Velocity Communication Technologies LLC v. Unknown Defendant

Velocity Communication Technologies LLC v. [D-Link Corp.](/litigations/by-defendant/D-Link%20Corp.): Wi-Fi 6 Patent Dispute Concludes with Dismissal

Velocity Communication Technologies LLC (VCT), a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against D-Link Corp. in the Eastern District of Texas. VCT was formed in Delaware in March 2024 and asserts a portfolio of over 220 patent assets in wireless communications, acquired from pioneers such as Marvell Technology, Inc., NXP Semiconductors N.V., Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., BlackBerry Ltd., and ZTE Corporation. D-Link Corp. is a globally recognized networking hardware manufacturer, producing consumer and enterprise Wi-Fi routers, mesh systems, and access points. The accused products, services, or technology in this and related cases are devices that support the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard, including access points, computers, routers, and smartphones.

The lawsuit, filed under case number 5:25-cv-00103, specifically asserted U.S. Patent 9,083,401, among a group of eleven patents. U.S. Patent 9,083,401 is titled "Beamforming using predefined spatial mapping matrices," indicating its technical focus on methods for directing wireless signals more efficiently. The case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue known for being a popular choice for patent plaintiffs, including NPEs, due to its historically plaintiff-friendly reputation and procedural characteristics. The procedural posture of this specific case, however, concluded with an agreed dismissal on January 23, 2026, where Velocity's claims against D-Link were dismissed with prejudice, while any D-Link counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, suggesting a negotiated settlement rather than a judicial determination of infringement or validity. Chief Judge Rodney S. Gilstrap was the presiding judge.

This case is notable as part of a broader patent enforcement campaign launched by Velocity Communication Technologies LLC in July 2025, targeting multiple prominent technology companies over their implementation of Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) standards. The campaign highlights a common NPE assertion pattern where entities acquire significant patent portfolios from operating companies and then pursue licensing or litigation against implementers of industry standards. The dismissal of this case with prejudice against the plaintiff suggests a resolution between Velocity and D-Link, which could influence the trajectory of Velocity's ongoing litigation against other defendants in its Wi-Fi 6 campaign.

Velocity Communication Technologies LLC, the plaintiff, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against D-Link Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, case number 5:25-cv-00103. The lawsuit, initiated on July 9, 2025, asserted eleven U.S. patents, including U.S. Patent 9,083,401, which are related to wireless communication technologies, particularly Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) implementations.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Complaint: Velocity Communication Technologies LLC filed its complaint against D-Link Corp. on July 9, 2025. The complaint alleged infringement of several patents covering wireless signal processing, transmission protocols, mesh networking, and communication management.
  • The specific dates for D-Link's answer or any counterclaims were not explicitly found in the provided snippets, but the case concluded quickly, suggesting these might have been superseded by settlement discussions.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • No significant pre-trial motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR were highlighted in the provided search results before the case's resolution. Given the short duration of the case (198 days), it is unlikely that extensive motion practice occurred.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • The case was dismissed before reaching the claim construction (Markman) stage.

• Discovery Milestones:

  • No specific strategic discovery milestones were publicly detailed before the case's dismissal.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

  • The case did not proceed to trial.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • The litigation concluded with an Agreed Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 25) granted by Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap on January 23, 2026.
  • Plaintiff Velocity's claims against D-Link were dismissed with prejudice, while any counterclaims by the defendant were dismissed without prejudice.
  • The dismissal indicated a negotiated resolution, with no public disclosure of a damages award, royalty figures, or injunctive relief.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • A search for PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings specifically for U.S. Patent 9,083,401 did not yield any directly relevant results in the provided snippets. Although IPRs are a common strategy in patent litigation, there's no indication that one was instituted or played a role in the outcome of this particular district court case against D-Link.

Velocity Communication Technologies LLC is represented by the following counsel of record in Velocity Communication Technologies LLC v. D-Link Corporation, case number 5:25-cv-00103 in the Eastern District of Texas:

• Daniel P. Hipskind

  • Role: Lead Counsel (implied through consistent representation in multiple related cases and being named among initial counsel).
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP, Beverly Hills, California.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Hipskind is frequently listed as counsel for Velocity Communication Technologies LLC in its numerous patent infringement lawsuits concerning wireless communication technologies.

• Dorian S. Berger

  • Role: Lead Counsel (implied through consistent representation in multiple related cases and being named among initial counsel).
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP, Beverly Hills, California.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Berger provides representation for Borchers-linked entities, including Velocity Communication Technologies LLC, in patent litigation.

• Erin E. McCracken

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP, Beverly Hills, California.
  • Experience Note: Ms. McCracken has appeared as counsel for Velocity Communication Technologies LLC in multiple related patent infringement cases.

• Elizabeth L. DeRieux

  • Role: Local Counsel.
  • Firm: Capshaw Derieux LLP, based in Texas.
  • Experience Note: Ms. DeRieux frequently appears as local counsel for plaintiffs in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.

These attorneys have been identified through court records and legal intelligence platforms across the various patent infringement cases filed by Velocity Communication Technologies LLC, including the case against D-Link Corporation (5:25-cv-00103), which was consolidated with other cases for pretrial issues.

The defendant in Velocity Communication Technologies LLC v. Unknown Defendant (now identified as Velocity Communication Technologies LLC v. D-Link Corp.), Case No. 5:25-cv-00103 in the Eastern District of Texas, was D-Link Corp.. The case was dismissed with prejudice on January 23, 2026, following an Agreed Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 25).

Given the dismissal, identifying the full counsel of record for D-Link Corp. would typically involve reviewing the docket for appearances. However, without direct access to PACER to view specific filings like the notice of appearance or the Agreed Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 25), I cannot definitively list the individual attorneys and their specific roles (lead counsel, local counsel, etc.) who represented D-Link Corp. with corresponding firm and office locations and their specific patent litigation experience.

The provided search results indicate the general context of patent assertion entities (PAEs) targeting Wi-Fi 6 hardware manufacturers in the Eastern District of Texas. D-Link Corp., as a "globally recognized networking hardware manufacturer," is a high-profile target in such litigation. Many such cases often involve local counsel from the Eastern District of Texas in conjunction with national patent litigation firms.

Without the specific docket entries detailing attorney appearances, I cannot provide the requested information for individual counsel. Filings are publicly accessible via PACER, but direct access to specific docket entries to identify counsel was not performed in this step. Therefore, counsel for the defendant has not been explicitly identified from the provided search results.