Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	12. Commitments and Contingencies Wireless Spectrum On March 2, 2012, the FCC approved the transfer of 40 MHz of 2 GHz wireless spectrum licenses held by DBSD North America and TerreStar to us. On March 9, 2012, we completed the DBSD Transaction and the TerreStar Transaction, pursuant to which we acquired, among other things, certain satellite assets and wireless spectrum licenses held by DBSD North America and TerreStar. The total consideration to acquire the DBSD North America and TerreStar assets was approximately $2.860 billion. On February 15, 2013, the FCC issued an order, which became effective on March 7, 2013, modifying our 2 GHz licenses to expand our terrestrial operating authority. The FCC’s order of modification has imposed certain limitations on the use of a portion of this spectrum, including interference protections for other spectrum users and power and emission limits that we presently believe could render 5 MHz of our uplink spectrum effectively unusable for terrestrial services and limit our ability to fully utilize the remaining 15 MHz of our uplink spectrum for terrestrial services. These limitations could, among other things, impact ongoing development of technical standards associated with our wireless business, and may have a material adverse effect on our ability to commercialize these licenses. The new rules also mandate certain interim and final build-out requirements for the licenses. By March 2017, we must provide terrestrial signal coverage and offer terrestrial service to at least 40% of the aggregate population represented by all of the areas covered by the licenses (the “2 GHz Interim Build-out Requirement”). By March 2020, we must provide terrestrial signal coverage and offer terrestrial service to at least 70% of the population in each area covered by an individual license (the “2 GHz Final Build-out Requirement”). If we fail to meet the 2 GHz Interim Build-out Requirement, the 2 GHz Final Build-out Requirement will be accelerated by one year, from March 2020 to March 2019. If we fail to meet the 2 GHz Final Build-out Requirement, our terrestrial authorization for each license area in which we fail to meet the requirement will terminate. In addition, the FCC is currently considering rules for a spectrum band that is adjacent to our 2 GHz licenses, known as the “H Block.” If the FCC adopts rules for the H block that do not adequately protect our 2 GHz licenses, there could be a material adverse effect on our ability to commercialize the 2 GHz licenses. See Note 8 for further information. We will likely be required to make significant additional investments or partner with others to, among other things, finance the commercialization and build-out requirements of these licenses and our integration efforts including compliance with regulations applicable to the acquired licenses. Depending on the nature and scope of such commercialization, build-out, and integration efforts, any such investment or partnership could vary significantly. Additionally, recent consolidation in the wireless telecommunications industry, may, among other things, limit our available options, including our ability to partner with others. There can be no assurance that we will be able to develop and implement a business model that will realize a return on these spectrum licenses or that we will be able to profitably deploy the assets represented by these spectrum licenses, which may affect the carrying value of these assets and our future financial condition or results of operations. In 2008, we paid $712 million to acquire certain 700 MHz wireless spectrum licenses, which were granted to us by the FCC in February 2009. These licenses mandate certain interim and final build-out requirements. By June 2013, we must provide signal coverage and offer service to at least 35% of the geographic area in each area covered by each individual license (the “700 MHz Interim Build-out Requirement”). By the end of our license term (June 2019), we must provide signal coverage and offer service to at least 70% of the geographic area in each area covered by each individual license (the “700 MHz Final Build-out Requirement”). We have recently notified the FCC of our plans to commence signal coverage in select cities within certain of these areas, but we have not yet developed plans for providing signal coverage and offering service in all of these areas. If we fail to meet the 700 MHz Interim Build-out Requirement, the term of our licenses will be reduced, from June 2019 to June 2017, and we could face possible fines and the reduction of license area(s). If we fail to meet the 700 MHz Final Build-out Requirement, our authorization for each license area in which we fail to meet the requirement will terminate. To commercialize these licenses and satisfy the associated FCC build-out requirements, we will be required to make significant additional investments or partner with others. Depending on the nature and scope of such commercialization and build-out, any such investment or partnership could vary significantly. Guarantees In connection with the Spin-off, we distributed certain satellite lease agreements to EchoStar and remained the guarantor under those capital leases for payments totaling approximately $90 million over approximately the next 23 months. In addition, during the third quarter 2009, EchoStar entered into a new satellite transponder service agreement for Nimiq 5 through 2024. We sublease this capacity from EchoStar and also guarantee a certain portion of EchoStar’s obligation under their satellite transponder service agreement through 2019. As of March 31, 2013, the remaining obligation of our guarantee is $422 million. As of March 31, 2013, we have not recorded a liability on the balance sheet for any of these guarantees. *Contingencies* Separation Agreement In connection with the Spin-off, we entered into a separation agreement with EchoStar that provides, among other things, for the division of certain liabilities, including liabilities resulting from litigation. Under the terms of the separation agreement, EchoStar has assumed certain liabilities that relate to its business including certain designated liabilities for acts or omissions that occurred prior to the Spin-off. Certain specific provisions govern intellectual property related claims under which, generally, EchoStar will only be liable for its acts or omissions following the Spin-off and we will indemnify EchoStar for any liabilities or damages resulting from intellectual property claims relating to the period prior to the Spin-off as well as our acts or omissions following the Spin-off. Litigation We are involved in a number of legal proceedings (including those described below) concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of our business activities. Many of these proceedings are at preliminary stages, and many of these proceedings seek an indeterminate amount of damages. We regularly evaluate the status of the legal proceedings in which we are involved to assess whether a loss is probable or there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or an additional loss may have been incurred and to determine if accruals are appropriate. If accruals are not appropriate, we further evaluate each legal proceeding to assess whether an estimate of the possible loss or range of possible loss can be made. For certain cases described on the following pages, management is unable to provide a meaningful estimate of the possible loss or range of possible loss because, among other reasons, (i) the proceedings are in various stages; (ii) damages have not been sought; (iii) damages are unsupported and/or exaggerated; (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; and/or (vi) there are novel legal issues or unsettled legal theories to be presented or a large number of parties (as with many patent-related cases). For these cases, however, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, though the outcomes could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. c4cast.com, Inc. On May 7, 2012, c4cast.com, Inc. filed a complaint against us and our wholly-owned subsidiary, Blockbuster L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 7,958,204 (the “204 patent”), which is entitled “Community-Selected Content.” The 204 patent relates to systems, methods and techniques for providing resources to participants over an electronic network. We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. ESPN During 2008, our wholly-owned subsidiary, DISH Network L.L.C., filed a lawsuit against ESPN, Inc., ESPN Classic, Inc., ABC Cable Networks Group, Soapnet L.L.C. and International Family Entertainment (collectively, “ESPN”) for breach of contract in New York State Supreme Court. Our complaint alleges that ESPN failed to provide us with certain HD feeds of the Disney Channel, ESPN News, Toon and ABC Family. In October 2011, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, which the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department (the “First Department”) affirmed on April 2, 2013. We intend to further appeal. ESPN had asserted a counterclaim alleging that we owed approximately $35 million under the applicable affiliation agreements. On April 15, 2009, the New York State Supreme Court granted, in part, ESPN’s motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim, finding that we are liable for some of the amount alleged to be owing but that the actual amount owing is disputed. On December 29, 2010, the First Department affirmed the partial grant of ESPN’s motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim. After the partial grant of ESPN’s motion for summary judgment, ESPN sought an additional $30 million under the applicable affiliation agreements. On March 15, 2010, the New York State Supreme Court ruled that we owe the full amount of approximately $66 million under the applicable affiliation agreements. As of December 31, 2010, we had $42 million recorded as a “Litigation accrual” on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. On June 21, 2011, the First Department affirmed the New York State Supreme Court’s ruling that we owe approximately $66 million under the applicable affiliation agreements and, on October 18, 2011, denied our motion for leave to appeal that decision to New York’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals. We sought leave to appeal directly to the New York Court of Appeals and, on January 10, 2012, the New York Court of Appeals dismissed our motion for leave on the ground that the ruling upon which we appealed does not fully resolve all claims in the action. As a result of the First Department’s June 2011 ruling, during 2011, we recorded $24 million of “Litigation Expense” on our Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss). On October 11, 2012, the New York State Supreme Court awarded ESPN $5 million in attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party on both our claim and ESPN’s counterclaim. As a result, we recorded $5 million of “General and administrative expenses” and increased our “Litigation accrual” to a total of $71 million related to this case as of December 31, 2012. During the first quarter 2013, we paid $71 million to ESPN related to the counterclaim and attorneys’ fees and $12 million for accrued interest, which amounts we may be able to recover if our further appeals are successful. We intend to vigorously prosecute and defend this case. The Hopper Litigation On May 24, 2012, our wholly-owned subsidiary, DISH Network L.L.C., filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., CBS Corporation, Fox Entertainment Group, Inc., Fox Television Holdings, Inc., Fox Cable Network Services, L.L.C. and NBCUniversal, LLC. In the lawsuit, we are seeking a declaratory judgment that we are not infringing any defendant’s copyright, or breaching any defendant’s retransmission consent agreement, by virtue of the PrimeTime Anytime™ and AutoHop™ features of our Hopper® set-top box. A consumer can use the PrimeTime Anytime feature, at his or her option, to record certain primetime programs airing on ABC, CBS, Fox, and/or NBC up to every night, and to store those recordings for up to eight days. A consumer can use the AutoHop feature, at his or her option, to watch certain recordings the subscriber made with our PrimeTime Anytime feature, commercial-free, if played back the next day after the show’s original airing. Later on May 24, 2012, (i) Fox Broadcasting Company, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. and Fox Television Holdings, Inc. filed a lawsuit against us and DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the PrimeTime Anytime feature, the AutoHop feature, as well as Sling placeshifting functionality infringe their copyrights and breach their retransmission consent agreements, (ii) NBC Studios LLC, Universal Network Television, LLC, Open 4 Business Productions LLC and NBCUniversal LLC filed a lawsuit against us and DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the PrimeTime Anytime feature and the AutoHop feature infringe their copyrights, and (iii) CBS Broadcasting Inc., CBS Studios Inc. and Survivor Productions LLC filed a lawsuit against us and DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the PrimeTime Anytime feature and the AutoHop feature infringe their copyrights. The Central District of California matters have been assigned to a single judge, but remain separate cases. As a result of certain parties’ competing venue-related