​

​

​

Commitments

​

Our contractual obligations as disclosed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 have not changed materially, other than the agreement disclosed below.

​

On April 20, 2022, we entered into a long-term agreement with Samsung for radios, software and integration services for approximately $1.2 billion and is included in DISH Network’s expected capital expenditures for its 5G Network Deployment of approximately $10 billion, discussed below.

​

Our commitments include certain obligations incurred by us on behalf of DISH Network’s Wireless segment. These obligations will be either paid directly by DISH Network or settled monthly as part of our centralized cash management system with our parent, DISH Network.  See Note 3 for further information.

​

DISH Network’s 5G Network Deployment

​

DISH Network has directly invested approximately $20 billion to acquire certain wireless spectrum licenses and made over $10 billion in non-controlling investments in certain entities, for a total of approximately $30 billion, as described further below.

​

DISH Network Spectrum

​

DISH Network has directly invested approximately $20 billion to acquire certain wireless spectrum licenses. DISH Network’s wireless spectrum licenses are subject to certain interim and final build-out requirements, as well as certain renewal requirements. DISH Network plans to commercialize its wireless spectrum licenses through the completion of the nation’s first cloud-native, Open Radio Access Network (“O-RAN”) based 5G network (the “5G Network Deployment”). DISH Network currently expects capital expenditures, excluding capitalized interest, for its 5G Network Deployment to be approximately $10 billion including amounts incurred in 2021 and in the first quarter of 2022. DISH Network will need to make significant additional investments or partner with others to, among other things, complete its 5G Network Deployment and further commercialize, build-out and integrate these licenses and related assets and any additional acquired licenses and related assets, as well as to comply with regulations applicable to such licenses. Depending on the nature and scope of such activities, any such investments or partnerships could vary significantly.

​

In addition, as DISH Network completes its 5G Network Deployment, DISH Network has and will continue to incur significant additional expenses related to, among other things, research and development, wireless testing and ongoing upgrades to the wireless network infrastructure. DISH Network may also determine that additional wireless spectrum licenses may be required to complete its 5G Network Deployment and to compete with other wireless service providers.

​

In connection with the development of DISH Network’s wireless business, including, without limitation, the efforts described above, we have made cash distributions and the Intercompany Loan to partially finance these efforts to date and may make additional cash distributions or loans to finance, in whole or in part, DISH Network’s future efforts. 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.

​

Agreements in Connection with the Asset Purchase Agreement

​

On July 1, 2020, DISH Network completed the Boost Mobile Acquisition. In connection with the closing of the Boost Mobile Acquisition, DISH Network and T-Mobile entered into the TSA, the MNSA, the Option Agreement, and the Spectrum Purchase Agreement for approximately $3.59 billion (as detailed in DISH Network’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021).

​

DISH Network Non-Controlling Investments in the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities Related to AWS-3 Wireless Spectrum Licenses

​

During 2015, 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 initially made over $10 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. The Northstar Entities and/or the SNR Entities may need to raise significant additional capital in the future, which may be obtained from third party sources or from DISH Network, so that the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities may commercialize, build-out and integrate these AWS-3 Licenses, comply with regulations applicable to such AWS-3 Licenses, and make any potential payments related to the re-auction of AWS-3 licenses retained by the FCC. Depending upon the nature and scope of such commercialization, build-out, integration efforts, regulatory compliance, and potential re-auction payments, any such loans, equity contributions or partnerships could vary significantly. For further information regarding the potential re-auction of AWS-3 licenses retained by the FCC, see Note 10 “Commitments and Contingencies – Commitments – DISH Network Non-Controlling Investments in the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities Related to AWS-3 Wireless Spectrum Licenses” in the Notes to DISH Network’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2022.

​

We have made and may make additional cash distributions and loans to DISH Network so that DISH Network may fund the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities 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 favorable terms, to among other things, continue investing in our business and to pursue acquisitions and other strategic transactions.

​

See Note 10 “Commitments and Contingencies – Wireless” in the Notes to DISH Network’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2022 for further information.

