| Commitments and Contingencies | 8. Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments
DISH Network Spectrum
DISH Network has invested over $5.0 billion since 2008 to acquire certain wireless spectrum licenses and related assets. DISH Network will need to make significant additional investments or partner with others to, among other things, commercialize, build-out, and integrate these licenses and related assets, and any additional acquired licenses and related assets; and comply with regulations applicable to such licenses. Depending on the nature and scope of such commercialization, build-out, integration efforts, and regulatory compliance, any such investments or partnerships could vary significantly. DISH Network may also determine that additional wireless spectrum licenses may be required to commercialize its wireless business and to compete with other wireless service providers. For example, on February 10, 2016, DISH Network filed an application with the FCC to potentially participate as a bidder in the forward auction phase of the broadcast television spectrum incentive auction (“Auction 1000”). Auction 1000 has two phases. In the first phase or reverse auction phase, participating television broadcasters “sell” their rights to use certain broadcast television spectrum in the 600 MHz frequency range to the FCC. In the second phase or forward auction phase, the FCC will “resell” that spectrum to various auction participants, including wireless service providers and other potential bidders. The first phase of Auction 1000 began on March 29, 2016 and concluded on June 29, 2016. Pursuant to the FCC’s procedures for Auction 1000 and based on the results of the reverse auction phase, in order for Auction 1000 to conclude, the proceeds generated in the first stage of the forward auction phase must exceed approximately $88.4 billion. If the proceeds from the first stage of the forward auction phase do not exceed this amount, Auction 1000 would move to one or more additional stages, with less available spectrum and lower spectrum clearing targets set by the FCC. The first stage of the forward auction phase of Auction 1000 will include 100 MHz of spectrum in over 90% of the available licensed geographic areas, based on the broadcasters’ indicated availability of spectrum in the reverse auction phase. The available spectrum in each of these areas is comprised of certain paired 5x5 spectrum blocks (5 MHz uplink spectrum and 5 MHz downlink spectrum). As a result, a nationwide footprint may be obtained by aggregating a single 5x5 spectrum block in each available licensed geographic area. A qualified bidder in the forward auction phase could make an upfront deposit of up to approximately $5.4 billion. On July 15, 2016, the FCC announced that a subsidiary of DISH Network and 61 other applicants were qualified to participate in the forward auction phase of Auction 1000. The forward auction phase is scheduled to commence on August 16, 2016. The FCC determined that bidding in Auction 1000 will be “anonymous,” which means that prior to and during the course of the auction, the FCC will not make public any information about a specific applicant’s upfront deposits or its bids. In addition, FCC rules restrict information that bidders may disclose about their participation in Auction 1000.
In connection with the development of DISH Network’s wireless business, including without limitation the efforts described above, we have made cash distributions to partially finance these efforts to date and may make additional cash distributions to finance in whole or in part DISH Network’s future efforts. See Note 10 for further information regarding our dividends to DOC. There can be no assurance that DISH Network will be able to develop and implement a business model that will realize a return on these wireless spectrum licenses or that DISH Network will be able to profitably deploy the assets represented by these wireless spectrum licenses.
DISH Network Non-Controlling Investments in the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities Related to AWS-3 Wireless Spectrum Licenses
Through its wholly-owned subsidiaries American AWS-3 Wireless II L.L.C. (“American II”) and American AWS-3 Wireless III L.L.C. (“American III”), DISH Network has made over $10.0 billion in certain non-controlling investments in Northstar Spectrum, LLC (“Northstar Spectrum”), the parent company of Northstar Wireless, LLC (“Northstar Wireless,” and collectively with Northstar Spectrum, the “Northstar Entities”), and in SNR Wireless HoldCo, LLC (“SNR HoldCo”), the parent company of SNR Wireless LicenseCo, LLC (“SNR Wireless,” and collectively with SNR HoldCo, the “SNR Entities”), respectively. On October 27, 2015, the FCC granted certain AWS-3 wireless spectrum licenses (the “AWS-3 Licenses”) to Northstar Wireless (the “Northstar Licenses”) and to SNR Wireless (the “SNR Licenses”), respectively. DISH Network may need to make significant additional loans to the Northstar Entities and to the SNR Entities, or they may need to partner with others, so that the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities may commercialize, build-out and integrate the Northstar Licenses and the SNR Licenses, and comply with regulations applicable to the Northstar Licenses and the SNR Licenses. Depending upon the nature and scope of such commercialization, build-out, integration efforts, and regulatory compliance, any such loans or partnerships could vary significantly.
In connection with certain funding obligations related to the investments by American II and American III discussed above, in February 2015, we paid a dividend of $8.250 billion to DOC for, among other things, general corporate purposes, which included such funding obligations, and to fund other DISH Network cash needs. We may make additional cash distributions to finance in whole or in part loans that DISH Network may make to the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities in the future related to DISH Network’s non-controlling investments in these entities. There can be no assurance that DISH Network will be able to obtain a profitable return on its non-controlling investments in the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities.
