Viasat, Inc. v. Western Digital Corporation et al.

Viasat, Inc., a global communications company specializing in high-speed satellite broadband services and secure networking systems, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Western Digital Corporation, a leading global data storage company known for its hard drives and solid-state drives. Both companies are operating entities. Viasat alleges that Western Digital's NAND-flash-memory-containing products, specifically those incorporating Western Digital's "proprietary Sentinel ECC&DSP technology," infringe its patents. The asserted patent in this case is U.S. Patent No. 8,966,347, which relates to an improved architecture for error correction in flash memory.

The case, Viasat, Inc. v. Western Digital Corporation et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-01230-ADA, is currently before Judge Alan D. Albright in the Waco Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The court previously denied Western Digital's motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California, despite both companies having headquarters in California (Western Digital in Northern California and Viasat in San Diego). This denial highlights the Western District of Texas's reputation as a plaintiff-friendly venue, as the court found the Waco Division to be more convenient, partly due to Viasat identifying numerous relevant Western Digital employees in the district and questioning the credibility of Western Digital's deponents regarding witness location.

This litigation is notable within the context of patent disputes in the data storage industry, particularly concerning flash memory technology and error correction. The Western District of Texas, under Judge Albright, has been a prominent forum for patent infringement cases, making the denial of transfer significant for Viasat. The case is also related to another parallel district court litigation involving Viasat and Kioxia Corporation, concerning a related patent (US 8,615,700), further indicating Viasat's active enforcement of its flash memory error correction patent portfolio. The ongoing nature of this case contributes to the broader legal landscape surrounding data storage technology and patent enforcement strategies in key jurisdictions.

The patent infringement lawsuit Viasat, Inc. v. Western Digital Corporation et al. (Case No. 6:21-cv-01230-ADA) was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on December 10, 2021. The case concerns US Patent No. 8,966,347.

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments and outcomes:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (Complaint, Answer, Counterclaims)

• 2021-12-10: Viasat, Inc. filed the patent infringement complaint against Western Digital Technologies, Inc. (one of the "et al." defendants, often the primary operating entity) in the Western District of Texas. The complaint asserted infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,615,700 and 8,966,347, both related to improved error correction architecture in flash memory.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• 2022-12-19: The District Court for the Western District of Texas denied Western Digital Technologies, Inc.'s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. Western Digital had argued that its corporate headquarters were in the Northern District of California, while Viasat's were in San Diego. However, the court found the Western District of Texas more convenient, noting that Western Digital's primary venue deponent lacked credibility and that Viasat had identified relevant Western Digital employees in the Western District of Texas.
• 2023-03-06: Western Digital Technologies, Inc. filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Federal Circuit to vacate the district court's decision denying transfer. The Federal Circuit denied the petition, affirming the Western District of Texas's decision.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• Information regarding a Markman hearing or order specifically for patent 8,966,347 in this case (6:21-cv-01230-ADA) is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results. However, related claim construction efforts are noted in a separate, later-filed case where Western Digital sued Viasat. (See "Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings" section below).

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

• No specific discovery milestones with strategic significance were found in the provided search results for this case.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions

• There is no indication in the search results that this specific case (6:21-cv-01230-ADA) has reached trial or resulted in a verdict or post-trial motions.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal – Present Posture

• The case Viasat, Inc. v. Western Digital Corporation et al. (6:21-cv-01230-ADA) remains ongoing in the Western District of Texas. There is no information about a final settlement or dismissal of this specific case in the provided search results.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings on the Asserted Patents and Their Effect on the Litigation

• IPR on US Patent 8,966,347: Western Digital Technologies, Inc. filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) of claims 1-11 and 13-23 of U.S. Patent No. 8,966,347. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) granted the petition and, in its final written decision, found all challenged claims to be unpatentable for obviousness based on prior art to Diggs and Cheng.
• Federal Circuit Appeal (24-1483): Viasat, Inc. appealed the PTAB's decision regarding the '347 patent to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 24-1483). On January 7, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's obviousness decision, finding substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that claims 1-11 and 13-23 of the '347 patent were unpatentable as obvious in light of Diggs and Cheng.
• Related Litigation (Western Digital v. Viasat): In a separate, later-filed case (4:22-cv-04376) in the Northern District of California, Western Digital Technologies, Inc. sued Viasat, Inc. for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,424,400, 10,447,667, and 8,504,834. This suggests a countersuit or defensive filing by Western Digital. In this Northern District of California case, a claim construction order was issued on September 20, 2024, construing eight terms from U.S. Patent Nos. 9,424,400 and 10,447,667. Also, on November 15, 2023, the court granted a motion to dismiss Count Three of Western Digital's amended complaint, finding claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,834 to be directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. This case (4:22-cv-04376) was still active as of May 6, 2026.
• IPR and Mandamus for '700 Patent in Parallel Case (6:21-cv-01231-ADA): It's important to note that Viasat also filed a separate but related infringement case against Kioxia America, Inc. (6:21-cv-01231-ADA), asserting U.S. Patent No. 8,615,700, which was also initially asserted in the Western Digital case. Kioxia filed IPRs on the '700 patent, resulting in some claims being found unpatentable. Viasat later narrowed its asserted claims in the Kioxia infringement action to only claim 16, which had survived the PTAB. The district court sua sponte stayed the Kioxia case on October 17, 2024, pending resolution of a Federal Circuit appeal (2024-1384) related to the '700 patent. Viasat's petition for a writ of mandamus to lift the stay in the Kioxia case was denied by the Federal Circuit on January 17, 2025. This indicates that the status of the '700 patent in the Viasat v. Western Digital case may also be affected by these parallel proceedings. However, the direct impact on the 6:21-cv-01230-ADA case regarding the '700 patent is not explicitly stated as of the current date.## Viasat v. Western Digital: Patent Infringement Case Developments

