EchoStar CORP Commitments Disclosure

15.Commitments and Contingencies

​

Commitments

​

As of December 31, 2025, future maturities of our long-term debt, finance lease and contractual obligations are summarized as follows:

​

​

In certain circumstances the dates on which we are obligated to make these payments could be delayed.

The table above does not include $877 million of liabilities associated with unrecognized tax benefits that were accrued, as discussed in Note 11 and are included on our Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2025. We do not expect any portion of this amount to be paid or settled within the next 12 months.

​

Wireless Spectrum Licenses

​

We have invested a total of over $30 billion in wireless spectrum licenses. The $30 billion of investments related to wireless spectrum licenses does not include $10 billion of capitalized interest related to the carrying value of such licenses. See Note 2 for further information. A significant number of these licenses are included in the AT&T Transactions and SpaceX Transactions announced during the third quarter of 2025 as detailed in Note 1 “Recent Developments.”

​

​

Omega License Purchase Agreement. On February 21, 2025, we entered into a License Purchase Agreement providing for the non-cash sale of certain unencumbered 3.45 GHz wireless spectrum licenses in exchange for certain 600 MHz wireless spectrum licenses and our one-time payment of $8 million (the “Omega Transaction”). The Omega Transaction was approved by the FCC and DOJ and closed in the third quarter of 2025. The difference between our net carrying value of the assets sold and the fair value of the licenses received resulted in a gain which was recorded in “Other, net” within “Other Income (Expense)” on our Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss) for the year ended December 31, 2025.

​

Our wireless spectrum licenses are subject to certain build-out requirements, as well as certain renewal requirements that are summarized in the table below:

​

​

​

In a May 5, 2025 filing to the FCC, we certified that we have deployed at least 24,000 5G sites. In a June 17, 2025 filing to the FCC, we certified that we have provisioned at least 75% of new subscribers with an EchoStar-certified 5G device on our MNO network if the subscriber is within the accelerated markets as set forth in Appendices A-F of the Extension Request. See Note 1 “Recent Developments” for further information on the FCC’s recently completed review of our compliance with our obligations regarding our federal spectrum licenses.

​

Under the Extension Request, the final construction deadline shall be further extended to June 14, 2028, if: by December 31, 2024, we have offered reliable signal coverage to, at least, 80% of the U.S. population; and, by June 14, 2025 (a) we have offered a low-cost 5G broadband plan and device to consumers nationwide; (b) we have deployed at least 24,000 5G sites; (c) we have upgraded our deployed 5G sites to 3GPP Release 17; and (d) we have provisioned at least 75% of new subscribers with an EchoStar-certified 5G device on our MNO network if the subscriber is within the accelerated markets as set forth in Appendices A-F of the Extension Request. In a January 10, 2025 filing to the FCC, we certified that, as of December 31, 2024: (i) we were offering reliable signal coverage to, at least, 80% of the U.S. population and (ii) we were offering a low-cost 5G broadband plan and device to consumers nationwide. In a March 17, 2025 filing to the FCC, we certified that we have upgraded our deployed 5G sites to 3GPP Release 17. In a May 5, 2025 filing to the FCC, we certified that we have deployed at least 24,000 5G sites. In a June 17, 2025 filing to the FCC, we certified that we have provisioned at least 75% of new subscribers with an EchoStar-certified 5G device on our MNO network if the subscriber is within the accelerated markets as set forth in Appendices A-F of the Extension Request. See Note 1 “Recent Developments” for further information on the FCC’s recently completed review of our compliance with our obligations regarding our federal spectrum licenses.

​

In September 2024, the FCC conditionally granted our requests to extend the 5G deployment deadlines for certain of our wireless spectrum licenses based on several commitments and in a January 10, 2025 filing to the FCC, we certified to meeting the accelerated buildout (Commitments #2 and #3 of the Extension Request) and the nationwide 80% coverage obligations (Commitment #1 of the Extension Request) due by December 31, 2024, as defined and detailed in the footnotes to the table above. Thus, pursuant to the Extension Request, the final deployment deadlines for the licenses subject to the Extension Request (listed in Appendix G) shall be extended to December 14, 2026.

​

While the FCC has not yet updated the build-out deadlines in the Universal Licensing System, the licenses remain in effect based upon the submission of our build-out certifications. In addition, the final deployment deadlines for the licenses subject to the Extension Request (listed in Appendix G) shall be further extended to June 14, 2028 since we satisfied the remaining Extension Request commitments, as defined and detailed in the footnotes to the table above. See Note 1 “Recent Developments – FCC Review” for further information on the FCC’s recently completed review of our compliance with our obligations regarding our federal spectrum licenses.

​

AWS-3 Auction

​

Northstar Wireless is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Northstar Spectrum, which is an entity owned by us and, prior to October 12, 2023, by us and Northstar Manager. SNR Wireless is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SNR HoldCo, which is an entity owned by us and, prior to February 16, 2024, by us and SNR Management. See Note 2 for further information. Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless each filed applications with the FCC to participate in Auction 97 (the “AWS-3 Auction”) for the purpose of acquiring certain AWS-3 Licenses. Each of Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless applied to receive bidding credits of 25% as designated entities under applicable FCC rules.

​

FCC Order and October 2015 Arrangements. On August 18, 2015, the FCC released a Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 15-104 (the “Order”) in which the FCC determined, among other things, that DISH Network has a controlling interest in, and is an affiliate of, Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless, and therefore DISH Network’s revenues should be attributed to them, which in turn makes Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless ineligible to receive the 25% bidding credits (approximately $1.961 billion for Northstar Wireless and $1.370 billion for SNR Wireless).

​

On November 23, 2020, the FCC released a Memorandum Opinion and Order on Remand, FCC 20-160, that found that Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless are not eligible for bidding credits based on the FCC’s determination that they remain under DISH Network’s de facto control. Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless appealed the FCC’s order to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 21, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an Opinion rejecting this challenge. On January 17, 2023, Northstar Wireless filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the United States Supreme Court to hear a further appeal, but that petition was denied on June 30, 2023.

​

Letters Exchanged between Northstar Wireless and the FCC Wireless Bureau. As outlined in letters exchanged between Northstar Wireless and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau of the FCC (the “FCC Wireless Bureau”), Northstar Wireless paid the gross winning bid amounts for 261 AWS-3 Licenses and notified the FCC that it would not be paying the gross winning bid amounts for 84 AWS-3 Licenses. As a result of the nonpayment of those gross winning bid amounts, the FCC retained those licenses.

