14.Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

As of December 31, 2016, future maturities of our long-term debt, capital lease and contractual obligations are summarized as follows:


	Payments due by period
	Total		2017		2018		2019		2020		2021		Thereafter
	(In thousands)
Long-term debt obligations	$	17,147,844	$	904,168	$	1,204,274	$	1,404,385	$	1,104,503	$	2,004,626	$	10,525,888
Capital lease obligations		136,146		33,412		36,260		19,503		19,137		20,615		7,219
Interest expense on long-term debt and capital lease obligations		6,013,072		983,130		903,456		875,684		736,096		639,190		1,875,516
Satellite-related obligations		1,615,590		382,348		348,617		301,102		241,371		208,196		133,956
Operating lease obligations		139,673		41,334		25,266		18,954		13,728		9,332		31,059
Purchase obligations		2,202,987		1,765,669		275,669		130,230		16,386		8,833		6,200
Total	$	27,255,312	$	4,110,061	$	2,793,542	$	2,749,858	$	2,131,221	$	2,890,792	$	12,579,838

In certain circumstances the dates on which we are obligated to make these payments could be delayed. These amounts will increase to the extent that we procure launch and/or in-orbit insurance on our satellites or contract for the construction, launch or lease of additional satellites.

The table above does not include $357 million of liabilities associated with unrecognized tax benefits that were accrued, as discussed in Note 10 and are included on our Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2016. We do not expect any portion of this amount to be paid or settled within the next twelve months.

Wireless

DISH Network Spectrum

We have invested over $5.0 billion since 2008 to acquire certain wireless spectrum licenses and related assets.

700 MHz Licenses. In 2008, we paid $712 million to acquire certain 700 MHz E Block (“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. On October 29, 2013, the FCC issued an order approving a voluntary industry solution to resolve certain interoperability issues affecting the lower 700 MHz spectrum band (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 original interim and final build-out requirements associated with our 700 MHz licenses 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”). 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 the Modified 700 MHz Interim Build-Out Requirement is not met, 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 the Modified 700 MHz Final Build-Out Requirement is not met, 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, Inc. (“DBSD North America”) and TerreStar Networks, Inc. (“TerreStar”) to us. On March 9, 2012, we completed the acquisition of 100% of the equity of reorganized DBSD North America (the “DBSD Transaction”) and substantially all of the assets of TerreStar (the “TerreStar Transaction”), pursuant to which we acquired, among other things, certain satellite assets and wireless spectrum licenses held by DBSD North America and TerreStar. The total consideration to acquire the DBSD North America and TerreStar assets was approximately $2.860 billion.

On February 15, 2013, the FCC issued an order, which became effective on March 7, 2013, modifying our licenses to expand our terrestrial operating authority with AWS-4 authority (“AWS-4”). 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 the AWS-4 Interim Build-Out Requirement is not met, the Modified AWS-4 Final Build-Out Requirement may be accelerated by one year, from March 2021 to March 2020. If the Modified AWS-4 Final Build-Out Requirement is not met, our terrestrial authorization for each license area in which we do not 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 terrestrial downlink operations. On June 1, 2016, we notified the FCC that we had elected to use our AWS-4 uplink spectrum for terrestrial downlink operations, and effective June 7, 2016, the FCC modified our AWS-4 licenses, resulting in all 40 MHz of our AWS-4 spectrum being designated for terrestrial downlink operations.

H Block Licenses. On April 29, 2014, the FCC issued an order granting our application to acquire all 176 wireless spectrum licenses in the H Block auction. We paid approximately $1.672 billion to acquire these H Block licenses, including clearance costs associated with the lower H Block spectrum. 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 the H Block Interim Build-Out Requirement is not met, 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 do not meet the requirement. If the H Block Final Build-Out Requirement is not met, our authorization for each H Block license area in which we do not meet the requirement may terminate.

MVDDS Licenses. We have multichannel video distribution and data service (“MVDDS”) licenses in 82 out of 214 geographical license areas, including Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago and several other major metropolitan areas. By August 2014, we were required to meet certain FCC build-out requirements related to our MVDDS licenses, and we are subject to certain FCC service rules applicable to these licenses. In January 2015, the FCC granted our application to extend the build-out requirements related to our MVDDS licenses. We now have until 2019 to provide “substantial service” on our MVDDS licenses, and the licenses expire in 2024. Our MVDDS licenses may be terminated, however, if we do not provide substantial service in accordance with the new build-out requirements.

In 2016, the MVDDS 5G Coalition, of which we are a member, filed a petition for rulemaking requesting the FCC to consider updating the rules to allow us to provide two-way 5G services using our MVDDS licenses. We cannot predict when or if the FCC will grant the petition and proceed with a rulemaking. If the FCC adopts rules that would allow us to provide two-way 5G services using our MVDDS licenses, the requests of OneWeb and others for authority to use the band for service from NGSO satellite systems may hinder our ability to provide 5G services using our MVDDS licenses.

Commercialization of Our Wireless Spectrum Licenses and Related Assets. We have made substantial investments to acquire certain wireless spectrum licenses and related assets. We will need to make significant additional investments or partner with others to, among other things, commercialize, build-out, and integrate these licenses and related assets, and any additional acquired licenses and related assets; and comply with regulations applicable to such licenses. Depending on the nature and scope of such commercialization, build-out, integration efforts, and regulatory compliance, any such investments or partnerships could vary significantly. 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.