We may need to raise significant additional capital in the future, which may not be available on acceptable terms or at all, to among other things, make additional cash distributions to DISH Network, continue investing in our business and to pursue acquisitions and other strategic transactions.
See Note 10 “Commitments” in the Notes to DISH Network’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30 , 2016 for further information.
Guarantees
During the third quarter 2009, EchoStar entered into a satellite transponder service agreement for Nimiq 5 through 2024. We sublease this capacity from EchoStar and DISH Network guarantees a certain portion of EchoStar’s obligation under its satellite transponder service agreement through 2019. As of June 30, 2016, the remaining obligation of the DISH Network guarantee was $216 million. As of June 30, 2016, DISH Network has not recorded a liability on the balance sheet for this guarantee.
Contingencies
Separation Agreement
On January 1, 2008, DISH Network completed the distribution of its technology and set-top box business and certain infrastructure assets (the “Spin-off”) into a separate publicly-traded company, EchoStar. In connection with the Spin-off, DISH Network entered into a separation agreement with EchoStar 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 our 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 many of these proceedings 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. If accruals are not appropriate, we further evaluate each legal proceeding to assess whether an estimate of the possible loss or range of possible loss can be made.
For certain cases described on the following pages, management is unable to 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; (iii) damages are unsupported and/or exaggerated; (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 (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, though the outcomes could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.
California Institute of Technology
On October 1, 2013, the California Institute of Technology (“Caltech”) filed complaints against DISH Network and its wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C. and dishNET Satellite Broadband L.L.C., as well as Hughes Communications, Inc. and Hughes Network Systems, LLC, which are subsidiaries of EchoStar, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged 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 alleged that encoding data as specified by the DVB-S2 standard infringed each of the asserted patents. In the operative Amended Complaint, served on March 6, 2014, Caltech claimed that our Hopper ® set-top box, as well as the Hughes defendants’ satellite broadband products and services, infringed the asserted patents by implementing the DVB-S2 standard. On May 5, 2015, the Court granted summary judgment in our favor as to the Hopper set-top box alleged in the complaint. On February 17, 2015, Caltech filed a new complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, asserting the same patents against the same defendants. Caltech alleged that certain broadband equipment, including without limitation the HT1000 and HT1100 modems, gateway hardware, software and/or firmware that the Hughes defendants provide to, among others, us for our use in connection with the dishNET branded broadband service, infringed these patents. Pursuant to a settlement agreement between the parties, on May 31, 2016, Caltech dismissed with prejudice all of its claims in these actions.
ClearPlay, Inc.
On March 13, 2014, ClearPlay, Inc. (“ClearPlay”) filed a complaint against DISH Network, our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., EchoStar, and its wholly-owned subsidiary EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,898,799, entitled “Multimedia Content Navigation and Playback”; 7,526,784, entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content”; 7,543,318, entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content”; 7,577,970, entitled “Multimedia Content Navigation and Playback”; and 8,117,282, entitled “Media Player Configured to Receive Playback Filters From Alternative Storage Mediums.” ClearPlay alleges that the AutoHop ™ feature of our Hopper set-top box infringes the asserted patents. On February 11, 2015, the case was stayed pending various third-party challenges before the United States Patent and Trademark Office regarding the validity of certain of the patents asserted in the action.
We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.
CRFD Research, Inc. (a subsidiary of Marathon Patent Group, Inc.)
On January 17, 2014, CRFD Research, Inc. (“CRFD”) filed a complaint against us, our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Network, EchoStar, and its wholly-owned subsidiary EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 7,191,233 (the “233 patent”). The 233 patent is entitled “System for Automated, Mid-Session, User-Directed, Device-to-Device Session Transfer System,” and relates to transferring an ongoing software session from one device to another. CRFD alleges that our Hopper and Joey ® set-top boxes infringe the 233 patent. On the same day, CRFD filed similar complaints against AT&T Inc.; Comcast Corp.; DirecTV; Time Warner Cable Inc.; Cox Communications, Inc.; Akamai Technologies, Inc.; Cablevision Systems Corp. and Limelight Networks, Inc. CRFD is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On January 26, 2015, we and EchoStar filed a petition before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of certain claims of the 233 patent. The United States Patent and Trademark Office has agreed to institute a proceeding on our petition, as well as on two third-party petitions challenging the validity of certain claims of the 233 patent, and it heard oral argument on January 16, 2016. On June 1, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office found that all claims asserted against us and the EchoStar parties were unpatentable. On July 5, 2016, CRFD filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The litigation in the District Court has been stayed since June 4, 2015 pending resolution of our petition to the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.
Customedia Technologies, L.L.C.
On February 10, 2016, Customedia Technologies, L.L.C. (“Customedia”) filed a complaint against DISH Network and our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of four patents: United States Patent No. 8,719,090; United States Patent No. 9,053,494; United States Patent No. 7,840,437; and United States Patent No. 8,955,029. Each patent is entitled “System for Data Management And On-Demand Rental And Purchase Of Digital Data Products.” Customedia appears to allege infringement in connection with our addressable advertising services, our DISH Anywhere feature, and our Pay-Per-View and video-on-demand offerings. Customedia is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.