​

In addition, we will be subject to a default payment with respect to the licenses for which Northstar Wireless did not pay the gross winning bids (the “Northstar Re-Auction Payment”). The Northstar Re-Auction Payment has two components. First, if the winning bids at re-auction are less than the winning bids of Northstar Wireless, we will be responsible for the difference between the two bids. The second component is an additional payment in the amount of fifteen percent (15%) of Northstar Wireless’s bid or the subsequent winning bids, whichever is less. The amount of the Northstar Re-Auction Payment will be offset by the $334 million interim payment Northstar Wireless has already made. For example, if the winning bids in a re-auction are $1, the Northstar Re-Auction Payment would be approximately $2.226 billion, which is calculated as the difference between $2.226 billion (the Northstar winning bid amounts) and $1 (the winning bids from re-auction), plus 15% of the $1 (the winning bids from re-auction), If the winning bids from re-auction or other award of the AWS-3 licenses retained by the FCC are greater than or equal to the winning bids of Northstar Wireless, the Northstar Re-Auction Payment would be approximately $334 million, calculated as fifteen percent (15%) of $2.226 billion (Northstar Wireless’s defaulted bids). In each case, the amount of the Northstar Re-Auction Payment would be offset by the $334 million interim payment Northstar already made, resulting in a maximum exposure of $1.892 billion. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of any re-auction or the amount of any Northstar Re-Auction Payment. The re-auction of the AWS-3 licenses has been designated as Auction 113 and the FCC is required to initiate Auction 113 by June 23, 2026.

​

Letters Exchanged between SNR Wireless and the FCC Wireless Bureau. As outlined in letters exchanged between SNR Wireless and the FCC Wireless Bureau, SNR Wireless paid the gross winning bid amounts for 244 AWS-3 Licenses and notified the FCC that it would not be paying the gross winning bid amounts for 113 AWS-3 Licenses. As a result of the nonpayment of those gross winning bid amounts, the FCC retained those licenses.

​

In addition, we will be subject to a default payment with respect to the licenses for which SNR Wireless did not pay the gross winning bids (the “SNR Re-Auction Payment”). The SNR Re-Auction Payment has two components. First, if the winning bids at re-auction are less than the winning bids of SNR Wireless, we will be responsible for the difference between the two bids. The second component is an additional payment in the amount of fifteen percent (15%) of SNR Wireless’s bid or the subsequent winning bids, whichever is less. The amount of the SNR Re-Auction Payment will be offset by the $182 million interim payment SNR Wireless has already made. For example, if the winning bids in a re-auction are $1, the SNR Re-Auction Payment would be approximately $1.211 billion, which is calculated as the difference between $1.211 billion (the SNR winning bid amounts) and $1 (the winning bids from re-auction), plus 15% of the $1 (the winning bids from re-auction). If the winning bids from re-auction of the AWS-3 licenses retained by the FCC are greater than or equal to the winning bids of SNR Wireless, the SNR Re-Auction Payment would be approximately $182 million, calculated as fifteen percent (15%) of $1.211 billion (SNR Wireless’s defaulted bids). In each case, the amount of the SNR Re-Auction Payment would be offset by the $182 million interim payment SNR already made, resulting in a maximum exposure of $1.029 billion. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of any re-auction or the amount of any SNR Re-Auction Payment. The re-auction of the AWS-3 licenses has been designated as Auction 113 and the FCC is required to initiate Auction 113 by June 23, 2026.

​

​

D.C. Circuit Court Opinion. On August 29, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the “D.C. Circuit”) in SNR Wireless LicenseCo, LLC, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, 868 F.3d 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (the “Appellate Decision”) affirmed the Order in part, and remanded the matter to the FCC to give Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless an opportunity to seek to negotiate a cure of the issues identified by the FCC in the Order (a “Cure”). On January 26, 2018, SNR Wireless and Northstar Wireless filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, asking the United States Supreme Court to hear an appeal from the Appellate Decision, which the United States Supreme Court denied on June 25, 2018.

​

Order on Remand. On January 24, 2018, the FCC released an Order on Remand, DA 18-70 (the “Order on Remand”) purporting to establish a procedure to afford Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless the opportunity to implement a Cure pursuant to the Appellate Decision. On June 8, 2018, Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless each filed amended agreements to demonstrate that, in light of such changes, each of Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless qualified for the very small business bidding credit that it sought in the AWS-3 Auction. Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless filed a Joint Application for Review of the Order on Remand requesting, among other things, an iterative negotiation process with the FCC regarding a Cure, which was denied on July 12, 2018. The pleading cycle established in the Order on Remand concluded in October 2018. On November 23, 2020, the FCC issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order that concluded, among other things, that DISH Network retained de facto control over Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless and denied the very small business bidding credit sought by Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless, even though the parties had eliminated or significantly modified every provision previously deemed to have been disqualifying by the FCC. Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless timely filed an appeal of the FCC’s 2020 decision. On June 21, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an Opinion rejecting this challenge. On January 17, 2023, Northstar Wireless filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the United States Supreme Court to hear a further appeal, but that petition was denied on June 30, 2023.

​

For further information, refer to the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023.

​

Satellite Insurance

​

We generally do not carry commercial in-orbit insurance on any of the satellites we own. We generally do not use commercial insurance to mitigate the potential financial impact of in-orbit failures because we believe that the cost of insurance premiums is uneconomical relative to the risk of such failures. While we generally have had in-orbit satellite capacity sufficient to transmit our existing channels and some backup capacity to recover the transmission of certain critical programming, our backup capacity is limited. In the event of a failure or loss of any of our owned or leased satellites, we may need to acquire or lease additional satellite capacity or relocate one of our other owned or leased satellites and use it as a replacement for the failed or lost satellite.

​

Purchase Obligations

​

Our 2026 purchase obligations primarily consist of binding purchase orders for certain fixed contractual commitments to purchase programming content, receiver systems and related equipment, satellites and satellite launch contracts, wireless devices, Hybrid MNO costs, broadband equipment, digital broadcast operations, transmission costs, streaming delivery technology and infrastructure, engineering services, software and other products and services. Our purchase obligations may fluctuate significantly from period to period due to, among other things, management’s timing of payments and inventory purchases, which 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 increase to the extent we are successful in growing our Pay-TV subscriber base. In addition, programming costs per subscriber continue to increase due to contractual price increases and the renewal of long-term programming contracts on less favorable pricing terms.

​

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

​

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.

