Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	10. Commitments and Contingencies *Commitments* Wireless Spectrum 700 MHz Licenses. 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. At the time they were granted, these licenses were subject to certain interim and final build-out requirements. By June 2013, we were required to 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 June 2019, we were required to 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”). As discussed below, these requirements have since been modified by the FCC. On September 9, 2013, we filed a letter with the FCC in support of a voluntary industry solution to resolve certain interoperability issues affecting the lower 700 MHz spectrum band (the “Interoperability Solution”). On October 29, 2013, the FCC issued an order approving the Interoperability Solution (the “Interoperability Solution Order”), which requires us to reduce power emissions on our 700 MHz licenses. As part of the Interoperability Solution Order, the FCC, among other things, approved our request to modify the 700 MHz Interim Build-Out Requirement so that by March 2017, we must provide signal coverage and offer service to at least 40% of our total E Block population (the “Modified 700 MHz Interim Build-Out Requirement”). The FCC also approved our request to modify the 700 MHz Final Build-Out Requirement so that by March 2021, we must provide signal coverage and offer service to at least 70% of the population in each of our E Block license areas (the “Modified 700 MHz Final Build-Out Requirement”). These requirements replaced the previous build-out requirements associated with our 700 MHz licenses. While the modifications to our 700 MHz licenses provide us additional time to complete the build-out requirements, the reduction in power emissions could have an adverse impact on our ability to fully utilize our 700 MHz licenses. If we fail to meet the Modified 700 MHz Interim Build-Out Requirement, the Modified 700 MHz Final Build-Out Requirement may be accelerated by one year, from March 2021 to March 2020, and we could face the reduction of license area(s). If we fail to meet the Modified 700 MHz Final Build-Out Requirement, our authorization may terminate for the geographic portion of each license in which we are not providing service. AWS-4 Licenses. On March 2, 2012, the FCC approved the transfer of 40 MHz of 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. Our consolidated FCC applications for approval of the license transfers from DBSD North America and TerreStar were accompanied by requests for waiver of the FCC’s MSS “integrated service” and spare satellite requirements and various technical provisions. On March 21, 2012, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rule Making proposing the elimination of the integrated service, spare satellite and various technical requirements associated with these licenses. On December 11, 2012, the FCC approved rules that eliminated these requirements and gave notice of its proposed modification of our authorizations to, among other things, allow us to offer single-mode terrestrial terminals to customers who do not desire satellite functionality. On February 15, 2013, the FCC issued an order, which became effective on March 7, 2013, modifying our licenses to expand our terrestrial operating authority with AWS-4 authority (“AWS-4”). That order 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 (2000-2005 MHz) effectively unusable for terrestrial services and limit our ability to fully utilize the remaining 15 MHz of our uplink spectrum (2005-2020 MHz) for terrestrial services. These limitations could, among other things, impact the ongoing development of technical standards associated with our wireless business, and may have a material adverse effect on our ability to commercialize our AWS-4 licenses. That order also mandated 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 “AWS-4 Interim Build-Out Requirement”). By March 2020, we were required to provide terrestrial signal coverage and offer terrestrial service to at least 70% of the population in each area covered by an individual license (the “AWS-4 Final Build-Out Requirement”). On December 20, 2013, the FCC issued a further order that, among other things, extended the AWS-4 Final Build-Out Requirement by one year to March 2021 (the “Modified AWS-4 Final Build-Out Requirement”). If we fail to meet the AWS-4 Interim Build-Out Requirement, the Modified AWS-4 Final Build-Out Requirement may be accelerated by one year, from March 2021 to March 2020. If we fail to meet the Modified AWS-4 Final Build-Out Requirement, our terrestrial authorization for each license area in which we fail to meet the requirement may terminate. The FCC’s December 20, 2013 order also conditionally waived certain FCC rules for our AWS-4 licenses to allow us to repurpose all 20 MHz of our uplink spectrum (2000-2020 MHz) for downlink (the “AWS-4 Downlink Waiver”). If we fail to notify the FCC that we intend to use our uplink spectrum for downlink by June 20, 2016, the AWS-4 Downlink Waiver will terminate, and the Modified AWS-4 Final Build-Out Requirement will revert back to the AWS-4 Final Build-Out Requirement. H Block Licenses. The auction of wireless spectrum known as the H Block commenced on January 22, 2014 and concluded on February 27, 2014. We were the winning bidder for all 176 wireless spectrum licenses in the H Block auction with an aggregate bid of $1.564 billion. On December 17, 2013, we paid approximately $328 million to the FCC as a deposit for the H Block auction. We paid the remaining balance of our winning bid of approximately $1.236 billion for the H Block licenses on March 28, 2014. On April 29, 2014, the FCC issued an order granting our application to acquire these H Block licenses. As a result, during May 2014, we also paid approximately $13 million to UTAM, Inc. for clearance costs associated with the lower H Block spectrum and approximately $95 million to Sprint for clearance costs associated with the upper H Block spectrum in connection with the issuance of the H Block licenses. The H Block licenses are subject to certain interim and final build-out requirements. By April 2018, we must provide reliable signal coverage and offer service to at least 40% of the population in each area covered by an individual H Block license (the “H Block Interim Build-Out Requirement”). By April 2024, we must provide reliable signal coverage and offer service to at least 75% of the population in each area covered by an individual H Block license (the “H Block Final Build-Out Requirement”). If we fail to meet the H Block Interim Build-Out Requirement, the H Block license term and the H Block Final Build-Out Requirement may be accelerated by two years (from April 2024 to April 2022) for each H Block license area in which we fail to meet the requirement. If we fail to meet the H Block Final Build-Out Requirement, our authorization for each H Block license area in which we fail to meet the requirement may terminate. The FCC has adopted rules for the H Block spectrum band that is adjacent to our AWS-4 licenses. Depending on the outcome of the standard-setting process for the H Block and our ultimate decision regarding the AWS-4 Downlink Waiver, the rules that the FCC adopted for the H Block could further impact 15 MHz of our AWS-4 uplink spectrum (2005-2020 MHz), which may have a material adverse effect on our ability to commercialize the AWS-4 licenses. AWS-3 Auction. We have filed an application with the FCC to participate as a potential bidder in the upcoming AWS-3 wireless spectrum auction. On October 30, 2014, the FCC announced that we and 69 other applicants were qualified to participate in the AWS-3 auction. The auction is scheduled to commence on November 13, 2014. The FCC has set an aggregate reserve price of: (i) approximately $580 million for licenses in the 1695-1710 MHz band, and (ii) approximately $10.066 billion for paired licenses in the 1755-1780/2155-2180 MHz bands, to conclude the auction of spectrum in each respective band. The FCC determined that bidding in this auction will be “anonymous,” which means that prior to and during the course of the auction, the FCC will not make public any information about a specific applicant’s upfront deposit or its bids. In addition, FCC rules restrict information that bidders may disclose about their participation in the auction. Commercialization of Wireless Spectrum Licenses and Related Assets. We may also determine that additional wireless spectrum licenses may be required to commercialize our wireless business and to compete with other wireless service providers. We will need to make significant additional investments or partner with others to, among other things, commercialize, build-out, and integrate our licenses and related assets, and any additional acquired licenses and related assets; and comply with regulations applicable to our licenses. Depending on the nature and scope of such commercialization, build-out, and integration efforts, and regulatory compliance, any such investment or partnership could vary significantly. There can be no assurance that we will be able to develop and implement a business model that will realize a return on our wireless spectrum licenses or that we will be able to profitably deploy the assets represented by our wireless spectrum licenses, which may affect the carrying value of these assets and our future financial condition or results of operations. Guarantees On January 1, 2008, we completed the distribution of our technology and set-top box business and certain infrastructure assets (the “Spin-off”) into a separate publicly-traded company, EchoStar. In connection with the Spin-off, we distributed certain satellite lease agreements to EchoStar and remained the guarantor under those capital leases for payments totaling approximately $10 million over approximately the next five months. 