Velocity Communication Technologies filed suit against Juniper Networks and at least nine other technology companies in July 2025, alleging infringement of eleven patents related to Wi-Fi 6 technology. The Eastern District of Texas case is part of a coordinated campaign targeting major tech firms including OnePlus, Cisco Systems, HP, Lenovo, and LG Electronics. Velocity seeks damages for alleged infringement of patents covering technologies incorporated into the IEEE 802.11ax standard, commonly known as Wi-Fi 6.
Judge Schroeder dismissed Velocity's pre-suit indirect and willful infringement claims, ruling that the patent holder failed to establish that Juniper had the required knowledge before the lawsuit was filed. As the court explained, 'To allege indirect and willful infringement, a plaintiff must plead specific facts sufficient to show that the accused infringer had knowledge of the patents-in-suit and knowledge that the acts at issue constituted patent infringement.' The judge found Velocity's allegations insufficient under the Supreme Court's willful blindness standard from Global-Tech Appliances.
The court was particularly critical of Velocity's reliance on IEEE Letters of Assurance and a pre-suit licensing letter as evidence of Juniper's knowledge. 'At most, Velocity's allegations allow an inference that Juniper was deliberately indifferent to the risk of the asserted patents, which is not sufficient to plead willful blindness,' Judge Schroeder wrote. The court noted that the Letters of Assurance were not even addressed to Juniper but to the IEEE, and only indicated patents that 'may' be essential to the 802.11ax standard.
The case follows a familiar pattern in the Eastern District of Texas, where multiple defendants filed nearly identical motions to dismiss. Juniper's opening brief was 'largely identical' to those filed in Velocity's other cases, the court noted. Judge Schroeder had already ruled on April 13, 2026, that one of the asserted patents—U.S. Patent No. 8,238,859—was invalid under Section 101, leading to the dismissal of Count IX with prejudice across all related cases.
Velocity had argued that Letters of Assurance submitted by previous patent owners NXP and ZTE to the IEEE, along with an April 2025 licensing letter inviting Juniper to license unspecified patents covering 'technologies included in the mandatory sections of the Wi-Fi 6E extension,' established willful blindness. But the court rejected this theory, citing recent precedent from Atlas Global Technologies v. Sercomm Corp. that found similar documents 'insufficient to plausibly establish that an accused infringer had notice of the asserted patents.'
Judge Schroeder distinguished Velocity's cited precedent from Atlas Global Technologies v. TP-Link Technologies, noting that the TP-Link case involved summary judgment with expert evidence rather than a motion to dismiss. The court instead applied the reasoning from Dialect, LLC v. Bank of America, a more recent Eastern District of Texas case holding that 'general knowledge of a patent portfolio without more is insufficient even to plausibly allege knowledge of a particular asserted patent.'
The court did allow Velocity's post-suit willful infringement claims to proceed, finding that allegations of continued infringement after receiving notice of the complaint were sufficient at the pleading stage. Judge Schroeder granted Velocity thirty days to file a second amended complaint with 'sufficient allegations to state plausible claims for pre-suit indirect and willful infringement,' warning that any claims not properly amended would be dismissed. The ruling provides a roadmap for patent holders seeking to establish pre-suit knowledge in the Eastern District of Texas while highlighting the demanding pleading standards for willful blindness claims.