​

​

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 DISH Network’s acts or omissions following the Spin-off. On February 28, 2017, DISH Network and EchoStar and certain of their respective subsidiaries completed the transactions contemplated by the Share Exchange Agreement (the “Share Exchange Agreement”) that was previously entered into on January 31, 2017 (the “Share Exchange”), pursuant to which certain assets that were transferred to EchoStar in the Spin-off were transferred back to DISH Network. On September 10, 2019, DISH Network and EchoStar and certain of their respective subsidiaries completed the transactions contemplated by the Master Transaction Agreement (the “Master Transaction Agreement”) that was previously entered into on May 19, 2019, pursuant to which certain assets that were transferred to EchoStar in the Spin-off were transferred back to DISH Network. The Share Exchange Agreement and the Master Transaction Agreement contain additional indemnification provisions between DISH Network and EchoStar for certain 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 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. 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.

​

BE Labs, Inc.

​

On May 5, 2022, BE Labs, Inc. (“BE Labs”) filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary, DISH Network L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 7,827,581 (the “581 patent”) and 9,344,183 (the “183 patent”), each entitled “Wireless multimedia system.” BE Labs alleges that the Alcatel Linkzone 2 mobile hotspot, sold by Boost Mobile, infringes the asserted 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 then wholly-owned subsidiary EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The complaint alleges willful infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,898,799 (the “799 patent”), entitled “Multimedia Content Navigation and Playback”; 7,526,784 (the “784 patent”), entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content”; 7,543,318 (the “318 patent”), entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content”; 7,577,970 (the “970 patent”), entitled “Multimedia Content Navigation and Playback”; and 8,117,282 (the “282 patent”), 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.

​

In those third-party challenges, the United States Patent and Trademark Office found that all claims of the 282 patent are unpatentable, and that certain claims of the 784 patent and 318 patent are unpatentable. ClearPlay appealed as to the 784 patent and the 318 patent, and on August 23, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the findings of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On October 31, 2016, the stay was lifted.

​

On October 16, October 21, November 2, 2020 and November 9, 2020, DISH Network L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office requesting ex parte reexamination of the validity of the asserted claims of, respectively, the 784 patent, the 799 patent, the 318 patent and the 970 patent; and on November 2, November 20, December 14 and December 15, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted each request for reexamination. On May 7, 2021, May 25, 2021, June 25, 2021 and July 7, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued Ex Parte Reexamination Certificates confirming the patentability of the challenged claims of, respectively, the 799 patent, the 784 patent, the 318 patent and the 970 patent. In October and November 2021, DISH Network L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office requesting ex parte reexamination of the validity of certain asserted claims of the 784 patent, the 799 patent and the 970 patent. In November and December, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted review of the challenged claims of the 799 patent and the 970 patent, but denied review of the challenged claims of the 784 patent. In December 2021, DISH Network L.L.C. petitioned for review of the denial as to the 784 patent. Trial has been scheduled for February 27, 2023. ClearPlay’s damages expert contends that ClearPlay is entitled to $543 million in damages.

​

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.

​

​

Contemporary Display LLC

​

On June 4, 2018, Contemporary Display LLC (“Contemporary”) filed a complaint against DISH Network and our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 6,028,643 (the “643 patent”), entitled “Multiple-Screen Video Adapter with Television Tuner”; United States Patent No. 6,429,903 (the “903 patent”), entitled “Video Adapter for Supporting at Least One Television Monitor”; United States Patent No. 6,492,997 (the “997 patent”), entitled “Method and System for Providing Selectable Programming in a Multi-Screen Mode”; United States Patent No. 7,500,202 (the “202 patent”), entitled “Remote Control for Navigating Through Content in an Organized and Categorized Fashion”; and United States Patent No. 7,809,842 (the “842 patent”), entitled “Transferring Sessions Between Devices.” The 643 patent and the 903 patent are directed to video adapters for use with multiple displays. The 997 patent is directed to a system for presenting multiple video programs on a display device simultaneously. The 202 patent is directed to a remote control for interacting with a set-top box having programmable features and “operational controls” on at least three sides of the remote control. The 842 patent is directed to a system for managing online communication sessions between multiple devices. Contemporary is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

​

In a First Amended Complaint filed on August 6, 2018, Contemporary added our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. as a defendant. In a Second Amended Complaint filed on October 9, 2018, Contemporary named only our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. as a defendant and dropped certain indirect infringement allegations. On June 10, 2019, DISH Network L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of the asserted claims of the 842 patent, the 903 patent, the 643 patent and the 997 patent. On December 13, 2019 and January 7, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on each of our petitions. Following Contemporary’s decision not to file Patent Owner Responses to DISH Network L.L.C.’s petitions on the 842 patent and the 903 patent, on April 24, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office entered judgments granting those petitions and canceling the challenged claims of those patents. On November 25, 2020 and December 18, 2020, respectively, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued final written decisions invalidating all challenged claims of, respectively, the 643 patent and the 997 patent. On January 31, 2020, pursuant to the parties’ joint motion, the Court dismissed all claims arising from the 202 patent.