Auction 1000. On February 10, 2016, we filed an application with the FCC to potentially participate as a bidder in the forward auction phase of Auction 1000. The available spectrum in each licensed geographic area in Auction 1000 is generally comprised of certain paired 5x5 spectrum blocks (5 MHz uplink spectrum and 5 MHz downlink spectrum). As a result, a nationwide footprint may be obtained by aggregating a single 5x5 spectrum block in each available licensed geographic area.

Auction 1000 has had multiple stages, with each stage having two phases. With respect to each stage, in the first phase, or reverse auction phase, participating television broadcasters “sell” their rights to use certain broadcast television spectrum in the 600 MHz frequency range to the FCC. Then following the first phase of a stage, in the second phase, or forward auction phase, the FCC will “resell” that spectrum to auction participants. In the event that certain criteria are not met within a particular stage for Auction 1000 to conclude, Auction 1000 then proceeds to a subsequent stage with less available spectrum than the immediately preceding stage and lower spectrum clearing targets.

Before the forward auction phase of Stage 1 of Auction 1000 began, a qualified bidder in the forward auction could make an upfront deposit of up to approximately $5.4 billion. On July 15, 2016, the FCC announced that a subsidiary of DISH Network and 61 other applicants were qualified to participate in the forward auction. The FCC determined that bidding in Auction 1000 will be “anonymous,” which means that prior to and during the course of the auction, the FCC will not make public any information about a specific applicant’s upfront deposits or its bids. In addition, FCC rules restrict information that applicants may disclose about their participation in Auction 1000.

Stage 1: The reverse auction phase of Stage 1 began on March 29, 2016 and ended on June 29, 2016. Pursuant to the FCC’s procedures for Auction 1000 and based on the results of the reverse auction phase of Stage 1, in order for Auction 1000 to have ultimately concluded, the aggregate bids in the forward auction phase of Stage 1 would have had to have exceeded approximately $88.4 billion. The forward auction phase of Stage 1 included 100 MHz of spectrum in over 90% of the available licensed geographic areas, based on the broadcasters’ indicated availability of spectrum in the reverse auction phase. The forward auction phase of Stage 1 began on August 16, 2016 and ended on August 30, 2016, but the aggregate bids of approximately $23.1 billion did not exceed the approximately $88.4 billion required for Auction 1000 to ultimately conclude. As a result, Auction 1000 moved to Stage 2.

Stage 2: The reverse auction phase of Stage 2 began on September 13, 2016 and ended on October 13, 2016. Pursuant to the FCC’s procedures for Auction 1000 and based on the results of the reverse auction phase of Stage 2, in order for Auction 1000 to have ultimately concluded, the aggregate bids in the forward auction phase of Stage 2 would have had to have exceeded approximately $56.5 billion. The forward auction phase of Stage 2 included 90 MHz of spectrum in over 90% of the available licensed geographic areas, based on the broadcasters’ indicated availability of spectrum in the reverse auction phase. The forward auction phase of Stage 2 began and ended on October 19, 2016, but the aggregate bids of approximately $21.5 billion did not exceed the approximately $56.5 billion required for Auction 1000 to ultimately conclude. As a result, Auction 1000 moved to Stage 3.

Stage 3: The reverse auction phase of Stage 3 began on November 1, 2016 and ended on December 1, 2016. Pursuant to the FCC’s procedures for Auction 1000 and based on the results of the reverse auction phase of Stage 3, in order for Auction 1000 to have ultimately concluded, the aggregate bids in the forward auction phase of Stage 3 would have had to have exceeded approximately $42.3 billion. The forward auction phase of Stage 3 included 80 MHz of spectrum in over 90% of the available licensed geographic areas, based on the broadcasters’ indicated availability of spectrum in the reverse auction phase. The forward auction phase of Stage 3 began and ended on December 5, 2016, but the aggregate bids of approximately $19.7 billion did not exceed the approximately $42.3 billion required for Auction 1000 to ultimately conclude. As a result, Auction 1000 moved to Stage 4.

Stage 4: The reverse auction phase of Stage 4 began on December 13, 2016 and ended on January 13, 2017. Pursuant to the FCC’s procedures for Auction 1000 and based on the results of the reverse auction phase of Stage 4, in order for Auction 1000 to ultimately conclude, the aggregate bids in the forward auction phase of Stage 4 would have to exceed approximately $12.0 billion. The forward auction phase of Stage 4 includes 70 MHz of spectrum in over 90% of the available licensed geographic areas, based on the broadcasters’ indicated availability of spectrum in the reverse auction phase. The clock bidding portion of the forward auction phase of Stage 4 began on January 18, 2017 and ended on February 10, 2017. The aggregate bids of approximately $19.6 billion exceeded the approximately $12.0 billion required for Auction 1000 to ultimately conclude. As a result, Auction 1000 moved to the assignment portion of the forward auction phase in which winning bidders in the clock bidding portion have the opportunity to bid for frequency-specific licenses. The assignment portion is scheduled to begin on March 6, 2017, and all assignment rounds are expected to end no later than March 30, 2017. During the assignment portion, ‎the FCC rules restricting information that forward auction applicants may disclose about their participation in Auction 1000 remain in place. As mentioned above, a subsidiary of DISH Network qualified to participate in the forward auction. To the extent that it is the winning bidder for any 600 MHz licenses, we would expect to pay for such licenses from any upfront deposit made with the FCC and/or existing cash and marketable investment securities balances.

