Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. OnePlus

Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC (VCT) has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against OnePlus in the Eastern District of Texas. VCT is identified as a non-practicing entity (NPE) that has amassed a portfolio of over 220 wireless communication patents from various sources, including NXP Semiconductors, Marvell Technology, Freescale Semiconductor, BlackBerry Ltd., and ZTE Corporation, with the apparent aim of patent monetization through litigation. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. is a Chinese consumer electronics manufacturer, known for its smartphones and other devices, and is backed by Oppo. The accused products in this litigation are OnePlus devices that support the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard, with specific examples including the OnePlus 10 Pro and OnePlus Pad.

The lawsuit, case number 5:25-cv-00098, was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue frequently chosen by NPEs for patent litigation due to its established patent docket and experienced judges. District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III has been assigned to preside over the case. The asserted patent is US Patent No. 8,213,870, which is one of eleven wireless communications patents VCT has asserted across its broader litigation campaign. A specific technical sketch for patent 8,213,870 from the case filing or a reliable patent database is needed for a more detailed one-line description.

This case is part of a larger enforcement campaign by VCT, which launched multiple lawsuits against various technology companies in 2025, targeting products incorporating Wi-Fi 6 technology. The pattern of VCT's assertions, including the acquisition of patents from operating companies, and its choice of the Eastern District of Texas, highlights a common NPE strategy. Noteworthily, on July 8, 2026, the court granted a joint motion to dismiss in several of VCT's cases, including the one against OnePlus (5:25-CV-98). This order dismissed Velocity's claims against OnePlus and other defendants with prejudice, while dismissing the defendants' counterclaims without prejudice, a common outcome in multi-patent Eastern District cases reflecting a negotiated resolution. This indicates that VCT cannot re-assert these specific infringement claims against OnePlus on the patents-in-suit.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. OnePlus

The patent infringement lawsuit Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. OnePlus (Case No. 5:25-cv-00098) in the Eastern District of Texas concluded with a joint dismissal in July 2026, less than a year after its filing. The case was part of a broader litigation campaign initiated by Velocity Communication Technologies (VCT) against multiple technology companies asserting a portfolio of Wi-Fi 6 related patents.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed (2025-07-09): Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas. The lawsuit alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870 and ten other wireless communications patents related to Wi-Fi 6 (IEEE 802.11ax) standards. VCT asserted that the infringement was willful.
• Consolidation (2026-01-28): The case against OnePlus (5:25-cv-00098) was designated as the lead case for pretrial filings (excluding venue motions) among several related lawsuits VCT filed against other defendants, and these cases were consolidated.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• Motion to Dismiss (Order on 2026-04-13): OnePlus, along with other defendants in the consolidated cases, filed motions to dismiss. The court, presided over by District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III, issued an order on April 13, 2026, granting in part and denying in part these motions. This order, referred to as the "OnePlus Order," noted that factual disputes existed regarding whether U.S. Patent No. 8,260,213 (another patent asserted in VCT's campaign) claimed an inventive concept under Alice Step Two. The court did not fully address the patent eligibility of that specific patent at that stage.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• Markman Hearing Scheduled (2026-05-12): A Markman hearing for claim construction was scheduled for May 12, 2026. No public record of a final claim construction order has been identified in the provided information.

Discovery Milestones

No specific strategically significant discovery milestones were publicly reported in the available information.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

The case did not proceed to trial.

Final Disposition

• Dismissal (2026-07-08): The case was concluded through a joint motion by the parties. An Order of Dismissal was signed by District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III, on July 8, 2026. Plaintiff's claims against OnePlus and other defendants in the consolidated cases were dismissed with prejudice, while the defendants' defenses were dismissed without prejudice. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and expenses, which typically indicates a settlement.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

There is no public information in the provided search results indicating that OnePlus or any related entity filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) specifically against U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870 (or the other asserted patents) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that had a material effect on this litigation. While IPRs are a common strategy in patent litigation, no such proceeding was found to be explicitly linked to this specific case or patent for OnePlus in the available data.

The following counsel of record represented Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. OnePlus, case number 5:25-cv-00098, in the Eastern District of Texas:

• Dorian S. Berger

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP, Beverly Hills, CA.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Berger is frequently involved in patent litigation for non-practicing entities (NPEs), particularly those linked to Brooks Borchers, and his firm often provides representation in such campaigns.

• Daniel P. Hipskind

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP, Beverly Hills, CA.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Hipskind regularly represents plaintiffs in patent infringement cases, especially those associated with patent monetization efforts in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Erin Elizabeth McCracken

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP, Beverly Hills, CA.
  • Experience Note: Ms. McCracken is also part of the Berger & Hipskind team that commonly litigates patent infringement cases on behalf of NPEs.

• Elizabeth L. DeRieux

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Capshaw Derieux LLP, Tyler, TX.
  • Experience Note: Ms. DeRieux is a prominent local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas, frequently appearing in patent infringement cases in the district.

• Melissa Richards Smith

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP, Tyler, TX.
  • Experience Note: Ms. Smith is a well-known local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas with extensive experience in patent litigation.

These attorneys appeared for Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC across multiple consolidated cases in the Eastern District of Texas, with 5:25-cv-00098 (Velocity v. OnePlus) designated as the lead case for pretrial issues.

The case 5:25-cv-00098, Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. OnePlus, has been dismissed with prejudice as of July 8, 2026. However, based on other related cases involving OnePlus and Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC, here is the counsel of record for OnePlus in similar patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas:

Defense Counsel for OnePlus:

• Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP
  • Attorneys:
    • Robert Joseph Endrizzi, Jr. (Partner) - Office Location: New York. Has experience in patent litigation.
    • Todd M. Friedman (Partner) - Office Location: New York.
    • David Rokach (Partner) - Office Location: New York.
    • Gregory S. Arovas (Partner) - Office Location: New York. Head of Kirkland & Ellis's intellectual property practice group.
    • Nyika O. Strickland (Partner) - Office Location: Chicago.
    • Alex R. Henriques (Associate) - Office Location: New York.
    • James E. Marina (Associate) - Office Location: New York.
    • Tai Won Yoo (Partner) - Office Location: Unknown, likely New York.
• Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP
  • Attorney: Melissa Richards Smith (Partner) - Office Location: Tyler, Texas. Frequently serves as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas for patent litigation cases.

Note: While specific docket entries for counsel appearances in Velocity v. OnePlus (5:25-cv-00098) were not immediately available through the provided search results, the information above is derived from related consolidated cases from the same Velocity campaign in the Eastern District of Texas where OnePlus was a defendant (e.g., Velocity v. TP-Link and Velocity v. Lenovo which were consolidated into 5:25-cv-00098 for pretrial issues). The court ordered that the lead case (5:25-CV-98-RWS) would serve for consolidated issues and that lead counsel should be added to the lead case.

In other past patent litigation matters, OnePlus has been represented by:

• Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP in cases such as WSOU Investments LLC v. OnePlus Technology in the Western District of Texas. Attorneys included Ahren C. Hsu-Hoffman and Michael J. Lyons.
• Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. in Pantech Co., Ltd. v. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Mayer Brown in Pantech Corp. et al. v. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas, where they secured a trial victory for Pantech. This indicates that OnePlus was represented by different counsel in that specific case, but the search results focus on Pantech's counsel.
• In Televo LLC v. OnePlus Technology, no defendant law firm or agent was reflected in the available record as the case was voluntarily dismissed before an appearance was entered.