We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.
Do Not Call Litigation
On March 25, 2009, our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. was sued in a civil action by the United States Attorney General and several states in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”), as well as analogous state statutes and state consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs allege that we, directly and through certain independent third-party retailers and their affiliates, committed certain telemarketing violations. On December 23, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, which indicated for the first time that the state plaintiffs were seeking civil penalties and damages of approximately $270 million and that the federal plaintiff was seeking an unspecified amount of civil penalties (which could substantially exceed the civil penalties and damages being sought by the state plaintiffs). The plaintiffs were also seeking injunctive relief that if granted would, among other things, enjoin DISH Network L.L.C., whether acting directly or indirectly through authorized telemarketers or independent third-party retailers, from placing any outbound telemarketing calls to market or promote its goods or services for five years, and enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from accepting activations or sales from certain existing independent third-party retailers and from certain new independent third-party retailers, except under certain circumstances. We also filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all claims. On December 12, 2014, the Court issued its opinion with respect to the parties’ summary judgment motions. The Court found that DISH Network L.L.C. is entitled to partial summary judgment with respect to one claim in the action. In addition, the Court found that the plaintiffs are entitled to partial summary judgment with respect to ten claims in the action, which includes, among other things, findings by the Court establishing DISH Network L.L.C.’s liability for a substantial amount of the alleged outbound telemarketing calls by DISH Network L.L.C. and certain of its independent third-party retailers that were the subject of the plaintiffs’ motion. The Court did not issue any injunctive relief and did not make any determination on civil penalties or damages, ruling instead that the scope of any injunctive relief and the amount of any civil penalties or damages are questions for trial.
In pre-trial disclosures, the federal plaintiff indicated that it intended to seek up to $900 million in alleged civil penalties, and the state plaintiffs indicated that they intended to seek as much as $23.5 billion in alleged civil penalties and damages. The plaintiffs also modified their request for injunctive relief. Their requested injunction, if granted, would enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from placing outbound telemarketing calls unless and until: (i) DISH Network L.L.C. hires a third-party consulting organization to perform a review of its call center operations; (ii) such third-party consulting organization submits a telemarketing compliance plan to the Court and the federal plaintiff; (iii) the Court holds a hearing on the adequacy of the plan; (iv) if the Court approves the plan, DISH Network L.L.C. implements the plan and verifies to the Court that it has implemented the plan; and (v) the Court issues an order permitting DISH Network L.L.C. to resume placing outbound telemarketing calls. The plaintiffs’ modified request for injunctive relief, if granted, would also enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from accepting customer orders solicited by certain independent third-party retailers unless and until a similar third-party review and Court approval process was followed with respect to the telemarketing activities of its independent third-party retailer base to ensure compliance with the TSR.
The first phase of the bench trial took place January 19, 2016 through February 11, 2016. In closing briefs, the federal plaintiff indicated that it still is seeking $900 million in alleged civil penalties; the California state plaintiff indicated that it is seeking $100 million in alleged civil penalties and damages for its state law claims (in addition to any amounts sought on its federal law claims); the Ohio state plaintiff indicated that it is seeking approximately $10 million in alleged civil penalties and damages for its state law claims (in addition to any amounts sought on its federal law claims); and the Illinois and North Carolina state plaintiffs did not state the specific alleged civil penalties and damages that they are seeking; but the state plaintiffs have taken the general position that any damages award less than $1.0 billion (presumably for both federal and state law claims) would not raise constitutional concerns. Under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, excessive fines may not be imposed.
The Court scheduled a second phase of the bench trial for October 2016, which is planned to cover the plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief, as well as DISH Network L.L.C.’s response to certain evidence that the state plaintiffs presented in the first phase. On April 20, 2016, the Court denied the federal plaintiff’s motion seeking to cancel the separate hearing on the plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief .
We may also from time to time be subject to private civil litigation alleging telemarketing violations. For example, a portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent third-party retailer at issue in the case described in the previous paragraph are also the subject of a certified class action filed against DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
We intend to vigorously defend these cases. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.
Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC
On December 20, 2013, Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC (“Dragon IP”) filed complaints against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., as well as Apple Inc.; AT&T, Inc.; Charter Communications, Inc.; Comcast Corp.; Cox Communications, Inc.; DirecTV; Sirius XM Radio Inc.; Time Warner Cable Inc. and Verizon Communications, Inc., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 5,930,444 (the “444 patent”), which is entitled “Simultaneous Recording and Playback Apparatus.” Dragon IP alleges that various of our DVR receivers infringe the 444 patent. Dragon IP is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On December 23, 2014, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a petition before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of certain claims of the 444 patent. On April 10, 2015, the Court granted DISH Network L.L.C.’s motion to stay the action in light of DISH Network L.L.C.’s petition and certain other defendants’ petitions pending before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of certain claims of the 444 patent. On July 17, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute a proceeding on our petition. Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, on April 27, 2016, the Court entered an order of non-infringement and judgment in favor of DISH Network L.L.C. On June 15, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office entered an order that the patent claims being asserted against DISH Network L.L.C. with respect to the 444 patent are unpatentable. Dragon may seek to appeal the Court’s judgment and/or the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s decision.
