Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Commitments As of June 30, 2017 , our satellite-related obligations were approximately $703.9 million . Our satellite-related obligations primarily include payments pursuant to agreements for the construction of the EchoStar 105/SES-11 and the 63 West satellites; payments pursuant to launch services contracts and regulatory authorizations; executory costs for our capital lease satellites; costs under satellite service agreements; and in-orbit incentives relating to certain satellites; as well as commitments for long-term satellite operating leases and satellite service arrangements. Contingencies Patents and Intellectual Property Many entities, including some of our competitors, have or may in the future obtain patents and other intellectual property rights that cover or affect products or services directly or indirectly related to those that we offer. We may not be aware of all patents and other intellectual property rights that our products and services may potentially infringe. Damages in patent infringement cases can be substantial, and in certain circumstances can be trebled. Further, we cannot estimate the extent to which we may be required in the future to obtain licenses with respect to intellectual property rights held by others and the availability and cost of any such licenses. Various parties have asserted patent and other intellectual property rights with respect to our products and services. We cannot be certain that these persons do not own the rights they claim, that these rights are not valid or that our products and services do not infringe on these rights. Further, we cannot be certain that we would be able to obtain licenses from these persons on commercially reasonable terms or, if we were unable to obtain such licenses, that we would be able to redesign our products and services to avoid infringement. Separation Agreement; Share Exchange In connection with the Spin-off, we entered into a separation agreement with DISH Network that provides, among other things, for the division of certain liabilities, including liabilities resulting from litigation. Under the terms of the separation agreement, we assumed certain liabilities that relate to our business, including certain designated liabilities for acts or omissions that occurred prior to the Spin-off. Certain specific provisions govern intellectual property related claims under which, generally, we will only be liable for our acts or omissions following the Spin-off and DISH Network will indemnify us for any liabilities or damages resulting from intellectual property claims relating to the period prior to the Spin-off, as well as DISH Network’s acts or omissions following the Spin-off. Additionally, in connection with the Share Exchange, we entered into the Share Exchange Agreement and other agreements which provide, among other things, for the division of certain liabilities, including liabilities relating to taxes, intellectual property and employees and liabilities resulting from litigation and the assumption of certain liabilities that relate to the transferred businesses and assets. These agreements also contain additional indemnification provisions between us and DISH Network for certain pre-existing liabilities and legal proceedings. Litigation We are involved in a number of legal proceedings (including those described below) concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of our business activities. Many of these proceedings are at preliminary stages and/or seek an indeterminate amount of damages. We regularly evaluate the status of the legal proceedings in which we are involved to assess whether a loss is probable or there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or an additional loss may have been incurred and to determine if accruals are appropriate. We record an accrual for litigation and other loss contingencies when we determine that a loss is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. If accruals are not appropriate, we further evaluate each legal proceeding to assess whether an estimate of possible loss or range of loss can be made. There can be no assurance that legal proceedings against us will be resolved in amounts that will not differ from the amounts of our recorded accruals. Legal fees and other costs of defending litigation are charged to expense as incurred. For certain cases described below, management is unable to predict with any degree of certainty the outcome or provide a meaningful estimate of the possible loss or range of possible loss because, among other reasons, (i) the proceedings are in various stages; (ii) damages have not been sought or specified; (iii) damages are unsupported, indeterminate and/or exaggerated in management’s opinion; (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending trials, appeals or motions; (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; and/or (vi) there are novel legal issues or unsettled legal theories to be presented or a large number of parties are involved (as with many patent-related cases). Except as described below, for these cases, however, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material