​

On February 12, 2021, Contemporary Display noticed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit challenging the final written decision as to the 997 patent, and the Court of Appeals heard oral argument on April 7, 2022 and summarily affirmed our victory on April 11, 2022. On April 21, 2022, Contemporary Display stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice of its case. This matter is now concluded.

​

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 (the “090 patent”); United States Patent No. 9,053,494 (the “494 patent”); United States Patent No. 7,840,437 (the “437 patent”); and United States Patent No. 8,955,029 (the “029 patent”). Each patent is entitled “System for Data Management And On-Demand Rental And Purchase Of Digital Data Products.” Customedia alleges 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 a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

​

​

In December 2016 and January 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of the asserted claims of each of the asserted patents. On June 12, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on our petitions challenging the 090 patent and the 437 patent; on July 18, 2017, it agreed to institute proceedings on our petitions challenging the 029 patent; and on July 28, 2017, it agreed to institute proceedings on our petitions challenging the 494 patent. These instituted proceedings cover all asserted claims of each of the asserted patents.

​

Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, on December 20, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. dismissed its petitions challenging the 029 patent in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and on January 9, 2018, the parties dismissed their claims, counterclaims and defenses as to that patent in the litigation. On March 5, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office conducted a trial on the remaining petitions. On June 11, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued final written decisions on DISH Network L.L.C.’s petitions challenging the 090 patent and it invalidated all of the asserted claims. On July 25, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued final written decisions on DISH Network L.L.C.’s petitions challenging the 437 patent and the 494 patent and it invalidated all of the asserted claims. Customedia appealed its losses. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral argument on November 6, 2019 on the appeal involving the 437 patent, and summarily affirmed the patent’s invalidity on November 8, 2019. On January 7, 2020, Customedia petitioned the Court of Appeals for rehearing or rehearing en banc, raising issues about the constitutionality of the appointment of the administrative patent judges that heard the petition before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, but the Court of Appeals denied rehearing on March 5, 2020. On July 31, 2020, Customedia filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court asking it to hear a further appeal, but its petition was denied on October 13, 2020. On November 6, 2020, it filed a petition for rehearing on the United States Supreme Court’s decision not to hear a further appeal, but on November 17, 2020, the Supreme Court rejected that petition.

​

The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on the appeal involving the 090 patent and the 494 patent on December 3, 2019, and affirmed those patents’ invalidity on March 6, 2020. On May 5, 2020, Customedia filed petitions in the Federal Circuit for rehearing and rehearing en banc, but those petitions were denied on June 9, 2020. On November 6, 2020, Customedia served a petition to the United States Supreme Court asking it to hear a further appeal.

​

On June 16, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a certificate cancelling the challenged claims of the 437 patent and, on July 9, 2021, it issued certificates cancelling the challenged claims of the 090 and 494 patents. Customedia has petitioned the United States Patent and Trademark Office to withdraw its cancellation certificates. On November 22, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office denied Customedia’s petition as to the 437 patent. The litigation in the District Court has been stayed since August 8, 2017 pending resolution of the proceedings at 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 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.

​

​

Entropic Communications LLC

On March 9, 2022, Entropic Communications, LLC (“Entropic”) filed a complaint against DISH Network and our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C. and Dish Network Service L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,130,576 (the “576 patent”), entitled “Signal Selector and Combiner for Broadband Content Distribution”; U.S. Patent No. 7,542,715 (the “715 Patent”), entitled “Signal Selector and Combiner for Broadband Content Distribution”; and U.S. Patent No. 8,792,008 (the “008 Patent”), entitled “Method and Apparatus for Spectrum Monitoring.” On March 30, 2022, Entropic filed an amended complaint alleging infringement of the same patents. Generally, the plaintiff accuses satellite antennas, low-noise block converters, signal selector and combiners, and set-top boxes and the manner in which they process signals for satellite television customers of infringing the asserted 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.