We may need to raise significant additional capital in the future to fund the efforts described above, which may not be available on acceptable terms or at all. There can be no assurance that we will be able to develop and implement a business model that will realize a return on these wireless spectrum licenses or that we will be able to profitably deploy the assets represented by these wireless spectrum licenses, which may affect the carrying amount of these assets and our future financial condition or results of operations.

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

Through our wholly-owned subsidiaries American II and American III, we have made over $10.0 billion in certain non-controlling investments in Northstar Spectrum, the parent company of Northstar Wireless, and in SNR HoldCo, the parent company of SNR Wireless, respectively. Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless each filed applications with the FCC to participate in Auction 97 (the “AWS-3 Auction”) for the purpose of acquiring certain AWS-3 Licenses. Each of Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless applied to receive bidding credits of 25% as designated entities under applicable FCC rules. In February 2015, one of our wholly-owned subsidiaries received a refund from the FCC of its $400 million upfront payment made in 2014 related to the AWS-3 Auction.

Northstar Wireless was the winning bidder for AWS-3 Licenses with gross winning bid amounts totaling approximately $7.845 billion, which after taking into account a 25% bidding credit, is approximately $5.884 billion. SNR Wireless was the winning bidder for AWS-3 Licenses with gross winning bid amounts totaling approximately $5.482 billion, which after taking into account a 25% bidding credit, is approximately $4.112 billion. In addition to the net winning bids, SNR Wireless made a bid withdrawal payment of approximately $8 million.

On August 18, 2015, the FCC released a Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 15-104 (the “Order”) in which the FCC determined, among other things, that DISH Network has a controlling interest in, and is an affiliate of, Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless, and therefore DISH Network’s revenues should be attributed to them, which in turn makes Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless ineligible to receive the 25% bidding credits (approximately $1.961 billion for Northstar Wireless and $1.370 billion for SNR Wireless) (each a “Bidding Credit Amount” and collectively the “Bidding Credit Amounts”). Each of Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless has filed a notice of appeal and petition for review of the Order with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, challenging, among other things, the FCC’s determination that they are ineligible to receive the Bidding Credit Amounts. Oral arguments were presented to the Court on September 26, 2016. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the timing or outcome of these proceedings.

On October 1, 2015, DISH Network, American II, American III, Northstar Wireless, SNR Wireless, and certain other entities holding certain interests in Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless, entered into a series of arrangements with respect to the AWS-3 Licenses, as further described below.

Letters Exchanged between Northstar Wireless and the FCC Wireless Bureau. As outlined in letters exchanged between Northstar Wireless and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau of the FCC (the “FCC Wireless Bureau”), Northstar Wireless paid the gross winning bid amounts for 261 AWS-3 Licenses (the “Northstar Licenses”) totaling approximately $5.619 billion through the application of funds already on deposit with the FCC. Northstar Wireless also notified the FCC that it would not be paying the gross winning bid amounts for 84 AWS-3 Licenses totaling approximately $2.226 billion.

As a result of the nonpayment of those gross winning bid amounts, the FCC retained those licenses and Northstar Wireless owed the FCC an additional interim payment of approximately $334 million (the “Northstar Interim Payment”), which is equal to 15% of $2.226 billion. The Northstar Interim Payment was recorded in “FCC auction expense” on our Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss) for the year ended December 31, 2015. Northstar Wireless immediately satisfied the Northstar Interim Payment through the application of funds already on deposit with the FCC and an additional loan from American II of approximately $69 million. As a result, the FCC will not deem Northstar Wireless to be a “current defaulter” under applicable FCC rules.

In addition, the FCC Wireless Bureau acknowledged that Northstar Wireless’ nonpayment of those gross winning bid amounts does not constitute action involving gross misconduct, misrepresentation or bad faith. Therefore, the FCC concluded that such nonpayment will not affect the eligibility of Northstar Wireless, its investors (including DISH Network) or their respective affiliates to participate in future spectrum auctions (including Auction 1000 and any re-auction of the AWS-3 Licenses retained by the FCC). At this time, DISH Network (through itself, a subsidiary or another entity in which it may hold a direct or indirect interest) expects to participate in any re-auction of those AWS-3 Licenses.

If the winning bids from re-auction or other award of the AWS-3 Licenses retained by the FCC are greater than or equal to the winning bids of Northstar Wireless, no additional amounts will be owed to the FCC. However, if those winning bids are less than the winning bids of Northstar Wireless, then Northstar Wireless will be responsible for the difference less any overpayment of the Northstar Interim Payment (which will be recalculated as 15% of the winning bids from re-auction or other award) (the “Northstar Re-Auction Payment”). For example, if the winning bids in a re-auction are $1, the Northstar Re-Auction Payment would be approximately $1.892 billion, which is calculated as the difference between $2.226 billion (the Northstar winning bid amounts) and $1 (the winning bids from re-auction) less the resulting $334 million overpayment of the Northstar Interim Payment. As discussed above, at this time, DISH Network (through itself, a subsidiary or another entity in which it may hold a direct or indirect interest) expects to participate in any re-auction. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the timing or outcome of any re-auction or the amount of any Northstar Re-Auction Payment.