​

Individual Litigations Commenced by Certain Tower and Infrastructure Vendors

​

DISH Wireless L.L.C. is currently a defendant in multiple, independent legal actions in various jurisdictions brought by various tower and infrastructure vendors. While these actions involve certain overlapping defenses generally related to the abandonment and decommissioning of certain portions of our 5G Network that will not be utilized in our Hybrid MNO business, in light of the FCC forcing us and certain of our affiliates to sell the spectrum on which our 5G Network was based, each action represents a separate and distinct proceeding.

​

American Towers

​

On October 20, 2025, American Towers LLC, SpectraSite Communications, LLC and InSite Wireless Group, LLC (collectively “ATC”) filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Wireless L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. ATC seeks a declaration that DISH Wireless has not been excused from performing its obligations under the parties’ Strategic Collocation Agreement, which relates to tower facilities for our 5G Network. DISH Wireless previously notified ATC that DISH Wireless’s performance is excused in light of the FCC forcing us and certain of our affiliates to sell the spectrum on which our 5G Network was based, which constituted, among other legal remedies, a force majeure event.

​

We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit.

​

Comcast Business Communications

On February 27, 2026, Comcast Business Communications, LLC filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit against us and our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Wireless L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Comcast Business Communications is seeking a declaratory judgment that DISH Wireless is not excused from performing any of its obligations under those parties’ Master Service Agreement, which relates to fiber connections for our 5G network. It also alleges that we interfered with DISH Wireless’s performance under the Master Services Agreement. Comcast Business Communications is seeking $54 million in damages. DISH Wireless previously notified Comcast Business Communications that DISH Wireless’s performance is excused in light of the FCC forcing us and certain of our affiliates to sell the spectrum on which our 5G Network was based which constituted, among other legal remedies, a force majeure event.

We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit.

​

Crown Castle

​

On November 20, 2025, Crown Castle-affiliated lessors who entered into a Master Lease Agreement (“MLA”) with DISH Wireless L.L.C., which relates to tower facilities for our 5G Network, and Crown Castle Fiber LLC, which entered into a Master Product Agreement (“MPA”) with DISH Wireless L.L.C., which relates to fiber and other infrastructure for our 5G Network, filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Wireless L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The Crown Castle plaintiffs are seeking declaratory judgments confirming that DISH Wireless is not excused from performing any of its obligations under the parties’ agreements. DISH Wireless previously notified the Crown Castle plaintiffs that DISH Wireless’s performance is excused in light of the FCC forcing us and certain of our affiliates to sell the spectrum on which our 5G Network was based, which constituted, among other legal remedies, a force majeure event. On January 30, 2026, the Crown Castle plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that added claims for breach of the MPA and MLA based on unpaid invoices; added us as a defendant for allegedly tortiously interfering with the MLA and the MPA; and added our wholly owned subsidiary DISH Purchasing Corporation as a defendant for allegedly breaching the parties’ Deployment Services Agreement by failing to pay $9.5 million.

​

We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit.

​

Diamond Towers

​

On January 19, 2026, Diamond Towers II LLC, Diamond Towers IV LLC, Diamond Towers V LLC, Capital Telecom Holdings LLC, Capital Telecom Holdings II LLC, DCHSCU Acquisition Holdings, LLC, A Diamond Infra LLC, B Diamond Infra LLC, C Diamond Infra LLC, and D Diamond Infra LLC, which entered into agreements with DISH Wireless L.L.C. for tower and rooftop facilities for our 5G Network, filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Wireless L.L.C. in the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado. The plaintiffs are seeking a declaratory judgment confirming that DISH Wireless is not excused from performing any of its obligations under the parties’ agreements. DISH Wireless previously notified the plaintiffs that DISH Wireless’s performance is excused in light of the FCC forcing us and certain of our affiliates to sell the spectrum on which our 5G Network was based, which constituted, among other legal remedies, a force majeure event.

​

We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit.

​

Harmoni Towers

On January 29, 2026, Harmoni Towers Infrastructure LLC (“Harmoni”) filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Wireless L.L.C. in the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado. Harmoni alleges that DISH Wireless has breached lease agreements related to tower facilities for our 5G Network, and seeks $16.3 million in damages. DISH Wireless previously notified Harmoni that DISH Wireless’s performance is excused in light of the FCC forcing us and certain of our affiliates to sell the spectrum on which our 5G Network was based, which constituted, among other legal remedies, a force majeure event.

We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit.

​

SBA

On February 5, 2026, SBA Telecommunications, LLC; SBA Sites, LLC; SBA Towers II LLC; SBA Towers, LLC; SBA Properties, LLC; SBA Towers V, LLC; SBA Towers VII, LLC; SBA Towers IV, LLC; SBA Towers VI, LLC; TV6 Holdings LLC; SBA Towers IX, LLC; SBA Structures, LLC; SBA Towers X, LLC; SBA Monarch Towers I, LLC; SBA Monarch Steel, LLC; SBA Monarch Towers III, LLC; SBA 2012 TC Assets, LLC; SBA Towers VIII, LLC; SBA GC Towers, LLC; SBA Infrastructure, LLC; SBA Towers III LLC; SBA Steel LLC; SBA Steel II, LLC; SBA Towers XI, LLC; and SBA BTS, LLC (collectively “SBA”) filed a breach of contract lawsuit against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Wireless L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. SBA contends that DISH Wireless has breached the parties’ tower lease agreements. DISH Wireless previously notified SBA that DISH Wireless’s performance is excused in light of the FCC forcing us and certain of our affiliates to sell the spectrum on which our 5G Network was based, which constituted, among other legal remedies, a force majeure event.

We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit.

​

​

Zayo Group

​

On November 26, 2025, Zayo Group, LLC, which has a Master Services Agreement with DISH Wireless L.L.C. relating to high-speed fiber and transport services as well as network connectivity issues for our 5G Network, filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Wireless L.L.C. in the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado. Zayo Group is seeking a declaratory judgment confirming DISH Wireless is not excused from performing any of its obligations under the parties’ Master Services Agreement. DISH Wireless previously notified Zayo Group that DISH Wireless’s performance is excused in light of the FCC forcing us and certain of our affiliates to sell the spectrum on which our 5G Network was based, which constituted, among other legal remedies, a force majeure event.

​

We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit.

​

Other Litigations

​

ClearPlay, Inc.

​

On March 13, 2014, ClearPlay, Inc. (“ClearPlay”) filed a complaint against us and our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network and DISH Network L.L.C., and our 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 boxes 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, and in May 2017, ClearPlay agreed to dismiss us and DISH Network as defendants, leaving DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. as the sole defendants.