Austin, TX – June 26, 2026 – The patent infringement lawsuit filed by Viasat, Inc. against Western Digital Corporation et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:21-cv-01230-ADA), initially filed on December 10, 2021, and centered on U.S. Patent No. 8,966,347, remains ongoing. Key legal developments have included an unsuccessful attempt by Western Digital to transfer the case and significant activity concerning the asserted patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the Federal Circuit.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (Complaint)

• December 10, 2021: Viasat, Inc. initiated the lawsuit, alleging patent infringement by Western Digital Technologies, Inc. (a subsidiary of Western Digital Corporation) of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,615,700 and 8,966,347. Both patents relate to an improved architecture for error correction in flash memory.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• December 19, 2022: The District Court for the Western District of Texas denied Western Digital Technologies, Inc.'s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. The court cited the credibility issues of Western Digital's deponent and Viasat's identification of relevant Western Digital employees within the Western District of Texas as factors making the Western District of Texas a more convenient forum.
• March 6, 2023: Western Digital Technologies, Inc. sought a writ of mandamus from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to overturn the district court's denial of transfer. The Federal Circuit denied the petition, thereby affirming the Western District of Texas as the proper venue.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• No specific Markman order for U.S. Patent No. 8,966,347 in this particular case (6:21-cv-01230-ADA) was identified in the available records. However, a separate but related patent infringement case, Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Viasat, Inc. (4:22-cv-04376) in the Northern District of California, involved claim construction, with an order issued on September 20, 2024, for patents 9,424,400 and 10,447,667.

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

• No specific discovery milestones were prominently reported for this case in the available information.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions

• The case has not yet proceeded to trial, and thus no verdict or post-trial motions have been recorded.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal – Present Posture

• The litigation remains active in the Western District of Texas. There is no public record of a settlement or final judgment in this specific case (6:21-cv-01230-ADA) to date.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings on the Asserted Patents and Their Effect on the Litigation

• IPR for US Patent 8,966,347: Western Digital Technologies, Inc. challenged the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,966,347 through an inter partes review (IPR) petition. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found claims 1-11 and 13-23 of the '347 patent to be unpatentable for obviousness based on prior art.
• Federal Circuit Appeal (24-1483): Viasat, Inc. appealed the PTAB's decision to the Federal Circuit. On January 7, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's finding, concluding that substantial evidence supported the obviousness determination for claims 1-11 and 13-23 of the '347 patent. This outcome significantly impacts the enforceability of these claims in the ongoing district court litigation.
• Related Litigation and IPRs: Viasat also pursued a separate patent infringement case against Kioxia America, Inc. (6:21-cv-01231-ADA) concerning the other patent initially asserted against Western Digital, U.S. Patent No. 8,615,700. Parallel IPRs were filed against the '700 patent, and the district court in that case stayed proceedings on October 17, 2024, pending a Federal Circuit appeal of the IPR results. Viasat's mandamus petition to lift that stay was denied on January 17, 2025. While these actions directly pertain to the Kioxia case, they highlight the broader intellectual property dispute landscape between Viasat and major storage manufacturers, and the outcome regarding the '700 patent may also influence the Viasat v. Western Digital case.
• Western Digital's Counter-Litigation: In a related development, Western Digital Technologies, Inc. filed its own patent infringement lawsuit against Viasat, Inc. in the Northern District of California (4:22-cv-04376) on July 28, 2022. This case involved U.S. Patent Nos. 9,424,400, 10,447,667, and 8,504,834. On November 15, 2023, the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss Count Three of Western Digital's amended complaint, deeming claims of the '834 patent to be patent-ineligible. This counter-litigation remains active.