Amendment to Northstar Wireless Credit Agreement. On October 1, 2015, American II, Northstar Wireless and Northstar Spectrum amended the First Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated October 13, 2014, by and among American II, as Lender, Northstar Wireless, as Borrower, and Northstar Spectrum, as Guarantor (as amended, the “Northstar Credit Agreement”), to provide, among other things, that: (i) the Northstar Interim Payment and any Northstar Re-Auction Payment will be made by American II directly to the FCC and will be deemed as loans under the Northstar Credit Agreement; (ii) the FCC is a third-party beneficiary with respect to American II’s obligation to pay the Northstar Interim Payment and any Northstar Re-Auction Payment; (iii) in the event that the winning bids from re-auction or other award of the AWS-3 Licenses retained by the FCC are less than the winning bids of Northstar Wireless, the purchaser, assignee or transferee of any AWS-3 Licenses from Northstar Wireless is obligated to pay its pro-rata share of the difference (and Northstar Wireless remains jointly and severally liable for such pro-rata share); and (iv) during the period between the due date for the payments guaranteed under the FCC Northstar Guaranty (as discussed below) and the date such guaranteed payments are paid, Northstar Wireless’ payment obligations to American II under the Northstar Credit Agreement will be subordinated to such guaranteed payments.

DISH Network Guaranty in Favor of the FCC for Certain Northstar Wireless Obligations. On October 1, 2015, DISH Network entered into a guaranty in favor of the FCC (the “FCC Northstar Guaranty”) with respect to the Northstar Interim Payment (which was satisfied on October 1, 2015) and any Northstar Re-Auction Payment. The FCC Northstar Guaranty provides, among other things, that during the period between the due date for the payments guaranteed under the FCC Northstar Guaranty and the date such guaranteed payments are paid: (i) Northstar Wireless’ payment obligations to American II under the Northstar Credit Agreement will be subordinated to such guaranteed payments; and (ii) DISH Network or American II will withhold exercising certain rights as a creditor of Northstar Wireless.

Letters Exchanged between SNR Wireless and the FCC Wireless Bureau. As outlined in letters exchanged between SNR Wireless and the FCC Wireless Bureau, SNR Wireless paid the gross winning bid amounts for 244 AWS-3 Licenses (the “SNR Licenses”) totaling approximately $4.271 billion through the application of funds already on deposit with the FCC and a portion of an additional loan from American III in an aggregate amount of approximately $344 million (which included an additional bid withdrawal payment of approximately $3 million). SNR Wireless also notified the FCC that it would not be paying the gross winning bid amounts for 113 AWS-3 Licenses totaling approximately $1.211 billion.

As a result of the nonpayment of those gross winning bid amounts, the FCC retained those licenses and SNR Wireless owed the FCC an additional interim payment of approximately $182 million (the “SNR Interim Payment”), which is equal to 15% of $1.211 billion. The SNR Interim Payment was recorded in “FCC auction expense” on our Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss) for the year ended December 31, 2015. SNR Wireless immediately satisfied the SNR Interim Payment through a portion of an additional loan from American III in an aggregate amount of approximately $344 million. As a result, the FCC will not deem SNR Wireless to be a “current defaulter” under applicable FCC rules.

In addition, the FCC Wireless Bureau acknowledged that SNR Wireless’ nonpayment of those gross winning bid amounts does not constitute action involving gross misconduct, misrepresentation or bad faith. Therefore, the FCC concluded that such nonpayment will not affect the eligibility of SNR Wireless, its investors (including DISH Network) or their respective affiliates to participate in future spectrum auctions (including Auction 1000 and any re-auction of the AWS-3 Licenses retained by the FCC). At this time, DISH Network (through itself, a subsidiary or another entity in which it may hold a direct or indirect interest) expects to participate in any re-auction of those AWS-3 Licenses.

If the winning bids from re-auction or other award of the AWS-3 Licenses retained by the FCC are greater than or equal to the winning bids of SNR Wireless, no additional amounts will be owed to the FCC. However, if those winning bids are less than the winning bids of SNR Wireless, then SNR Wireless will be responsible for the difference less any overpayment of the SNR Interim Payment (which will be recalculated as 15% of the winning bids from re-auction or other award) (the “SNR Re-Auction Payment”). For example, if the winning bids in a re-auction are $1, the SNR Re-Auction Payment would be approximately $1.029 billion, which is calculated as the difference between $1.211 billion (the SNR winning bid amounts) and $1 (the winning bids from re-auction) less the resulting $182 million overpayment of the SNR Interim Payment. As discussed above, at this time, DISH Network (through itself, a subsidiary or another entity in which it may hold a direct or indirect interest) expects to participate in any re-auction. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the timing or outcome of any re-auction or the amount of any SNR Re-Auction Payment.

Amendment to SNR Wireless Credit Agreement. On October 1, 2015, American III, SNR Wireless and SNR HoldCo amended the First Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated October 13, 2014, by and among American III, as Lender, SNR Wireless, as Borrower, and SNR HoldCo, as Guarantor (as amended, the “SNR Credit Agreement”), to provide, among other things, that: (i) the SNR Interim Payment and any SNR Re-Auction Payment will be made by American III directly to the FCC and will be deemed as loans under the SNR Credit Agreement; (ii) the FCC is a third-party beneficiary with respect to American III’s obligation to pay the SNR Interim Payment and any SNR Re-Auction Payment; (iii) in the event that the winning bids from re-auction or other award of the AWS-3 Licenses retained by the FCC are less than the winning bids of SNR Wireless, the purchaser, assignee or transferee of any AWS-3 Licenses from SNR Wireless is obligated to pay its pro-rata share of the difference (and SNR Wireless remains jointly and severally liable for such pro-rata share); and (iv) during the period between the due date for the payments guaranteed under the FCC SNR Guaranty (as discussed below) and the date such guaranteed payments are paid, SNR Wireless’ payment obligations to American III under the SNR Credit Agreement will be subordinated to such guaranteed payments.