​

In October and November 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 in November and December, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted each request for reexamination. On May through July 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued Ex Parte Reexamination Certificates confirming the patentability of the challenged claims.

​

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. On January 24, 2022, an examiner of the United States Patent and Trademark Office affirmed the challenged claims of the 799 patent, and on January 19, 2023, an examiner of the United States Patent and Trademark Office affirmed the challenged claims of the 970 patent.

​

​

In an order dated January 31, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part DISH Network L.L.C.’s and DISH Technologies L.L.C.’s motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, ClearPlay narrowed its case to three asserted claims: one under the 799 patent and two under the 970 patent. Following a two-week trial, on March 10, 2023, the jury returned a verdict that DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. infringed each of the asserted patent claims (though not willfully), and awarded damages of $469 million. That verdict became moot on March 21, 2023, when the trial court indicated that it would grant DISH Network L.L.C.’s and DISH Technologies L.L.C.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, thus effectively vacating the jury award. On June 2, 2023, the Court entered its formal order granting judgment as a matter of law. On December 12, 2023, the Court denied ClearPlay’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. ClearPlay has filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and oral argument has been scheduled for March 3, 2026.

​

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.

​

Data Breach Class Actions

​

On May 9, 2023, Susan Owen-Brooks, an alleged customer, filed a putative class action complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. She purports to represent a nationwide class of all individuals in the United States who allegedly had private information stolen as a result of the February 23, 2023 cybersecurity incident (and a North Carolina statewide subclass of the same individuals). Since that filing, ten additional putative class action complaints have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, purporting to represent the same nationwide class of people, and Owen-Brooks has filed an amended complaint. On August 2, 2023, the Court issued an order consolidating the first ten cases (the eleventh was dismissed) and, on November 16, 2023 and January 16, 2024, the plaintiffs filed consolidated amended class action complaints. On September 27, 2024, the Court granted DISH Network’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint as to eight of the eleven named plaintiffs and as to certain causes of action. On October 29, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which deletes the allegations as to the dismissed plaintiffs and causes of action, leaving three named plaintiffs and causes of action for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and declaratory judgment. DISH Network filed for summary judgment on lack of standing, on the grounds that plaintiffs had no evidence that their alleged harms were “fairly traceable” to the cybersecurity incident. Rather than oppose the motion, the plaintiffs agreed to a walk-away settlement and the case was dismissed on September 10, 2025. This matter is now concluded.

​

Digital Broadcasting Solutions, LLC

​

On August 29, 2022, Digital Broadcasting Solutions, LLC filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,929,710 (the “710 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 9,538,122 (the “122 patent”), each entitled “System and method for time shifting at least a portion of a video program.” Generally, the plaintiff contends that the AutoHop feature of our Hopper® set-top boxes infringes the asserted patents. On June 21, 2023, the Court granted the motion of DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. to have the case transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

​

​

In May 2023, 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 all claims of the 710 patent and the 122 patent and, on December 9, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued final written decisions invalidating 38 of the 39 challenged claims. Digital Broadcasting Solutions appealed those final written decisions, and DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. cross-appealed as to the single patent claim that wasn’t invalidated. Briefing was completed on October 17, 2025. The underlying case has been stayed since May 9, 2024, pending resolution of the petitions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and any related appeals.

​

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 (first action)

​

On March 9, 2022, Entropic Communications, LLC (“Entropic”) filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network, 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. The plaintiff is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

​

On October 24, 2022, this case was ordered to be transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. A companion case against DirecTV was also ordered transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In January and February of 2023, DISH Network L.L.C. and Dish Network Service L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of all claims of the 715 patent, all claims of the 008 patent, and 25 claims of the 576 patent, which includes all of its asserted claims. In August and September 2023, the Patent Office denied institution on the petitions challenging the 715 patent and the 576 patent. In September 2023, at the parties’ joint request, the Patent Office dismissed the petition challenging the 008 patent, as Entropic agreed to drop its claims against DISH Network on that patent. On July 12, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted a request for reexamination of the 715 patent, but on May 20, 2025, it affirmed the patent’s validity. Entropic’s expert claims that the DISH defendants owe damages of $212 million.

​

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 (second action)

​

On February 10, 2023, Entropic filed a second lawsuit against our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network, DISH Network L.L.C., Dish Network Service L.L.C. and Dish Network California Service Corporation in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518 (the “518 patent”), entitled “Broadband network for coaxial cable using multi-carrier modulation”; U.S. Patent No. 7,594,249 (the “249 patent”), entitled “Network interface device and broadband local area network using coaxial cable”; U.S. Patent Nos. 7,889,759 (the “759 patent”), entitled “Broadband cable network utilizing common bit-loading”; U.S. Patent No. 8,085,802 (the “802 Patent”), entitled “Multimedia over coaxial cable access protocol”; U.S. Patent No. 9,838,213 (the “213 patent”), entitled “Parameterized quality of service architecture in a network”; U.S. Patent No. 10,432,422 (the “422 patent”), entitled “Parameterized quality of service architecture in a network”; U.S. Patent No. 8,631,450 (the “450 patent”), entitled “Broadband local area network”; U.S. Patent No. 8,621,539 (the “539 patent”), entitled “Physical layer transmitter for use in a broadband local area network”; U.S. Patent No. 8,320,566 (the “0,566 patent”), entitled “Method and apparatus for performing constellation scrambling in a multimedia home network”; U.S. Patent No. 10,257,566 (the “7,566 patent”), entitled “Broadband local area network”; U.S. Patent No. 8,228,910 (the “910 Patent”), entitled “Aggregating network packets for transmission to a destination mode”; and U.S. Patent No. 8,363,681 (the “681 patent”), entitled “Method and apparatus for using ranging measurements in a multimedia home network.” Generally, the patents relate to Multimedia over Coax Alliance standards and the manner in which we provide a whole-home DVR network over an on-premises coaxial cable network.

​

Entropic has asserted the same patents in the same court against Comcast, Cox and DirecTV. On September 7, 2023, the Court granted the motion of DISH Network L.L.C., Dish Network Service L.L.C. and Dish Network California Service Corporation to dismiss the claims arising from the 7,566 patent and the 910 patent on the grounds that they claimed in eligible subject matter. On February 24, 2025, the Court granted other defendants’ motions to dismiss the claims arising from the 213 patent, the 422 patent, the 681 patent and the 802 patent on the grounds that they claimed in eligible subject matter. In a claim construction order issued on April 18, 2025, the Court found that the asserted claim of the 539 patent is invalid as indefinite.

