Commitments and Contingencies | Note 13. Commitments and Contingencies Commitments The following table summarizes our contractual obligations at December 31, 2015: Payments due in the Year Ending December 31, Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Thereafter (In thousands) Long-term debt $ $ $ — $ — $ $ — $ Capital lease obligations Interest on long-term debt and capital lease obligations Satellite-related obligations Operating lease obligations Total $ $ $ $ $ $ $ “Satellite-related obligations” primarily include payments pursuant to agreements for the construction of the EchoStar XIX, EchoStar XXI, EchoStar XXIII, and EchoStar 105/SES-11 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. We incurred satellite related expenses of $116.5 million, $127.4 million and $145.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The table above does not include amounts related to deferred tax liabilities, unrecognized tax positions and certain other amounts recorded in our noncurrent liabilities as the timing of any payments is uncertain. The table also excludes long-term deferred revenue and other long-term liabilities that do not require future cash payments. In certain circumstances, the dates on which we are obligated to pay our contractual obligations could change. Rent Expense For the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, we recorded $17.5 million, $ 17.2 million and $ 18.5 million, respectively, of operating lease expense relating to the leases of office space, equipment, and other facilities. 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 components within our direct broadcast satellite 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 In 2008, DISH Network Corporation contributed its digital set-top box business and certain infrastructure and other assets, including certain of its satellites, uplink and satellite transmission assets, real estate, and other assets and related liabilities to EchoStar (the “Spin-off”). In connection with the Spin-off, EchoStar 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, EchoStar has assumed certain liabilities that relate to its 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, EchoStar will only be liable for its acts or omissions following the Spin-off and DISH Network will indemnify EchoStar 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. 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 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). For these cases, however, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material adverse 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 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. In addition, adverse decisions against DISH Network in the proceedings described below could decrease the number of products and components we sell to DISH Network, which could have a material adverse effect on our business operations and our financial condition, results of operation and cash flows. California Institute of Technology On October 1, 2013, the California Institute of Technology (“Caltech”) filed suit against two of our subsidiaries, Hughes Communications, Inc. and Hughes Network Systems, LLC (“HNS”), as well as against DISH Network, DISH Network L.L.C., and dishNET Satellite Broadband L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 7,116,710; 7,421,032; 7,916,781; and 8,284,833, each of which is entitled “Serial Concatenation of Interleaved Convolutional Codes forming Turbo-Like Codes.” Caltech asserted that encoding data as specified by the DVB-S2 standard infringes each of the asserted patents. In the operative Amended Complaint, served on March 6, 2014, Caltech claims that the Hopper TM set-top box that we design and sell to DISH Network, as well as certain of our Hughes segment’s satellite broadband products and services, infringe the asserted patents by implementing the DVB-S2 standard. On September 26, 2014, Caltech requested leave to amend its Amended Complaint to add EchoStar Corporation and EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. as defendants, as well as to allege that a number of additional set-top boxes infringe the asserted patents. On November 7, 2014, the Court rejected that request. Additionally, on November 4, 2014, the Court ruled that the patent claims at issue in the suit are directed to patentable subject matter. On February 17, 2015, Caltech filed a second complaint in the same district against the same defendants alleging that HNS’ Gen4 HT1000 and HT1100 products infringe the same patents asserted in the first case. We answered that second complaint on March 24, 2015. The trial for the first case which was scheduled to commence on April 20, 2015, was vacated by the Court on March 16, 2015 and a new trial date has yet to be set. On May 5, 2015, the Court granted summary judgment for us on a number of issues, finding that Caltech’s damages theory improperly apportioned alleged damages, that allegations of infringement against DISH Network, DISH Network L.L.C., and dishNET Satellite Broadband L.L.C. should be dismissed from the case, and affirming that Caltech could not assert infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The Court also granted motions by Caltech seeking findings that certain of its patents were not indefinite or subject to equitable estoppel. The Court otherwise denied motions for summary judgment, including a motion by Caltech seeking summary judgment of infringement. On May 14, 2015, the judge assigned to the case passed away. A new judge has not yet been formally assigned. The parties are discussing resolving these cases without further litigation. There can be no assurance that a settlement agreement will be reached. If a settlement agreement is not reached, we cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages and we intend to vigorously defend these cases. 