DISH Network Guaranty in Favor of the FCC for Certain SNR Wireless Obligations. On October 1, 2015, DISH Network entered into a guaranty in favor of the FCC (the “FCC SNR Guaranty”) with respect to the SNR Interim Payment (which was satisfied on October 1, 2015) and any SNR Re-Auction Payment. The FCC SNR Guaranty provides, among other things, that during the period between the due date for the payments guaranteed under the FCC SNR Guaranty and the date such guaranteed payments are paid: (i) SNR Wireless’ payment obligations to American III under the SNR Credit Agreement will be subordinated to such guaranteed payments; and (ii) DISH Network or American III will withhold exercising certain rights as a creditor of SNR Wireless.

Northstar Wireless is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Northstar Spectrum. Through American II, we own an 85% non-controlling interest in Northstar Spectrum. Northstar Manager owns a 15% controlling interest in, and is the sole manager of, Northstar Spectrum. Northstar Spectrum is governed by a limited liability company agreement by and between American II and Northstar Manager (the “Northstar Spectrum LLC Agreement”). Pursuant to the Northstar Spectrum LLC Agreement, American II and Northstar Manager made pro-rata equity contributions in Northstar Spectrum. As of October 1, 2015, the total equity contributions from American II and Northstar Manager to Northstar Spectrum were approximately $750 million and $133 million, respectively. As of October 1, 2015, the total loans from American II to Northstar Wireless under the Northstar Credit Agreement for payments to the FCC related to the Northstar Licenses were approximately $5.070 billion.

SNR Wireless is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SNR HoldCo. Through American III, we own an 85% non-controlling interest in SNR HoldCo. SNR Management owns a 15% controlling interest in, and is the sole manager of, SNR HoldCo. SNR HoldCo is governed by a limited liability company agreement by and between American III and SNR Management (the “SNR HoldCo LLC Agreement”). Pursuant to the SNR HoldCo LLC Agreement, American III and SNR Management made pro-rata equity contributions in SNR HoldCo. As of October 1, 2015, the total equity contributions from American III and SNR Management to SNR HoldCo were approximately $524 million and $93 million, respectively. As of October 1, 2015, the total loans from American III to SNR Wireless under the SNR Credit Agreement for payments to the FCC related to the SNR Licenses were approximately $3.847 billion.

After Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless satisfied their respective payments to the FCC on October 1, 2015 for the Northstar Licenses and the SNR Licenses, and the Northstar Interim Payment and the SNR Interim Payment (which included an additional bid withdrawal payment), our total non-controlling debt and equity investments in the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities for payments to the FCC related to the AWS-3 Licenses were approximately $10.191 billion. Under the applicable accounting guidance in ASC 810, Northstar Spectrum and SNR HoldCo are considered variable interest entities and, based on the characteristics of the structure of these entities and in accordance with the applicable accounting guidance, we have consolidated these entities into our financial statements beginning in the fourth quarter 2014. See Note 2 for further information.

On October 27, 2015, the FCC granted the Northstar Licenses to Northstar Wireless and the SNR Licenses to SNR Wireless, respectively, which are recorded in “FCC authorizations” on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. The AWS-3 Licenses are subject to certain interim and final build-out requirements. By October 2021, Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless must provide reliable signal coverage and offer service to at least 40% of the population in each area covered by an individual AWS-3 License (the “AWS-3 Interim Build-Out Requirement”). By October 2027, Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless must provide reliable signal coverage and offer service to at least 75% of the population in each area covered by an individual AWS-3 License (the “AWS-3 Final Build-Out Requirement”). If the AWS-3 Interim Build-Out Requirement is not met, the AWS-3 License term and the AWS-3 Final Build-Out Requirement may be accelerated by two years (from October 2027 to October 2025) for each AWS-3 License area in which Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless do not meet the requirement. If the AWS-3 Final Build-Out Requirement is not met, the authorization for each AWS-3 License area in which Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless do not meet the requirement may terminate.

In addition, on September 23, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia unsealed a qui tam complaint that was filed by Vermont National Telephone Company (“Vermont National”) against us; our wholly-owned subsidiaries, American AWS-3 Wireless I L.L.C., American II, American III, and DISH Wireless Holding L.L.C.; Charles W. Ergen (our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer) and Cantey M. Ergen (a member of our board of directors); Northstar Wireless; Northstar Spectrum; Northstar Manager; SNR Wireless; SNR HoldCo; SNR Management; and certain other parties. See “Contingencies – Litigation – Vermont National Telephone Company” for further information.

We may need to make significant additional loans to the Northstar Entities and to the SNR Entities, or they may need to partner with others, so that the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities may commercialize, build-out and integrate the Northstar Licenses and the SNR Licenses, and comply with regulations applicable to the Northstar Licenses and the SNR Licenses. Depending upon the nature and scope of such commercialization, build-out, integration efforts, and regulatory compliance, any such loans or partnerships could vary significantly. We may need to raise significant additional capital in the future, which may not be available on acceptable terms or at all, to make further investments in the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities. There can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain a profitable return on our non-controlling investments in the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities.

