Velocity Communication Technologies filed suit against four foreign TP-Link entities in July 2025, alleging infringement of eleven patents related to Wi-Fi technology. The defendants include TP-Link Corporation PTE. Ltd. (Singapore), TP-Link Corporation Ltd. (Hong Kong), Lianzhou Technologies Co., Ltd. (China), and Lianyue (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. Velocity claims the companies infringed through their sole U.S. distributor, TP-Link Systems Inc., though that entity was not named as a defendant.
Judge Schroeder rejected TP-Link's venue challenge, holding that foreign corporations are subject to the general venue statute rather than the patent-specific provision. "Just because a foreign defendant may have a regular and established place of business in the United States through an agent does not mean venue is proper there and nowhere else," Schroeder wrote, applying the Federal Circuit's guidance in In re HTC that "suits against alien defendants are wholly outside the operation of all the federal venue laws."
The court delivered its strongest criticism when addressing TP-Link's legal theory on venue, writing that "worse still, the TP-Link Defendants rely on the Federal Circuit's definition of 'place of business' in § 1400(b) in an attempt to convince the Court that it should apply § 1400(b) to the entire case. Not only does this put the cart before the horse, but there is no reason for the Court to apply the meaning of a term from a statute that the Federal Circuit has explicitly stated does not apply to foreign corporations."
The case represents the latest in a series of patent suits Velocity has filed against major technology companies, including OnePlus, Acer, ASUS, Cisco, D-Link, HP, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Juniper Networks, Lenovo, and LG Electronics, all asserting the same eleven patents. Judge Schroeder had already ruled in April 2026 that one of the patents, the '859 Patent, is invalid under Section 101, which automatically applied to dismiss TP-Link's claims related to that patent.
TP-Link argued unsuccessfully that Velocity failed to establish the defendants had knowledge of the patents before filing suit, which is required for indirect and willful infringement claims. Velocity countered that it had alleged sufficient facts to support "willful blindness," pointing to Letters of Assurance filed with the IEEE by previous patent owners and a pre-suit licensing letter sent to TP-Link Systems Inc. in April 2025.
Judge Schroeder found Velocity's willful blindness theory insufficient, explaining that "the FAC fails at least the first prong of willful blindness." The court noted that the Letters of Assurance were not addressed to TP-Link defendants and only indicated patents that "may" be essential to Wi-Fi standards. As Schroeder observed, "At most, Velocity's allegations allow an inference that the TP-Link Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the risk of the asserted patents, which is insufficient to plead willful blindness."
The ruling follows established precedent from other Eastern District of Texas cases requiring specific patent identification for pre-suit knowledge claims. The court cited Dialect, LLC v. Bank of America, where a judge found insufficient pleading when a pre-suit letter "did not identify the asserted patents ... and did not claim or allege that [d]efendant was infringing."
Velocity has thirty days to file an amended complaint addressing the deficient pre-suit infringement allegations, while TP-Link must respond within fourteen days of any new filing. The dismissal of pre-suit claims was without prejudice, allowing Velocity another chance to plead sufficient facts if they exist.