Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Viasat, Inc.

Western Digital Technologies, Inc. and Viasat, Inc. are operating companies engaged in patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, which led to multiple appeals at the Federal Circuit, including case number 24-1483. Western Digital Technologies, Inc. (WDT), headquartered in San Jose, California, is a global leader in data storage, manufacturing hard disk drives (HDDs) and offering various data storage devices and solutions. Viasat, Inc., based in Carlsbad, California, is a communications company providing high-speed satellite broadband services and secure networking systems for both military and commercial markets.

The underlying district court case, Viasat, Inc. v. Western Digital Technologies, Inc. (6:21-cv-01230-ADA), involves Viasat accusing Western Digital of infringing its patents through Western Digital's NAND-flash-memory-containing products. Specifically, Viasat alleges that these products, which include Western Digital's "proprietary Sentinel ECC&DSP technology," infringe the asserted patents by implementing their error-correction architecture. The patents asserted in the district court action include U.S. Patent No. 8,615,700 and U.S. Patent No. 8,966,347 ("the '347 patent"). The '347 patent is titled "Forward Error Correction with Parallel Error Detection for Flash Memories" and relates to methods and systems for robust error correction in data retrieved from flash memory, designed to handle increasing error rates over time.

The procedural posture involves several layers. The initial infringement suit was filed by Viasat in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, presided over by Judge Alan D. Albright. This venue is notable as the Western District of Texas, under Judge Albright, has been a high-volume and plaintiff-friendly forum for patent litigation, known for its fast-track scheduling orders. Western Digital sought to transfer this district court case to the Northern District of California, but its motion was denied, and a subsequent petition for a writ of mandamus to compel transfer (filed under a separate Federal Circuit case number, 23-115) was also denied by the Federal Circuit. Concurrently, Western Digital challenged the '347 patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) through an inter partes review. The PTAB found certain claims of the '347 patent unpatentable for obviousness. Viasat appealed this PTAB decision to the Federal Circuit, which is docketed as case number 24-1483, and on January 7, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's obviousness decision.

This case is notable for several reasons. It involves a patent dispute between two prominent operating companies, Western Digital (a leader in data storage) and Viasat (a major communications provider), rather than a non-practicing entity. The underlying venue battle in the Western District of Texas and the subsequent mandamus petition to the Federal Circuit highlight the ongoing strategic importance of forum selection in patent litigation. Furthermore, the parallel IPR proceeding and the Federal Circuit's affirmance of the PTAB's obviousness finding for the '347 patent under case 24-1483 are significant, as they directly impact the enforceability and value of the asserted patent in the ongoing district court infringement litigation.

Here's a summary of the key legal developments and outcome for the patent infringement litigation of Viasat, Inc. v. Western Digital Technologies, Inc., District Court Case No. 6:21-cv-01230-ADA, involving U.S. Patent No. 8,966,347 (and 8,615,700).

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Viasat, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Western Digital Technologies, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, accusing Western Digital of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 8,615,700 and 8,966,347. The complaint alleges infringement through Western Digital's NAND-flash-memory-containing products that incorporate its "proprietary Sentinel ECC&DSP technology." The case number is 6:21-cv-01230-ADA.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Transfer Venue: Western Digital Technologies, Inc. filed a motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California (ECF No. 69).
• Motion to Transfer Denied (2022-12-19): The District Court for the Western District of Texas denied Western Digital's motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California. The court found that while some factors slightly favored transfer, the Western District of Texas was ultimately more convenient, partly due to the court's ability to hold trials faster. The court also found issues with the credibility of Western Digital's primary venue deponent.
• Mandamus Petition to Federal Circuit Denied: Western Digital Technologies, Inc. subsequently petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus (Case No. 24-1483) to compel the transfer of the district court case. The Federal Circuit denied the petition, concluding that Western Digital failed to show clear convenience.

3. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• IPR2022-01126 (Patent 8,615,700): Western Digital Technologies, Inc. filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition, IPR2022-01126, challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,615,700. Institution was granted in this IPR on November 29, 2022.
• IPR2023-00408 (Patent 8,615,700) and Joinder: Kioxia Corporation and Kioxia America, Inc., who are also involved in parallel district court litigation with Viasat (6:21-CV-01231-ADA), filed a petition for IPR2023-00408 challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,615,700. Concurrently, Kioxia filed a motion for joinder with IPR2022-01126. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted an inter partes review on the same grounds as IPR2022-01126 and granted Kioxia's motion for joinder on July 11, 2023.
• No specific IPR found for Patent 8,966,347: While IPRs were initiated for patent 8,615,700, there is no readily available information indicating parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings specifically challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,966,347.

4. Current Posture:

• The district court case (6:21-cv-01230-ADA) is ongoing in the Western District of Texas following the denial of Western Digital's motion to transfer and the Federal Circuit's denial of mandamus. No information on a final disposition (settlement, dismissal, judgment) or trial has been found yet.### Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Viasat, Inc. v. Western Digital Technologies, Inc. (6:21-cv-01230-ADA)

This patent infringement litigation, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, involves U.S. Patent Nos. 8,615,700 and 8,966,347. The Federal Circuit denied Western Digital's petition for a writ of mandamus related to a denied transfer motion, indicating the case remains in the Western District of Texas.

Here's a chronological breakdown of the key legal developments:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed (2021): Viasat, Inc. initiated the lawsuit against Western Digital Technologies, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, accusing infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,615,700 and 8,966,347. The complaint alleges infringement through Western Digital's NAND-flash-memory-containing products, specifically those incorporating its "proprietary Sentinel ECC&DSP technology." While the exact filing date of the initial complaint (ECF No. 1) is not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, the case number "6:21-cv-01230-ADA" confirms a 2021 filing.

