Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. TP-Link

Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC (VCT) is a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE) that has amassed a portfolio of over 220 wireless communication patents. These patents originated from various telecommunications pioneers, including NXP Semiconductors, Marvell Technology, Inc., Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., BlackBerry Ltd., and ZTE Corporation. The defendant, TP-Link, is a global technology company known for manufacturing networking equipment and smart home products, serving millions of customers worldwide.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (case number 5:25-cv-00109), alleges that TP-Link's products infringe upon U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870, titled "Beamforming using predefined spatial mapping matrices." This patent generally describes a method for beamforming where one of several predefined spatial mapping matrices is selected for data transmission, with an alternative matrix chosen if the initial transmission's reception quality is poor. The accused products are devices that support the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard, including routers, access points, and other Wi-Fi 6 enabled devices. The case was filed on July 9, 2025, and is currently open. While a specific judge for this case is not definitively named in public records, Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III presides over other related cases filed by VCT in the Eastern District of Texas.

This litigation is part of a broader "Wi-Fi 6 patent enforcement campaign" initiated by Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC in 2025, where the NPE filed 11 separate patent infringement disputes against various technology companies, including TP-Link, over a set of 11 patents related to the Wi-Fi 6 standard. VCT's complaints broadly allege "willful, wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or characteristic of a pirate" patent infringement. The Eastern District of Texas is a common venue for NPEs due to its established intellectual property docket and experienced patent judges, making it a strategic choice for VCT's multi-defendant campaign.

The patent infringement lawsuit filed by Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC (VCT) against TP-Link (case number 5:25-cv-00109) in the Eastern District of Texas is part of a broader "Wi-Fi 6 patent enforcement campaign" initiated by VCT in 2025. This campaign involves 11 separate patent infringement disputes against various technology companies over a set of 11 patents related to the Wi-Fi 6 standard. The patent at issue in this specific case is U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870, titled "Beamforming using predefined spatial mapping matrices."

Here's a chronological breakdown of the key legal developments and outcomes:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2025-07-09: Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC filed the initial complaint against TP-Link in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint broadly alleges "willful, wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or characteristic of a pirate" patent infringement by TP-Link's Wi-Fi 6 compatible products.
• 2025-12-30: A sur-reply to a reply to a response regarding a renewed motion to dismiss was filed by Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC. This indicates that TP-Link likely filed an initial motion to dismiss, to which VCT responded, TP-Link replied, and VCT then filed a sur-reply.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• The docket indicates a "MOTION to Dismiss (RENEWED)" was filed by Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC. The content or outcome of this motion is not explicitly detailed in the search results, but the existence of a sur-reply suggests active motion practice around dismissal.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• There is no information available in the provided search results regarding specific claim construction (Markman) outcomes for this particular case.

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• No specific discovery milestones with strategic significance are detailed in the provided search results for this case.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• There is no indication in the provided search results that this case has reached trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• As of August 4, 2026, the case against TP-Link (5:25-cv-00109) remains open.
• However, in related cases within VCT's Wi-Fi 6 campaign, some defendants have reached resolutions. For example, the case against D-Link (5:25-cv-00103), also asserting Patent No. 8,213,870 among others, was dismissed with prejudice for VCT's claims and without prejudice for D-Link's counterclaims on January 23, 2026, indicating a negotiated settlement. Similarly, the case against Acer (5:25-cv-00099) was dismissed on June 18, 2026, with VCT's claims dismissed with prejudice and Acer's counterclaims dismissed without prejudice, also suggesting a settlement. These parallel case outcomes suggest that settlement is a likely eventual disposition for the TP-Link case as well, given the shared patents and campaign strategy.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• The provided search results do not explicitly mention any parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings specifically initiated by TP-Link against U.S. Patent No. 8,213,870.

Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC is represented by attorneys from Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Berger & Hipskind LLP, and Capshaw DeRieux LLP, and Gillam & Smith, LLP. Based on filings in case 5:25-cv-00109 in the Eastern District of Texas, the following counsel are of record:

• Melissa Richards Smith

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP (Marshall, TX)
  • Experience Note: Melissa Richards Smith is a prominent East Texas patent litigator, frequently serving as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Elizabeth L. DeRieux

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP (Longview, TX)
  • Experience Note: Capshaw DeRieux LLP is noted for providing representation in Texas for Borchers-linked entities.

• Dorian S. Berger

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP (Beverly Hills, CA)
  • Experience Note: Berger & Hipskind LLP provides representation for Borchers-linked entities in patent litigation.

• Daniel P. Hipskind

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP (Beverly Hills, CA)
  • Experience Note: Berger & Hipskind LLP is involved in litigation campaigns for various plaintiffs.

• Erin Elizabeth McCracken

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP (Beverly Hills, CA)
  • Experience Note: Practicing with a firm that represents plaintiffs in patent infringement cases.

• Gregory S. Arovas

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Likely)
  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis, LLP (New York, NY)
  • Experience Note: Gregory Arovas is a highly experienced patent litigator, frequently leading complex patent cases for major firms.

• Todd M. Friedman

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis, LLP (New York, NY)
  • Experience Note: Practices patent litigation at a national firm.

• Alex R. Henriques

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis, LLP (New York, NY)
  • Experience Note: Practices patent litigation at a national firm.

• James E. Marina

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis, LLP (New York, NY)
  • Experience Note: A patent attorney with 23 years of experience, practicing in areas including computer architecture and software, security, and communications.

• Nyika O. Strickland

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis, LLP (Chicago, IL)
  • Experience Note: Practices patent litigation with a focus on intellectual property disputes.

• Robert Joseph Endrizzi, Jr.

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP
  • Experience Note: Practices patent law, with listed experience in communications, software, and security.

• David Rokach

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP
  • Experience Note: Practices patent litigation at a national firm.

• Tai Won Yoo

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP
  • Experience Note: Practices patent litigation at a national firm.

TP-Link is represented by attorneys from Kirkland & Ellis LLP and local counsel Gillam & Smith, LLP, and Capshaw DeRieux LLP. Additionally, Brad Waugh serves as the General Counsel for TP-Link, overseeing the company's legal strategy.

Here is a breakdown of the counsel:

In-house Counsel:

• Brad Waugh - General Counsel, TP-Link.
  • Note: Brad Waugh has extensive experience in intellectual property law and corporate litigation, having previously served as Associate General Counsel at Intel Corporation, where he led high-stakes patent litigation.

Lead Counsel (Kirkland & Ellis LLP):

• Robert Joseph Endrizzi, Jr. - Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
• Todd M. Friedman - Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP (New York office).
• David Rokach - Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
• Gregory S. Arovas - Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP (New York office).
• Nyika O. Strickland - Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Chicago office).
• Alex R. Henriques - Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP (New York office).
• James E. Marina - Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP (New York office).
• Tai Won Yoo - Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

Local Counsel:

• Melissa Richards Smith - Partner, Gillam & Smith, LLP.
• Elizabeth L. DeRieux - Partner, Capshaw DeRieux LLP.