​

In January and February 2024, DISH Network L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of the 249 patent, the 518 patent, the 759 patent, the 450 patent, the 539 patent, the 0,566 patent, and the 681 patent. In July and August 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on the petitions challenging the 249 patent and the 518 patent, but denied institution on the remaining petitions. On July 22, 2025, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued final written decisions invalidating the asserted claims of the 249 patent and the 518 patent, but on November 14, 2025, following a review by its Director, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a new final written decision upholding the validity of the asserted claim from the 249 patent. Entropic has appealed the decision on the 518 patent and DISH Network L.L.C. has appealed the decision on the 249 patent.

​

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.

​

​

Err Content IP

On November 3, 2025, Err Content IP, LLC filed a complaint against EchoStar Communications Corporation, the predecessor to our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network Corporation, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 10,721,542 (the “542 Patent”), entitled “Bandwidth shaping client to capture, transform, cache, and upload images from a remote point of recordation to a network service.” The infringement allegations generally relate to using AirPlay to watch content from the DISH Anywhere app on a paired television screen. On December 3, 2025 Err Content filed an amended complaint adding allegations of induced and contributory infringement. On February 2, 2026, upon the parties’ joint motion, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

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.

​

Headwater Research

​

On August 28 and 29, 2025, Headwater Research LLC filed five separate lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network Corporation, DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Wireless L.L.C. The first complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,639,935 (the “935 patent”), entitled “Automated device provisioning and activation”; 9,609,510 (the “510 patent”), entitled “Automated credential porting for mobile devices”; 9,973,930 (the “930 patent”), entitled “End user device that secures an association of application to service policy with an application certificate check”; 11,096,055 (the “055 patent”), entitled “Automated device provisioning and activation”; 11,405,429 (the “429 patent”), entitled “Security techniques for device assisted services”; 11,966,464 (the “464 patent), entitled “Security techniques for device assisted services”; and 11,985,155 (the “155 patent”), entitled “Automated device provisioning and activation.” The second complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent 9,179,359 (the “359 patent”), entitled “Wireless end-user device with differentiated network access status for different device applications;” 9,277,445 (the “445 patent”), entitled “Wireless end-user device with differential traffic control policy list and applying foreground classification to wireless data service;” and 9,609,544 (the “544 patent”), entitled “Device-assisted services for protecting network capacity.”

​

The third complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,666,364, (the “364 patent”), entitled “Verifiable device assisted service usage billing with integrated accounting, mediation accounting, and multiaccount;” 9,143,976 (the “976 patent”), entitled “Wireless end-user device with differentiated network access and access status for background and foreground device applications;” and 9,647,918 (the “918 patent”), entitled “Mobile device and method attributing media services network usage to requesting application.” The fourth complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,635,335 (the “335 patent”), entitled “System and method for wireless network offloading”; 10,791,471 (the “471 patent”), entitled “System and method for wireless network offloading”; and 10,237,757 (the “757 patent”), entitled “System and method for wireless network offloading.” The fifth complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,023,425 (the “425 patent”), entitled “Verifiable service billing for intermediate networking devices”; 8,631,102 (the “102 patent”), entitled “Automated device provisioning and activation”; and 8,799,451 (the “451 patent”), entitled “Verifiable service policy implementation for intermediate networking devices.”

​

The asserted patents generally relate to eSIM management, data management, application data traffic management, wireless data offloading and tethering operations. Headwater also has filed complaints against Apple, Google, Motorola, Samsung, Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T, Sprint, Amazon, Charter, and Comcast.

​

​

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.

​

Hughes Telecomunicações do Brasil v. State of São Paulo Treasury Department

​

On December 12, 2019, Hughes Telecomunicações do Brasil (“HTB”) filed a tax annulment claim in the Judicial Court of São Paulo, claiming that a tax assessment from the State Treasury of São Paulo, for the period from January 2013 to December 2014, was based on an erroneous interpretation of an exemption to the ICMS (a state tax on, among other things, communications).

​

In June 2022, a judicial expert determined that HTB’s interpretation of the exemption was correct. Nonetheless, in July 2023, the Court entered judgment against HTB, and in October 2023, rejected HTB’s request for clarification. In November 2023, HTB filed an appeal to the Court of Justice, but on February 25, 2025, the Court of Justice ruled against HTB. On March 14, 2025, HTB filed a motion seeking clarification, but that motion was denied on October 24, 2025. HTB has filed a new motion for clarification.

​

We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit.

​

Jones 401(k) Litigation

​

On December 20, 2021, four former employees filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network, its Board of Directors, and its 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. On February 1, 2023, a Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint be granted, and on March 27, 2023, the district court judge granted the motion. As permitted by the Court’s order, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2023, which is limited to allegations regarding the retention and alleged underperformance of the Fidelity Freedom Funds. On November 7, 2023, a Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint be denied as to the duty to prudently monitor fund performance, but be granted as to the duty of loyalty and, on November 27, 2023, the district court judge entered an order adopting the recommendation. On March 1, 2024, by stipulation, the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against the Board of Directors and the Retirement Plan Committee, leaving DISH Network as the sole defendant.

​

On April 30, 2024, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court certified the proposed plaintiff class. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the case was stayed from October 30, 2024 through May 29, 2025 to facilitate a mediation, but the parties did not reach a settlement. The plaintiffs’ expert claims damages of $16.7 million, which is reduced to $10.7 million when Fidelity revenue sharing is credited.

​

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

​

​

License Fee Dispute with Government of India, Department of Telecommunications

​

In 1994, the Government of India promulgated a “National Telecommunications Policy” under which the government liberalized the telecommunications sector and required telecommunications service providers to pay fixed license fees. Pursuant to this policy, our subsidiary Hughes Communications India Private Limited (“HCIPL”), formerly known as Hughes Escorts Communications Limited, obtained a license to operate a data network over satellite using VSAT systems. In 2002, HCIPL’s license was amended pursuant to a 1999 government policy that eliminated fixed license fees and replaced them with license fees based on service providers’ adjusted gross revenue (“AGR”). In March 2005, the Indian Department of Telecommunications (“DOT”) notified HCIPL that, based on its review of HCIPL’s audited accounts and AGR statements, HCIPL must pay additional license fees and penalties and interest on such fees and penalties. HCIPL responded that the DOT had improperly calculated its AGR by including revenue from both licensed and unlicensed activities.