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 its satellite transponder service agreement through 2019. As of September 30, 2014, the remaining obligation of our guarantee was $327 million. As of September 30, 2014, 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. California Institute of Technology On October 1, 2013, the California Institute of Technology (“Caltech”) filed complaints against us and our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C. and dishNET Satellite Broadband L.L.C., as well as Hughes Communications, Inc. and Hughes Network Systems, LLC, which are wholly-owned subsidiaries of EchoStar, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 7,116,710 (the “710 patent”); 7,421,032 (the “032 patent”); 7,916,781 (the “781 patent”) and 8,284,833 (the “833 patent”), each of which is entitled “Serial Concatenation of Interleaved Convolutional Codes forming Turbo-Like Codes.” Caltech alleges that encoding data as specified by the DVB-S2 standard infringes each of the asserted patents. In the operative Amended Complaint, served on March 6, 2014, Caltech claims that our Hopper set-top box, as well as the Hughes defendants’ satellite broadband products and services, infringe the asserted patents by implementing the DVB-S2 standard. We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. ClearPlay, Inc. On March 13, 2014, ClearPlay, Inc. (“ClearPlay”) filed a complaint against us, our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., EchoStar, and its wholly-owned subsidiary EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,898,799, entitled “Multimedia Content Navigation and Playback” (the “799 patent”); 7,526,784, entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content” (the “784 patent”); 7,543,318, entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content” (the “318 patent”); 7,577,970, entitled “Multimedia Content Navigation and Playback” (the “970 patent”); and 8,117,282, entitled “Media Player Configured to Receive Playback Filters From Alternative Storage Mediums” (the “282 patent”). ClearPlay alleges that the AutoHop™ feature in our Hopper set-top box infringes the asserted patents. We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. CRFD Research, Inc. (a subsidiary of Marathon Patent Group, Inc.) On January 17, 2014, CRFD Research, Inc. (“CRFD”) filed a complaint against us, our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH DBS and DISH Network L.L.C., EchoStar, and its wholly-owned subsidiary EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 7,191,233 (the “233 patent”). The 233 patent is entitled “System for Automated, Mid-Session, User-Directed, Device-to-Device Session Transfer System,” and relates to transferring an ongoing software session from one device to another. CRFD alleges that our Hopper and Joey set-top boxes infringe the 233 patent. On the same day, CRFD filed similar complaints against AT&T Inc.; Comcast Corp.; DirecTV; Time Warner Cable Inc.; Cox Communications, Inc.; Akamai Technologies, Inc.; Cablevision Systems Corp. and Limelight Networks, Inc. CRFD is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. Custom Media Technologies LLC On August 15, 2013, Custom Media Technologies LLC (“Custom Media”) filed complaints against us; AT&T Inc.; Charter Communications, Inc.; Comcast Corp.; Cox Communications, Inc.; DirecTV; Time Warner Cable Inc. and Verizon Communications, Inc., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,269,275 (the “275 patent”). The 275 patent, which is entitled “Method and System for Customizing and Distributing Presentations for User Sites,” relates to the provision of customized presentations to viewers over a network, such as “a cable television network, an Internet or other computer network, a broadcast television network, and/or a satellite system.” Custom Media alleges that our DVR devices and DVR functionality infringe the 275 patent. Custom Media is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, on November 6, 2013, the Court entered an order substituting DISH Network L.L.C., our wholly-owned subsidiary, as the defendant in our place. A trial date is set for September 19, 2016. We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. Do Not Call Litigation On March 25, 2009, our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. was sued in a civil action by the United States Attorney General and several states in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Telephone Sales Rules, as well as analogous state statutes and state consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs allege that we, directly and through certain independent third-party retailers and their affiliates, committed certain telemarketing violations. On December 23, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, which indicated for the first time that the state plaintiffs are seeking civil penalties and damages of approximately $270 million and that the federal plaintiff is seeking an unspecified amount of civil penalties (which could substantially exceed the civil penalties and damages being sought by the state plaintiffs). The plaintiffs are also seeking injunctive relief that if granted would, among other things, enjoin DISH Network L.L.C., whether acting directly or indirectly through authorized telemarketers or independent third-party retailers, from placing any outbound telemarketing calls to market or promote its goods or services for five years, and enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from accepting activations or sales from certain existing independent third-party retailers and from certain new independent third-party retailers, except under certain circumstances. We have also filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all claims, and the Court heard oral arguments on the parties’ summary judgment motions on October 17, 2014. 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. Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC On December 20, 2013, Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC (“Dragon IP”) filed complaints against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., as well as Apple Inc.; AT&T, Inc.; Charter Communications, Inc.; Comcast Corp.; Cox Communications, Inc.; DirecTV; Sirius XM Radio Inc.; Time Warner Cable Inc. and Verizon Communications, Inc., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 5,930,444 (the “444 patent”), which is entitled “Simultaneous Recording and Playback Apparatus.” Dragon IP alleges that various of our DVR receivers infringe the 444 patent. Dragon IP is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. 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 alleged 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 sought leave to further appeal, which the New York Court of Appeals denied on August 27, 2013 on jurisdictional grounds. On September 19, 2013, we appealed the trial court’s final judgment to the First Department. On March 6, 2014, pursuant to a settlement and release agreement between the parties, we dismissed our 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 were liable for some of the amount alleged to be owing but that the actual amount owing was 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 owed 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 owed 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 did not fully resolve all claims in the action. As a result of the First Department’s June 2011 ruling, we recorded $24 million of “Litigation Expense” on our Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss) during 2011. 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. As a result of the parties’ settlement and release, no further appeals are possible, and this matter is now concluded. Garnet Digital, LLC On September 9, 2013, Garnet Digital, LLC (“Garnet Digital”) filed a complaint against us and 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. 5,379,421 (the “421 patent”), which is entitled “Interactive Terminal for the Access of Remote Database Information.” The 421 patent relates to methods for accessing information from a remote computerized database and related devices. On the same day, Garnet Digital filed similar complaints in the same court against 15 other defendants, including AT&T Inc.; Comcast Corp.; DirecTV; TiVo, Inc. and Verizon Communications, Inc. Garnet Digital is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On July 30, 2014, the Court dismissed the claims against us with prejudice. 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 at a certain point after the show’s original airing. Later on May 24, 2012, (i) Fox Broadcasting Company; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. and Fox Television Holdings, Inc. filed a lawsuit against 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 Slingbox placeshifting functionality infringe their copyrights and breach their retransmission consent agreements, (ii) NBC Studios LLC; Universal Network Television, LLC; Open 4 Business Productions LLC and NBCUniversal, LLC filed a lawsuit against 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. As a result of certain parties’ competing venue-related motions brought in both the New York and California actions, and certain networks’ filing various counterclaims and amended complaints, the claims have proceeded in the following venues: (1) the copyright and contract claims regarding the ABC and CBS parties in New York; and (2) the copyright and contract claims regarding the Fox and NBC parties in California. California Actions. The NBC plaintiffs and Fox plaintiffs filed amended complaints in their respective California actions adding copyright claims against EchoStar and EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., a wholly-owned subsidiary of EchoStar. In addition, the Fox plaintiffs’ amended complaint added claims challenging the Hopper Transfers™ feature of our second-generation Hopper set-top box. On November 7, 2012, the California court denied the Fox plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Hopper set-top box’s PrimeTime Anytime and AutoHop features, and the Fox plaintiffs appealed. On March 27, 2013, at the request of the parties, the Central District of California granted a stay of all proceedings in the action brought by the NBC plaintiffs, pending resolution of the appeal by the Fox plaintiffs. On July 24, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the Fox plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction as to the PrimeTime Anytime and AutoHop features. On August 7, 2013, the Fox plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, which was denied on January 24, 2014. The United States Supreme Court granted the Fox plaintiffs an extension until May 23, 2014 to file a petition for writ of certiorari, but they did not file. As a result, the stay of the NBC plaintiffs’ action expired. On August 6, 2014, at the request of the parties, the Central District of California granted a further stay of all proceedings in the action brought by the NBC plaintiffs, pending a final judgment on all claims in the Fox plaintiffs’ action. No trial date is currently set on the NBC claims. In addition, on February 21, 2013, the Fox plaintiffs filed a second motion for preliminary injunction against: (i) us seeking to enjoin the Hopper