​

Jones 401(k) Litigation

​

On December 20, 2021, four former employees filed a class action complaint in federal court in Denver against DISH Network, DISH Network’s Board of Directors, and DISH Network’s Retirement Plan Committee alleging fiduciary breaches arising from the management of our 401(k) Plan. The putative class, comprised of all participants in the Plan on or after January 20, 2016, alleges that the Plan had excessive recordkeeping and administrative expenses and that it maintained underperforming funds.

​

DISH Network intends to vigorously defend this case. DISH Network cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

​

Realtime Data LLC and Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

​

On June 6, 2017, Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO (“Realtime”) filed an amended complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (the “Original Texas Action”) against DISH Network; our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C. (then known as EchoStar Technologies L.L.C.), Sling TV L.L.C. and Sling Media L.L.C.; EchoStar, and EchoStar’s wholly-owned subsidiary Hughes Network Systems, L.L.C. (“HNS”); and Arris Group, Inc. Realtime’s initial complaint in the Original Texas Action, filed on February 14, 2017, had named only EchoStar and HNS as defendants. The amended complaint in the Original Texas Action alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 8,717,204 (the “204 patent”), entitled “Methods for encoding and decoding data”; United States Patent No. 9,054,728 (the “728 patent”), entitled “Data compression systems and methods”; United States Patent No. 7,358,867 (the “867 patent”), entitled “Content independent data compression method and system”; United States Patent No. 8,502,707 (the “707 patent”), entitled “Data compression systems and methods”; United States Patent No. 8,275,897 (the “897 patent”), entitled “System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval”; United States Patent No. 8,867,610 (the “610 patent”), entitled “System and methods for video and audio data distribution”; United States Patent No. 8,934,535 (the “535 patent”), entitled “Systems and methods for video and audio data storage and distribution”; and United States Patent No. 8,553,759 (the “759 patent”), entitled “Bandwidth sensitive data compression and decompression.”

​

​

Realtime alleges that DISH Network, Sling TV L.L.C., Sling Media L.L.C. and Arris Group, Inc. streaming video products and services compliant with various versions of the H.264 video compression standard infringe the 897 patent, the 610 patent and the 535 patent, and that the data compression system in Hughes’ products and services infringe the 204 patent, the 728 patent, the 867 patent, the 707 patent and the 759 patent.

​

On July 19, 2017, the Court severed Realtime’s claims against DISH Network, DISH Network L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C., Sling Media L.L.C. and Arris Group, Inc. (alleging infringement of the 897 patent, the 610 patent and the 535 patent) from the Original Texas Action into a separate action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (the “Second Texas Action”). On August 31, 2017, Realtime dismissed the claims against DISH Network, Sling TV L.L.C., Sling Media Inc., and Sling Media L.L.C. from the Second Texas Action and refiled these claims (alleging infringement of the 897 patent, the 610 patent and the 535 patent) against Sling TV L.L.C., Sling Media Inc., and Sling Media L.L.C. in a new action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the “Colorado Action”). Also on August 31, 2017, Realtime dismissed DISH Technologies L.L.C. from the Original Texas Action, and on September 12, 2017, added it as a defendant in an amended complaint in the Second Texas Action. On November 6, 2017, Realtime filed a joint motion to dismiss the Second Texas Action without prejudice, which the Court entered on November 8, 2017.

​

On October 10, 2017, Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (“Realtime Adaptive Streaming”) filed suit against our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C., as well as Arris Group, Inc., in a new action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (the “Third Texas Action”), alleging infringement of the 610 patent and the 535 patent. Also on October 10, 2017, an amended complaint was filed in the Colorado Action, substituting Realtime Adaptive Streaming as the plaintiff instead of Realtime, and alleging infringement of only the 610 patent and the 535 patent, but not the 897 patent. On November 6, 2017, Realtime Adaptive Streaming filed a joint motion to dismiss the Third Texas Action without prejudice, which the court entered on November 8, 2017. Also on November 6, 2017, Realtime Adaptive Streaming filed a second amended complaint in the Colorado Action, adding our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C., as well as Arris Group, Inc., as defendants.