We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.
Grecia
On March 27, 2015, William Grecia (“Grecia”) filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 8,533,860 (the “860 patent”), which is entitled “Personalized Digital Media Access System—PDMAS Part II.” Grecia alleges that we violate the 860 patent in connection with our digital rights management. Grecia is the named inventor on the 860 patent. On June 22, 2015, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On November 18, 2015, Grecia filed an amended complaint adding allegations that we infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,402,555 (the “555 patent”), which is entitled “Personalized Digital Media Access System (PDMAS).” Grecia is the named inventor on the 555 patent. Grecia alleges that we violate the 555 patent in connection with our digital rights management. Grecia dismissed his action with prejudice on February 3, 2016.
On February 3, 2016, Grecia filed a new complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 8,887,308 (the “308 patent”), which is entitled “Digital Cloud Access—PDMAS Part III,” on which Grecia is also the named inventor. Grecia alleges that we violate the 308 patent in connection with our DISH Anywhere feature. On June 10, 2016, DISH Network L.L.C. advised the Court that it intended to file a petition before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of certain claims of the 308 patent on or before July 31, 2016, and on June 13, 2016, the Court stayed the action pending the conclusion of that petition, including the exhaustion of any appeals.
We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.
The Hopper Litigation
On May 24, 2012, our wholly-owned subsidiary, DISH Network L.L.C., filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.; CBS Corporation; Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.; Fox Television Holdings, Inc.; Fox Cable Network Services, L.L.C. and NBCUniversal, LLC. In the lawsuit, we sought a declaratory judgment that we are not infringing any defendant’s copyright, or breaching any defendant’s retransmission consent agreement, by virtue of the PrimeTime Anytime™ and AutoHop features of our Hopper set-top box. A consumer can use the PrimeTime Anytime feature, at his or her option, to record certain primetime programs airing on ABC, CBS, Fox, and/or NBC up to every night, and to store those recordings for up to eight days. A consumer can use the AutoHop feature, at his or her option, to watch certain recordings that the subscriber made with our PrimeTime Anytime feature, commercial-free, if played back at a certain point after the show’s original airing.
Later on May 24, 2012, (i) Fox Broadcasting Company; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. and Fox Television Holdings, Inc. filed a lawsuit against DISH Network and our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the PrimeTime Anytime feature, the AutoHop feature, as well as Slingbox placeshifting functionality infringe their copyrights and breach their retransmission consent agreements, (ii) NBC Studios LLC; Universal Network Television, LLC; Open 4 Business Productions LLC and NBCUniversal, LLC filed a lawsuit against DISH Network and our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the PrimeTime Anytime feature and the AutoHop feature infringe their copyrights, and (iii) CBS Broadcasting Inc.; CBS Studios Inc. and Survivor Productions LLC filed a lawsuit against DISH Network and our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the PrimeTime Anytime feature and the AutoHop feature infringe their copyrights.
As a result of certain parties’ competing venue-related motions brought in both the New York and California actions, and certain networks’ filing various counterclaims and amended complaints, the claims have proceeded in the following venues: (1) the copyright and contract claims regarding the ABC and CBS parties in New York; and (2) the copyright and contract claims regarding the Fox and NBC parties in California.
California Actions. The NBC plaintiffs and Fox plaintiffs filed amended complaints in their respective California actions, adding copyright claims against EchoStar and EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., a wholly-owned subsidiary of EchoStar. In addition, the Fox plaintiffs’ amended complaint added claims challenging the Hopper Transfers™ feature of our second-generation Hopper set-top box.
On November 7, 2012, the California court denied the Fox plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Hopper set-top box’s PrimeTime Anytime and AutoHop features, and the Fox plaintiffs appealed. On March 27, 2013, at the request of the parties, the Central District of California granted a stay of all proceedings in the action brought by the NBC plaintiffs, pending resolution of the appeal by the Fox plaintiffs. On July 24, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the Fox plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction as to the PrimeTime Anytime and AutoHop features. On August 7, 2013, the Fox plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, which was denied on January 24, 2014. The United States Supreme Court granted the Fox plaintiffs an extension until May 23, 2014 to file a petition for writ of certiorari, but they did not file one. As a result, the stay of the NBC plaintiffs’ action expired. On August 6, 2014, at the request of the parties, the Central District of California granted a further stay of all proceedings in the action brought by the NBC plaintiffs, pending a final judgment on all claims in the Fox plaintiffs’ action. Pursuant to the settlement described below, t he Fox action was dismissed on February 11, 2016. On March 4, 2016, at the request of the parties, the Central District of California granted a further stay of all proceedings in the action brought by the NBC plaintiffs until September 9, 2016; provided that either party may file a motion with the Court to lift the stay after May 27, 2016. Pursuant to a settlement between us and the NBC plaintiffs, on June 16, 2016, we and the NBC plaintiffs filed a stipulation to dismiss with prejudice all of our respective claims pending in the California Court. The Court ordered such dismissal on June 20, 2016.