Transfers feature in our second-generation Hopper set-top box, alleging breach of their retransmission consent agreement; and (ii) us and EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. seeking to enjoin the Slingbox placeshifting functionality in our second-generation Hopper set-top box, alleging copyright infringement and breach of their retransmission consent agreement. On September 23, 2013, the California court denied the Fox plaintiffs’ motion. The Fox plaintiffs appealed, and on July 14, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the Fox plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction as to the Hopper Transfers feature and the Slingbox placeshifting functionality in our second-generation Hopper set-top box. On October 17, 2014, the California court heard oral argument on the Fox plaintiffs’ and our respective motions for summary judgment. The Fox claims are set for trial on February 24, 2015. New York Actions. Both the ABC and CBS parties filed counterclaims in the New York action adding copyright claims against EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., 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 November 23, 2012, the ABC plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Hopper set-top box’s PrimeTime Anytime and AutoHop features. On September 18, 2013, the New York court denied that motion. The ABC plaintiffs appealed, and oral argument on the appeal was heard on February 20, 2014 before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Pursuant to a settlement between us and the ABC parties, on March 4, 2014, the ABC parties withdrew their appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and, on March 6, 2014, we and the ABC parties dismissed without prejudice all of our respective claims pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The CBS claims in the New York action are set to be trial-ready on May 29, 2015. 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, or are in breach of any of the retransmission consent agreements, 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. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems LLC On April 23, 2014, Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLC (“Joao Control”) filed a complaint against us in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,549,130 (the “130 patent”), which is entitled “Control Apparatus and Method for Vehicles and/or for Premises.” Joao alleges that we infringe the 130 patent by making, using, providing and/or importing remotely-accessed DVRs. On the same day, Joao Control also filed similar actions against DirecTV; Verizon Communications, Inc.; Time Warner Cable Inc.; Cox Communications, Inc.; and Cablevision Systems Corporation, among others. Joao Control is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. Joao Control never served us with its complaint and on June 23, 2014, Joao Control dismissed its complaint against us without prejudice. LightSquared/Harbinger Capital Partners LLC (LightSquared Bankruptcy) As previously disclosed in our public filings, L-Band Acquisition, LLC (“LBAC”), our wholly-owned subsidiary, entered into a Plan Support Agreement (the “PSA”) with certain senior secured lenders to LightSquared LP (the “LightSquared LP Lenders”) on July 23, 2013, which contemplated the purchase by LBAC of substantially all of the assets of LightSquared LP and certain of its subsidiaries (the “LBAC Bid”) that are debtors and debtors in possession in the LightSquared bankruptcy cases pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”), which cases are jointly administered under the caption In re LightSquared Inc., et. al., Case No. 12 12080 (SCC). Pursuant to the PSA, LBAC was entitled to terminate the PSA in certain circumstances, certain of which required three business days’ written notice, including, without limitation, in the event that certain milestones specified in the PSA were not met. On January 7, 2014, LBAC delivered written notice of termination of the PSA to the LightSquared LP Lenders. As a result, the PSA terminated effective on January 10, 2014, and the LBAC Bid was withdrawn. On August 6, 2013, Harbinger Capital Partners LLC and other affiliates of Harbinger (collectively, “Harbinger”), a shareholder of LightSquared Inc., filed an adversary proceeding against us, LBAC, EchoStar, Charles W. Ergen (our Chairman), SP Special Opportunities, LLC (“SPSO”) (an entity controlled by Mr. Ergen), and certain other parties, in the Bankruptcy Court. Harbinger alleged, among other things, claims based on fraud, unfair competition, civil conspiracy and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage related to certain purchases of LightSquared secured debt by SPSO. Subsequently, LightSquared intervened to join in certain claims alleged against certain defendants other than us, LBAC and EchoStar. On October 29, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed all of the claims in Harbinger’s complaint in their entirety, but granted leave for LightSquared to file its own complaint in intervention. On November 15, 2013, LightSquared filed its complaint, which included various claims against us, EchoStar, Mr. Ergen and SPSO. On December 2, 2013, Harbinger filed an amended complaint, asserting various claims against SPSO. On December 12, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed several of the claims asserted by LightSquared and Harbinger. The surviving claims include, among others, LightSquared’s claims against SPSO for declaratory relief, breach of contract and statutory disallowance; LightSquared’s tortious interference claim against us, EchoStar and Mr. Ergen; and Harbinger’s claim against SPSO for statutory disallowance. These claims proceeded to a non-jury trial on January 9, 2014. In its Post-Trial Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered on June 10, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court rejected all claims against us and EchoStar, and it rejected some but not all claims against the other defendants. We intend to vigorously defend any claims against us in this proceeding and cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this proceeding or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. LightSquared/Harbinger Capital Partners LLC (LightSquared Colorado Action) On July 8, 2014, Harbinger filed suit against us, LBAC, Mr. Ergen, SPSO, and certain other parties, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint asserts claims for tortious interference with contract and abuse of process, as well as claims alleging violations of the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act and the Colorado Organized Crime Control Act. Harbinger seeks to rely on many of the same facts and circumstances that were at issue in the LightSquared adversary proceeding pending in the Bankruptcy Court. Harbinger argues that the defendants’ alleged conduct, among other things, is responsible for Harbinger’s losing control of LightSquared and causing breaches of Harbinger’s stockholder agreement. The complaint seeks damages in excess of $500 million, which under federal and state law may be trebled. We intend to vigorously defend any claims against us in 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. LightSquared Transaction Shareholder Derivative Actions On August 9, 2013, a purported shareholder of the Company, Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund (“Jacksonville PFPF”), filed a putative shareholder derivative action in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada alleging, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty claims against the members of the Company’s Board of Directors as of that date: Charles W. Ergen; Joseph P. Clayton; James DeFranco; Cantey M. Ergen; Steven R. Goodbarn; David K. Moskowitz; Tom A. Ortolf; and Carl E. Vogel (collectively, the “Director Defendants”). In its first amended complaint, Jacksonville PFPF asserted claims that Mr. Ergen breached his fiduciary duty to the Company in connection with certain purchases of LightSquared debt by SPSO, an entity controlled by Mr. Ergen, and that the other Director Defendants aided and abetted that alleged breach of duty. The Jacksonville PFPF claims alleged that (1) the debt purchases created an impermissible conflict of interest and (2) put at risk the LBAC Bid, which as noted above has been withdrawn. Jacksonville PFPF further claimed that most members of the Company’s Board of Directors are beholden to Mr. Ergen to an extent that prevents them from discharging their duties in connection with the Company’s participation in the LightSquared bankruptcy auction process. Jacksonville PFPF is seeking an unspecified amount of damages. Jacksonville PFPF dismissed its claims against Mr. Goodbarn on October 8, 2013. Jacksonville PFPF sought a preliminary injunction that would enjoin Mr. Ergen and all of the Director Defendants other than Mr. Goodbarn from influencing the Company’s efforts to acquire certain assets of LightSquared in the bankruptcy proceeding. On November 27, 2013, the Court denied that request but granted narrower relief enjoining Mr. Ergen and anyone acting on his behalf from participating in negotiations related to one aspect of the LBAC Bid, which, as noted above, has been withdrawn. Five alleged shareholders have filed substantially similar putative derivative complaints in state and federal courts alleging the same or substantially similar claims. On September 18, 2013, DCM Multi-Manager Fund, LLC filed a duplicative putative derivative complaint in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada, which was consolidated with the Jacksonville PFPF action on October 9, 2013. Between September 25, 2013 and October 2, 2013, City of Daytona Beach Police Officers and Firefighters Retirement System, Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System and Iron Worker Mid-South Pension Fund filed duplicative putative derivative complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Also on October 2, 2013, Iron Workers District Council (Philadelphia and Vicinity) Retirement and Pension Plan filed its complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. On October 11, 2013, Iron Worker Mid-South Pension Fund dismissed its claims without prejudice. On October 30, 2013, Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System dismissed its claims without prejudice and, on January 2, 2014, filed a new complaint in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada, which, on May 2, 2014, was consolidated with the Jacksonville PFPF action. On December 13, 2013, City of Daytona Beach Police Officers and Firefighters Retirement System voluntarily dismissed its claims without prejudice. On March 28, 2014, Iron Workers District Council (Philadelphia and Vicinity) Retirement and Pension Plan voluntarily dismissed its claims without prejudice. On July 25, 2014, Jacksonville PFPF filed a second amended complaint, which added claims against George R. Brokaw and Charles M. Lillis, as Director Defendants, and Thomas A. Cullen, R. Stanton Dodge and K. Jason Kiser, as officers of the Company. Jacksonville PFPF asserted five claims in its second amended complaint, each of which alleged breaches of the duty of loyalty. Three of the claims were asserted solely against Mr. Ergen; one claim was made against all of the Director Defendants, other than Mr. Ergen and Mr. Clayton; and the final claim was made against Messrs. Cullen, Dodge and Kiser. Our Board of Directors has established a Special Litigation Committee to review the factual allegations and legal claims in these actions. On October 24, 2014, the Special Litigation Committee filed a report in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada regarding its investigation of the claims and allegations asserted in Jacksonville PFPF’s second amended complaint. 