Viasat, Inc. is represented by a team of attorneys from various firms, including Bartlit Beck LLP, with in-house counsel providing oversight. The following counsel have been identified as representing Viasat in patent litigation, particularly in matters related to U.S. Patent No. 8,966,347:

Bartlit Beck LLP

Bartlit Beck LLP is a prominent litigation firm known for its trial work. Several attorneys from the firm have appeared for Viasat, Inc. in related proceedings concerning the '347 patent.

• Matthew R. Ford

  • Role: Lead Counsel (in Federal Circuit appeal for PTAB matter)
  • Firm: Bartlit Beck LLP, Chicago, IL.
  • Experience Note: Argued for Viasat in the appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board regarding the '347 patent. His firm, Bartlit Beck, is known for its extensive experience in complex patent litigation.

• Meg E. Fasulo

  • Role: Counsel (in Federal Circuit appeal for PTAB matter)
  • Firm: Bartlit Beck LLP, Chicago, IL.
  • Experience Note: Listed as counsel for Viasat in the Federal Circuit appeal concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,615,700 and also mentioned in the context of other IP law developments for Viasat.

• Nevin M. Gewertz

  • Role: Counsel (in Federal Circuit appeal for PTAB matter)
  • Firm: Bartlit Beck LLP, Chicago, IL.
  • Experience Note: Listed as counsel for Viasat in the Federal Circuit appeal regarding the '347 patent.

• John Scott McBride

  • Role: Counsel (in Federal Circuit appeal for PTAB matter)
  • Firm: Bartlit Beck LLP, Chicago, IL.
  • Experience Note: Listed as counsel for Viasat in the Federal Circuit appeal regarding the '347 patent.

• Ravi Shah

  • Role: Counsel (in Federal Circuit appeal for PTAB matter)
  • Firm: Bartlit Beck LLP, Chicago, IL.
  • Experience Note: Listed as counsel for Viasat in the Federal Circuit appeal regarding the '347 patent.

Other Counsel

• Nosson Knobloch

  • Role: Counsel (in Federal Circuit appeal for PTAB matter)
  • Firm: (Listed with location Denver, CO)
  • Experience Note: Listed as counsel for Viasat in the Federal Circuit appeal regarding the '347 patent. Further details on his firm and specific patent litigation experience in other cases are not readily available from the provided search results.

• David Zimmer

  • Role: Counsel (in Federal Circuit appeal for PTAB matter)
  • Firm: Zimmer, Citron & Clarke LLP, Cambridge, MA.
  • Experience Note: Listed as counsel for Viasat in the Federal Circuit appeal regarding the '347 patent. His firm likely provides specialized or local counsel services for the related PTAB appeal.

Viasat, Inc. (In-house)

• Robert Blair
  • Role: Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary.
  • Firm: Viasat, Inc., Carlsbad, CA.
  • Experience Note: Responsible for Viasat's global legal strategy, overseeing all legal matters including intellectual property and litigation.

While other firms like Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP have represented Viasat successfully in other patent lawsuits, and O'Melveny & Myers LLP and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP have attorneys with extensive patent litigation experience, the direct link to the Viasat, Inc. v. Western Digital Corporation et al. (6:21-cv-01230-ADA) case and its related PTAB appeal specifically names the attorneys from Bartlit Beck LLP, along with Knobloch and Zimmer, as counsel for Viasat. The search results do not explicitly name any other specific attorneys representing Viasat in this particular district court case at this time, beyond those involved in the Federal Circuit appeal concerning the same patent.

The defendant, Western Digital Corporation, is represented by several law firms and in-house counsel in this patent infringement case.

Here's a breakdown of the counsel of record:

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

• Harper Batts - Partner, Leader of the Post Grant Proceedings (PTAB) Group.
  • Firm Office: San Francisco, CA (Sheppard Mullin has various offices, but Batts is noted for leading a PTAB group, indicating a focus on patent matters).
  • Experience: Almost two decades of experience as an intellectual property litigator and client counselor, with a high success rate in obtaining institution on IPRs. He represents numerous Fortune 500 clients in contentious patent disputes across the country.

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

• Doug Lumish - Co-Head of Weil's nationwide IP, Technology & Science Litigation practice, Chambers Band 1-ranked first-chair trial lawyer.
  • Firm Office: Silicon Valley, CA.
  • Experience: A Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers.
• Anne M. Cappella - Partner.
  • Firm Office: Silicon Valley, CA.
  • Experience: Focuses on patent litigation, artificial intelligence and machine learning, intellectual property, and ITC Section 337 cases.

Western Digital Corporation (In-House Counsel)

• David Chan - Senior Patent Counsel.
  • Role: In-house counsel.
  • Experience: Manages Western Digital's patent matters.

It's worth noting that while other firms like Williams & Connolly LLP and Fish & Richardson P.C. have represented Western Digital in other patent litigation matters, the specific docket for Viasat, Inc. v. Western Digital Corporation et al. (6:21-cv-01230-ADA) most readily associates the attorneys from Sheppard Mullin and Weil Gotshal with the defense of Western Digital.