motions brought in both the New York and California actions, and certain networks’ filing various counterclaims and amended complaints, the claims are presently pending in the following venues: (1) the copyright and contract claims regarding the ABC parties are pending in New York; (2) the copyright and contract claims regarding the CBS parties are pending in New York; (3) the copyright and contract claims regarding the Fox parties are pending in California; and (4) the copyright and contract claims regarding the NBC parties are pending in California. The NBC plaintiffs and Fox plaintiffs have filed amended complaints in their respective California actions adding copyright claims against EchoStar and EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. (“EchoStar Technologies”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of EchoStar. In addition, the Fox plaintiffs’ amended complaint added claims challenging the Sling placeshifting functionality and Hopper Transfers™ feature of our second-generation Hopper set-top box. Additionally, both the ABC and CBS parties have filed counterclaims in the New York action adding copyright claims against EchoStar Technologies, and the CBS parties have filed a counterclaim alleging that we fraudulently concealed the AutoHop feature when negotiating renewal of our CBS retransmission consent agreement. On September 21, 2012, the California court heard the Fox plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Hopper set-top box’s PrimeTime Anytime and AutoHop features and, on November 7, 2012, entered an order denying the motion. The Fox plaintiffs have appealed, and oral argument has been scheduled before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 3, 2013. On March 27, 2013, at the request of the parties, the Central District of California granted a stay of all proceedings in the action brought by the NBC plaintiffs, pending resolution of the appeal by the Fox plaintiffs. On November 23, 2012, the ABC plaintiffs filed a motion in the New York action for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Hopper set-top box’s PrimeTime Anytime and AutoHop features, and we and the ABC plaintiffs have filed briefs related to that motion. On February 21, 2013, the Fox plaintiffs filed a second motion for preliminary injunction against: (i) us seeking to enjoin the Hopper Transfers feature in our second-generation Hopper set-top box, alleging breach of their retransmission consent agreement; and (ii) us and EchoStar Technologies seeking to enjoin the Sling placeshifting functionality in our second-generation Hopper set-top box, alleging copyright infringement and breach of their retransmission consent agreement. A hearing on that motion was held on April 19, 2013. We intend to vigorously prosecute and defend our position in these cases. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted copyrights, we may be subject to substantial damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. In addition, as a result of this litigation, we may not be able to renew certain of our retransmission consent agreements and other programming agreements on favorable terms or at all. If we are unable to renew these agreements, there can be no assurance that we would be able to obtain substitute programming, or that such substitute programming would be comparable in quality or cost to our existing programming. Loss of access to existing programming could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, including, among other things, our gross new subscriber activations and subscriber churn rate. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. Norman IP Holdings, Inc. On September 15, 2011, Norman IP Holdings, Inc. (“Norman”) filed a patent infringement complaint against Brother International Corporation and Lexmark International Corporation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,592,555 (the “555 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,502,689 (the “689 patent”). On January 27, 2012, Norman filed a second amended complaint that added us as a defendant, among others. On February 8, 2013, Norman filed a third amended complaint that added claims against us alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,530,597 (the “597 patent”). In the fourth amended complaint, filed on April 8, 2013, Norman added claims against us for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,608,873 (the “873 patent”) and 5,771,394 (the “394 patent”). In the operative fifth amended complaint, filed on May 1, 2013, in addition to us, Norman names Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Xerox Corporation, ZTE (USA) Inc., and ZTE Solutions, Inc. as defendants. The 555 patent relates to a wireless communications privacy method and system, the 689 patent relates to a clock generator capable of shut-down mode and clock generation method, and the 597 patent relates to an interrupt enable circuit that allows devices to exit processes without using a hardware reset, the 873 patent relates to a device and method for providing inter-processor communication in a multi-processor architecture, and the 394 patent relates to a servo loop control apparatus having a master microprocessor and at least one autonomous streamlined signal processor. Norman is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. The trial date has been set for January 5, 2015. We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe any of the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could cause 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. Olympic Developments AG, LLC On January 20, 2011, Olympic Developments AG, LLC (“Olympic”) filed suit against our wholly-owned subsidiary, DISH Network L.L.C., Atlantic Broadband, Inc., Bright House Networks, LLC, Cable One, Inc., Cequel Communications Holdings I, LLC, CSC Holdings, LLC, GCI Communication Corp., Insight Communications Company, Inc., Knology, Inc., Mediacom Communications Corporation and RCN Telecom Services, LLC in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,475,585 and 6,246,400. The patents relate to on-demand services. Olympic is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On June 13, 2011, the case was transferred to the Northern District of California. On November 7, 2011, the case was stayed pending reexamination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. On March 12, 2013, Olympic voluntarily dismissed its claims against us without prejudice. Personalized Media Communications, Inc. During 2008, Personalized Media Communications, Inc. (“PMC”) filed suit against us, EchoStar and Motorola Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,109,414, 4,965,825, 5,233,654, 5,335,277, and 5,887,243, which relate to satellite signal processing. PMC