Update on Huawei 802.11 Working Group Scandal

Way back in January, I posted the letter I sent to the IEEE regarding the email sent by Andrew Woodard, a patent portfolio manager at Huawei Canada, to the 802.11 working group reflector on or around November 10, 2025 (see, Open Letter to the IEEE About the Huawei Email).  I sent the letter via email to Anand Sudhakar, Senior Counsel for the IEEE Standards Association, on January 22. 

Mr. Sudhakar is the person who sent the following email (which can be found here, [802-LMSC] Fwd: Communication Regarding A Recent Email to the 802.11 Ref) around to the WG reflector on November, 13, 2025 almost immediately after the Huawei email was sent:

To the 802 LMSC:

IEEE has learned of the 10 November email from Andrew Woodard to Edward (presumably Edward Au).  Instead of going to him, the email went to the entire IEEE 802.11 email reflector.

This email raises serious potential questions about the actions of Mr. Woodard, and possibly others, that may violate the rules of IEEE and its standards development process.  In doing its due diligence, IEEE intends to conduct an appropriate inquiry into this matter.

The inquiry will be conducted by the IEEE Legal & Compliance Department, with support from outside counsel.

We will be asking the IEEE 802 LMSC for support as needed, and we expect members of the IEEE 802 LMSC and its working groups to cooperate with this inquiry.

I asked Mr. Sudhakar for an acknowledgement of receipt of my letter. I received nothing. 

But, because I had made an educated guess about his email address (the email address in his post to the reflector has last digits @xxxxxxx which I understand to be @ieee.org), having not received at least an acknowledgement of receipt, I then sent the letter to David Ringle the following week. 

Mr. Ringle was (and by my understanding still is) Director of IEEE-SA Governance for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Incorporated (see e.g., ptab-filings/IPR2025-00327/1011) and the Administrator for the IEEE-Standard Association Board of Governors (see, IEEE SA - About the Board of Governors).  His IEEE email and phone number are easy to find online.  I asked Mr. Ringle for at least an acknowledgement of receipt of my letter.  I got nothing. 

I then proceeded on several occasions to call both Mr. Sudhakar and Mr. Ringle at the phone numbers they gave in their posts.  Each time, I left a message asking for a response to my letter, or at least an acknowledgement of receipt. Neither answered their phone nor returned my messages. Nor did anyone else, i.e.  I got nothing.

In February, I emailed the letter to compliance@ieee.org, a contact address I found here:  Organizational Ethics | IEEE.  I again asked for a response to my letter, or at least an acknowledgement of receipt.  I got nothing.

It has now been more than five months since the Huawei email was sent to the 802.11 working group.  As far as I know, there has been no information provided to the working group members, and certainly none to the public, about the status of the investigation.  So, on Monday April 20, I emailed both the IEEE’s public relations team (standards-pr@ieee.org) and the compliance team, again.

Here is the substance of my email:

I write a blog on standards and have questions about the investigation into Andrew Woodard's (from Huawei) email that went to the 802.11 WG reflector (see  [802-LMSC] Fwd: Communication Regarding A Recent Email to the 802.11 Ref).  I have previously sent a letter via email to, and left phone messages for, Mr. Sudhakar and Mr David Ringle, and also forwarded the letter via email to the IEEE compliance team (which is also cc'ed on this email).  To date, I have not received any response, not even an acknowledgement of receipt.  I am now trying this email address.

I would request answers to the following questions:

1.  What law firm has the IEEE engaged to conduct the investigation? 

2.  What is the current status of the investigation?

3.  When does the IEEE expect to conclude the investigation?

4.  Will the IEEE make the results of the investigation public and if so, by what mechanism?

5.  And the one I asked in my letter, does the IEEE take the position that the Huawei email is confidential?  If so, please explain the basis for such position.

I again asked for at least an acknowledgement of receipt.  As of today (April 23, 2026), I have received nothing.

I will note that at the most recent 802.11 working group plenary session held on March 8-13 this year, Huawei still appeared to be “stuffing the ballot box.”  The minutes are not yet available but according to the meeting report, there were 515 voting members in attendance.  About 58 of these attendants (so more than 10%) gave Huawei as their affiliation (see 11-26-0268-03-0000-march-2026-session-report.pptx).  By comparison, the next highest number of participants was about 32 from the chip company MediaTek.

In other words, Huawei continues to dominate the 802.11 working group. It sends the largest number of voting participants to each meeting, it continues to hold one of the Vice-Chair positions in the working group (see 11-26-0171-01-0000-minutes-working-group-january-2026.docx) and chairs or vice-chairs several subgroups of the 802.11 working group.  In the meeting report from March, Edward Au (who apparently was the intended recipient of the Huawei email) is listed as one of the authors of the “Editors March 2026 closing report” and as Chair of the RR-TAG (see the slide numbered 168). Huawei also apparently holds the Vice-Chair and Secretary of the Wireless Next Generation (WNG) Standing Committee of the IEEE-SA (see, 11-26-0659-00-0wng-wng-meeting-minutes-2026-march-vancouver-meeting.docx).  Huawei also continues to hold the Chair of the IEEE – Standards Association Standards Board itself (through its subsidiary Futurewei).

Given Huawei’s position in the IEEE-SA itself, as well as in the 802.11 working group, this investigation should have been given the highest priority within the IEEE.  Given those positions, the investigation should have been undertaken by an independent outside law firm.  The IEEE should have acted with alacrity in concluding the investigation and should have issued swift sanctions given the seriousness of the conduct. 

From what I can see, it does not appear as if any of that has occurred.  Five months is a very long time to wait for the results of what should have been a relatively straightforward investigation into what the IEEE’s Mr. Sudhakar said raised serious questions “about the actions of Mr. Woodard, and possibly others, that may violate the rules of IEEE.” 

We will see if the IEEE ever bothers to respond, or even acknowledge, my letters, voice messages or new message to the compliance and press teams.  We will see if the IEEE can police itself and its members appropriately.  Right now, the governance process at the IEEE does not appear to be working properly.