​

The DOT rejected this explanation and in 2006, HCIPL filed a petition with an administrative tribunal (the “Tribunal”), challenging the DOT’s calculation of its AGR. The DOT also issued license fee assessments to other telecommunications service providers and those other providers filed similar petitions with the Tribunal. These petitions were amended, consolidated, remanded and re-appealed several times. On April 23, 2015, the Tribunal issued a judgment affirming the DOT’s calculation of AGR for the telecommunications service providers but reversing the DOT’s imposition of interest, penalties and interest on such penalties as excessive.

​

Over subsequent years, the DOT and HCIPL and other telecommunications service providers, respectively, filed several appeals of the Tribunal’s ruling. On October 24, 2019, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) issued an order (the “October 2019 Order”) affirming the license fee assessments imposed by the DOT, including its imposition of interest, penalties and interest on the penalties, but without indicating the amount HCIPL was required to pay the DOT, and ordering payment by January 23, 2020. On November 23, 2019, HCIPL and other telecommunication service providers filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to reconsider the October 2019 Order. The petition was denied on January 20, 2020. On January 22, 2020, HCIPL and other telecommunication service providers filed an application requesting that the Supreme Court modify the October 2019 Order to permit the DOT to calculate the final amount due and extend HCIPL’s and the other telecommunication service providers’ payment deadline. On February 14, 2020, the Supreme Court directed HCIPL and the other telecommunication service providers to explain why the Supreme Court should not initiate contempt proceedings for failure to pay the amounts due.

​

During a hearing on March 18, 2020, the Supreme Court ordered that all amounts that were due before the October 2019 Order must be paid, including interest, penalties and interest on the penalties. The Supreme Court also ordered that the parties appear for a further hearing addressing, among other things, a proposal by the DOT to allow for extended or deferred payments of amounts due. On June 11, 2020, the Supreme Court ordered HCIPL and the other telecommunication service providers to submit affidavits addressing the proposal made by the DOT to extend the time frame for payment of the amounts owed and for HCIPL and the other telecommunication providers to provide security for such payments.

​

On September 1, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a judgment permitting a 10-year payment schedule. Under this payment schedule, HCIPL is required to make an annual payment every March 31, through 2031. Following the Supreme Court of India’s October 2019 judgment, HCIPL made payments during the first quarter of 2020, and additional payments on each March 31 thereafter. As of December 31, 2025, the gross amount of fees, penalties and interest owed was approximately $91 million with $46 million remaining outstanding as a result of historical payments.

​

Pursuant to the Contribution and Membership Interest Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) dated December 3, 2004 between The DirecTV Group, Inc. (“DirecTV”) and certain other entities relating to DirecTV’s spinoff of certain of its subsidiaries, including HCIPL, DirecTV undertook to indemnify HCIPL for certain pre-closing tax liabilities. On March 27, 2020, HCIPL filed an indemnification complaint against DirecTV in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking to recover certain license fees, penalties and interest owed to the Indian government as a result of the aforementioned proceedings. On November 16, 2021, the New York court granted summary judgment in favor of DirecTV, but on June 22, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that, under the Purchase Agreement, HCIPL is entitled to indemnification from DirecTV. The Second Circuit remanded the case back to the trial court to determine the amount of indemnification owed. The parties reached a conditional agreement to settle the matter, but the conditions were not met, so the stay entered on October 3, 2024 was lifted on November 22, 2024. On July 8, 2025, a magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that DirecTV should have to indemnify HCIPL only for license fees, penalties and interest that would have been owing to the DOT as of the April 22, 2005 closing date of the spinoff, but not the penalties and interest that compounded on such pre-closing amounts during the course of the litigation in India. By agreement of the parties, the case was dismissed on September 2, 2025. This matter is now concluded.

​

Lingam Securities Class Action (formerly Jaramillo)

​

On March 23, 2023, a securities fraud class action complaint was filed against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network and Messrs. Ergen, Carlson and Orban in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint was brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of our securities during the February 22, 2021 to February 27, 2023 class period. In general, the complaint alleged that DISH Network’s public statements during that period were false and misleading and contained material omissions, because they did not disclose that DISH Network allegedly maintained a deficient cybersecurity and information technology infrastructure, were unable to properly secure customer data and DISH Network’s operations were susceptible to widespread service outages.

​

In August 2023, the Court appointed a new lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff’s counsel, and, on October 20, 2023, they filed a First Amended Complaint that abandoned the original allegations. In their First Amended Complaint, plaintiffs alleged that, during the class period, the defendants concealed problems concerning the 5G network build-out that prevented scaling and commercializing the network to obtain enterprise customers. The amended complaint added as individual defendants James S. Allen, DISH Network’s Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer; John Swieringa, our President, Technology and Chief Operating Officer; Dave Mayo, DISH Network’s former Executive Vice President of Network Development; Marc Rouanne, DISH Network’s former Executive Vice President and Chief Network Officer; and Stephen Bye, DISH Network’s former Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer.

​

After the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, asserting the same theory, on February 23, 2024. The new complaint drops Erik Carlson, John Swieringa, Paul Orban and James Allen as individual defendants. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, and on March 20, 2025, the Court granted the motion without granting plaintiffs permission to further amend. The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and on February 17, 2026, that court unanimously affirmed the trial court’s dismissal.

​

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

​

​

Mesa Digital

​

On November 27, 2024, Mesa Digital, LLC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Wireless alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 9,031,537, entitled “Electronic Wireless Hand Held Multimedia Device.” Generally, it relates to an electronic handheld device with a touch-sensitive display. On March 31, 2025, the case was dismissed pursuant to a stipulation under which Mesa Digital gave DISH Wireless a covenant not to sue on any of its patents, without any payment from DISH Wireless. This matter is now concluded.

​

Mobility Workx

​

On December 3, 2024, Mobility Workx, LLC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Wireless alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 7,697,508, entitled “System, Apparatus and Methods for Proactive Allocation of Wireless Communication Resources.” Generally, it relates to hand-offs in a mobile network. On July 7, 2025, the case was dismissed under the terms of a non-material confidential settlement. This matter is now concluded.

​

Morris Routing Technologies

​

On August 8, 2025, Morris Routing Technologies LLC filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Wireless L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. It alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,652,133 (the “133 patent”); 10,574,562 (the “562 patent”); 10,652,134 (the “134 patent”); 10,757,010 (the “010 patent”); 10,805,204 (the “204 patent”); 11,757,756 (the “756 patent”); and 11,784,914 (the “914 patent”), each entitled “Routing methods, systems, and computer program products.” Generally, the patents are directed to transmitting data in an end-to-end network routing path by embedding segment identifiers into packet headers. Morris Routing also has brought cases against AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Samsung, Comcast and Microsoft, among others. Because DISH Wireless L.L.C.’s vendor for the accused technology took a license to the asserted patents, the parties jointly stipulated to dismissal of the case on December 11, 2025. This matter is now concluded.