In addition, on February 21, 2013, the Fox plaintiffs filed a second motion for preliminary injunction against: (i) us seeking to enjoin the Hopper Transfers feature in our second-generation Hopper set-top box, alleging breach of their retransmission consent agreement; and (ii) us and EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. seeking to enjoin the Slingbox placeshifting | 11. Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments
As of December 31, 2015, future maturities of our long-term debt, capital lease and contractual obligations are summarized as follows:
Payments due by period
Total
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Thereafter
(In thousands)
Long-term debt obligations
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Capital lease obligations
Interest expense on long-term debt and capital lease obligations
Satellite-related obligations
Operating lease obligations
Purchase obligations
Total
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
In certain circumstances the dates on which we are obligated to make these payments could be delayed. These amounts will increase to the extent that we procure launch and/or in-orbit insurance on our satellites or contract for the construction, launch or lease of additional satellites.
The table above does not include $202 million of liabilities associated with unrecognized tax benefits that were accrued, as discussed in Note 8, and are included on our Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2015. We do not expect any portion of this amount to be paid or settled within the next twelve months.
DISH Network Spectrum
DISH Network has invested over $5.0 billion since 2008 to acquire certain wireless spectrum licenses and related assets. DISH Network will need to make significant additional investments or partner with others to, among other things, commercialize, build-out, and integrate these licenses and related assets, and any additional acquired licenses and related assets; and comply with regulations applicable to such licenses. Depending on the nature and scope of such commercialization, build-out, integration efforts, and regulatory compliance, any such investments or partnerships could vary significantly. DISH Network may also determine that additional wireless spectrum licenses may be required to commercialize its wireless business and to compete with other wireless service providers. For example, on February 10, 2016, DISH Network filed an application with the FCC to potentially participate as a bidder in the upcoming broadcast television spectrum incentive auction (“Auction 1000”). Auction 1000 is scheduled to begin on March 29, 2016.
In connection with the development of DISH Network’s wireless business, including without limitation the efforts described above, we have made cash distributions to partially finance these efforts to date and may make additional cash distributions to finance in whole or in part DISH Network’s future efforts. See Note 15 in the Notes to our Consolidated Financial Statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for further information regarding our dividends to DOC. There can be no assurance that DISH Network will be able to develop and implement a business model that will realize a return on these wireless spectrum licenses or that DISH Network will be able to profitably deploy the assets represented by these wireless spectrum licenses.
DISH Network Non-Controlling Investments in the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities Related to AWS-3 Wireless Spectrum Licenses
Through its wholly-owned subsidiaries American AWS-3 Wireless II L.L.C. (“American II”) and American AWS-3 Wireless III L.L.C. (“American III”), DISH Network has made over $10.0 billion in certain non-controlling investments in Northstar Spectrum, LLC (“Northstar Spectrum”), the parent company of Northstar Wireless, LLC (“Northstar Wireless,” and collectively with Northstar Spectrum, the “Northstar Entities”), and in SNR Wireless HoldCo, LLC (“SNR HoldCo”), the parent company of SNR Wireless LicenseCo, LLC (“SNR Wireless,” and collectively with SNR HoldCo, the “SNR Entities”), respectively. On October 27, 2015, the FCC granted certain AWS-3 wireless spectrum licenses (the “AWS-3 Licenses”) to Northstar Wireless (the “Northstar Licenses”) and to SNR Wireless (the “SNR Licenses”), respectively. DISH Network may need to make significant additional loans to the Northstar Entities and to the SNR Entities, or they may need to partner with others, so that the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities may commercialize, build-out and integrate the Northstar Licenses and the SNR Licenses, and comply with regulations applicable to the Northstar Licenses and the SNR Licenses. Depending upon the nature and scope of such commercialization, build-out, integration efforts, and regulatory compliance, any such loans or partnerships could vary significantly.
In connection with certain funding obligations related to the investments by American II and American III discussed above, in February 2015, we paid a dividend of $8.250 billion to DOC for, among other things, general corporate purposes, which included such funding obligations, and to fund other DISH Network cash needs. We may make additional cash distributions to finance in whole or in part loans that DISH Network may make to the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities in the future related to DISH Network’s non-controlling investments in these entities. There can be no assurance that DISH Network will be able to obtain a profitable return on its non-controlling investments in the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities.
We may need to raise significant additional capital in the future, which may not be available on acceptable terms or at all, to among other things, make additional cash distributions to DISH Network, continue investing in our business and to pursue acquisitions and other strategic transactions.
See “Item 1A. Risk Factors – We have made substantial investments to acquire certain wireless spectrum licenses and other related assets. In addition, we have made substantial non-controlling investments in the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities related to AWS-3 wireless spectrum licenses ” in DISH Network’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 for further information.