​

As a result, neither DISH Network nor any of its subsidiaries is a defendant in the Original Texas Action; the Court has dismissed without prejudice the Second Texas Action and the Third Texas Action; and our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. and Sling Media L.L.C. as well as Arris Group, Inc., are defendants in the Colorado Action, which now has Realtime Adaptive Streaming as the named plaintiff.

​

On July 3, 2018, Sling TV L.L.C., Sling Media L.L.C., DISH Network L.L.C., and DISH Technologies L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of each of the asserted patents. On January 31, 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on our petitions, and it held trial on the petitions on December 5, 2019. On January 17, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office terminated the petitions as time-barred, but issued a final written decision invalidating the 535 patent to third parties that had timely joined in our petition (and, on January 10, 2020, issued a final written decision invalidating the 535 patent in connection with a third party’s independent petition). On March 16, 2020, Sling TV L.L.C., Sling Media L.L.C., DISH Network L.L.C., and DISH Technologies L.L.C. filed a notice of appeal from the terminated petitions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On June 29, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office filed a notice of intervention in the appeal. On March 16, 2021, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On April 29, 2021, Sling TV L.L.C., Sling Media L.L.C., DISH Network L.L.C., and DISH Technologies L.L.C. filed a petition for rehearing, which was denied on June 28, 2021. On January 12, 2021, Realtime Adaptive Streaming filed a notice of dismissal of its claims on the 535 patent.

​

On July 30, 2021, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. and Sling Media L.L.C., holding that the remaining asserted patent, the 610 patent, is invalid because it claims patent-ineligible abstract subject matter. Realtime Adaptive Streaming has filed a notice of appeal from that ruling. On January 21, 2022, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion to have the case declared “exceptional,” which entitles them to be awarded attorneys’ fees. Independently, on September 21, 2021, in connection with an ex parte reexamination of the validity of the 610 patent, an examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a final office action rejecting each asserted claim of the 610 patent. On February 15, 2022, Realtime Adaptive Streaming filed a notice of appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

​

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. Realtime Adaptive Streaming is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

​

Scenic Licensing LLC

​

On October 27, 2021, Scenic Licensing LLC filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary Sling Media L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges that the Sling Studio product infringes U.S. Patent No. 8,677,420 (the “420 patent”), entitled “Personal monitoring and information apparatus.” On February 28, 2022, Scenic Licensing LLC filed an amended complaint making the same primary allegation. Rather than responding to Sling Media L.L.C.’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which asserted that the 420 patent claims non-patentable subject matter, on April 21, 2022, Scenic Licensing LLC dismissed the case. This matter is now concluded.

​

Sound View Innovations, LLC

​

On December 30, 2019, Sound View Innovations, LLC filed one complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. and a second complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary Sling TV L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint against DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. alleges infringement of United States Patent No 6,502,133 (the “133 patent”), entitled “Real-Time Event Processing System with Analysis Engine Using Recovery Information” and both complaints allege infringement of United States Patent No. 6,708,213 (the “213 patent), entitled “Method for Streaming Multimedia Information Over Public Networks”; United States Patent No. 6,757,796 (the “796 patent”), entitled “Method and System for Caching Streaming Live Broadcasts transmitted Over a Network”; and United States Patent No. 6,725,456 (the “456 patent”), entitled “Methods and Apparatus for Ensuring Quality of Service in an Operating System.” All but the 133 patent are also asserted in the complaint against Sling TV L.L.C.

​

​

On May 21, 2020, June 3, 2020, June 5, 2020 and July 10, 2020, DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of, respectively, the 213 patent, the 133 patent, the 456 patent and the 796 patent. On November 25, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office declined to review the validity of the 213 patent, and on September 29, 2021, denied a request for rehearing of that decision. On January 19, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on the 456 patent but declined to review the 133 patent. On February 24, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on the 796 patent. On January 18, 2022, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a final written decision holding that the challenged claim of the 456 patent is patentable, and on February 8, 2022, it issued a final written decision holding that the challenged claims of the 796 patent are patentable. On March 22, 2022, DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the adverse final written decision regarding the 456 patent, and on April 8, 2022, they filed a notice of appeal to the same court from the adverse final written decision regarding the 796 patent. On April 20, 2022, DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. filed a petition with the United States Patent and Trademark Office requesting ex-parte reexamination of the validity of one of the asserted claims of the 213 patent.