is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. Subsequently, Motorola Inc. settled with PMC, leaving EchoStar and us as defendants. On July 18, 2012, pursuant to a Court order, PMC filed a Second Amended Complaint that added Rovi Guides, Inc. (f/k/a/ Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc.) and TVG-PMC, Inc. (collectively, “Gemstar”) as a party, and added a new claim against all defendants seeking a declaratory judgment as to the scope of Gemstar’s license to the patents in suit, under which we and EchoStar are sublicensees. A new trial date has not yet been set. We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe any of the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could cause 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. Pragmatus Telecom, LLC On December 5, 2012, Pragmatus Telecom, LLC (“Pragmatus”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,311,231, 6,668,286, and 7,159,043. Pragmatus alleges that the click-to-chat and click-to-call customer support features of the DISH web site and call center management systems infringe these patents. Pragmatus has brought similar complaints against more than 40 other companies, including Comcast, AT&T, Sprint, Frontier Communications, Bright House, UPS, FedEx, GM and Ford. Pragmatus is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On March 5, 2013, Pragmatus voluntarily dismissed with prejudice all claims in the action relating to allegedly infringing features provided by certain of our vendors. Pragmatus also voluntarily dismissed without prejudice all remaining claims in the action. Premier International Associates, LLC On August 3, 2012, Premier International Associates, LLC (“Premier International Associates”) filed a complaint against us, our wholly-owned subsidiaries, DISH DBS and DISH Network L.L.C., and EchoStar and its wholly-owned subsidiary, EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,243,725 (the “725 patent”), which is entitled “List Building System.” The 725 patent relates to a system for building an inventory of audio/visual works. Premier International Associates is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On March 27, 2013, Premier International Associates dismissed the action against us and the EchoStar defendants with prejudice, pursuant to a settlement under which we and the EchoStar defendants made an immaterial payment in exchange for a license to certain patents and patent applications. Preservation Technologies, LLC In December 2011, Preservation Technologies, LLC (“Preservation Technologies”) filed suit against us in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In the Operative Seventh Amended Complaint, filed on March 22, 2013, Preservation Technologies also names Netflix, Inc., Hulu, LLC, AT&T Services, Inc., Cox Communications, Inc., Disney Online, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Yahoo! Inc., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Vudu, Inc. and ESPN Internet Ventures as defendants. Preservation Technologies alleges that our BLOCKBUSTER On Demand, DISH branded pay-TV and DISH Online services and our Hopper and Joey® set-top boxes infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,813,014, 5,832,499, 6,092,080, 6,353,831, 6,574,638, 6,199,060, 5,832,495, 6,549,911, 6,212,527 and 6,477,537. The patents relate to digital libraries, the management of multimedia assets, and the cataloging of multimedia data. Preservation Technologies is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe any of the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could cause 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. Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. During 2007, Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. (“Katz”) filed a patent infringement action against our wholly-owned subsidiary, DISH Network L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit originally alleged infringement of 19 patents owned by Katz. The patents relate to interactive voice response, or IVR, technology. The case has been transferred and consolidated for pretrial purposes in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Only four patents remain in the case against us, of which all are expired and two are subject to granted reexamination proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe any of the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could cause 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. Technology Development and Licensing L.L.C. On January 22, 2009, Technology Development and Licensing L.L.C. (“TDL”) filed suit against us and EchoStar in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging infringement of United States Patent No. Re. 35,952, which relates to certain favorite channel features. TDL is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. In July 2009, the Court granted our motion to stay the case pending two reexamination petitions before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could cause 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. TQP Development, LLC On April 4, 2012, TQP Development, LLC (“TQP Development”) filed suit against our wholly-owned subsidiary, DISH Network L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 5,412,730 titled “Encrypted Data Transmission System Employing Means for Randomly Altering the Encryption Keys.” TQP Development is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. The trial date has been set for January 6, 2014. We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could cause 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. Tse On May 30, 2012, Ho Keung Tse filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary, Blockbuster L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,665,797, which is entitled “Protection of Software Again [sic] Against Unauthorized Use.” Mr. Tse is the named inventor on the patent. On the same day that he sued Blockbuster, Mr. Tse filed a separate action in the same court alleging infringement of the same patent against Google, Samsung and HTC. He also has earlier-filed litigation on the same patent pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Sony Connect, Inc., Napster, Inc., Apple Computer, Inc., Realnetworks, Inc., and MusicMatch, Inc. On March 8, 2013, the Court granted Blockbuster L.L.C.’s motion to transfer the matter to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the same venue where the matter against Google, Samsung and HTC also was transferred. We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. Other In addition to the above actions, we are subject to various other legal proceedings and claims which 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 position, 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.