​

NewSpace India Limited

​

In October 2025, NewSpace India Limited (“NSIL”) sued our wholly-owned subsidiary Hughes Communications India Private Limited (“HCIPL”), claiming that HCIPL unlawfully terminated the parties’ agreement for HCIPL to take capacity on the GSAT 20 satellite. HCIPL had terminated the parties’ agreement on December 6, 2024, citing, among other reasons, NSIL’s failure to meet the contractual provision for a timely launch. NSIL seeks a declaration that HCIPL’s termination was premature and void, a temporary and permanent injunction restraining HCIPL from terminating or breaching the agreement, and damages of approximately 10.6 billion Indian Rupees (USD $117 million).

​

We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit.

​

​

Peninsula Technologies

On April 15, 2025, Peninsula Technologies, LLC filed two lawsuits against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Wireless L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In the first lawsuit, Peninsula Technologies alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,844,009 (the “009 patent”), entitled “Power Headroom Report In A Wireless Device With Carrier Aggregation”; 11,792,743 (the “743 patent”), entitled “Transmit Power Priority Based On Cell Types In Wireless Devices”; 11,824,810 (the “4,810 patent”), entitled “Restarting A Deactivation Timer Of A Secondary Cell In A Wireless Network”; and 11,917,549 (the “549 patent”), entitled “Scaling Transmission Power Of Uplink Signals Of A Wireless Device.” In the second lawsuit, Peninsula Technologies alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,438,810 (the “8,810 patent”), entitled “Communication Of Configuration Parameters Of Radio Resources Of An Unlicensed Cell”; 11,570,844 (the “844 patent”), entitled “Release Message In Small Data Transmission Procedure”; 11,723,109 (the “109 patent”), entitled “Downlink Data Of Small Data Transmission Procedure”; and 12,144,057 (the “057 patent”), entitled “Release Message In Small Data Transmission Procedure.” Generally, the asserted patents relate to 5G network operations. On July 16, 2025, Peninsula Technologies filed a First Amended Complaint in the second action, which dropped the 8,810 Patent. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the cases were dismissed without prejudice on October 14 and 17, 2025. This matter is now concluded.

​

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 us and our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network, DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C. (then known as EchoStar Technologies L.L.C.), Sling TV L.L.C., Sling Media L.L.C. and 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 us and our wholly-owned subsidiary 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 our, Sling TV L.L.C.’s, Sling Media L.L.C.’s and Arris Group, Inc.’s 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 HNS’ products and services infringes 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. Following settlements with the plaintiff, we and HNS were dismissed from the Original Texas Action in February 2019, and Arris Group, Inc. was dismissed from the Colorado Action in March 2021.

​

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 DISH Network’s 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 DISH Network’s 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 appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and on May 11, 2023, that Court affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment order. 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 as invalid over the cited prior art. On April 19, 2023, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rejected Realtime Adaptive Streaming’s appeal and affirmed the examiner’s rejection of the asserted claims of the 610 patent. Realtime did not further appeal the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination and, thus, the asserted claims of the 610 patent were canceled. As a result, DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. and Sling Media L.L.C. no longer face any possible exposure from this matter, and the liability phase of this case is concluded.

​

​

On January 21, 2022, the District Court granted the motion by DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. and Sling Media L.L.C. to have the case declared “exceptional,” and on September 20, 2022, awarded them $3.9 million in attorneys’ fees. Realtime Adaptive Streaming filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the exceptionality and fee award orders, and on August 23, 2024, that Court vacated the exceptionality finding and remanded for further consideration of the issue. On November 26, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. and Sling Media L.L.C.’s petition seeking rehearing en banc. On February 5, 2025, on remand, the District Court denied the motion to declare the case exceptional. On March 6, 2025, DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. and Sling Media L.L.C. filed a notice of appeal of that order, but dismissed the appeal on July 3, 2025. This matter is now concluded.

​

SafeCast Limited

​

On June 27, 2022, SafeCast Limited filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint alleges that DISH Network infringes U.S. Patent No. 9,392,302, entitled “System for providing improved facilities in time-shifted broadcasts” (the “302 patent”). On the same day, it brought complaints in the same court asserting infringement of the same patent against AT&T, Google, HBO, NBCUniversal, Paramount and Verizon. On October 24, 2022, in response to the parties’ joint motion, the Court ordered the case against DISH Network transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On December 1, 2022, SafeCast filed an amended complaint naming our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. as defendants and withdrawing the allegations as to DISH Network. The plaintiff is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

​

On June 22, 2023, DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. filed a petition with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of the asserted claims of the 302 patent, and on June 26, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on that petition. On August 28, 2023, the Court stayed the case pending resolution of the petition. On October 3, 2024, in connection with a third-party’s petition citing different prior art, the United States Patent and Trademark Office invalidated all claims asserted against DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. Because SafeCast Limited did not appeal that decision, on January 27, 2025, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a certificate canceling, the challenged claims. As a result, DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. filed a motion to terminate their petition before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which was granted on June 5, 2025. On July 28, 2025, the District Court dismissed the litigation. This matter is now concluded.

​

Sling Pass Litigation

​

On August 26, 2025, ESPN Enterprises, Inc. and other Disney affiliates (“Disney”) sued our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On September 5, 2025, WarnerMedia Network Sales and other Warner Bros Discovery affiliates (“WBD”) sued our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the same court. In each case, the plaintiffs contend that Sling TV’s Day Pass, Weekend Pass and Week Pass subscriptions breach their respective carriage agreements with DISH Network. In their respective cases, both Disney and WBD sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Passes, but the Court denied the Disney motion on November 17, 2025, and denied the WBD motion on December 23, 2025. Disney filed an amended complaint on December 19, 2025, adding a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and allegations of using Disney marks to advertise the passes over Disney’s objection and for interest on late payments. WBD filed an amended complaint on December 26, 2025, adding claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and for unjust enrichment. DISH Network L.L.C. has asserted antitrust counterclaims against Disney and breach of contract counterclaims against both Disney and WBD.

