Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidity of Viasat Flash Memory Patent Against Western Digital
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Viasat Inc. v. Western Digital Corp. |
| Case Number | 24-1483 (Fed. Cir.) |
| Court | Federal Circuit, Appeal from D.C. Circuit |
| Duration | Feb 2024 – Jan 2026 691 days |
| Outcome | Defendant Win — Patent Invalidated |
| Patent at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Western Digital Flash Memory Products |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff / Appellant
Global communications technology company known for satellite internet and networking, with a diverse patent portfolio including signal processing and data integrity technologies.
🛡️ Defendant / Appellee
One of the world’s largest data storage manufacturers, specializing in NAND flash memory, SSDs, and HDDs, with deep expertise in error correction technologies.
The Patent at Issue
This case centered on a patent covering forward error correction (FEC) technology crucial for data reliability in modern storage devices. This technology is foundational for ensuring the integrity of data stored in flash memories.
- • US8966347B2 — Forward error correction (FEC) with parallel error detection for flash memories.
Developing flash memory technology?
Check if your design might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The Federal Circuit issued a clean affirmance, upholding the lower tribunal’s finding that Viasat’s patent, US8966347B2, was invalid. No damages were awarded to Viasat. This outcome definitively closes the matter at the appellate level for this patent.
Key Legal Issues
The case was classified as an Invalidity/Cancellation Action, meaning Western Digital successfully challenged the patentability of US8966347B2. Invalidity defenses in flash memory error correction cases often focus on prior art (§ 102/§ 103) or written description/enablement failures (§ 112).
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance suggests that it found sufficient legal and factual basis to uphold the invalidity determination, implying the lower tribunal’s findings were not clearly erroneous or legally flawed. This highlights the high bar for patentability in technology-dense fields like flash memory error correction where extensive prior art exists.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in flash memory design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all related patents in flash memory error correction
- See which companies are most active in this IP space
- Understand claim construction patterns for FEC technologies
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Flash memory error correction (FEC)
Extensive Prior Art
In FEC and parallel processing
Careful Design-Around Needed
To avoid similar claims
✅ Key Takeaways
Federal Circuit affirmed invalidity of US8966347B2 covering parallel FEC for flash memories—strong precedent for invalidity-first defense strategies in storage IP cases.
Search related case law →Appellate reversal of invalidity findings is difficult; patent holders must build strong prosecution records before litigation.
Explore precedents →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved US8966347B2 (Application No. US14/086807), covering forward error correction with parallel error detection for flash memories.
The Federal Circuit affirmed an invalidity determination under a patentability/invalidity action. Specific invalidity grounds were not publicly disclosed in available case records.
The affirmance strengthens invalidity defenses in the error correction patent space, signaling that prior art density in NAND flash and FEC technology can successfully defeat patent assertions at the Federal Circuit level.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Case 24-1483
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Patent Center for US8966347B2
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, 112
- Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER)
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.