​

We intend to vigorously defend these cases. 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. The plaintiff is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

​

Telemarketing Shareholder Derivative Litigation

​

On October 19, 2017, Plumbers Local Union No. 519 Pension Trust Fund (“Plumbers Local 519”), a purported shareholder of DISH Network, filed a putative shareholder derivative action in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada alleging, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty claims against the following current and former members of DISH Network’s Board of Directors: Charles W. Ergen; James DeFranco; Cantey M. Ergen; Steven R. Goodbarn; David K. Moskowitz; Tom A. Ortolf; Carl E. Vogel; George R. Brokaw; and Gary S. Howard (collectively, the “Director Defendants”). In its complaint, Plumbers Local 519 contends that, by virtue of their alleged failure to appropriately ensure DISH Network’s compliance with telemarketing laws, the Director Defendants exposed DISH Network to liability for telemarketing violations, including those in the Krakauer Action. It also contends that the Director Defendants caused DISH Network to pay improper compensation and benefits to themselves and others who allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to DISH Network. Plumbers Local 519 alleges causes of action for breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty and good faith, gross mismanagement, abuse of control, corporate waste and unjust enrichment. Plumbers Local 519 is seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

​

On November 13, 2017, City of Sterling Heights Police and Fire Retirement System (“Sterling Heights”), a purported shareholder of DISH Network, filed a putative shareholder derivative action in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada. Sterling Heights makes substantially the same allegations as Plumbers Union 519, and alleges causes of action against the Director Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. Sterling Heights is seeking an unspecified amount of damages. Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, on January 4, 2018, the District Court agreed to consolidate the Sterling Heights action with the Plumbers Local 519 action, and on January 12, 2018, the derivative plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint that largely duplicates the original Plumbers Local 519 complaint. DISH Network’s Board of Directors has established a Special Litigation Committee to review the factual allegations and legal claims in this action. On May 15, 2018, the District Court granted the Special Litigation Committee’s motion to stay the case pending its investigation. The Special Litigation Committee’s report was filed on November 27, 2018, and recommended that the Company not pursue the claims asserted by the derivative plaintiffs. On December 20, 2018, the Special Litigation Committee filed a motion seeking deferral to its determination that the claims should be dismissed. Following a two-day evidentiary hearing on July 6-7, 2020, on July 17, 2020, the District Court entered an order granting the Special Litigation Committee’s motion. On August 25, 2020, the derivative plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court, and oral argument on that appeal occurred on February 7, 2022.

​

DISH Network cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

​

TQ Delta, LLC

​

On July 17, 2015, TQ Delta, LLC (“TQ Delta”) filed a complaint against us, DISH Network and our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The Complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 6,961,369 (the “369 patent”), which is entitled “System and Method for Scrambling the Phase of the Carriers in a Multicarrier Communications System”; United States Patent No. 8,718,158 (the “158 patent”), which is entitled “System and Method for Scrambling the Phase of the Carriers in a Multicarrier Communications System”; United States Patent No. 9,014,243 (the “243 patent”), which is entitled “System and Method for Scrambling Using a Bit Scrambler and a Phase Scrambler”; United States Patent No. 7,835,430 (the “430 patent”), which is entitled “Multicarrier Modulation Messaging for Frequency Domain Received Idle Channel Noise Information”; United States Patent No. 8,238,412 (the “412 patent”), which is entitled “Multicarrier Modulation Messaging for Power Level per Subchannel Information”; United States Patent No. 8,432,956 (the “956 patent”), which is entitled “Multicarrier Modulation Messaging for Power Level per Subchannel Information”; and United States Patent No. 8,611,404 (the “404 patent”), which is entitled “Multicarrier Transmission System with Low Power Sleep Mode and Rapid-On Capability.”

