The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision that certain claims of Viasat Inc.'s flash memory patent are unpatentable for obviousness, dealing a blow to the satellite communications company in its intellectual property dispute with Western Digital Technologies Inc.
In the nonprecedential decision issued Jan. 7, 2026, a three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Chen, Bryson, and Cunningham upheld the board's obviousness determination. Circuit Judge Bryson authored the opinion, concluding that substantial evidence supported the board's finding.
The case centers on U.S. Patent No. 8,966,347, titled "Forward Error Correction with Parallel Error Detection for Flash Memories," which Viasat owns. The patent covers methods and systems for error correction in data retrieved from flash memory devices, addressing a critical challenge in data storage technology.
Flash memory devices are susceptible to increasing error rates over time, creating reliability concerns for data storage applications. Viasat's patented invention was designed to enhance the error correction process by making it more robust as the number of errors in stored data increases. This technology has particular relevance for applications requiring high data integrity, such as satellite communications and enterprise storage systems.
The dispute arose from an inter partes review proceeding initiated in 2022, designated IPR2022-01171. Inter partes review allows third parties to challenge patent validity before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, providing an alternative to federal court litigation for resolving patent disputes. Western Digital successfully petitioned for the review, arguing that Viasat's patent claims were obvious in light of prior art.
During the proceedings, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board examined whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The obviousness analysis requires consideration of the scope and content of prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claims, and the level of ordinary skill in the relevant field.
Viasat challenged the board's obviousness determination on appeal, represented by a team from Bartlit Beck LLP led by Matthew R. Ford. The appellant's legal team also included attorneys Meg E. Fasulo, Nevin M. Gewertz, John Scott McBride, Ravi Shah, Nosson Knobloch from Denver, and David Zimmer from Zimmer, Citron & Clarke LLP in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Western Digital defended the board's decision through counsel from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Brian M. Buroker argued for the appellee, supported by attorneys Nathan Robert Curtis from Dallas, Texas, and L. Kieran Kieckhefer from San Francisco, California.
The Federal Circuit applied the substantial evidence standard to review the board's factual determinations regarding obviousness. Under this deferential standard, the appeals court will affirm the board's decision if it is supported by such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
The court's affirmance of the obviousness finding means that the challenged patent claims lack the requisite novelty and non-obviousness required for patent protection. This determination effectively invalidates those specific claims, potentially limiting Viasat's ability to enforce its patent rights against competitors in the flash memory error correction space.
The decision carries particular significance for the technology sector, where patent disputes over memory and storage technologies frequently arise. Flash memory error correction represents a critical component of modern data storage systems, from consumer electronics to enterprise servers and satellite communication systems.
For Viasat, a major provider of satellite internet and communications services, the ruling represents a setback in protecting its intellectual property portfolio. The company has invested substantially in developing advanced communication and data storage technologies to support its satellite broadband and government services operations.
Western Digital, a leading manufacturer of data storage devices and solutions, successfully defended against Viasat's patent claims. The company's victory reinforces its freedom to operate in the flash memory technology space without concern over the invalidated patent claims.
The Federal Circuit's designation of the decision as nonprecedential limits its broader impact on patent law jurisprudence. Nonprecedential decisions do not establish binding precedent for future cases, though they may still provide guidance on how courts approach similar patent validity challenges.
The ruling reflects the ongoing challenges patent holders face in defending their intellectual property rights through inter partes review proceedings. Since the America Invents Act established the current inter partes review system in 2012, patent challengers have achieved significant success rates in invalidating patent claims.
Neither Viasat nor Western Digital immediately responded to requests for comment regarding the Federal Circuit's decision. The ruling appears to conclude the dispute between the companies over the flash memory error correction patent, though Viasat could potentially seek Supreme Court review, though such petitions in patent cases face steep odds for acceptance.
The case underscores the competitive nature of the technology patent landscape, where companies regularly challenge competitors' intellectual property rights to maintain design freedom and avoid potential infringement claims. As flash memory technology continues evolving to meet growing data storage demands, patent disputes in this space are likely to persist.