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, LLC On September 15, 2011, Norman IP Holdings, LLC (“Norman”) filed a patent infringement complaint (the “2011 Action”) against Lexmark International Corporation (“Lexmark”) and Brother International Corporation (“Brother”), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,592,555 (the “555 patent”); 5,530,597 (the “597 patent”) and 5,502,689 (the “689 patent”) by Lexmark, and infringement of the 555 patent and the 689 patent by Brother. On January 27, 2012, Norman filed a second amended complaint in the 2011 Action that added us as a defendant, among others, in which it asserted the 555 patent and the 689 patent against us. On September 21, 2012, Norman served us with preliminary infringement contentions related to the 555 patent and the 689 patent, as well as the 597 patent, which outlined Norman’s claims with respect to certain DISH products. On February 8, 2013, Norman filed a third amended complaint in the 2011 Action, in which it added claims against us alleging infringement of the 597 patent. On April 8, 2013, Norman filed a fourth amended complaint in the 2011 Action, in which it added new claims against us alleging infringement of additional DISH products. On May 1, 2013, Norman filed a fifth amended complaint in the 2011 Action, in which it named Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC; Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.; Xerox Corporation; ZTE (USA) Inc. and ZTE Solutions, Inc. as defendants, in addition to us. On July 9, 2013, the Court ordered Norman to file a new sixth amended complaint limiting Norman’s claims against us to those specifically referenced in its September 21, 2012 preliminary infringement contentions. As a result, on July 10, 2013, Norman filed a sixth amended complaint in the 2011 Action, in which it asserted claims against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. replacing us as defendant, alleging that the use of certain Broadcom chipsets in DISH DVR systems infringes the 689 patent. In addition, Norman withdrew all infringement claims against us regarding the 555 patent and the 597 patent. On July 12, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the 2011 Action, because Norman failed to comply with the Court’s July 9, 2013 order. In addition, on May 10, 2013, Norman filed a separate patent infringement complaint (the “2013 Action”) against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, asserting infringement of the 555, 597 and 689 patents, as well as United States Patent Nos. 5,608,873 (the “873 patent”) and 5,771,394 (the “394 patent”). The infringement claims asserted in the 2013 Action relate to different DISH products than Norman identified in the 2011 Action. On October 18, 2013, the parties stipulated that Norman will dismiss all of its claims against DISH Network L.L.C. in the 2011 Action, and re-assert them in the 2013 Action. The 689 patent relates to a clock generator capable of shut-down mode and clock generation method, the 555 patent relates to a wireless communications privacy method and system, 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. On May 30, 2014, Norman dismissed the 2013 Action against us with prejudice, pursuant to a settlement agreement. 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 us and EchoStar 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. On August 12, 2014, in response to the parties’ respective summary judgment motions related to the Gemstar license issues, the Court ruled in favor of PMC and dismissed all claims by or against Gemstar and entered partial final judgment in PMC’s favor as to those claims. On September 16, 2014, we and EchoStar filed a notice of appeal of that partial final judgment, which is pending. A trial date is set for January 12, 2015. PMC has informed us that it will not pursue at trial its claim for infringement of United States Patent No. 5,109,414. PMC’s damages expert contends that we and EchoStar are liable for damages ranging from approximately $500 million to $650 million as of March 31, 2012, which does not include pre-judgment interest and may be trebled under Federal law. 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. Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C./LPL Licensing, L.L.C. On October 17, 2014, Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C. and LPL Licensing, L.L.C. (together referred to as “Phoenix”) filed a complaint against us and 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 Nos. 5,987,434 entitled “Apparatus and Method for Transacting Marketing and Sales of Financial Products” (the “434 patent”); 7,890,366 entitled “Personalized Communication Documents, System and Method for Preparing Same” (the “366 patent); 8,352,317 entitled “System for Facilitating Production of Variable Offer Communications” (the “317 patent”); 8,234,184 entitled “Automated Reply Generation Direct Marketing System” (the “184 patent”); and 6,999,938 entitled “Automated Reply Generation Direct Marketing System” (the “938 patent”). Phoenix alleges that we infringe the asserted patents by making and using products and services that generate customized marketing materials. Phoenix is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. 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. 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 United States 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. Effective June 18, 2014, Preservation Technologies dismissed all of its claims against us with prejudice, pursuant to a settlement agreement. Qurio Holdings, Inc. On September 26, 2014, Qurio Holdings, Inc. (“Qurio”) filed a complaint against us and our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 8,102,863 entitled “Highspeed WAN To Wireless LAN Gateway” (the “863 Patent”) and United States Patent No. 7,787,904 entitled “Personal Area Network Having Media Player And Mobile Device Controlling The Same” (the “904 Patent”). On the same day, Qurio filed similar complaints against Comcast and DirecTV. Qurio is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted 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 United States Patent and Trademark Office. We and Katz entered into a settlement agreement effective October 8, 2014, under which Katz agreed to dismiss the action against us with prejudice. 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. The case has been stayed since July 2009 pending two reexamination petitions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could 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. TQ Beta LLC On June 30, 2014, TQ Beta LLC (“TQ Beta”) filed a complaint against us; our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH DBS Corporation and DISH Network L.L.C; EchoStar; and EchoStar’s subsidiaries EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., Hughes Satellite Systems Corporation, and Sling Media Inc., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The Complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 7,203,456 (the “456 patent”), which is entitled “Method and Apparatus for Time and Space Domain Shifting of Broadcast Signals.” TQ Beta alleges that our Hopper set-top boxes, ViP 722 and ViP 722k DVR devices, as well as our DISH Anywhere service and DISH Anywhere mobile application, infringe the 456 patent. TQ Beta is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. 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 (the “797 patent”), which is entitled “Protection of Software Again [sic] Against Unauthorized Use.” Mr. Tse is the named inventor on the 797 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 Inc.; Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC and HTC America Inc. 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’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 Inc.; Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC and HTC America Inc. also was transferred. On December 11, 2013, the Court granted our motion for summary judgment based on invalidity of the 797 patent. Mr. Tse filed a notice of appeal on January 8, 2014, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered that the appeal be submitted to a three judge panel of the Federal Circuit on July 10, 2014 without oral argument. On July 16, 2014, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s entry of summary judgment in our favor. On August 11, 2014, Mr. Tse filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, which the Federal Circuit denied on September 15, 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 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. Waste Disposal Inquiry The California Attorney General and the Alameda County (California) District Attorney are investigating whether certain of our waste disposal policies, procedures and practices are in violation of the California Business and Professions Code and the California Health and Safety Code. We expect that these entities will seek injunctive and monetary relief. The investigation appears to be part of a broader effort to investigate waste handling and disposal processes of a number of industries. While we are unable to predict the outcome of this investigation, we do not believe that the outcome will have a material effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. 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 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.

10. Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

Wireless Spectrum

700 MHz Licenses. 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. At the time they were granted, these licenses were subject to certain interim and final build-out requirements. By June 2013, we were required to 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 June 2019, we were required to 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”). As discussed below, these requirements have since been modified by the FCC.

On September 9, 2013, we filed a letter with the FCC in support of a voluntary industry solution to resolve certain interoperability issues affecting the lower 700 MHz spectrum band (the “Interoperability Solution”). On October 29, 2013, the FCC issued an order approving the Interoperability Solution (the “Interoperability Solution Order”), which requires us to reduce power emissions on our 700 MHz licenses. As part of the Interoperability Solution Order, the FCC, among other things, approved our request to modify the 700 MHz Interim Build-Out Requirement so that by March 2017, we must provide signal coverage and offer service to at least 40% of our total E Block population (the “Modified 700 MHz Interim Build-Out Requirement”). The FCC also approved our request to modify the 700 MHz Final Build-Out Requirement so that by March 2021, we must provide signal coverage and offer service to at least 70% of the population in each of our E Block license areas (the “Modified 700 MHz Final Build-Out Requirement”). These requirements replaced the previous build-out requirements associated with our 700 MHz licenses. While the modifications to our 700 MHz licenses provide us additional time to complete the build-out requirements, the reduction in power emissions could have an adverse impact on our ability to fully utilize our 700 MHz licenses. If we fail to meet the Modified 700 MHz Interim Build-Out Requirement, the Modified 700 MHz Final Build-Out Requirement may be accelerated by one year, from March 2021 to March 2020, and we could face the reduction of license area(s). If we fail to meet the Modified 700 MHz Final Build-Out Requirement, our authorization may terminate for the geographic portion of each license in which we are not providing service.

AWS-4 Licenses. On March 2, 2012, the FCC approved the transfer of 40 MHz of 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.

Our consolidated FCC applications for approval of the license transfers from DBSD North America and TerreStar were accompanied by requests for waiver of the FCC’s MSS “integrated service” and spare satellite requirements and various technical provisions. On March 21, 2012, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rule Making proposing the elimination of the integrated service, spare satellite and various technical requirements associated with these licenses. On December 11, 2012, the FCC approved rules that eliminated these requirements and gave notice of its proposed modification of our authorizations to, among other things, allow us to offer single-mode terrestrial terminals to customers who do not desire satellite functionality. On February 15, 2013, the FCC issued an order, which became effective on March 7, 2013, modifying our licenses to expand our terrestrial operating authority with AWS-4 authority (“AWS-4”). That order 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 (2000-2005 MHz) effectively unusable for terrestrial services and limit our ability to fully utilize the remaining 15 MHz of our uplink spectrum (2005-2020 MHz) for terrestrial services. These limitations could, among other things, impact the ongoing development of technical standards associated with our wireless business, and may have a material adverse effect on our ability to commercialize our AWS-4 licenses.

That order also mandated 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 “AWS-4 Interim Build-Out Requirement”). By March 2020, we were required to provide terrestrial signal coverage and offer terrestrial service to at least 70% of the population in each area covered by an individual license (the “AWS-4 Final Build-Out Requirement”).

On December 20, 2013, the FCC issued a further order that, among other things, extended the AWS-4 Final Build-Out Requirement by one year to March 2021 (the “Modified AWS-4 Final Build-Out Requirement”). If we fail to meet the AWS-4 Interim Build-Out Requirement, the Modified AWS-4 Final Build-Out Requirement may be accelerated by one year, from March 2021 to March 2020. If we fail to meet the Modified AWS-4 Final Build-Out Requirement, our terrestrial authorization for each license area in which we fail to meet the requirement may terminate. The FCC’s December 20, 2013 order also conditionally waived certain FCC rules for our AWS-4 licenses to allow us to repurpose all 20 MHz of our uplink spectrum (2000-2020 MHz) for downlink (the “AWS-4 Downlink Waiver”). If we fail to notify the FCC that we intend to use our uplink spectrum for downlink by June 20, 2016, the AWS-4 Downlink Waiver will terminate, and the Modified AWS-4 Final Build-Out Requirement will revert back to the AWS-4 Final Build-Out Requirement.

H Block Licenses. The auction of wireless spectrum known as the H Block commenced on January 22, 2014 and concluded on February 27, 2014. We were the winning bidder for all 176 wireless spectrum licenses in the H Block auction with an aggregate bid of $1.564 billion. On December 17, 2013, we paid approximately $328 million to the FCC as a deposit for the H Block auction. We paid the remaining balance of our winning bid of approximately $1.236 billion for the H Block licenses on March 28, 2014. On April 29, 2014, the FCC issued an order granting our application to acquire these H Block licenses. As a result, during May 2014, we also paid approximately $13 million to UTAM, Inc. for clearance costs associated with the lower H Block spectrum and approximately $95 million to Sprint for clearance costs associated with the upper H Block spectrum in connection with the issuance of the H Block licenses. The H Block licenses are subject to certain interim and final build-out requirements. By April 2018, we must provide reliable signal coverage and offer service to at least 40% of the population in each area covered by an individual H Block license (the “H Block Interim Build-Out Requirement”). By April 2024, we must provide reliable signal coverage and offer service to at least 75% of the population in each area covered by an individual H Block license (the “H Block Final Build-Out Requirement”). If we fail to meet the H Block Interim Build-Out Requirement, the H Block license term and the H Block Final Build-Out Requirement may be accelerated by two years (from April 2024 to April 2022) for each H Block license area in which we fail to meet the requirement. If we fail to meet the H Block Final Build-Out Requirement, our authorization for each H Block license area in which we fail to meet the requirement may terminate. The FCC has adopted rules for the H Block spectrum band that is adjacent to our AWS-4 licenses. Depending on the outcome of the standard-setting process for the H Block and our ultimate decision regarding the AWS-4 Downlink Waiver, the rules that the FCC adopted for the H Block could further impact 15 MHz of our AWS-4 uplink spectrum (2005-2020 MHz), which may have a material adverse effect on our ability to commercialize the AWS-4 licenses.

AWS-3 Auction. We have filed an application with the FCC to participate as a potential bidder in the upcoming AWS-3 wireless spectrum auction. On October 30, 2014, the FCC announced that we and 69 other applicants were qualified to participate in the AWS-3 auction. The auction is scheduled to commence on November 13, 2014. The FCC has set an aggregate reserve price of: (i) approximately $580 million for licenses in the 1695-1710 MHz band, and (ii) approximately $10.066 billion for paired licenses in the 1755-1780/2155-2180 MHz bands, to conclude the auction of spectrum in each respective band. The FCC determined that bidding in this auction will be “anonymous,” which means that prior to and during the course of the auction, the FCC will not make public any information about a specific applicant’s upfront deposit or its bids. In addition, FCC rules restrict information that bidders may disclose about their participation in the auction.

Commercialization of Wireless Spectrum Licenses and Related Assets. We may also determine that additional wireless spectrum licenses may be required to commercialize our wireless business and to compete with other wireless service providers. We will need to make significant additional investments or partner with others to, among other things, commercialize, build-out, and integrate our licenses and related assets, and any additional acquired licenses and related assets; and comply with regulations applicable to our licenses. Depending on the nature and scope of such commercialization, build-out, and integration efforts, and regulatory compliance, any such investment or partnership could vary significantly. There can be no assurance that we will be able to develop and implement a business model that will realize a return on our wireless spectrum licenses or that we will be able to profitably deploy the assets represented by our wireless spectrum licenses, which may affect the carrying value of these assets and our future financial condition or results of operations.

Guarantees

On January 1, 2008, we completed the distribution of our technology and set-top box business and certain infrastructure assets (the “Spin-off”) into a separate publicly-traded company, EchoStar.

In connection with the Spin-off, we distributed certain satellite lease agreements to EchoStar and remained the guarantor under those capital leases for payments totaling approximately $10 million over approximately the next five months.

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 its satellite transponder service agreement through 2019. As of September 30, 2014, the remaining obligation of our guarantee was $327 million.

As of September 30, 2014, 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.

