Eastern District of Texas Judge Dismisses Patent Claims Against HPE for Lack of 'Pre-Suit Knowledge'

Velocity Communication Technologies sued HPE and Aruba Networks in July 2025, alleging infringement of eleven patents related to Wi-Fi 6 technology. The case is part of a broader litigation campaign by Velocity, which has filed similar suits against tech giants including OnePlus, Cisco, Lenovo, LG Electronics, and others in the Eastern District of Texas. HPE sought dismissal of claims related to U.S. Patent No. 8,238,859 under Section 101 and all pre-suit indirect and willful infringement allegations.

Judge Schroeder granted HPE's motion in part, finding that Velocity failed to adequately plead that HPE had the required knowledge before the lawsuit was filed. "The FAC fails at least the first prong of willful blindness," Schroeder wrote, explaining that Velocity must show the defendant "subjectively believe[d] that there is a high probability that a fact exists" regarding patent infringement. The court found Velocity's evidence insufficient to meet this standard.

The judge was particularly critical of Velocity's reliance on industry standard submissions, writing that "Letters of Assurance or similar documents to a standard body are insufficient to plausibly establish that an accused infringer had notice of the asserted patents." Schroeder noted that the letters weren't even addressed to HPE but to the IEEE, and only indicated patents that "may" be essential to Wi-Fi standards implementation.

Velocity had argued that HPE possessed willful blindness based on two key pieces of evidence: Letters of Assurance filed by previous patent owners NXP and ZTE with the IEEE in 2020 and 2024, and a pre-suit licensing letter Velocity sent to HPE in April 2025. The April letter invited HPE to license unspecified patents covering "technologies included in the mandatory sections of the Wi-Fi 6E extension of the 802.11ax standard."

HPE successfully argued that these generic communications were inadequate to establish knowledge of specific patents. Judge Schroeder agreed, citing recent Eastern District precedent in Dialect, LLC v. Bank of America, where a court found pre-suit letters insufficient when they "did not identify the asserted patents" and "did not claim or allege that [defendant] was infringing." The court distinguished Velocity's cited case Atlas Global Technologies, noting it involved summary judgment rather than a motion to dismiss.

However, Schroeder allowed Velocity's post-suit willful infringement claims to proceed, finding that "allegations that a defendant continues its allegedly infringing conduct even after receiving notice of a complaint are sufficient to at least state a claim for post-suit willful infringement." The court noted that Velocity had adequately alleged HPE continued its allegedly infringing activities after being served with the complaint.

The court dismissed Velocity's pre-suit claims without prejudice, giving the company 30 days to file an amended complaint with "sufficient allegations to state plausible claims for pre-suit indirect and willful infringement." Judge Schroeder cautioned that "Velocity is advised that it should only amend its claims as instructed in this Order if the facts support its amendment," suggesting skepticism about whether stronger allegations exist.