12. Commitments and Contingencies

Wireless Spectrum

On March 2, 2012, the FCC approved the transfer of 40 MHz of 2 GHz wireless spectrum licenses held by DBSD North America and TerreStar to us. On March 9, 2012, we completed the DBSD Transaction and the TerreStar Transaction, pursuant to which we acquired, among other things, certain satellite assets and wireless spectrum licenses held by DBSD North America and TerreStar. The total consideration to acquire the DBSD North America and TerreStar assets was approximately $2.860 billion.

On February 15, 2013, the FCC issued an order, which became effective on March 7, 2013, modifying our 2 GHz licenses to expand our terrestrial operating authority. The FCC’s order of modification has imposed certain limitations on the use of a portion of this spectrum, including interference protections for other spectrum users and power and emission limits that we presently believe could render 5 MHz of our uplink spectrum effectively unusable for terrestrial services and limit our ability to fully utilize the remaining 15 MHz of our uplink spectrum for terrestrial services. These limitations could, among other things, impact ongoing development of technical standards associated with our wireless business, and may have a material adverse effect on our ability to commercialize these licenses. The new rules also mandate certain interim and final build-out requirements for the licenses. By March 2017, we must provide terrestrial signal coverage and offer terrestrial service to at least 40% of the aggregate population represented by all of the areas covered by the licenses (the “2 GHz Interim Build-out Requirement”). By March 2020, we must provide terrestrial signal coverage and offer terrestrial service to at least 70% of the population in each area covered by an individual license (the “2 GHz Final Build-out Requirement”). If we fail to meet the 2 GHz Interim Build-out Requirement, the 2 GHz Final Build-out Requirement will be accelerated by one year, from March 2020 to March 2019. If we fail to meet the 2 GHz Final Build-out Requirement, our terrestrial authorization for each license area in which we fail to meet the requirement will terminate. In addition, the FCC is currently considering rules for a spectrum band that is adjacent to our 2 GHz licenses, known as the “H Block.” If the FCC adopts rules for the H block that do not adequately protect our 2 GHz licenses, there could be a material adverse effect on our ability to commercialize the 2 GHz licenses. See Note 8 for further information.

We will likely be required to make significant additional investments or partner with others to, among other things, finance the commercialization and build-out requirements of these licenses and our integration efforts including compliance with regulations applicable to the acquired licenses. Depending on the nature and scope of such commercialization, build-out, and integration efforts, any such investment or partnership could vary significantly. Additionally, recent consolidation in the wireless telecommunications industry, may, among other things, limit our available options, including our ability to partner with others. There can be no assurance that we will be able to develop and implement a business model that will realize a return on these spectrum licenses or that we will be able to profitably deploy the assets represented by these spectrum licenses, which may affect the carrying value of these assets and our future financial condition or results of operations.

In 2008, we paid $712 million to acquire certain 700 MHz wireless spectrum licenses, which were granted to us by the FCC in February 2009. These licenses mandate certain interim and final build-out requirements. By June 2013, we must provide signal coverage and offer service to at least 35% of the geographic area in each area covered by each individual license (the “700 MHz Interim Build-out Requirement”). By the end of our license term (June 2019), we must provide signal coverage and offer service to at least 70% of the geographic area in each area covered by each individual license (the “700 MHz Final Build-out Requirement”). We have recently notified the FCC of our plans to commence signal coverage in select cities within certain of these areas, but we have not yet developed plans for providing signal coverage and offering service in all of these areas. If we fail to meet the 700 MHz Interim Build-out Requirement, the term of our licenses will be reduced, from June 2019 to June 2017, and we could face possible fines and the reduction of license area(s). If we fail to meet the 700 MHz Final Build-out Requirement, our authorization for each license area in which we fail to meet the requirement will terminate. To commercialize these licenses and satisfy the associated FCC build-out requirements, we will be required to make significant additional investments or partner with others. Depending on the nature and scope of such commercialization and build-out, any such investment or partnership could vary significantly.

Guarantees

In connection with the Spin-off, we distributed certain satellite lease agreements to EchoStar and remained the guarantor under those capital leases for payments totaling approximately $90 million over approximately the next 23 months.

In addition, during the third quarter 2009, EchoStar entered into a new satellite transponder service agreement for Nimiq 5 through 2024. We sublease this capacity from EchoStar and also guarantee a certain portion of EchoStar’s obligation under their satellite transponder service agreement through 2019. As of March 31, 2013, the remaining obligation of our guarantee is $422 million.

As of March 31, 2013, we have not recorded a liability on the balance sheet for any of these guarantees.

Contingencies

Separation Agreement

In connection with the Spin-off, we entered into a separation agreement with EchoStar that provides, among other things, for the division of certain liabilities, including liabilities resulting from litigation. Under the terms of the separation agreement, EchoStar has assumed certain liabilities that relate to its business including certain designated liabilities for acts or omissions that occurred prior to the Spin-off. Certain specific provisions govern intellectual property related claims under which, generally, EchoStar will only be liable for its acts or omissions following the Spin-off and we will indemnify EchoStar for any liabilities or damages resulting from intellectual property claims relating to the period prior to the Spin-off as well as our acts or omissions following the Spin-off.