California Institute of Technology

On October 1, 2013, the California Institute of Technology (“Caltech”) filed complaints against us and our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C. and dishNET Satellite Broadband L.L.C., as well as Hughes Communications, Inc. and Hughes Network Systems, LLC, which are wholly-owned subsidiaries of EchoStar, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 7,116,710 (the “710 patent”); 7,421,032 (the “032 patent”); 7,916,781 (the “781 patent”) and 8,284,833 (the “833 patent”), each of which is entitled “Serial Concatenation of Interleaved Convolutional Codes forming Turbo-Like Codes.” Caltech alleges that encoding data as specified by the DVB-S2 standard infringes each of the asserted patents. In the operative Amended Complaint, served on March 6, 2014, Caltech claims that our Hopper set-top box, as well as the Hughes defendants’ satellite broadband products and services, infringe the asserted patents by implementing the DVB-S2 standard.

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

ClearPlay, Inc.

On March 13, 2014, ClearPlay, Inc. (“ClearPlay”) filed a complaint against us, our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., EchoStar, and its wholly-owned subsidiary EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,898,799, entitled “Multimedia Content Navigation and Playback” (the “799 patent”); 7,526,784, entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content” (the “784 patent”); 7,543,318, entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content” (the “318 patent”); 7,577,970, entitled “Multimedia Content Navigation and Playback” (the “970 patent”); and 8,117,282, entitled “Media Player Configured to Receive Playback Filters From Alternative Storage Mediums” (the “282 patent”). ClearPlay alleges that the AutoHop™ feature in our Hopper set-top box infringes the asserted patents.

CRFD Research, Inc. (a subsidiary of Marathon Patent Group, Inc.)

On January 17, 2014, CRFD Research, Inc. (“CRFD”) filed a complaint against us, our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH DBS and DISH Network L.L.C., EchoStar, and its wholly-owned subsidiary EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 7,191,233 (the “233 patent”). The 233 patent is entitled “System for Automated, Mid-Session, User-Directed, Device-to-Device Session Transfer System,” and relates to transferring an ongoing software session from one device to another. CRFD alleges that our Hopper and Joey set-top boxes infringe the 233 patent. On the same day, CRFD filed similar complaints against AT&T Inc.; Comcast Corp.; DirecTV; Time Warner Cable Inc.; Cox Communications, Inc.; Akamai Technologies, Inc.; Cablevision Systems Corp. and Limelight Networks, Inc. CRFD is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

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

Custom Media Technologies LLC

On August 15, 2013, Custom Media Technologies LLC (“Custom Media”) filed complaints against us; AT&T Inc.; Charter Communications, Inc.; Comcast Corp.; Cox Communications, Inc.; DirecTV; Time Warner Cable Inc. and Verizon Communications, Inc., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,269,275 (the “275 patent”). The 275 patent, which is entitled “Method and System for Customizing and Distributing Presentations for User Sites,” relates to the provision of customized presentations to viewers over a network, such as “a cable television network, an Internet or other computer network, a broadcast television network, and/or a satellite system.” Custom Media alleges that our DVR devices and DVR functionality infringe the 275 patent. Custom Media is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, on November 6, 2013, the Court entered an order substituting DISH Network L.L.C., our wholly-owned subsidiary, as the defendant in our place. A trial date is set for September 19, 2016.

Do Not Call Litigation

On March 25, 2009, our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. was sued in a civil action by the United States Attorney General and several states in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Telephone Sales Rules, as well as analogous state statutes and state consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs allege that we, directly and through certain independent third-party retailers and their affiliates, committed certain telemarketing violations. On December 23, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, which indicated for the first time that the state plaintiffs are seeking civil penalties and damages of approximately $270 million and that the federal plaintiff is seeking an unspecified amount of civil penalties (which could substantially exceed the civil penalties and damages being sought by the state plaintiffs). The plaintiffs are also seeking injunctive relief that if granted would, among other things, enjoin DISH Network L.L.C., whether acting directly or indirectly through authorized telemarketers or independent third-party retailers, from placing any outbound telemarketing calls to market or promote its goods or services for five years, and enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from accepting activations or sales from certain existing independent third-party retailers and from certain new independent third-party retailers, except under certain circumstances. We have also filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all claims, and the Court heard oral arguments on the parties’ summary judgment motions on October 17, 2014.

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.

Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC

On December 20, 2013, Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC (“Dragon IP”) filed complaints against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., as well as Apple Inc.; AT&T, Inc.; Charter Communications, Inc.; Comcast Corp.; Cox Communications, Inc.; DirecTV; Sirius XM Radio Inc.; Time Warner Cable Inc. and Verizon Communications, Inc., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 5,930,444 (the “444 patent”), which is entitled “Simultaneous Recording and Playback Apparatus.” Dragon IP alleges that various of our DVR receivers infringe the 444 patent. Dragon IP is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

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 alleged 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 sought leave to further appeal, which the New York Court of Appeals denied on August 27, 2013 on jurisdictional grounds. On September 19, 2013, we appealed the trial court’s final judgment to the First Department. On March 6, 2014, pursuant to a settlement and release agreement between the parties, we dismissed our 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 were liable for some of the amount alleged to be owing but that the actual amount owing was 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 owed 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 owed 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 did not fully resolve all claims in the action. As a result of the First Department’s June 2011 ruling, we recorded $24 million of “Litigation Expense” on our Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss) during 2011. 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. As a result of the parties’ settlement and release, no further appeals are possible, and this matter is now concluded.

Garnet Digital, LLC

On September 9, 2013, Garnet Digital, LLC (“Garnet Digital”) filed a complaint against us and 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. 5,379,421 (the “421 patent”), which is entitled “Interactive Terminal for the Access of Remote Database Information.” The 421 patent relates to methods for accessing information from a remote computerized database and related devices. On the same day, Garnet Digital filed similar complaints in the same court against 15 other defendants, including AT&T Inc.; Comcast Corp.; DirecTV; TiVo, Inc. and Verizon Communications, Inc. Garnet Digital is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On July 30, 2014, the Court dismissed the claims against us with prejudice.

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 at a certain point after the show’s original airing.

Later on May 24, 2012, (i) Fox Broadcasting Company; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. and Fox Television Holdings, Inc. filed a lawsuit against 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 Slingbox placeshifting functionality infringe their copyrights and breach their retransmission consent agreements, (ii) NBC Studios LLC; Universal Network Television, LLC; Open 4 Business Productions LLC and NBCUniversal, LLC filed a lawsuit against 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.

As a result of certain parties’ competing venue-related motions brought in both the New York and California actions, and certain networks’ filing various counterclaims and amended complaints, the claims have proceeded in the following venues: (1) the copyright and contract claims regarding the ABC and CBS parties in New York; and (2) the copyright and contract claims regarding the Fox and NBC parties in California.

California Actions. The NBC plaintiffs and Fox plaintiffs filed amended complaints in their respective California actions adding copyright claims against EchoStar and EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., a wholly-owned subsidiary of EchoStar. In addition, the Fox plaintiffs’ amended complaint added claims challenging the Hopper Transfers™ feature of our second-generation Hopper set-top box.

On November 7, 2012, the California court denied the Fox plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Hopper set-top box’s PrimeTime Anytime and AutoHop features, and the Fox plaintiffs appealed. On March 27, 2013, at the request of the parties, the Central District of California granted a stay of all proceedings in the action brought by the NBC plaintiffs, pending resolution of the appeal by the Fox plaintiffs. On July 24, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the Fox plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction as to the PrimeTime Anytime and AutoHop features. On August 7, 2013, the Fox plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, which was denied on January 24, 2014. The United States Supreme Court granted the Fox plaintiffs an extension until May 23, 2014 to file a petition for writ of certiorari, but they did not file. As a result, the stay of the NBC plaintiffs’ action expired. On August 6, 2014, at the request of the parties, the Central District of California granted a further stay of all proceedings in the action brought by the NBC plaintiffs, pending a final judgment on all claims in the Fox plaintiffs’ action. No trial date is currently set on the NBC claims.

