Althearidge LLC v. Viasat Inc

Case Overview

In a notably short-lived lawsuit, patent assertion entity (PAE) Althearidge LLC filed a patent infringement case against global communications company Viasat Inc.. The case was filed on April 17, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas and was closed just four days later, on April 21, 2026, suggesting an exceptionally rapid settlement or a voluntary dismissal. Althearidge, the plaintiff, appears to be a non-practicing entity (NPE) engaged in a broader litigation campaign, having filed a similar lawsuit against CipherLab USA in the Eastern District of Texas on the same day asserting the same patents. The defendant, Viasat, is a major operating company that provides a wide range of satellite-based communication services, including high-speed satellite internet, in-flight Wi-Fi for commercial and private aircraft, and secure communication systems for military and government clients.

The lawsuit accused Viasat's wireless communication systems, likely including its in-flight Wi-Fi services, of infringing on two patents related to improving data transmission reliability. The technology at issue, described as "Constellation rearrangement for ARQ transmit diversity schemes," involves a method for re-transmitting data packets in a way that corrects for errors and enhances connection quality, which is critical in mobile satellite communications. The two patents asserted by Althearidge are:

• U.S. Patent No. 7,154,961: Titled "Constellation rearrangement for ARQ transmit diversity schemes," this patent covers methods for improving performance in wireless systems with unreliable channel conditions by using different bit-to-symbol mappings for re-transmissions.
• U.S. Patent No. 7,567,622: Also titled "Constellation rearrangement for ARQ transmit diversity schemes," this patent relates to the '961 patent and further details methods of modulating data using different signal constellation patterns for initial and subsequent transmissions to improve reliability.

The case was assigned to District Judge David Counts in the Midland/Odessa division of the Western District of Texas. This venue is significant as it has remained a popular forum for patent plaintiffs. Following a 2022 order that distributed patent case assignments more broadly away from Judge Alan Albright in Waco, Judge Counts, as the sole judge in his division, became a predictable and preferred judge for new patent filings. The extremely brief duration of this case is its most notable feature, indicating the parties likely reached an immediate resolution to avoid the cost and complexity of litigation, a common outcome in PAE-driven campaigns against large operating companies.

Legal Developments & Outcome

The district court litigation in Althearidge LLC v. Viasat Inc. was exceptionally brief, lasting only four days. The case progression reflects a "catch-and-release" style of litigation often seen with patent assertion entities, where a lawsuit is filed and then quickly dismissed, suggesting a rapid settlement was achieved before any substantive legal proceedings took place.

Chronological Case Developments

• 2026-04-17: Complaint Filed. Althearidge LLC filed its patent infringement complaint against Viasat Inc. in the Western District of Texas. (Case No. 7:26-cv-00154, Dkt. 1). The complaint alleged that Viasat's satellite communication systems, which use techniques to ensure data integrity during transmission, infringed on U.S. Patent Nos. 7,154,961 and 7,567,622. On the same day, Althearidge filed a similar lawsuit against CipherLab USA, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting the same two patents, indicating a coordinated litigation campaign.
• 2026-04-21: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. Just four days after filing the complaint, Althearidge LLC filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (Case No. 7:26-cv-00154, Dkt. entry not publicly available, but termination date is confirmed by docket aggregators). This type of dismissal is a unilateral action by the plaintiff that does not require a court order, provided the defendant has not yet filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment.
• 2026-04-21: Case Terminated. The court clerk officially terminated the case following the plaintiff's notice of dismissal.

Final Outcome

The case was closed via a voluntary dismissal with prejudice by the plaintiff, Althearidge LLC. While the official court records do not specify the terms, this swift action strongly implies that the parties reached a settlement. In such scenarios, the defendant (Viasat) likely paid a relatively small, nuisance-value license fee to the plaintiff (Althearidge) to avoid the high costs and business disruption of protracted litigation.

No substantive motions were filed, nor did the case progress to any significant legal milestones such as an answer from the defendant, claim construction hearings, or discovery. The entire legal conflict began and ended within a single business week.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

A search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database reveals no Inter Partes Review (IPR) or other post-grant proceedings filed against either U.S. Patent No. 7,154,961 or 7,567,622 as of May 4, 2026. The brevity of the district court case made it highly unlikely that Viasat would have had time to prepare and file a PTAB petition challenging the validity of the asserted patents. The rapid settlement preempted any potential for parallel invalidity challenges at the PTAB.

Counsel for Plaintiff Althearidge LLC

Due to the case's immediate termination just four days after its filing, the publicly accessible docket information is minimal. However, based on the complaint and counsel's filings in a parallel case filed on the same day, the legal representation for the plaintiff, Althearidge LLC, can be identified. Althearidge pursued a coordinated litigation effort, asserting the same patents against another defendant, CipherLab USA, Inc., in the Eastern District of Texas, with the same legal team.

The attorneys representing Althearidge are associated with law firms that specialize in intellectual property litigation, frequently representing non-practicing entities (NPEs).

• Name: Jim Etheridge

  • Role: Lead Counsel (presumed)
  • Firm: Etheridge Law Group
  • Office Location: Southlake, TX
  • Note: Jim Etheridge has extensive experience in patent litigation, having been involved in over 550 patent cases and serving as lead counsel in more than 300.

• Name: Steven G. Kalberg

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Direction IP Law
  • Office Location: Chicago, IL (presumed, based on firm information)
  • Note: Steven Kalberg is listed as the filing attorney in Althearidge's parallel case against CipherLab USA, indicating a primary role in this litigation campaign.

• Name: David R. Bennett

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Direction IP Law
  • Office Location: Chicago, IL (presumed, based on firm information)
  • Note: David Bennett is also listed as representing Althearidge in its parallel litigation, working alongside Steven Kalberg.

Counsel for Defendant Viasat Inc.

No counsel made a formal appearance on the public docket for the defendant, Viasat Inc.

The case was filed by Althearidge LLC on April 17, 2026, and the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal just four days later, on April 21, 2026. This immediate dismissal occurred before Viasat was required to file an answer or a notice of appearance, which is typically due 21 days after formal service of the complaint. Consequently, the court docket was closed before any defense attorneys were officially recorded.

While no counsel appeared in this specific matter, Viasat has a history of retaining prominent law firms for significant patent litigation. Public records from past intellectual property disputes show Viasat has frequently been represented by attorneys from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP. For instance, Quinn Emanuel represented Viasat in major litigation against Sandisk and in a successful suit against Space Systems/Loral that resulted in a significant jury award for Viasat.

Viasat's internal legal department is led by Robert Blair, who serves as Senior Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary. It is standard practice for the in-house legal team to manage litigation by engaging and overseeing outside counsel, who would have been from a firm like Quinn Emanuel or another specialist firm, had the case proceeded.