​

On September 9, 2015, TQ Delta filed a first amended complaint that added allegations of infringement of United States Patent No. 9,094,268 (the “268 patent”), which is entitled “Multicarrier Transmission System With Low Power Sleep Mode and Rapid-On Capability.” On May 16, 2016, TQ Delta filed a second amended complaint that added EchoStar Corporation and its then wholly-owned subsidiary EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. as defendants. TQ Delta alleges that our satellite TV service, Internet service, set-top boxes, gateways, routers, modems, adapters and networks that operate in accordance with one or more Multimedia over Coax Alliance Standards infringe the asserted patents. TQ Delta has filed actions in the same court alleging infringement of the same patents against Comcast Corp., Cox Communications, Inc., DirecTV, Time Warner Cable Inc. and Verizon Communications, Inc. TQ Delta is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

​

​

On July 14, 2016, TQ Delta stipulated to dismiss with prejudice all claims related to the 369 patent and the 956 patent. On July 20, 2016, we filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of all of the patent claims of the 404 patent and the 268 patent that have been asserted against us. Third parties have filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of all of the patent claims that have been asserted against us in the action. On November 4, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on the third-party petitions related to the 158 patent, the 243 patent, the 412 patent and the 430 patent.

​

On December 20, 2016, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the Court stayed the case until the resolution of all petitions to the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of all of the patent claims at issue. On January 19, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted our motions to join the instituted petitions on the 430 and 158 patents.

​

On February 9, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on our petition related to the 404 patent, and on February 13, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on our petition related to the 268 patent. On February 27, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted our motions to join the instituted petitions on the 243 and 412 patents. On October 26, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued final written decisions on the petitions challenging the 158 patent, the 243 patent, the 412 patent and the 430 patent, and it invalidated all of the asserted claims of those patents. On February 7, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued final written decisions on the petitions challenging the 404 patent, and it invalidated all of the asserted claims of that patent on the basis of our petition. On February 10, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a final written decision on our petition challenging the 268 patent, and it invalidated all of the asserted claims.

​

On March 12, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a final written decision on a third-party petition challenging the 268 patent, and it invalidated all of the asserted claims. All asserted claims have now been invalidated by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. TQ Delta has filed notices of appeal from the final written decisions adverse to it. On May 9, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity of the 430 patent and the 412 patent. On July 10, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity of the asserted claims of the 404 patent. On July 15, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity of the asserted claims of the 268 patent. On November 22, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the invalidity finding on the 243 patent and the 158 patent, and then, on March 29, 2020, denied a petition for panel rehearing as to those findings. On April 13, 2021, the Court lifted the stay, and the case is proceeding on the 243 patent and the 158 patent. On April 23 and April 26, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued orders granting requests for ex parte reexamination of, respectively, the 243 patent and the 158 patent. TQ Delta’s damages expert contends that TQ Delta is entitled to $189 million in damages.

​

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.

​

​

Uniloc 2017 LLC

​

On January 31, 2019, Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Uniloc”) filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary Sling TV L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The Complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 6,519,005 (the “005 patent”), which is entitled “Method of Concurrent Multiple-Mode Motion Estimation for Digital Video”; United States Patent No. 6,895,118 (the “118 patent”), which is entitled “Method of Coding Digital Image Based on Error Concealment”; United States Patent No. 9,721,273 (the “273 patent”), which is entitled “System and Method for Aggregating and Providing Audio and Visual Presentations Via a Computer Network”); and United States Patent No. 8,407,609 (the “609 patent”), which is entitled “System and Method for Providing and Tracking the Provision of Audio and Visual Presentations Via a Computer Network.” Uniloc is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

​

On June 25, 2019, Sling TV L.L.C. filed a petition with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of all of the asserted claims of the 005 patent. On July 19, 2019 and July 22, 2019, respectively, Sling TV L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of all asserted claims of the 273 patent and the 609 patent. On August 12, 2019, Sling TV L.L.C. filed a petition with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of all of the asserted claims of the 118 patent. On October 18, 2019, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the Court entered a stay of the trial proceedings. On January 9, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on the petition challenging the 005 patent.

​

On January 15, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on the petition challenging the 273 patent. On February 4, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on the petition challenging the 609 patent. On February 25, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office declined to institute proceedings on the petition challenging the 118 patent. On December 28, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a final written decision upholding the validity of the challenged claims of the 273 patent. Sling TV L.L.C. filed a notice of appeal from that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and on February 2, 2022, the Federal Circuit vacated the final written decision and remanded to the United States Patent and Trademark Office to reconsider its ruling. On January 5, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a final written decision invalidating all challenged claims of the 005 patent. On January 19, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a final written decision invalidating all challenged claims of the 609 patent (and a second final written decision invalidating all challenged claims of the 609 patent based on a third party’s petition).