Guarantees

During the third quarter 2009, EchoStar entered into a satellite transponder service agreement for Nimiq 5 through 2024. We sublease this capacity from EchoStar and also guarantee a certain portion of EchoStar’s obligation under its satellite transponder service agreement through 2019. As of December 31, 2016, the remaining obligation of our guarantee was $190 million.

As of December 31, 2016, we have not recorded a liability on the balance sheet for this guarantee.

Purchase Obligations

Our 2017 purchase obligations primarily consist of binding purchase orders for receiver systems and related equipment, broadband equipment, digital broadcast operations, transmission costs, engineering services, and other products and services related to the operation of our Pay-TV services and broadband service. Our purchase obligations also include certain fixed contractual commitments to purchase programming content. Our purchase obligations can fluctuate significantly from period to period due to, among other things, management’s timing of payments and inventory purchases, and can materially impact our future operating asset and liability balances, and our future working capital requirements.

Programming Contracts

In the normal course of business, we enter into contracts to purchase programming content in which our payment obligations are generally contingent on the number of Pay-TV subscribers to whom we provide the respective content. These programming commitments are not included in the “Commitments” table above. The terms of our contracts typically range from one to ten years with annual rate increases. Our programming expenses will continue to increase to the extent we are successful in growing our Pay-TV subscriber base. In addition, programming costs continue to increase due to contractual price increases and the renewal of long-term programming contracts on less favorable pricing terms.

Rent Expense

Total rent expense for operating leases was $407 million, $477 million and $469 million in 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

Patents and Intellectual Property

Many entities, including some of our competitors, have or may in the future obtain patents and other intellectual property rights that cover or affect products or services that we offer or that we may offer in the future. We may not be aware of all intellectual property rights that our products or services may potentially infringe. Damages in patent infringement cases can be substantial, and in certain circumstances can be trebled. Further, we cannot estimate the extent to which we may be required in the future to obtain licenses with respect to patents held by others and the availability and cost of any such licenses. Various parties have asserted patent and other intellectual property rights with respect to components of our products and services. We cannot be certain that these persons do not own the rights they claim, that our products do not infringe on these rights, and/or that these rights are not valid. Further, we cannot be certain that we would be able to obtain licenses from these persons on commercially reasonable terms or, if we were unable to obtain such licenses, that we would be able to redesign our products to avoid infringement.

Contingencies

Separation Agreement

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 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 subsidiaries of EchoStar, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged infringement of United States Patent Nos. 7,116,710; 7,421,032; 7,916,781 and 8,284,833, each of which is entitled “Serial Concatenation of Interleaved Convolutional Codes forming Turbo-Like Codes.” Caltech alleged that encoding data as specified by the DVB-S2 standard infringed each of the asserted patents. In the operative Amended Complaint, served on March 6, 2014, Caltech claimed that our Hopper® set-top box, as well as the Hughes defendants’ satellite broadband products and services, infringed the asserted patents by implementing the DVB-S2 standard. On May 5, 2015, the Court granted summary judgment in our favor as to the Hopper set-top box alleged in the complaint. On February 17, 2015, Caltech filed a new complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, asserting the same patents against the same defendants. Caltech alleged that certain broadband equipment, including without limitation the HT1000 and HT1100 modems, gateway hardware, software and/or firmware that the Hughes defendants provide to, among others, us for our use in connection with the dishNET branded broadband service, infringed these patents. Pursuant to a settlement agreement between the parties, on May 31, 2016, Caltech dismissed with prejudice all of its claims in these actions.

ClearPlay, Inc.

On March 13, 2014, ClearPlay, Inc. (“ClearPlay”) filed a complaint against 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 (the “799 patent”), entitled “Multimedia Content Navigation and Playback”; 7,526,784 (the “784 patent”), entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content”; 7,543,318 (the “318 patent”), entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content”; 7,577,970 (the “970 patent”), entitled “Multimedia Content Navigation and Playback”; and 8,117,282 (the “282 patent”), entitled “Media Player Configured to Receive Playback Filters From Alternative Storage Mediums.” ClearPlay alleges that the AutoHop™ feature of our Hopper set-top box infringes the asserted patents. On February 11, 2015, the case was stayed pending various third-party challenges before the United States Patent and Trademark Office regarding the validity of certain of the patents asserted in the action. In those third-party challenges, the United States Patent and Trademark Office found that all claims of the 282 patent are unpatentable, and that certain claims of the 784 patent and 318 patent are unpatentable. ClearPlay appealed as to the 784 patent and the 318 patent, and on August 23, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the findings of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On October 31, 2016, the stay was lifted. No trial date has been set.

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 Corporation 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. On January 26, 2015, we and EchoStar filed a petition before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of certain claims of the 233 patent. The United States Patent and Trademark Office has agreed to institute a proceeding on our petition, as well as on two third-party petitions challenging the validity of certain claims of the 233 patent, and it heard oral argument on January 16, 2016. On June 1, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office found that all claims asserted against us and the EchoStar parties were unpatentable. On July 5, 2016, CRFD filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The litigation in the District Court has been stayed since June 4, 2015 pending resolution of our petition to the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

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

Customedia Technologies, L.L.C.