Guarantees
During the third quarter 2009, EchoStar entered into a satellite transponder service agreement for Nimiq 5 through 2024. We sublease this capacity from EchoStar and DISH Network guarantees a certain portion of EchoStar’s obligation under its satellite transponder service agreement through 2019. As of December 31, 2015, the remaining obligation of the DISH Network guarantee was $248 million.
As of December 31, 2015, we have not recorded a liability on the balance sheet for this guarantee.
Purchase Obligations
Our 2016 purchase obligations primarily consist of binding purchase orders for receiver systems and related equipment, digital broadcast operations, transmission costs, engineering services, and other products and services related to the operation of our Pay-TV services. O ur purchase obligations also include certain fixed contractual commitments to purchase programming content. Our purchase obligations can fluctuate significantly from period to period due to, among other things, management’s timing of payments and inventory purchases, and can materially impact our future operating asset and liability balances, and our future working capital requirements.
Programming Contracts
In the normal course of business, we enter into contracts to purchase programming content in which our payment obligations are generally contingent on the number of Pay-TV subscribers to whom we provide the respective content. These programming commitments are not included in the “Commitments” table above. The terms of our contracts typically range from one to ten years with annual rate increases. Our programming expenses will continue to increase to the extent we are successful in growing our Pay-TV subscriber base. In addition, programming costs continue to increase due to contractual price increases and the renewal of long-term programming contracts on less favorable pricing terms.
Rent Expense
Total rent expense for operating leases was $477 million, $468 million and $303 million in 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Rent expense in 2014 increased as a result of the Satellite and Tracking Stock Transaction. See Note 4 and Note 15 for further information.
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 that we offer or that we may offer in the future. We may not be aware of all intellectual property rights that our products or 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 patents 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 of our products and services. We cannot be certain that these persons do not own the rights they claim, that our products do not infringe on these rights, and/or that these rights are not valid. 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 to avoid infringement.
Contingencies
Separation Agreement
In connection with the Spin-off, DISH Network entered into a separation agreement with EchoStar 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 our 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 many of these proceedings 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. If accruals are not appropriate, we further evaluate each legal proceeding to assess whether an estimate of the possible loss or range of possible loss can be made.
For certain cases described on the following pages, management is unable to 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; (iii) damages are unsupported and/or exaggerated; (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 (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, though the outcomes could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.
California Institute of Technology
On October 1, 2013, the California Institute of Technology (“Caltech”) filed complaints against DISH Network and its wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C. and dishNET Satellite Broadband L.L.C., as well as Hughes Communications, Inc. and Hughes Network Systems, LLC, which are subsidiaries of EchoStar, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges 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 alleges 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 our Hopper ® set-top box, as well as the Hughes defendants’ satellite broadband products and services, infringe the asserted patents by implementing the DVB-S2 standard. On May 5, 2015, the Court granted summary judgment in our favor as to the Hopper set-top box alleged in the complaint. On February 17, 2015, Caltech filed a new complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, asserting the same patents against the same defendants. Caltech alleges that certain broadband equipment, including without limitation the HT1000 and HT1100 modems, gateway hardware, software and/or firmware that the Hughes defendants provide to, among others, us for our use in connection with the dishNET branded broadband service, infringes these patents.
We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.
ClearPlay, Inc.
On March 13, 2014, ClearPlay, Inc. (“ClearPlay”) filed a complaint against DISH Network, our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., EchoStar, and its wholly-owned subsidiary EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,898,799, entitled “Multimedia Content Navigation and Playback”; 7,526,784, entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content”; 7,543,318, entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content”; 7,577,970, entitled “Multimedia Content Navigation and Playback”; and 8,117,282, entitled “Media Player Configured to Receive Playback Filters From Alternative Storage Mediums”. ClearPlay alleges that the AutoHop™ feature of our Hopper set-top box infringes the asserted patents. On February 11, 2015, the case was stayed pending various third-party challenges before the United States Patent and Trademark Office regarding the validity of certain of the patents asserted in the action.
We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.
CRFD Research, Inc. (a subsidiary of Marathon Patent Group, Inc.)
On January 17, 2014, CRFD Research, Inc. (“CRFD”) filed a complaint against us, our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Network, EchoStar, and its wholly-owned subsidiary EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 7,191,233 (the “233 patent”). The 233 patent is entitled “System for Automated, Mid-Session, User-Directed, Device-to-Device Session Transfer System,” and relates to transferring an ongoing software session from one device to another. CRFD alleges that our Hopper and Joey ® set-top boxes infringe the 233 patent. On the same day, CRFD filed similar complaints against AT&T Inc.; Comcast Corp.; DirecTV; Time Warner Cable Inc.; Cox Communications, Inc.; Akamai Technologies, Inc.; Cablevision Systems Corp. and Limelight Networks, Inc. CRFD is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On January 26, 2015, we and EchoStar filed a petition before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of the 233 patent. The United States Patent and Trademark Office has agreed to institute a proceeding on our petition, as well as on two third-party petitions challenging the validity of the 233 patent, and it heard oral argument on January 16, 2016. On June 4, 2015, the litigation in the District Court was ordered stayed pending resolution of the proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.
