Viasat vs. Kioxia: NAND Flash Memory Patent Infringement Case in Texas Western District Court
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
Learn from this case
Understand the legal analysis, timeline, and key takeaways
RecommendedCheck my product’s risk
Run FTO analysis for your own technology or product
Explore patent landscape
View related patents and competitive intelligence
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Viasat, Inc. v. Kioxia Corporation |
| Case Number | 6:21-cv-01231 (W.D. Tex.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas |
| Duration | Nov 2021 – Feb 2026 ~4.2 years (1,548 days) |
| Outcome | Confidential Settlement (Intra-District Transfer Granted) |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Kioxia BENAND™ flash memory, SSDs (FL6, CM6, CM5, PM6, CD, XD, XG, BG Series), Managed Flash, SLC NAND components |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Publicly traded American communications technology company with broad IP in satellite communications, network security, and digital signal processing.
🛡️ Defendant
Leading NAND flash memory manufacturer, formerly Toshiba Memory Corporation, with products spanning consumer, enterprise, and embedded flash storage.
Patents at Issue
This case centered on a patent covering advanced error correction technologies critical to the reliability and performance of NAND flash memory systems. These technologies are foundational to modern SSD and managed flash design.
- • US 8,615,700 B2 — Built-in error correction for NAND flash memory systems
Developing a flash memory product?
Check if your ECC implementation might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The case closed on February 24, 2026, following a procedural resolution centered on the granted intra-district transfer motion. The public record does not disclose a final damages award or a published jury verdict, consistent with a confidential settlement resolution — a common outcome in high-stakes patent litigation of this duration and complexity.
Key Legal Issues
The most consequential procedural development was Kioxia’s successful Motion for Intra-District Transfer to the Austin Division, granted by Judge Albright. This transfer represented a meaningful shift in venue dynamics within the Western District of Texas. This tactic, seeking to move within a district rather than to a different district entirely under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), highlights a nuanced defense strategy for patent attorneys in high-volume patent districts.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in NAND 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 ECC and NAND flash technology
- See which companies are most active in flash memory IP
- Understand claim construction patterns for error correction
🔍 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
Built-in ECC in NAND flash products
ECC & Signal Processing Patents
Active assertion by non-traditional plaintiffs
Design-Around Options
Available for most ECC implementations
✅ Key Takeaways
Intra-district transfer motions in WDTX are an underutilized but increasingly viable defense mechanism.
Explore WDTX venue trends →Cross-industry patent assertion (e.g., communications IP vs. storage hardware) creates complex claim construction dynamics.
Analyze claim construction patterns →Frequently Asked Questions
The case centered on U.S. Patent No. 8,615,700 B2 (Application No. 12/858,510), covering error correction technology applicable to NAND flash memory systems, including built-in ECC architectures.
The most documented court ruling was the granting of Kioxia’s Motion for Intra-District Transfer from the Waco Division to the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas, with Judge Albright retaining the case.
It signals heightened ECC patent risk for flash memory manufacturers from non-traditional plaintiffs and validates intra-district transfer as a viable WDTX defense tactic.
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
- PACER — Case No. 6:21-cv-01231, W.D. Tex.
- Google Patents — US8615700B2
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Patent Resources
- PatSnap Official Website
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.