Litigation

We are involved in a number of legal proceedings (including those described below) concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of our business activities. Many of these proceedings are at preliminary stages, and many of these proceedings seek an indeterminate amount of damages. We regularly evaluate the status of the legal proceedings in which we are involved to assess whether a loss is probable or there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or an additional loss may have been incurred and to determine if accruals are appropriate. If accruals are not appropriate, we further evaluate each legal proceeding to assess whether an estimate of the possible loss or range of possible loss can be made.

For certain cases described on the following pages, management is unable to provide a meaningful estimate of the possible loss or range of possible loss because, among other reasons, (i) the proceedings are in various stages; (ii) damages have not been sought; (iii) damages are unsupported and/or exaggerated; (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; and/or (vi) there are novel legal issues or unsettled legal theories to be presented or a large number of parties (as with many patent-related cases). For these cases, however, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, though the outcomes could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

c4cast.com, Inc.

On May 7, 2012, c4cast.com, Inc. filed a complaint against us and our wholly-owned subsidiary, Blockbuster L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 7,958,204 (the “204 patent”), which is entitled “Community-Selected Content.” The 204 patent relates to systems, methods and techniques for providing resources to participants over an electronic network.

We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

ESPN

During 2008, our wholly-owned subsidiary, DISH Network L.L.C., filed a lawsuit against ESPN, Inc., ESPN Classic, Inc., ABC Cable Networks Group, Soapnet L.L.C. and International Family Entertainment (collectively, “ESPN”) for breach of contract in New York State Supreme Court. Our complaint alleges that ESPN failed to provide us with certain HD feeds of the Disney Channel, ESPN News, Toon and ABC Family. In October 2011, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, which the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department (the “First Department”) affirmed on April 2, 2013. We intend to further appeal.

ESPN had asserted a counterclaim alleging that we owed approximately $35 million under the applicable affiliation agreements. On April 15, 2009, the New York State Supreme Court granted, in part, ESPN’s motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim, finding that we are liable for some of the amount alleged to be owing but that the actual amount owing is disputed. On December 29, 2010, the First Department affirmed the partial grant of ESPN’s motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim. After the partial grant of ESPN’s motion for summary judgment, ESPN sought an additional $30 million under the applicable affiliation agreements. On March 15, 2010, the New York State Supreme Court ruled that we owe the full amount of approximately $66 million under the applicable affiliation agreements. As of December 31, 2010, we had $42 million recorded as a “Litigation accrual” on our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

On June 21, 2011, the First Department affirmed the New York State Supreme Court’s ruling that we owe approximately $66 million under the applicable affiliation agreements and, on October 18, 2011, denied our motion for leave to appeal that decision to New York’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals. We sought leave to appeal directly to the New York Court of Appeals and, on January 10, 2012, the New York Court of Appeals dismissed our motion for leave on the ground that the ruling upon which we appealed does not fully resolve all claims in the action. As a result of the First Department’s June 2011 ruling, during 2011, we recorded $24 million of “Litigation Expense” on our Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss). On October 11, 2012, the New York State Supreme Court awarded ESPN $5 million in attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party on both our claim and ESPN’s counterclaim. As a result, we recorded $5 million of “General and administrative expenses” and increased our “Litigation accrual” to a total of $71 million related to this case as of December 31, 2012. During the first quarter 2013, we paid $71 million to ESPN related to the counterclaim and attorneys’ fees and $12 million for accrued interest, which amounts we may be able to recover if our further appeals are successful. We intend to vigorously prosecute and defend this case.

The Hopper Litigation

On May 24, 2012, our wholly-owned subsidiary, DISH Network L.L.C., filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., CBS Corporation, Fox Entertainment Group, Inc., Fox Television Holdings, Inc., Fox Cable Network Services, L.L.C. and NBCUniversal, LLC. In the lawsuit, we are seeking a declaratory judgment that we are not infringing any defendant’s copyright, or breaching any defendant’s retransmission consent agreement, by virtue of the PrimeTime Anytime™ and AutoHop™ features of our Hopper® set-top box. A consumer can use the PrimeTime Anytime feature, at his or her option, to record certain primetime programs airing on ABC, CBS, Fox, and/or NBC up to every night, and to store those recordings for up to eight days. A consumer can use the AutoHop feature, at his or her option, to watch certain recordings the subscriber made with our PrimeTime Anytime feature, commercial-free, if played back the next day after the show’s original airing.

Later on May 24, 2012, (i) Fox Broadcasting Company, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. and Fox Television Holdings, Inc. filed a lawsuit against us and DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the PrimeTime Anytime feature, the AutoHop feature, as well as Sling placeshifting functionality infringe their copyrights and breach their retransmission consent agreements, (ii) NBC Studios LLC, Universal Network Television, LLC, Open 4 Business Productions LLC and NBCUniversal LLC filed a lawsuit against us and DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the PrimeTime Anytime feature and the AutoHop feature infringe their copyrights, and (iii) CBS Broadcasting Inc., CBS Studios Inc. and Survivor Productions LLC filed a lawsuit against us and DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the PrimeTime Anytime feature and the AutoHop feature infringe their copyrights. The Central District of California matters have been assigned to a single judge, but remain separate cases.