Customedia Technologies, L.L.C.
On February 10, 2016, Customedia Technologies, L.L.C. (“Customedia”) filed a complaint against DISH Network and our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of four patents: United States Patent No. 8,719,090; United States Patent No. 9,053,494; United States Patent No. 7,840,437; and United States Patent No. 8,955,029. Each patent is entitled “System for Data Management And On-Demand Rental And Purchase Of Digital Data Products.” Customedia appears to allege infringement in connection with our addressable advertising services, our DISH Anywhere feature, and our Pay-Per-View and video-on-demand offerings. Customedia is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.
We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.
Custom Media Technologies LLC
On August 15, 2013, Custom Media Technologies LLC (“Custom Media”) filed complaints against DISH Network; AT&T Inc.; Charter Communications, Inc.; Comcast Corp.; Cox Communications, Inc.; DirecTV; Time Warner Cable Inc. and Verizon Communications, Inc., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,269,275 (the “275 patent”). The 275 patent, which is entitled “Method and System for Customizing and Distributing Presentations for User Sites,” relates to the provision of customized presentations to viewers over a network, such as “a cable television network, an Internet or other computer network, a broadcast television network, and/or a satellite system.” Custom Media alleges that our DVR devices and DVR functionality infringe the 275 patent. Custom Media is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, on November 6, 2013, the Court entered an order substituting DISH Network L.L.C., our wholly-owned subsidiary, as the defendant in DISH Network’s place. On August 26, 2015, Custom Media dismissed its action against us with prejudice.
Do Not Call Litigation
On March 25, 2009, our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. was sued in a civil action by the United States Attorney General and several states in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule, as well as analogous state statutes and state consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs allege that we, directly and through certain independent third-party retailers and their affiliates, committed certain telemarketing violations. On December 23, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, which indicated for the first time that the state plaintiffs were seeking civil penalties and damages of approximately $270 million and that the federal plaintiff was seeking an unspecified amount of civil penalties (which could substantially exceed the civil penalties and damages being sought by the state plaintiffs). The plaintiffs are also seeking injunctive relief that if granted would, among other things, enjoin DISH Network L.L.C., whether acting directly or indirectly through authorized telemarketers or independent third-party retailers, from placing any outbound telemarketing calls to market or promote its goods or services for five years, and enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from accepting activations or sales from certain existing independent third-party retailers and from certain new independent third-party retailers, except under certain circumstances. We also filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all claims. On December 12, 2014, the Court issued its opinion with respect to the parties’ summary judgment motions. The Court found that DISH Network L.L.C. is entitled to partial summary judgment with respect to one claim in the action. In addition, the Court found that the plaintiffs are entitled to partial summary judgment with respect to ten claims in the action, which includes, among other things, findings by the Court establishing DISH Network L.L.C.’s liability for a substantial amount of the alleged outbound telemarketing calls by DISH Network L.L.C. and certain of its independent third-party retailers that were the subject of the plaintiffs’ motion. The Court did not issue any injunctive relief and did not make any determination on civil penalties or damages, ruling instead that the scope of any injunctive relief and the amount of any civil penalties or damages are questions for trial. In pre-trial disclosures, the federal plaintiff indicated that it intends to seek up to $900 million in alleged civil penalties, and the state plaintiffs indicated that they intend to seek $23.5 billion in alleged civil penalties and damages. The first phase of the bench trial took place January 19, 2016 through February 11, 2016. In closing briefs, the federal plaintiff indicated that it is seeking $900 million in alleged civil penalties; the California state plaintiff indicated that it is seeking $100 million in alleged civil penalties and damages; the Ohio state plaintiff indicated that it is seeking approximately $10 million in alleged civil penalties and damages; and the Illinois and North Carolina state plaintiffs did not state the specific alleged civil penalties and damages that they are seeking. The Court will conduct a second phase of the bench trial in October 2016, which we anticipate will cover the plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief, as well as DISH Network L.L.C.’s response to certain evidence presented by the plaintiffs in the first phase.
We may also from time to time be subject to private civil litigation alleging telemarketing violations. For example, a portion of the alleged telemarketing violations at issue in the case described in the previous paragraph are also the subject of a certified class action filed against DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
We intend to vigorously defend these cases. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.
Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC
On December 20, 2013, Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC (“Dragon IP”) filed complaints against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., as well as Apple Inc.; AT&T, Inc.; Charter Communications, Inc.; Comcast Corp.; Cox Communications, Inc.; DirecTV; Sirius XM Radio Inc.; Time Warner Cable Inc. and Verizon Communications, Inc., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 5,930,444 (the “444 patent”), which is entitled “Simultaneous Recording and Playback Apparatus.” Dragon IP alleges that various of our DVR receivers infringe the 444 patent. Dragon IP is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On December 23, 2014, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a petition before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of the 444 patent. On April 10, 2015, the Court granted DISH Network L.L.C.’s motion to stay the action in light of DISH Network L.L.C.’s petition and certain other defendants’ petitions pending before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of the 444 patent. On July 17, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute a proceeding on our petition, and it heard oral argument on February 9, 2016.