On February 10, 2016, Customedia Technologies, L.L.C. (“Customedia”) filed a complaint against us and our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of four patents: United States Patent No. 8,719,090 (the “090 patent”); United States Patent No. 9,053,494 (the “494 patent”); United States Patent No. 7,840,437 (the “437 patent”); and United States Patent No. 8,955,029 (the “029 patent”). Each patent is entitled “System for Data Management And On-Demand Rental And Purchase Of Digital Data Products.” Customedia appears to allege infringement in connection with our addressable advertising services, our DISH Anywhere feature, and our Pay-Per-View and video-on-demand offerings. In December 2016 and January 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of the asserted claims of each of the asserted patents. Customedia is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

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 (the “FTC Action”), alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”), as well as analogous state statutes and state consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs allege that we, directly and through certain independent third-party retailers and their affiliates, committed certain telemarketing violations. On December 23, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, which indicated for the first time that the state plaintiffs were seeking civil penalties and damages of approximately $270 million and that the federal plaintiff was seeking an unspecified amount of civil penalties (which could substantially exceed the civil penalties and damages being sought by the state plaintiffs). The plaintiffs were also seeking injunctive relief that if granted would, among other things, enjoin DISH Network L.L.C., whether acting directly or indirectly through authorized telemarketers or independent third-party retailers, from placing any outbound telemarketing calls to market or promote its goods or services for five years, and enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from accepting activations or sales from certain existing independent third-party retailers and from certain new independent third-party retailers, except under certain circumstances. We also filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all claims. On December 12, 2014, the Court issued its opinion with respect to the parties’ summary judgment motions. The Court found that DISH Network L.L.C. is entitled to partial summary judgment with respect to one claim in the action. In addition, the Court found that the plaintiffs are entitled to partial summary judgment with respect to ten claims in the action, which includes, among other things, findings by the Court establishing DISH Network L.L.C.’s liability for a substantial amount of the alleged outbound telemarketing calls by DISH Network L.L.C. and certain of its independent third-party retailers that were the subject of the plaintiffs’ motion. The Court did not issue any injunctive relief and did not make any determination on civil penalties or damages, ruling instead that the scope of any injunctive relief and the amount of any civil penalties or damages are questions for trial.

In pre-trial disclosures, the federal plaintiff indicated that it intended to seek up to $900 million in alleged civil penalties, and the state plaintiffs indicated that they intended to seek as much as $23.5 billion in alleged civil penalties and damages. The plaintiffs also modified their request for injunctive relief. Their requested injunction, if granted, would enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from placing outbound telemarketing calls unless and until: (i) DISH Network L.L.C. hires a third-party consulting organization to perform a review of its call center operations; (ii) such third-party consulting organization submits a telemarketing compliance plan to the Court and the federal plaintiff; (iii) the Court holds a hearing on the adequacy of the plan; (iv) if the Court approves the plan, DISH Network L.L.C. implements the plan and verifies to the Court that it has implemented the plan; and (v) the Court issues an order permitting DISH Network L.L.C. to resume placing outbound telemarketing calls. The plaintiffs’ modified request for injunctive relief, if granted, would also enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from accepting customer orders solicited by certain independent third-party retailers unless and until a similar third-party review and Court approval process was followed with respect to the telemarketing activities of its independent third-party retailer base to ensure compliance with the TSR.

The first phase of the bench trial took place January 19, 2016 through February 11, 2016. In closing briefs, the federal plaintiff indicated that it still is seeking $900 million in alleged civil penalties; the California state plaintiff indicated that it is seeking $100 million in alleged civil penalties and damages for its state law claims (in addition to any amounts sought on its federal law claims); the Ohio state plaintiff indicated that it is seeking approximately $10 million in alleged civil penalties and damages for its state law claims (in addition to any amounts sought on its federal law claims); and the Illinois and North Carolina state plaintiffs did not state the specific alleged civil penalties and damages that they are seeking; but the state plaintiffs have taken the general position that any damages award less than $1.0 billion (presumably for both federal and state law claims) would not raise constitutional concerns. Under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, excessive fines may not be imposed.

On October 3, 2016, the plaintiffs further modified their request for injunctive relief and are now seeking, among other things, to 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 some or all existing independent third-party retailers. The second phase of the bench trial, which commenced on October 25, 2016 and concluded on November 2, 2016, covered the plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief, as well as certain evidence related to the state plaintiffs’ claims.

We may also from time to time be subject to private civil litigation alleging telemarketing violations. For example, a portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent third-party retailer at issue in the FTC Action are also the subject of a certified class action filed against DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (the “Krakauer Action”). Following a five-day trial, on January 19, 2017, a jury in that case found that the independent third-party retailer was acting as DISH Network L.L.C.’s agent when it made the 51,119 calls at issue in that case, and that class members are eligible to recover $400 in damages for each call made in violation of the TCPA. The plaintiff is also seeking enhanced damages under the TCPA for alleged willful or knowing violations. The Court will decide whether there were any willful or knowing violations, and the Court has discretion to increase the damages by up to three times for any such violations. The plaintiffs in the FTC Action have asserted that the jury verdict in the Krakauer Action preclusively establishes that the independent third-party retailer at issue in the Krakauer Action was acting as DISH Network L.L.C.’s agent when it made the calls at issue in the FTC Action, and is otherwise persuasive evidence that the other independent third-party retailers at issue in the FTC Action were acting as DISH Network’s L.L.C.’s agents when they made their respective calls at issue in the FTC Action, that the alleged civil penalties being sought by the federal and state plaintiffs are reasonable, and that the calls made by DISH Network L.L.C. and independent third-party retailers at issue in the FTC Action were made to landline residential phones. We have opposed those assertions.