As a result of certain parties’ competing venue-related motions brought in both the New York and California actions, and certain networks’ filing various counterclaims and amended complaints, the claims are presently pending in the following venues: (1) the copyright and contract claims regarding the ABC parties are pending in New York; (2) the copyright and contract claims regarding the CBS parties are pending in New York; (3) the copyright and contract claims regarding the Fox parties are pending in California; and (4) the copyright and contract claims regarding the NBC parties are pending in California. The NBC plaintiffs and Fox plaintiffs have filed amended complaints in their respective California actions adding copyright claims against EchoStar and EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. (“EchoStar Technologies”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of EchoStar. In addition, the Fox plaintiffs’ amended complaint added claims challenging the Sling placeshifting functionality and Hopper Transfers™ feature of our second-generation Hopper set-top box. Additionally, both the ABC and CBS parties have filed counterclaims in the New York action adding copyright claims against EchoStar Technologies, and the CBS parties have filed a counterclaim alleging that we fraudulently concealed the AutoHop feature when negotiating renewal of our CBS retransmission consent agreement.

On September 21, 2012, the California court heard the Fox plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Hopper set-top box’s PrimeTime Anytime and AutoHop features and, on November 7, 2012, entered an order denying the motion. The Fox plaintiffs have appealed, and oral argument has been scheduled before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 3, 2013. On March 27, 2013, at the request of the parties, the Central District of California granted a stay of all proceedings in the action brought by the NBC plaintiffs, pending resolution of the appeal by the Fox plaintiffs.

On November 23, 2012, the ABC plaintiffs filed a motion in the New York action for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Hopper set-top box’s PrimeTime Anytime and AutoHop features, and we and the ABC plaintiffs have filed briefs related to that motion. On February 21, 2013, the Fox plaintiffs filed a second motion for preliminary injunction against: (i) us seeking to enjoin the Hopper Transfers feature in our second-generation Hopper set-top box, alleging breach of their retransmission consent agreement; and (ii) us and EchoStar Technologies seeking to enjoin the Sling placeshifting functionality in our second-generation Hopper set-top box, alleging copyright infringement and breach of their retransmission consent agreement. A hearing on that motion was held on April 19, 2013.

We intend to vigorously prosecute and defend our position in these cases. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted copyrights, we may be subject to substantial damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. In addition, as a result of this litigation, we may not be able to renew certain of our retransmission consent agreements and other programming agreements on favorable terms or at all. If we are unable to renew these agreements, there can be no assurance that we would be able to obtain substitute programming, or that such substitute programming would be comparable in quality or cost to our existing programming. Loss of access to existing programming could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, including, among other things, our gross new subscriber activations and subscriber churn rate. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Norman IP Holdings, Inc.

On September 15, 2011, Norman IP Holdings, Inc. (“Norman”) filed a patent infringement complaint against Brother International Corporation and Lexmark International Corporation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,592,555 (the “555 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,502,689 (the “689 patent”). On January 27, 2012, Norman filed a second amended complaint that added us as a defendant, among others. On February 8, 2013, Norman filed a third amended complaint that added claims against us alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,530,597 (the “597 patent”). In the fourth amended complaint, filed on April 8, 2013, Norman added claims against us for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,608,873 (the “873 patent”) and 5,771,394 (the “394 patent”). In the operative fifth amended complaint, filed on May 1, 2013, in addition to us, Norman names Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Xerox Corporation, ZTE (USA) Inc., and ZTE Solutions, Inc. as defendants.

The 555 patent relates to a wireless communications privacy method and system, the 689 patent relates to a clock generator capable of shut-down mode and clock generation method, and the 597 patent relates to an interrupt enable circuit that allows devices to exit processes without using a hardware reset, the 873 patent relates to a device and method for providing inter-processor communication in a multi-processor architecture, and the 394 patent relates to a servo loop control apparatus having a master microprocessor and at least one autonomous streamlined signal processor. Norman is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. The trial date has been set for January 5, 2015.

We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe any of the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could cause 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.

Olympic Developments AG, LLC

On January 20, 2011, Olympic Developments AG, LLC (“Olympic”) filed suit against our wholly-owned subsidiary, DISH Network L.L.C., Atlantic Broadband, Inc., Bright House Networks, LLC, Cable One, Inc., Cequel Communications Holdings I, LLC, CSC Holdings, LLC, GCI Communication Corp., Insight Communications Company, Inc., Knology, Inc., Mediacom Communications Corporation and RCN Telecom Services, LLC in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,475,585 and 6,246,400. The patents relate to on-demand services. Olympic is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On June 13, 2011, the case was transferred to the Northern District of California. On November 7, 2011, the case was stayed pending reexamination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. On March 12, 2013, Olympic voluntarily dismissed its claims against us without prejudice.