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 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 April 20, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss portions of Elbit’s amended complaint. On January 15, 2016, the defendants filed a petition challenging the validity of the 073 patent and the 874 patent. Kappa Digital, LLC On June 1, 2015, Kappa Digital LLC (“Kappa”) filed suit against our subsidiary HNS in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,349,135, entitled “Method and System for a Wireless Digital Message Service.” Kappa generally alleges that HNS’ “HughesNet Gen 4 residential internet service/systems” and “HughesNet Business Broadband service/systems” infringe its asserted patent. Kappa is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On February 1, 2016, Kappa filed a motion to dismiss its claims with prejudice and on February 2, 2016, the action was dismissed accordingly. Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C./LPL Licensing, L.L.C. On July 30, 2015, Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C. and LPL Licensing, L.L.C. (together referred to as “Phoenix”) filed a complaint against our subsidiary HNS in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,987,434, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Transacting Marketing and Sales of Financial Products”; 7,890,366, entitled “Personalized Communication Documents, System and Method for Preparing Same”; 8,352,317, entitled “System for Facilitating Production of Variable Offer Communications”; 8,234,184, entitled “Automated Reply Generation Direct Marketing System”; 6,999,938, entitled “Automated Reply Generation Direct Marketing System”; 8,738,435, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Presenting Personalized Content Relating to Offered Products and Services”; and 7,860,744, entitled “System and Method for Automatically Providing Personalized Notices Concerning Financial Products and/or Services.” Phoenix alleged that HNS infringes the asserted patents by making and using products and services that generate customized marketing materials. Phoenix is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein against us. On October 16, 2015, Phoenix moved to dismiss the litigation against us without prejudice pursuant to a settlement agreement, and on November 3, 2015, the action was dismissed accordingly. 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.” Realtime generally alleges that the asserted patents are infringed by certain HNS data compression products and services. Realtime is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. TQ Beta LLC On June 30, 2014, TQ Beta LLC (“TQ Beta”) filed suit against DISH Network, DISH DBS Corporation, DISH Network L.L.C., as well as HSS, EchoStar Corporation, EchoStar Technologies, L.L.C, and Sling Media, Inc., a subsidiary of EchoStar, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 7,203,456 (the “456 patent”), which is entitled “Method and Apparatus for Time and Space Domain Shifting of Broadcast Signals.” TQ Beta alleges that the Hopper, Hopper with Sling, ViP 722 and ViP 722k DVR devices, as well as the DISH Anywhere service and DISH Anywhere mobile application, infringe the 456 patent, but has not specified the amount of damages that it seeks. TQ Beta is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. During August 2015, EchoStar Corporation and DISH Network L.L.C. filed petitions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of the 456 patent. Trial is scheduled to commence on December 12, 2016. Two-Way Media Ltd On February 17, 2016, Two-Way Media Ltd (“TWM”) filed a complaint against EchoStar Corporation and its subsidiaries, EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., EchoStar Satellite Services L.L.C., and Sling Media, Inc., as well as against DISH Network Corporation, DISH DBS Corporation, DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Network Service L.L.C., Sling TV Holding L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C., and Sling TV Purchasing L.L.C. TWM brought the suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,778,187; 5,983,005; 6,434,622; and 7,266,686, each entitled “Multicasting Method and Apparatus”; and 9,124,607, entitled “Methods and Systems for Playing Media.” TWM alleges that the SlingTV, Sling International, DISH Anywhere, and DISHWorld services, as well as the Slingbox units and Sling-enabled DISH DVRs, infringe the asserted patents. TWM is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. 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 is 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. |