCT asserting 11 patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870, against multiple defendants over devices supporting the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard.

As of the current date (August 4, 2026), detailed docket information regarding specific legal developments such as the filing of an answer, counterclaims, substantive pre-trial motions (e.g., motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay), claim construction (Markman) outcomes, or discovery milestones for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. LG Electronics (5:25-cv-00108) is not publicly available in the provided search results. There is no information indicating that the case has reached trial, verdict, or settlement, nor has there been any reported judgment or appeal.

Regarding parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings concerning the asserted patent 8,213,870, no such proceedings involving LG Electronics as a petitioner have been identified in the search results. While a PTAB decision from March 2026 was noted, it pertains to a different patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,251,394 B2) owned by LG Display Co., Ltd., and involved Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. as the petitioner, which is unrelated to the current case and patent at issue.

Here's an identification of the counsel of record representing Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. LG Electronics, Case No. 5:25-cv-00108, in the Eastern District of Texas:

Lead Counsel

• Daniel P. Hipskind

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Attorney in Charge)
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP
  • Office Location: Beverly Hills, California
  • Note: Mr. Hipskind provides representation for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC and is frequently designated as the "Attorney in Charge" in patent litigation campaigns involving entities linked to Brooks Borchers.

• Elizabeth L. DeRieux

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP
  • Office Location: Beverly Hills, California
  • Note: Ms. DeRieux has made appearances for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in related patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Erin Elizabeth McCracken

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP
  • Office Location: Beverly Hills, California
  • Note: Ms. McCracken has made an appearance for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in a related patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas.

Local Counsel

• Firm: Capshaw Derieux LLP
  • Office Location: Longview, Texas (or other Texas office)
  • Note: Capshaw Derieux LLP provides local representation in Texas for patent litigation campaigns involving entities linked to Brooks Borchers, including those filed by Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC. (Specific attorneys from this firm for this case were not individually identified in the provided search results, but the firm's involvement as local counsel is noted).

The following counsel of record represent LG Electronics in Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. LG Electronics (5:25-cv-00108) in the Eastern District of Texas:

• David S. Chun

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or part of the core litigation team.
  • Firm: Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP (office location not specified in current search results, but typically involved in patent litigation from California or East Coast offices).
  • Experience Note: While the provided search results mention attorneys from Sheppard Mullin in the docket, specific biographical details or a one-line experience note for David S. Chun was not found in the initial search.

• Hyun-Joong Kim

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or part of the core litigation team.
  • Firm: Sheppard, Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (office location not specified).
  • Experience Note: Specific biographical details or a one-line experience note for Hyun-Joong Kim was not found in the initial search.

• Matthew Richard Shapiro

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or part of the core litigation team.
  • Firm: Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP (office location not specified).
  • Experience Note: Specific biographical details or a one-line experience note for Matthew Richard Shapiro was not found in the initial search.

• Melissa Richards Smith

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP (Marshall, Texas).
  • Experience Note: Gillam & Smith is a recognized Texas-based firm often serving as local counsel in Eastern District of Texas patent litigation.

• Nancy Attalla

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or part of the core litigation team.
  • Firm: Ropes & Gray (office location not specified in current search results, but they have offices in major tech hubs and East Coast cities).
  • Experience Note: Specific biographical details or a one-line experience note for Nancy Attalla was not found in the initial search.

It is important to note that the provided PACERMonitor snippet lists several other attorneys (Erin Elizabeth McCracken, Dorian S. Berger, Daniel P. Hipskind of Berger & Hipskind Llp; Elizabeth L. DeRieux of Capshaw Derieux LLP) but it does not specify which party they represent. Without this clarification, and given the request is specifically for LG Electronics' counsel, they are not included above.

Further, the search results provided biographies for attorneys from Alston & Bird (Michael J. Newton, Robert L. Lee, Scott J. Pivnick, John D. Haynes, Erik J. Carlson) and Ward, Smith & Hill (Charles "Chad" Everingham IV, T. John Ward, Johnny Ward, Wesley Hill) and Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel (Gary P. Naftalis, Lisa Kobialka). While these firms have extensive patent litigation experience, and Ward, Smith & Hill often serves as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas, the initial PACERMonitor entry for this specific case did not list any attorneys from Alston & Bird, Kramer Levin, or directly link the listed Ward, Smith & Hill attorneys to LG Electronics in this particular case. Therefore, they are not included as counsel of record for LG Electronics in this specific case based on the provided docket information.## Counsel of Record for LG Electronics in Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. LG Electronics

The following attorneys are representing defendant LG Electronics (LGE) in case 5:25-cv-00108 in the Eastern District of Texas:

• David S. Chun

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
  • Experience Note: Specific details regarding Mr. Chun's patent litigation experience for this case were not found in the provided search results.

• Hyun-Joong Kim

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Sheppard, Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • Experience Note: Specific details regarding Mr. Kim's patent litigation experience for this case were not found in the provided search results.

• Matthew Richard Shapiro

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
  • Experience Note: Specific details regarding Mr. Shapiro's patent litigation experience for this case were not found in the provided search results.

• Melissa Richards Smith

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP, Marshall, Texas
  • Experience Note: Gillam & Smith is a prominent East Texas trial law firm frequently engaged as local counsel in patent infringement cases within the Eastern District of Texas.

• Nancy Attalla

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Ropes & Gray
  • Experience Note: Specific details regarding Ms. Attalla's patent litigation experience for this case were not found in the provided search results.

The information regarding counsel is based on appearances recorded on the PACERMonitor docket for the case. While other firms and attorneys with extensive patent litigation experience in the Eastern District of Texas (such as Alston & Bird, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, and other attorneys from Ward, Smith & Hill) were found in the search results, their specific appearance as counsel for LG Electronics in this particular case, 5:25-cv-00108, was not explicitly indicated in the provided docket information.