effect on our financial condition, operating results or cash flows, though there is no assurance that the resolution and outcomes of these proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will not be material to our financial condition, operating results or cash flows for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. We intend to vigorously defend the proceedings against us. In the event that a court or jury ultimately rules against us, we may be subject to adverse consequences, including, without limitation, substantial damages, which may include treble damages, fines, penalties, compensatory damages and/or other equitable or injunctive relief that could require us to materially modify our business operations or certain products or services that we offer to our consumers. Elbit On January 23, 2015, Elbit Systems Land and C4I LTD and Elbit Systems of America Ltd. (together referred to as “Elbit”) filed a complaint against our subsidiary Hughes Network Systems, L.L.C. (“HNS”), as well as against Black Elk Energy Offshore Operations, LLC, Bluetide Communications, Inc. and Helm Hotels Group, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,240,073 (the “073 patent”) and 7,245,874 (“874 patent”). The 073 patent is entitled “Reverse Link for a Satellite Communication Network” and the 874 patent is entitled “Infrastructure for Telephony Network.” Elbit alleges that the 073 patent is infringed by broadband satellite systems that practice the Internet Protocol Over Satellite standard. Elbit alleges that the 874 patent is infringed by the manufacture and sale of broadband satellite systems that provide cellular backhaul service via connections to E1 or T1 interfaces at cellular backhaul base stations. On April 2, 2015, Elbit filed an amended complaint removing Helm Hotels Group as a defendant, but making similar allegations against a new defendant, Country Home Investments, Inc. On November 3 and 4, 2015, and January 22, 2016, the defendants filed petitions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of the patents in suit, which the Patent and Trademark Office subsequently declined to institute. On April 13, 2016, the defendants answered Elbit’s complaint. At Elbit’s request, on June 26, 2017, the court dismissed Elbit’s claims of infringement against all parties other than HNS. Trial commenced on July 31, 2017. On August 7, 2017, the jury returned a verdict that the 073 patent was valid and infringed, and awarded Elbit approximately $21.1 million. The jury found that such infringement was not willful and that the 874 patent was not infringed. HNS intends to vigorously pursue its post-trial rights, including appeals. We cannot predict with certainty the outcome of any post-trial motions or appeals. During the three months ended June 30, 2017, we recorded $2.5 million of litigation reserve expense with respect to this matter. Any eventual payments made with respect to the ultimate outcome of this matter may be different from our accrued litigation reserves and such differences could be significant. Michael Heskiaoff, Marc Langenohl, and Rafael Mann On July 10, 2015, Messrs. Michael Heskiaoff and Marc Langenohl, purportedly on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed suit against our now former subsidiary Sling Media, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that Sling Media Inc.’s display of advertising to its customers violates a number of state statutes dealing with consumer deception. On September 25, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and Mr. Rafael Mann, purportedly on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed an additional complaint alleging similar causes of action. On November 16, 2015, the cases were consolidated. On August 12, 2016, the Court dismissed the consolidated case due to plaintiffs’ failure to state a claim. On September 12, 2016, the plaintiffs moved the Court for leave to file an amended complaint, which the Court denied on March 22, 2017. On April 17, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Realtime Data LLC On May 8, 2015, Realtime Data LLC (“Realtime”) filed suit against EchoStar Corporation and our subsidiary HNS in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 7,378,992, entitled “Content Independent Data Compression Method and System”; 7,415,530, entitled “System and Methods for Accelerated Data Storage and Retrieval”; and 8,643,513, entitled “Data Compression System and Methods.” On September 14, 2015, Realtime amended its complaint, additionally alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 9,116,908, entitled “System and Methods for Accelerated Data Storage and Retrieval.” Realtime generally alleges that the asserted patents are infringed by certain HNS data compression products and services. Over April 29, 2016 and May 5, 2016, the defendants filed petitions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of the asserted patents. The United States Patent and Trademark Office has instituted proceedings on each of those petitions. On February 14, 2017, Realtime filed a second suit against EchoStar Corporation and our subsidiary HNS in the