In addition, on February 21, 2013, the Fox plaintiffs filed a second motion for preliminary injunction against: (i) us seeking to enjoin the Hopper Transfers feature in our second-generation Hopper set-top box, alleging breach of their retransmission consent agreement; and (ii) us and EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. seeking to enjoin the Slingbox placeshifting functionality in our second-generation Hopper set-top box, alleging copyright infringement and breach of their retransmission consent agreement. On September 23, 2013, the California court denied the Fox plaintiffs’ motion. The Fox plaintiffs appealed, and on July 14, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the Fox plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction as to the Hopper Transfers feature and the Slingbox placeshifting functionality in our second-generation Hopper set-top box. On October 17, 2014, the California court heard oral argument on the Fox plaintiffs’ and our respective motions for summary judgment. The Fox claims are set for trial on February 24, 2015.

New York Actions. Both the ABC and CBS parties filed counterclaims in the New York action adding copyright claims against EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., 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 November 23, 2012, the ABC plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Hopper set-top box’s PrimeTime Anytime and AutoHop features. On September 18, 2013, the New York court denied that motion. The ABC plaintiffs appealed, and oral argument on the appeal was heard on February 20, 2014 before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Pursuant to a settlement between us and the ABC parties, on March 4, 2014, the ABC parties withdrew their appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and, on March 6, 2014, we and the ABC parties dismissed without prejudice all of our respective claims pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The CBS claims in the New York action are set to be trial-ready on May 29, 2015.

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, or are in breach of any of the retransmission consent agreements, 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.

Joao Control & Monitoring Systems LLC

On April 23, 2014, Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLC (“Joao Control”) filed a complaint against us in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,549,130 (the “130 patent”), which is entitled “Control Apparatus and Method for Vehicles and/or for Premises.” Joao alleges that we infringe the 130 patent by making, using, providing and/or importing remotely-accessed DVRs. On the same day, Joao Control also filed similar actions against DirecTV; Verizon Communications, Inc.; Time Warner Cable Inc.; Cox Communications, Inc.; and Cablevision Systems Corporation, among others. Joao Control is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. Joao Control never served us with its complaint and on June 23, 2014, Joao Control dismissed its complaint against us without prejudice.

LightSquared/Harbinger Capital Partners LLC (LightSquared Bankruptcy)

As previously disclosed in our public filings, L-Band Acquisition, LLC (“LBAC”), our wholly-owned subsidiary, entered into a Plan Support Agreement (the “PSA”) with certain senior secured lenders to LightSquared LP (the “LightSquared LP Lenders”) on July 23, 2013, which contemplated the purchase by LBAC of substantially all of the assets of LightSquared LP and certain of its subsidiaries (the “LBAC Bid”) that are debtors and debtors in possession in the LightSquared bankruptcy cases pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”), which cases are jointly administered under the caption In re LightSquared Inc., et. al., Case No. 12 12080 (SCC).

Pursuant to the PSA, LBAC was entitled to terminate the PSA in certain circumstances, certain of which required three business days’ written notice, including, without limitation, in the event that certain milestones specified in the PSA were not met. On January 7, 2014, LBAC delivered written notice of termination of the PSA to the LightSquared LP Lenders. As a result, the PSA terminated effective on January 10, 2014, and the LBAC Bid was withdrawn.

On August 6, 2013, Harbinger Capital Partners LLC and other affiliates of Harbinger (collectively, “Harbinger”), a shareholder of LightSquared Inc., filed an adversary proceeding against us, LBAC, EchoStar, Charles W. Ergen (our Chairman), SP Special Opportunities, LLC (“SPSO”) (an entity controlled by Mr. Ergen), and certain other parties, in the Bankruptcy Court. Harbinger alleged, among other things, claims based on fraud, unfair competition, civil conspiracy and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage related to certain purchases of LightSquared secured debt by SPSO. Subsequently, LightSquared intervened to join in certain claims alleged against certain defendants other than us, LBAC and EchoStar.

On October 29, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed all of the claims in Harbinger’s complaint in their entirety, but granted leave for LightSquared to file its own complaint in intervention. On November 15, 2013, LightSquared filed its complaint, which included various claims against us, EchoStar, Mr. Ergen and SPSO. On December 2, 2013, Harbinger filed an amended complaint, asserting various claims against SPSO. On December 12, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed several of the claims asserted by LightSquared and Harbinger. The surviving claims include, among others, LightSquared’s claims against SPSO for declaratory relief, breach of contract and statutory disallowance; LightSquared’s tortious interference claim against us, EchoStar and Mr. Ergen; and Harbinger’s claim against SPSO for statutory disallowance. These claims proceeded to a non-jury trial on January 9, 2014. In its Post-Trial Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered on June 10, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court rejected all claims against us and EchoStar, and it rejected some but not all claims against the other defendants.

We intend to vigorously defend any claims against us in this proceeding and cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this proceeding or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

LightSquared/Harbinger Capital Partners LLC (LightSquared Colorado Action)

On July 8, 2014, Harbinger filed suit against us, LBAC, Mr. Ergen, SPSO, and certain other parties, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint asserts claims for tortious interference with contract and abuse of process, as well as claims alleging violations of the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act and the Colorado Organized Crime Control Act. Harbinger seeks to rely on many of the same facts and circumstances that were at issue in the LightSquared adversary proceeding pending in the Bankruptcy Court. Harbinger argues that the defendants’ alleged conduct, among other things, is responsible for Harbinger’s losing control of LightSquared and causing breaches of Harbinger’s stockholder agreement. The complaint seeks damages in excess of $500 million, which under federal and state law may be trebled.

We intend to vigorously defend any claims against us in 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.

LightSquared Transaction Shareholder Derivative Actions

On August 9, 2013, a purported shareholder of the Company, Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund (“Jacksonville PFPF”), filed a putative shareholder derivative action in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada alleging, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty claims against the members of the Company’s Board of Directors as of that date: Charles W. Ergen; Joseph P. Clayton; James DeFranco; Cantey M. Ergen; Steven R. Goodbarn; David K. Moskowitz; Tom A. Ortolf; and Carl E. Vogel (collectively, the “Director Defendants”). In its first amended complaint, Jacksonville PFPF asserted claims that Mr. Ergen breached his fiduciary duty to the Company in connection with certain purchases of LightSquared debt by SPSO, an entity controlled by Mr. Ergen, and that the other Director Defendants aided and abetted that alleged breach of duty. The Jacksonville PFPF claims alleged that (1) the debt purchases created an impermissible conflict of interest and (2) put at risk the LBAC Bid, which as noted above has been withdrawn. Jacksonville PFPF further claimed that most members of the Company’s Board of Directors are beholden to Mr. Ergen to an extent that prevents them from discharging their duties in connection with the Company’s participation in the LightSquared bankruptcy auction process. Jacksonville PFPF is seeking an unspecified amount of damages. Jacksonville PFPF dismissed its claims against Mr. Goodbarn on October 8, 2013.

Jacksonville PFPF sought a preliminary injunction that would enjoin Mr. Ergen and all of the Director Defendants other than Mr. Goodbarn from influencing the Company’s efforts to acquire certain assets of LightSquared in the bankruptcy proceeding. On November 27, 2013, the Court denied that request but granted narrower relief enjoining Mr. Ergen and anyone acting on his behalf from participating in negotiations related to one aspect of the LBAC Bid, which, as noted above, has been withdrawn.

Five alleged shareholders have filed substantially similar putative derivative complaints in state and federal courts alleging the same or substantially similar claims. On September 18, 2013, DCM Multi-Manager Fund, LLC filed a duplicative putative derivative complaint in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada, which was consolidated with the Jacksonville PFPF action on October 9, 2013. Between September 25, 2013 and October 2, 2013, City of Daytona Beach Police Officers and Firefighters Retirement System, Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System and Iron Worker Mid-South Pension Fund filed duplicative putative derivative complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Also on October 2, 2013, Iron Workers District Council (Philadelphia and Vicinity) Retirement and Pension Plan filed its complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

On October 11, 2013, Iron Worker Mid-South Pension Fund dismissed its claims without prejudice. On October 30, 2013, Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System dismissed its claims without prejudice and, on January 2, 2014, filed a new complaint in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada, which, on May 2, 2014, was consolidated with the Jacksonville PFPF action. On December 13, 2013, City of Daytona Beach Police Officers and Firefighters Retirement System voluntarily dismissed its claims without prejudice. On March 28, 2014, Iron Workers District Council (Philadelphia and Vicinity) Retirement and Pension Plan voluntarily dismissed its claims without prejudice.

