In Re VIASAT, INC v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 1988 citation omitted . Under the well-estab-…

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re VIASAT, INC.,
Petitioner
______________________
2025-110
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:21-
cv-01231-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before D YK , CUNNINGHAM, and STARK , Circuit Judges.
CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
Viasat, Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus directing
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas to schedule trial “as soon as practicable” or, alterna-
tively, to expedite oral argument in Appeal No. 2024-1384,
Pet. 1, which involves the patent claim asserted in the dis-
trict court case. Kioxia America, Inc. opposes.
Viasat and Kioxia are involved in parallel pending pro-
ceedings before the Western District and the Patent Trial
and Appeal Board over Viasat’s U.S. Patent No. 8,615,700.
The Board reached final determinations that claims 1, 4, 8,
Case: 25-110 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 01/17/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE VIASAT, INC. 2
15, 17, and 19 are unpatentable.1 At present, two actions
are pending: Kioxia’s appeal (Appeal No. 2024-1384) from
the Board’s rejection of its challenges to patentability of
claims 2, 10–12, 13, 14, 16, and 23–25 and Viasat’s in-
fringement action in the Western District.
On October 15, 2024, Viasat informed the Western Dis-
trict and Kioxia that it was narrowing its asserted claims
in this infringement action to only claim 16, which had sur-
vived the Board’s decisions. App. 451. On October 17,
2024, approximately two weeks before trial was scheduled
to begin, the district court sua sponte stayed proceedings
pending resolution of Appeal No. 2024-1384, giving signif-
icant weight to its finding that a stay could simplify the
issues in this litigation. On October 23, 2024, Viasat
moved for reconsideration of that order. That motion is
now fully briefed and remains pending. On November 22,
2024, Viasat filed this petition.
Mandamus is “reserved for extraordinary situations.”
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S.
271, 289 (1988) (citation omitted). Under the well-estab-
lished standard for such relief, a petitioner must: (1) show
that he has a clear and indisputable right to relief; (2) show
that he does not have any other adequate method of obtain-
ing relief; and (3) convince the court that the “writ is ap-
propriate under the circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist.
Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004) (citation omitted).
Viasat has not met that demanding standard.
Viasat raises several alleged misstatements of law and
fact in the stay order. Notably, it has asked the district
court to reconsider its stay ruling based on those same al-
legations. The availability of reconsideration ordinarily
weighs heavily against granting a writ. See In re
1 Those proceedings (IPR2022-01126) were brought
by Western Digital Corporation and joined by Kioxia.
Case: 25-110 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 01/17/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE VIASAT, INC. 3
BigCommerce, Inc., 890 F.3d 978, 982 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The
petition is therefore denied without prejudice. This court
takes no position with respect to the reconsideration re-
quest. The request to expedite Appeal No. 2024-1384,
which is now fully briefed and awaiting calendaring, is also
denied without prejudice to filing a motion to expedite in
that appeal.
Accordingly,
IT IS O RDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.
January 17, 2025
Date
FOR THE C OURT
Case: 25-110 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 01/17/2025

-- 3 of 3 --