same District Court, alleging infringement of four additional United States Patents, Nos. 7,358,867, entitled “Content Independent Data Compression Method and System;” 8,502,707, entitled “Data Compression Systems and Methods;” 8,717,204, entitled “Methods for Encoding and Decoding Data;” and 9,054,728, entitled “Data Compression System and Methods.” On June 6, 2017, Realtime filed an amended complaint, adding claims of infringement against EchoStar Technologies, L.L.C., a wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH, DISH, DISH Network L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C., Sling Media L.L.C., and Arris Group, Inc., as well as additionally alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 8,553,759, entitled “Bandwidth Sensitive Data Compression and Decompression.” The cases were consolidated and no trial date has been set. On July 20, 2017, the claims against the newly added parties, with the exception of EchoStar Technologies, L.L.C., were severed into a separate case. Realtime is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. Shareholder Derivative Litigation On December 5, 2012, Greg Jacobi, purporting to sue derivatively on behalf of EchoStar Corporation, filed suit (the “Jacobi Litigation”) against Charles W. Ergen, Michael T. Dugan, R. Stanton Dodge, Tom A. Ortolf, C. Michael Schroeder, Joseph P. Clayton, David K. Moskowitz, and EchoStar Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The complaint alleges that a March 2011 attempted grant of 1.5 million stock options to Charles Ergen breached defendants’ fiduciary duties, resulted in unjust enrichment, and constituted a waste of corporate assets. On December 18, 2012, Chester County Employees’ Retirement Fund, derivatively on behalf of EchoStar Corporation, filed a suit (the “Chester County Litigation”) against Charles W. Ergen, Michael T. Dugan, R. Stanton Dodge, Tom A. Ortolf, C. Michael Schroeder, Anthony M. Federico, Pradman P. Kaul, Joseph P. Clayton, and EchoStar Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint similarly alleges that the March 2011 attempted grant of 1.5 million stock options to Charles Ergen breached defendants’ fiduciary duties, resulted in unjust enrichment, and constituted a waste of corporate assets. On February 22, 2013, the Chester County Litigation was transferred to the District of Nevada, and on April 3, 2013, the Chester County Litigation was consolidated into the Jacobi Litigation. Oral argument on a motion to dismiss the Jacobi Litigation was held February 21, 2014. On April 11, 2014, the Chester County Litigation was stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. On March 30, 2015, the Court dismissed the Jacobi Litigation, with leave for Jacobi to amend his complaint by April 20, 2015. On April 20, 2015, Jacobi filed an amended complaint, which on June 12, 2015, we moved to dismiss. On March 17, 2016, the Court dismissed the amended Jacobi Litigation. Jacobi has appealed this dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which has scheduled oral argument for October 10, 2017. Of the attempted grant of 1.5 million options to Mr. Ergen in 2011, only 800,000 were validly granted. Other In addition to the above actions, we are subject to various other legal proceedings and claims, which arise in the ordinary course of our business. As part of our ongoing operations, the Company is subject to various inspections, audits, inquiries, investigations and similar actions by third parties, as well as by governmental/regulatory authorities responsible for enforcing the laws and regulations to which the Company may be subject. Further, under the federal False Claims Act, private parties have the right to bring qui tam, or “whistleblower,” suits against companies that submit false claims for payments to, or improperly retain overpayments from, the federal government. Some states have adopted similar state whistleblower and false claims provisions. In addition, the Company from time to time receives inquiries from federal, state and foreign agencies regarding compliance with various laws and regulations. In our opinion, the amount of ultimate liability with respect to any of these actions is unlikely to materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows, though the resolutions and outcomes, individually or in the aggregate, could be material to our financial position, operating results or cash flows for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. The Company indemnifies its directors, officers and employees for certain liabilities that might arise from the performance of their responsibilities for the Company. Additionally, in the normal course of its business, the Company enters into contracts pursuant to which the Company may make a variety of representations and warranties and indemnify the counterparty for certain losses. The Company’s possible exposure under these arrangements cannot be reasonably estimated as this involves the resolution of claims made, or future claims that may be made, against the Company or its officers, directors or employees, the outcomes of which are unknown and not currently predictable or estimable. |