We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.
Grecia
On March 27, 2015, William Grecia (“Grecia”) filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 8,533,860 (the “860 patent”), which is entitled “Personalized Digital Media Access System—PDMAS Part II.” Grecia alleges that we violate the 860 patent in connection with our digital rights management. Grecia is the named inventor on the 860 patent. On June 22, 2015, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On November 18, 2015, Grecia filed an amended complaint adding allegations that we infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,402,555 (the “555 patent”), which is entitled “Personalized Digital Media Access System (PDMAS).” Grecia is the named inventor on the 555 patent. Grecia alleges that we violate the 555 patent in connection with our digital rights management. Grecia dismissed his action with prejudice on February 3, 2016.
On February 3, 2016, Grecia filed a new complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 8,887,308 (the “308 patent”), which is entitled “Digital Cloud Access—PDMAS Part III,” on which Grecia is also the named inventor. Grecia alleges that we violate the 308 patent in connection with our DISH Anywhere feature.
We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.
The Hopper Litigation
On May 24, 2012, our wholly-owned subsidiary, DISH Network L.L.C., filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.; CBS Corporation; Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.; Fox Television Holdings, Inc.; Fox Cable Network Services, L.L.C. and NBCUniversal, LLC. In the lawsuit, we sought a declaratory judgment that we are not infringing any defendant’s copyright, or breaching any defendant’s retransmission consent agreement, by virtue of the PrimeTime Anytime™ and AutoHop™ features of our Hopper set-top box. A consumer can use the PrimeTime Anytime feature, at his or her option, to record certain primetime programs airing on ABC, CBS, Fox, and/or NBC up to every night, and to store those recordings for up to eight days. A consumer can use the AutoHop feature, at his or her option, to watch certain recordings that the subscriber made with our PrimeTime Anytime feature, commercial-free, if played back at a certain point after the show’s original airing.
Later on May 24, 2012, (i) Fox Broadcasting Company; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. and Fox Television Holdings, Inc. filed a lawsuit against DISH Network and our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the PrimeTime Anytime feature, the AutoHop feature, as well as Slingbox placeshifting functionality infringe their copyrights and breach their retransmission consent agreements, (ii) NBC Studios LLC; Universal Network Television, LLC; Open 4 Business Productions LLC and NBCUniversal, LLC filed a lawsuit against DISH Network and our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the PrimeTime Anytime feature and the AutoHop feature infringe their copyrights, and (iii) CBS Broadcasting Inc.; CBS Studios Inc. and Survivor Productions LLC filed a lawsuit against DISH Network and our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the PrimeTime Anytime feature and the AutoHop feature infringe their copyrights.
As a result of certain parties’ competing venue-related motions brought in both the New York and California actions, and certain networks’ filing various counterclaims and amended complaints, the claims have proceeded in the following venues: (1) the copyright and contract claims regarding the ABC and CBS parties in New York; and (2) the copyright and contract claims regarding the Fox and NBC parties in California.
California Actions. The NBC plaintiffs and Fox plaintiffs filed amended complaints in their respective California actions, adding copyright claims against EchoStar and EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., a wholly-owned subsidiary of EchoStar. In addition, the Fox plaintiffs’ amended complaint added claims challenging the Hopper Transfers™ feature of our second-generation Hopper set-top box.
On November 7, 2012, the California court denied the Fox plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Hopper set-top box’s PrimeTime Anytime and AutoHop features, and the Fox plaintiffs appealed. On March 27, 2013, at the request of the parties, the Central District of California granted a stay of all proceedings in the action brought by the NBC plaintiffs, pending resolution of the appeal by the Fox plaintiffs. On July 24, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the Fox plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction as to the PrimeTime Anytime and AutoHop features. On August 7, 2013, the Fox plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, which was denied on January 24, 2014. The United States Supreme Court granted the Fox plaintiffs an extension until May 23, 2014 to file a petition for writ of certiorari, but they did not file one. As a result, the stay of the NBC plaintiffs’ action expired. On August 6, 2014, at the request of the parties, the Central District of California granted a further stay of all proceedings in the action brought by the NBC plaintiffs, pending a final judgment on all claims in the Fox plaintiffs’ action. The Fox action was dismissed on February 11, 2016. On March 4, 2016, at the request of the parties, the Central District of California granted a further stay of all proceedings in the action brought by the NBC plaintiffs until September 9, 2016; provided that either party may file a motion with the Court to lift the stay after May 27, 2016. No trial date is currently set on the NBC claims.
In addition, on February 21, 2013, the Fox plaintiffs filed a second motion for prelimina |