​

We intend to vigorously defend these cases. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

​

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. The plaintiff is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

​

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. The appeal on the 456 patent was voluntarily dismissed on December 6, 2022. The Federal Circuit heard oral argument on the 796 patent appeal on October 3, 2023, and affirmed the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s adverse final written decision on October 5, 2023.

​

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, and reexamination was ordered on June 16, 2022. On November 13, 2023, the United States Patent and Trademark Office confirmed the patentability of the challenged claim. On January 18, 2023, DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. filed a second petition requesting ex parte reexamination of the validity of the four other asserted claims of the 213 patent, reexamination was ordered on April 17, 2023, and it remains pending. On October 17, 2024, the Court ordered that the stay of the case, which had been entered for the pendency of the original petitions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, would remain in place pending the resolution of Sound View’s appeal in a parallel action against Hulu. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in the parallel Hulu matter on January 29, 2026.

​

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.

​

​

State of Illinois ex rel. Rodriguez

​

In March 2020, two private “relators” filed this case in the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois, County Department, Law Division, under the Illinois False Claims Act against DISH Wireless, Sprint and more than 60 Boost Mobile retailers in Illinois. The defendants only became aware of the lawsuit after it was unsealed in March 2022. The operative Second Amended Complaint alleges that the retailer defendants should have collected sales tax under the Retailers’ Occupation Tax Act on any amounts that Sprint or DISH Network rebated them to facilitate handset price discounts to Illinois consumers (“Prepaid Phone Rebates”) and on any phone activation fees the retailers charged to customers (“Device Setup Charges”). It further alleges that DISH Wireless and Sprint are liable for the alleged violations arising from the Device Setup Charges because of the way they allegedly managed the point-of-sale system that the retailer defendants used. The Plaintiffs seek to recover triple the amount of allegedly unpaid taxes, fines for each alleged violation, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On June 13, 2023, the Court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint, but on January 2, 2024, it granted reconsideration and dismissed the complaint as to DISH Wireless and Sprint, with leave to amend. The Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint on February 2, 2024. On September 20, 2024, the Court granted DISH Wireless’s and Sprint’s motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, without further leave to amend, but the case is continuing against the retailers.

​

We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit 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 our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network, DISH DBS Corporation and 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 us, and our 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, DISH Network 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 DISH Network. Third parties 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 DISH Network’s 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 DISH Network’s 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 DISH Network’s 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 DISH Network’s petition. On February 10, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a final written decision on DISH Network’s 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. TQ Delta 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, but on July 27, 2023 and October 11, 2023, respectively, the United States Patent and Trademark Office confirmed the challenged claims of the 243 patent and the 158 patent. In a proposed supplemental report, TQ Delta’s damages expert contends that TQ Delta is entitled to $251 million in damages. The Court has set a trial date of November 8, 2027.

​

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. appealed 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 remand, on September 7, 2022, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a revised final written decision finding all challenged claims of the 273 patent invalid. Uniloc filed a notice of appeal of that revised final written decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and on September 4, 2024, that court affirmed the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s invalidity finding.

​

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). Uniloc did not appeal those decisions. Thus, the sole remaining asserted patent is the 118 patent.

​

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.

​

​

Universal Service Administrative Company

​

On April 3, 2023, the Universal Service Administrative Company (“USAC”) notified our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Wireless that it intended to seek to recover funds in the amount of $13.9 million disbursed under the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program (“EBBP”) and Affordable Connectivity Program (“ACP”) rules. We appealed this action and the USAC denied our appeal in October 2023. We appealed USAC's action to the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau, which denied our appeal on January 17, 2025.

​

We will continue to appeal USAC's action. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of our appeals or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

​

U.S. Bank Trust Company

​

On April 26, 2024, U.S. Bank Trust Company, in its capacity as Trustee under the Indentures for DISH DBS Corporation’s 5.75% Senior Secured Notes due 2028 and 7.75% Senior Notes due 2026, filed an action in state court in New York City against DISH DBS Corporation, DISH Network L.L.C., EchoStar Intercompany Receivable Company L.L.C., DISH DBS Issuer LLC, and DBS Intercompany Receivable L.L.C. In its original complaint, the Trustee contended that certain intracompany asset transfers in January 2024 breached the Indentures for those Notes, and that the transfers were intentional and constructive fraudulent transfers under the Colorado Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. The Trustee seeks a declaratory judgment that DISH DBS Corporation breached the Indentures and that an Event of Default occurred under the DBS Indentures. It further asks the Court to unwind certain intracompany asset transfers and to award damages. On May 13, 2024, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and, on June 28, 2024, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Rather than opposing the motion, on July 18, 2024, the Trustee filed a first amended complaint, which added a new declaratory judgment claim challenging certain intercompany advances and new factual allegations challenging a certification of compliance with the DBS Indentures. On January 22, 2025, with permission from the Court, the Trustee filed a second amended complaint, which added allegations regarding the debt issued by DBS SubscriberCo, a related intercompany loan, and the DIRECTV transaction (collectively, the “September 2024 Transactions”). The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint and, on August 21, 2025, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the claims that were based on the September 2024 Transactions but otherwise denied the motion.

​

We intend to vigorously defend this case. 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 filed against our wholly-owned subsidiaries, DISH Network, American AWS-3 Wireless I L.L.C., American II, American III, and DISH Wireless Holding L.L.C.; Charles W. Ergen (our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer) and Cantey M. Ergen (a member of our Board of Directors); Northstar Wireless; Northstar Spectrum; Northstar Manager; SNR Wireless; SNR HoldCo; SNR Management; 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 District 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.

​

Thereafter, the District Court maintained the stay until October 26, 2018. On February 11, 2019, the District 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 District 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, on May 17, 2022, that court reversed the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint. On June 16, 2022, the Defendants-Appellees filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, but on August 17, 2022, that petition was denied. On August 25, 2023, the FCC provided a sworn declaration stating that “the FCC considers … SNR and Northstar to have fully and timely satisfied their obligations to pay money to the Government arising from the AWS-3 Auction.” On that basis, on September 22, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion seeking partial summary judgment of no damages. On September 26, 2023, the Court denied the motion as premature.

​

On March 8, 2024, the United States filed a motion to exercise its statutory prerogative to intervene in the case for the purpose of moving to dismiss it with prejudice, stating that the case is “unlikely to vindicate the United States’ interests and would needlessly expend the Government’s and this Court’s resources.” In a report and recommendation issued on April 7, 2025, a magistrate judge recommended that the government’s motion be granted. Vermont National’s objections to that recommendation have been fully briefed to the Court.

​

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

​

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.