On July 25, 2014, Jacksonville PFPF filed a second amended complaint, which added claims against George R. Brokaw and Charles M. Lillis, as Director Defendants, and Thomas A. Cullen, R. Stanton Dodge and K. Jason Kiser, as officers of the Company. Jacksonville PFPF asserted five claims in its second amended complaint, each of which alleged breaches of the duty of loyalty. Three of the claims were asserted solely against Mr. Ergen; one claim was made against all of the Director Defendants, other than Mr. Ergen and Mr. Clayton; and the final claim was made against Messrs. Cullen, Dodge and Kiser.

Our Board of Directors has established a Special Litigation Committee to review the factual allegations and legal claims in these actions. On October 24, 2014, the Special Litigation Committee filed a report in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada regarding its investigation of the claims and allegations asserted in Jacksonville PFPF’s second amended complaint. 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, LLC

On September 15, 2011, Norman IP Holdings, LLC (“Norman”) filed a patent infringement complaint (the “2011 Action”) against Lexmark International Corporation (“Lexmark”) and Brother International Corporation (“Brother”), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,592,555 (the “555 patent”); 5,530,597 (the “597 patent”) and 5,502,689 (the “689 patent”) by Lexmark, and infringement of the 555 patent and the 689 patent by Brother. On January 27, 2012, Norman filed a second amended complaint in the 2011 Action that added us as a defendant, among others, in which it asserted the 555 patent and the 689 patent against us. On September 21, 2012, Norman served us with preliminary infringement contentions related to the 555 patent and the 689 patent, as well as the 597 patent, which outlined Norman’s claims with respect to certain DISH products. On February 8, 2013, Norman filed a third amended complaint in the 2011 Action, in which it added claims against us alleging infringement of the 597 patent. On April 8, 2013, Norman filed a fourth amended complaint in the 2011 Action, in which it added new claims against us alleging infringement of additional DISH products. On May 1, 2013, Norman filed a fifth amended complaint in the 2011 Action, in which it named Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC; Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.; Xerox Corporation; ZTE (USA) Inc. and ZTE Solutions, Inc. as defendants, in addition to us. On July 9, 2013, the Court ordered Norman to file a new sixth amended complaint limiting Norman’s claims against us to those specifically referenced in its September 21, 2012 preliminary infringement contentions. As a result, on July 10, 2013, Norman filed a sixth amended complaint in the 2011 Action, in which it asserted claims against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. replacing us as defendant, alleging that the use of certain Broadcom chipsets in DISH DVR systems infringes the 689 patent. In addition, Norman withdrew all infringement claims against us regarding the 555 patent and the 597 patent. On July 12, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the 2011 Action, because Norman failed to comply with the Court’s July 9, 2013 order.

In addition, on May 10, 2013, Norman filed a separate patent infringement complaint (the “2013 Action”) against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, asserting infringement of the 555, 597 and 689 patents, as well as United States Patent Nos. 5,608,873 (the “873 patent”) and 5,771,394 (the “394 patent”). The infringement claims asserted in the 2013 Action relate to different DISH products than Norman identified in the 2011 Action.

On October 18, 2013, the parties stipulated that Norman will dismiss all of its claims against DISH Network L.L.C. in the 2011 Action, and re-assert them in the 2013 Action.

The 689 patent relates to a clock generator capable of shut-down mode and clock generation method, the 555 patent relates to a wireless communications privacy method and system, 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.

On May 30, 2014, Norman dismissed the 2013 Action against us with prejudice, pursuant to a settlement agreement.

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 us and EchoStar 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. On August 12, 2014, in response to the parties’ respective summary judgment motions related to the Gemstar license issues, the Court ruled in favor of PMC and dismissed all claims by or against Gemstar and entered partial final judgment in PMC’s favor as to those claims. On September 16, 2014, we and EchoStar filed a notice of appeal of that partial final judgment, which is pending. A trial date is set for January 12, 2015. PMC has informed us that it will not pursue at trial its claim for infringement of United States Patent No. 5,109,414. PMC’s damages expert contends that we and EchoStar are liable for damages ranging from approximately $500 million to $650 million as of March 31, 2012, which does not include pre-judgment interest and may be trebled under Federal law.

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.

Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C./LPL Licensing, L.L.C.

On October 17, 2014, Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C. and LPL Licensing, L.L.C. (together referred to as “Phoenix”) filed a complaint against us and 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 Nos. 5,987,434 entitled “Apparatus and Method for Transacting Marketing and Sales of Financial Products” (the “434 patent”); 7,890,366 entitled “Personalized Communication Documents, System and Method for Preparing Same” (the “366 patent); 8,352,317 entitled “System for Facilitating Production of Variable Offer Communications” (the “317 patent”); 8,234,184 entitled “Automated Reply Generation Direct Marketing System” (the “184 patent”); and 6,999,938 entitled “Automated Reply Generation Direct Marketing System” (the “938 patent”). Phoenix alleges that we infringe the asserted patents by making and using products and services that generate customized marketing materials. Phoenix is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

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 United States 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.

Effective June 18, 2014, Preservation Technologies dismissed all of its claims against us with prejudice, pursuant to a settlement agreement.

Qurio Holdings, Inc.

On September 26, 2014, Qurio Holdings, Inc. (“Qurio”) filed a complaint against us and our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 8,102,863 entitled “Highspeed WAN To Wireless LAN Gateway” (the “863 Patent”) and United States Patent No. 7,787,904 entitled “Personal Area Network Having Media Player And Mobile Device Controlling The Same” (the “904 Patent”). On the same day, Qurio filed similar complaints against Comcast and DirecTV. Qurio is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted 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 United States Patent and Trademark Office. We and Katz entered into a settlement agreement effective October 8, 2014, under which Katz agreed to dismiss the action against us with prejudice.

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. The case has been stayed since July 2009 pending two reexamination petitions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

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

TQ Beta LLC

On June 30, 2014, TQ Beta LLC (“TQ Beta”) filed a complaint against us; our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH DBS Corporation and DISH Network L.L.C; EchoStar; and EchoStar’s subsidiaries EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., Hughes Satellite Systems Corporation, and Sling Media Inc., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The Complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 7,203,456 (the “456 patent”), which is entitled “Method and Apparatus for Time and Space Domain Shifting of Broadcast Signals.” TQ Beta alleges that our Hopper set-top boxes, ViP 722 and ViP 722k DVR devices, as well as our DISH Anywhere service and DISH Anywhere mobile application, infringe the 456 patent. TQ Beta is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

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 (the “797 patent”), which is entitled “Protection of Software Again [sic] Against Unauthorized Use.” Mr. Tse is the named inventor on the 797 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 Inc.; Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC and HTC America Inc. 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’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 Inc.; Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC and HTC America Inc. also was transferred. On December 11, 2013, the Court granted our motion for summary judgment based on invalidity of the 797 patent. Mr. Tse filed a notice of appeal on January 8, 2014, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered that the appeal be submitted to a three judge panel of the Federal Circuit on July 10, 2014 without oral argument. On July 16, 2014, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s entry of summary judgment in our favor. On August 11, 2014, Mr. Tse filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, which the Federal Circuit denied on September 15, 2014.

Waste Disposal Inquiry

The California Attorney General and the Alameda County (California) District Attorney are investigating whether certain of our waste disposal policies, procedures and practices are in violation of the California Business and Professions Code and the California Health and Safety Code. We expect that these entities will seek injunctive and monetary relief. The investigation appears to be part of a broader effort to investigate waste handling and disposal processes of a number of industries. While we are unable to predict the outcome of this investigation, we do not believe that the outcome will have a material effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

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 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.