Velocity Communication Technologies sued LG Electronics and nine other major tech companies in July 2025, alleging infringement of eleven patents related to Wi-Fi 6 technology. The patent licensing company claimed LG and other defendants willfully infringed its portfolio worth potentially hundreds of millions in licensing fees across the smartphone, laptop and networking equipment markets. LG moved to dismiss both patent invalidity claims and pre-suit knowledge allegations in November 2025.
Judge Schroeder granted LG's motion in part, finding that Velocity failed to plausibly allege LG had knowledge of the specific patents before the lawsuit was filed. "The FAC fails at least the first prong of willful blindness," Schroeder wrote, explaining that Velocity's evidence fell short of showing LG "subjectively believe[d] that there is a high probability that a fact exists" regarding the patents. The judge noted that "general knowledge of a patent portfolio without more is insufficient even to plausibly allege knowledge of a particular asserted patent."
The court was particularly critical of Velocity's reliance on industry standard letters and generic licensing correspondence. "Courts have agreed 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," Judge Schroeder wrote, distinguishing cases where Velocity claimed success. He found that letters stating patents "may" be essential to Wi-Fi standards were too vague to create the requisite knowledge.
Velocity had argued that two pieces of evidence supported willful blindness: Letters of Assurance submitted to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers in 2020 and 2024 by previous patent owners NXP and ZTE, and a pre-suit licensing letter Velocity sent to LG in April 2025. The April letter invited LG to license unspecified patents covering "technologies included in the mandatory sections of the Wi-Fi 6E extension of the 802.11ax standard" but did not identify the specific patents at issue.
Judge Schroeder rejected both arguments, noting the IEEE letters "are not even addressed to LG, but to the IEEE" and only indicated patents that "may be essential" to the standard. Regarding the licensing letter, he found it "did not identify the asserted patents" and "did not claim or allege that [d]efendant was infringing," citing similar dismissals in recent Eastern District of Texas cases. The court concluded that "at most, Velocity's allegations allow an inference that LG was deliberately indifferent to the risk of the asserted patents, which is not sufficient to plead willful blindness."
However, the court allowed Velocity's post-suit willfulness claims to proceed, finding that allegations of continued infringement after receiving notice of the complaint "are sufficient to at least state a claim for post-suit willful infringement." This distinction reflects established precedent that filing a lawsuit provides adequate notice for future willful conduct, even if pre-suit knowledge cannot be established.
The ruling is part of a broader wave of patent challenges against Velocity's eleven-patent Wi-Fi portfolio. Similar § 101 invalidity motions have been filed by HP, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Juniper Networks, Lenovo, and TP-Link in parallel cases, with Judge Schroeder having already invalidated the '859 patent on eligibility grounds in the lead OnePlus case. The court granted Velocity thirty days to file an amended complaint addressing the pre-suit knowledge deficiencies, warning that claims not properly amended will be dismissed with prejudice.