Kioxia Owes Viasat $229m in Patent Verdict

A federal jury in Waco, Texas, has assessed $229 million in damages against Kioxia after finding that its flash-memory products infringed a patent held by satellite communications company Viasat.

The verdict was returned on 16 July 2026 in Viasat, Inc. v Kioxia Corporation and Kioxia America, Inc. before the US District Court for the Western District of Texas. The jury found that Kioxia infringed Claim 16 of US Patent No. 8,615,700, covering error-correction technology for flash memory. It assessed damages of $229,025,021, representing a running royalty for past infringement through 30 March 2026.

Viasat said it developed the technology while designing error-correction systems for satellites. It argued that Kioxia’s products used error-correction processes operating in the same way as its patented system, reducing power consumption while improving reliability and useful life. Kioxia denied infringement and maintained that the patent was invalid.

The jury has decided the infringement and damages questions submitted to it, although post-trial applications and an appeal may follow before the case is concluded.

The litigation, filed in November 2021 and assigned to US District Judge Alan Albright, has a substantial procedural history. Kioxia challenged the patent through inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Patentability questions subsequently reached the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, while the district court proceedings were stayed for part of the case. The proceedings show how defendants in US patent disputes may challenge validity before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board while contesting infringement in the district court.

Viasat has brought related infringement allegations against Western Digital Technologies in a separate action pending in the same Texas court. Counsel in that case may examine the Kioxia verdict closely, although each action must be determined on its own pleadings, evidence and accused products.

For solicitors and barristers advising semiconductor and technology companies, the size of the damages figure shows how quickly liability can mount when a patent covers products sold in large quantities. In-house counsel should check whether freedom-to-operate work extends to technology built into purchased components, as well as systems developed internally.

Product specifications, supplier agreements, licensing discussions and records of earlier patent reviews may prove important when liability and royalties are assessed.

Patent disputes of this kind may proceed simultaneously before the district court, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Federal Circuit. Counsel must take a consistent position on validity, infringement and damages in each forum.

Until Judge Alan Albright enters final judgment and decides any post-trial applications, lawyers advising boards and investors should describe the $229 million sum as the jury’s damages verdict rather than a final judgment.