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Transfer Venue (Undated, filed by 2022-11-10): Western Digital Technologies, Inc. filed a motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California (ECF No. 69).
• Opposition to Transfer Motion (2022-11-10): Viasat, Inc. filed an opposition to Western Digital's motion to transfer venue.
• Reply in Support of Transfer Motion (2022-11-23): Western Digital Technologies, Inc. filed a reply in support of its motion to transfer.
• District Court Denies Motion to Transfer (2022-12-19): The District Court for the Western District of Texas denied Western Digital's motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California. The court acknowledged some factors slightly favoring transfer but ultimately found the Western District of Texas more convenient, noting its ability to conduct trials faster. The court also gave "minimal weight" to the testimony of Western Digital's primary venue deponent, citing a lack of credibility.
• Mandamus Petition to Federal Circuit (Undated, post-2022-12-19): Western Digital Technologies, Inc. petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus (Case No. 24-1483) to compel the transfer of the district court case.
• Federal Circuit Denies Mandamus Petition (Status: Mandamus petition denied): The Federal Circuit denied the petition, concluding that Western Digital failed to show clear convenience.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• As of December 19, 2022, the case had not yet proceeded to a Markman hearing. No subsequent information regarding a Markman order or claim construction has been identified.

4. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings on Asserted Patents:

• IPR2022-01126 (U.S. Patent No. 8,615,700): Western Digital Technologies, Inc. filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition, IPR2022-01126, challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,615,700. Institution of this IPR was granted on November 29, 2022.
• IPR2023-00408 (U.S. Patent No. 8,615,700) and Joinder (2023-07-11): Kioxia Corporation and Kioxia America, Inc., who are involved in related district court litigation (6:21-CV-01231-ADA) against Viasat, filed a petition for IPR2023-00408 challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,615,700. They also filed a motion for joinder with IPR2022-01126. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted an inter partes review on the same grounds as IPR2022-01126 and granted Kioxia's motion for joinder on July 11, 2023.
• No IPR for Patent 8,966,347: No specific IPR or PGR proceedings challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,966,347 were found in the available information.

5. Final Disposition / Present Posture:

• The district court case (6:21-cv-01230-ADA) is ongoing. No information on a trial, verdict, post-trial motions, settlement, or final judgment subsequent to the Federal Circuit's denial of mandamus has been found. The case continues in the Western District of Texas.

Western Digital Technologies, Inc., as the petitioner for the writ of mandamus in CAFC case 24-1483, was represented by counsel who also likely handled the underlying motion to transfer in the district court case 6:21-cv-01230-ADA. Based on available docket information for CAFC 24-1483, David Jeffrey Cooperberg is listed as representing Western Digital Technologies, Inc.. While the primary focus of the available dockets for 24-1483 appears to be an appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision where Western Digital is the appellee, it is common for the same counsel to handle related proceedings under a single docket number or for such information to be the most direct available for a party's representation in the overall case.

Counsel of Record for Western Digital Technologies, Inc. (Plaintiff/Petitioner in Mandamus):

• David Jeffrey Cooperberg
  • Role: Counsel of record. Specific role in the mandamus petition (e.g., lead counsel) is not explicitly detailed in publicly available snippets, but he is listed as representing Western Digital in the CAFC docket for case 24-1483.
  • Firm and Office Location: Information about David Jeffrey Cooperberg's specific firm and office location is not directly provided in the current search results.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Specific details on his patent litigation experience or notable past cases are not available in the provided search results.

Here is the counsel of record representing defendant Viasat, Inc. in Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Viasat, Inc., Case No. 24-1483, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:

Attorneys for Viasat, Inc. (Appellant):

• Matthew R. Ford
  • Role: Lead Counsel (argued for appellant)
  • Firm: Bartlit Beck LLP, Chicago, IL.
  • Note on experience: Matthew Ford is a partner at Bartlit Beck LLP and is recognized for his trial work in high-stakes intellectual property and commercial litigation. His experience includes numerous patent disputes.
• Meg E. Fasulo
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Bartlit Beck LLP (likely, based on grouping in citation), Chicago, IL.
  • Note on experience: Meg Fasulo is a partner at Bartlit Beck LLP, focusing on complex commercial litigation, including intellectual property disputes.
• Nevin M. Gewertz
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Bartlit Beck LLP (likely, based on grouping in citation), Chicago, IL.
  • Note on experience: Nevin Gewertz is a partner at Bartlit Beck LLP, with experience in patent litigation and other complex commercial cases.
• John Scott McBride
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Bartlit Beck LLP (likely, based on grouping in citation), Chicago, IL.
  • Note on experience: John Scott McBride is a partner at Bartlit Beck LLP, specializing in intellectual property and complex commercial litigation.
• Ravi Shah
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Bartlit Beck LLP (likely, based on grouping in citation), Chicago, IL.
  • Note on experience: Ravi Shah is an attorney at Bartlit Beck LLP, involved in high-stakes intellectual property and commercial disputes.
• Nosson Knobloch
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Not specified in the opinion, but listed with a Denver, CO location.
  • Note on experience: Specific firm and detailed patent litigation experience for Nosson Knobloch for this case is not readily available in the provided search results beyond his appearance in the opinion.
• David J. Zimmer
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Zimmer, Citron & Clarke LLP, Cambridge, MA.
  • Note on experience: David Zimmer has been involved in other cases representing Viasat, including a 2022 case before the D.C. Circuit. His firm, Zimmer, Citron & Clarke LLP, focuses on intellectual property and technology litigation.

It's worth noting that Robert Blair serves as Senior Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary of Viasat, Inc., responsible for the company's global legal strategy. Colin L. Ward was also identified as in-house counsel for Viasat in a previous patent litigation matter. However, neither is listed as counsel of record in the Federal Circuit opinion for case 24-1483.