Personalized Media Communications, Inc.

During 2008, Personalized Media Communications, Inc. (“PMC”) filed suit against us, EchoStar and Motorola Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,109,414, 4,965,825, 5,233,654, 5,335,277, and 5,887,243, which relate to satellite signal processing. PMC is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. Subsequently, Motorola Inc. settled with PMC, leaving EchoStar and us as defendants. On July 18, 2012, pursuant to a Court order, PMC filed a Second Amended Complaint that added Rovi Guides, Inc. (f/k/a/ Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc.) and TVG-PMC, Inc. (collectively, “Gemstar”) as a party, and added a new claim against all defendants seeking a declaratory judgment as to the scope of Gemstar’s license to the patents in suit, under which we and EchoStar are sublicensees. A new trial date has not yet been set.

Pragmatus Telecom, LLC

On December 5, 2012, Pragmatus Telecom, LLC (“Pragmatus”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,311,231, 6,668,286, and 7,159,043. Pragmatus alleges that the click-to-chat and click-to-call customer support features of the DISH web site and call center management systems infringe these patents. Pragmatus has brought similar complaints against more than 40 other companies, including Comcast, AT&T, Sprint, Frontier Communications, Bright House, UPS, FedEx, GM and Ford. Pragmatus is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On March 5, 2013, Pragmatus voluntarily dismissed with prejudice all claims in the action relating to allegedly infringing features provided by certain of our vendors. Pragmatus also voluntarily dismissed without prejudice all remaining claims in the action.

Premier International Associates, LLC

On August 3, 2012, Premier International Associates, LLC (“Premier International Associates”) filed a complaint against us, our wholly-owned subsidiaries, DISH DBS and DISH Network L.L.C., and EchoStar and its wholly-owned subsidiary, EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,243,725 (the “725 patent”), which is entitled “List Building System.” The 725 patent relates to a system for building an inventory of audio/visual works. Premier International Associates is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On March 27, 2013, Premier International Associates dismissed the action against us and the EchoStar defendants with prejudice, pursuant to a settlement under which we and the EchoStar defendants made an immaterial payment in exchange for a license to certain patents and patent applications.

Preservation Technologies, LLC

In December 2011, Preservation Technologies, LLC (“Preservation Technologies”) filed suit against us in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In the Operative Seventh Amended Complaint, filed on March 22, 2013, Preservation Technologies also names Netflix, Inc., Hulu, LLC, AT&T Services, Inc., Cox Communications, Inc., Disney Online, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Yahoo! Inc., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Vudu, Inc. and ESPN Internet Ventures as defendants. Preservation Technologies alleges that our BLOCKBUSTER On Demand, DISH branded pay-TV and DISH Online services and our Hopper and Joey® set-top boxes infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,813,014, 5,832,499, 6,092,080, 6,353,831, 6,574,638, 6,199,060, 5,832,495, 6,549,911, 6,212,527 and 6,477,537. The patents relate to digital libraries, the management of multimedia assets, and the cataloging of multimedia data. Preservation Technologies is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P.

During 2007, Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. (“Katz”) filed a patent infringement action against our wholly-owned subsidiary, DISH Network L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit originally alleged infringement of 19 patents owned by Katz. The patents relate to interactive voice response, or IVR, technology. The case has been transferred and consolidated for pretrial purposes in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Only four patents remain in the case against us, of which all are expired and two are subject to granted reexamination proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Technology Development and Licensing L.L.C.

On January 22, 2009, Technology Development and Licensing L.L.C. (“TDL”) filed suit against us and EchoStar in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging infringement of United States Patent No. Re. 35,952, which relates to certain favorite channel features. TDL is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. In July 2009, the Court granted our motion to stay the case pending two reexamination petitions before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could cause 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.

TQP Development, LLC

On April 4, 2012, TQP Development, LLC (“TQP Development”) filed suit against our wholly-owned subsidiary, DISH Network L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 5,412,730 titled “Encrypted Data Transmission System Employing Means for Randomly Altering the Encryption Keys.” TQP Development is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. The trial date has been set for January 6, 2014.

We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could cause 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.

Tse

On May 30, 2012, Ho Keung Tse filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary, Blockbuster L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,665,797, which is entitled “Protection of Software Again [sic] Against Unauthorized Use.” Mr. Tse is the named inventor on the patent. On the same day that he sued Blockbuster, Mr. Tse filed a separate action in the same court alleging infringement of the same patent against Google, Samsung and HTC. He also has earlier-filed litigation on the same patent pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Sony Connect, Inc., Napster, Inc., Apple Computer, Inc., Realnetworks, Inc., and MusicMatch, Inc. On March 8, 2013, the Court granted Blockbuster L.L.C.’s motion to transfer the matter to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the same venue where the matter against Google, Samsung and HTC also was transferred.

Other

In addition to the above actions, we are subject to various other legal proceedings and claims which 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 position, 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.