​

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.

​

​

Vermont National Telephone Company

​

On September 23, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia unsealed a qui tam complaint that, on May 13, 2015, Vermont National Telephone Company (“Vermont National”) filed against DISH Network; DISH Network’s wholly-owned subsidiaries, American AWS-3 Wireless I L.L.C., American II, American III, and DISH Wireless Holding L.L.C.; Charles W. Ergen (our Chairman) and Cantey M. Ergen (a member of DISH Network’s board of directors); Northstar Wireless; Northstar Spectrum; Northstar Manager, LLC; SNR Wireless; SNR HoldCo; SNR Wireless Management, LLC; and certain other parties. The complaint alleges violations of the federal civil False Claims Act (the “FCA”) based on, among other things, allegations that Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless falsely claimed bidding credits of 25% in the AWS-3 Auction when they were allegedly under the de facto control of DISH Network and, therefore, were not entitled to the bidding credits as designated entities under applicable FCC rules. Vermont National participated in the AWS-3 Auction through its wholly-owned subsidiary, VTel Wireless. The complaint was unsealed after the United States Department of Justice notified the Court that it had declined to intervene in the action. Vermont National seeks to recover on behalf of the United States government approximately $10 billion, which reflects the $3.3 billion in bidding credits that Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless claimed in the AWS-3 Auction, trebled under the FCA. Vermont National also seeks civil penalties of not less than $5,500 and not more than $11,000 for each violation of the FCA. On March 2, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a stay of the litigation until such time as the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (the “D.C. Circuit”) issued its opinion in SNR Wireless LicenseCo, LLC, et al. v. F.C.C. The D.C. Circuit issued its opinion on August 29, 2017 and remanded the matter to the FCC for further proceedings. See Note 10 “Commitments and Contingencies – Commitments – DISH Network Non-Controlling Investments in the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities Related to AWS-3 Wireless Spectrum Licenses” in the Notes to DISH Network’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2022 for further information.

​

Thereafter, the Court maintained the stay until October 26, 2018. On February 11, 2019, the Court granted Vermont National’s unopposed motion for leave to file an amended complaint. On March 28, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss Vermont National’s amended complaint, and on March 23, 2021, the Court granted the motion to dismiss. On April 21, 2021, Vermont National filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, and that court heard oral argument on the appeal on March 3, 2022.

​

DISH Network intends to vigorously defend this case. DISH Network cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this proceeding or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

​

Waste Disposal Inquiry

​

The California Attorney General and the Alameda County (California) District Attorney have investigated whether certain of our former waste disposal policies, procedures and practices violated the California Business and Professions Code and the California Health and Safety Code. On March 8, 2022, we entered into a settlement with those entities under which DISH Network will pay certain civil penalties and other expenses, and will be subject to an injunction imposing certain waste management requirements for the next five years. On March 25, 2022, the Alameda County Superior Court entered the parties’ stipulated judgment. This outcome will not have a material effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. This matter is now concluded.

​

​

Other

​

In addition to the above actions, we are subject to various other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business, including, among other things, disputes with programmers regarding fees. In our opinion, the amount of ultimate liability with respect to any of these actions is unlikely to materially affect our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity, though the outcomes could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

​

​

​

​

Our valuation and qualifying accounts as of March 31, 2022 were as follows:

​

​

Contract liabilities arise when we bill our customers and receive consideration in advance of providing the service. Contract liabilities are recognized as revenue when the service has been provided to the customer. Contract liabilities are recorded in “Deferred revenue and other” and “Long-term deferred revenue and other long-term liabilities” on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

​

​

Our beginning of period contract liability recorded as customer contract revenue during 2022 was $532 million.

​

We apply a practical expedient and do not disclose the value of the remaining performance obligations for contracts that are less than one year in duration, which represent a substantial majority of our revenue. As such, the amount of revenue related to unsatisfied performance obligations is not necessarily indicative of our future revenue.

​

Geographic Information. Revenue is attributed to geographic regions based upon the location where the goods and services are provided. All service revenue was derived from the United States. Substantially all of our long-lived assets reside in the United States.

​

The following table summarizes revenue by geographic region:

​

​

The revenue from external customers disaggregated by major revenue source was as follows:

​

​

​