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

Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC

On December 20, 2013, Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC (“Dragon IP”) filed complaints against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., as well as Apple Inc.; AT&T, Inc.; Charter Communications, Inc.; Comcast Corp.; Cox Communications, Inc.; DirecTV; Sirius XM Radio Inc.; Time Warner Cable Inc. and Verizon Communications, Inc., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 5,930,444 (the “444 patent”), which is entitled “Simultaneous Recording and Playback Apparatus.” Dragon IP alleges that various of our DVR receivers infringe the 444 patent. Dragon IP is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On December 23, 2014, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a petition before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of certain claims of the 444 patent. On April 10, 2015, the Court granted DISH Network L.L.C.’s motion to stay the action in light of DISH Network L.L.C.’s petition and certain other defendants’ petitions pending before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of certain claims of the 444 patent. On July 17, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute a proceeding on our petition. Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, on April 27, 2016, the Court entered an order of non-infringement and judgment in favor of DISH Network L.L.C. On June 15, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office entered an order that the patent claims being asserted against DISH Network L.L.C. with respect to the 444 patent are unpatentable. On August 8, 2016, Dragon filed notices of appeal with respect to the Court’s judgment and the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s decision.

Grecia

On March 27, 2015, William Grecia (“Grecia”) filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 8,533,860 (the “860 patent”), which is entitled “Personalized Digital Media Access System—PDMAS Part II.” Grecia alleges that we violate the 860 patent in connection with our digital rights management. Grecia is the named inventor on the 860 patent. On June 22, 2015, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On November 18, 2015, Grecia filed an amended complaint adding allegations that we infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,402,555 (the “555 patent”), which is entitled “Personalized Digital Media Access System (PDMAS).” Grecia is the named inventor on the 555 patent. Grecia alleges that we violate the 555 patent in connection with our digital rights management. Grecia dismissed his action with prejudice on February 3, 2016.

On February 3, 2016, Grecia filed a new complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 8,887,308 (the “308 patent”), which is entitled “Digital Cloud Access—PDMAS Part III,” on which Grecia is also the named inventor. Grecia alleges that we violate the 308 patent in connection with our DISH Anywhere feature. On July 29, 2016, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a petition before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of certain claims of the 308 patent. On January 19, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office declined to institute a proceeding on our petition. The litigation in the District Court has been stayed since June 13, 2016 pending resolution of DISH Network L.L.C.’s petition to the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

The Hopper Litigation

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

Later on May 24, 2012, (i) Fox Broadcasting Company; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. and Fox Television Holdings, Inc. filed a lawsuit against 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 one. As a result, the stay of the NBC plaintiffs’ action expired. On August 6, 2014, at the request of the parties, the Central District of California granted a further stay of all proceedings in the action brought by the NBC plaintiffs, pending a final judgment on all claims in the Fox plaintiffs’ action. Pursuant to the settlement described below, the Fox action was dismissed on February 11, 2016. On March 4, 2016, at the request of the parties, the Central District of California granted a further stay of all proceedings in the action brought by the NBC plaintiffs until September 9, 2016; provided that either party may file a motion with the Court to lift the stay after May 27, 2016. Pursuant to a settlement between us and the NBC plaintiffs, on June 16, 2016, we and the NBC plaintiffs filed a stipulation to dismiss with prejudice all of our respective claims pending in the California Court. The Court ordered such dismissal on June 20, 2016.

In addition, on February 21, 2013, the Fox plaintiffs filed a second motion for preliminary injunction against: (i) us seeking to enjoin the Hopper Transfers feature in our second-generation Hopper set-top box, alleging breach of their retransmission consent agreement; and (ii) us and EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. seeking to enjoin the Slingbox placeshifting 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 January 12, 2015, the Court ruled on the Fox plaintiffs’ and our respective motions for summary judgment, holding that: (a) the Slingbox placeshifting functionality and the PrimeTime Anytime, AutoHop and Hopper Transfers features do not violate the copyright laws; (b) certain quality assurance copies (which were discontinued in November 2012) do violate the copyright laws; and (c) the Slingbox placeshifting functionality, the Hopper Transfers feature and such quality assurance copies breach our Fox retransmission consent agreement. At the parties’ joint request, the Court had stayed the case until January 15, 2016. Pursuant to a settlement between us and the Fox plaintiffs, we, EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. and the Fox plaintiffs filed a stipulation to dismiss with prejudice all of our respective claims pending in the California Court. The Court ordered such dismissal on February 11, 2016.

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 filed a counterclaim alleging that we fraudulently concealed the AutoHop feature when negotiating the 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, in March 2014, the ABC parties withdrew their appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; we and the ABC parties filed a stipulation on March 4, 2014 to dismiss without prejudice all of our respective claims pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; and the ABC parties granted a covenant not to sue. The Court ordered such dismissal on March 6, 2014. Pursuant to a settlement between us and the CBS parties, on December 10, 2014, we and the CBS parties filed a stipulation to dismiss with prejudice all of our respective claims pending in the New York Court. The Court ordered such dismissal on December 10, 2014.

These matters are now concluded.

IPA Technologies Inc.

On December 9, 2016, IPA Technologies Inc. (“IPA”) filed suit against us and our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. IPA alleges that our Voice Remote with Hopper 3 infringes United States Patent Number 6,742,021 (the “021 patent”), which is entitled “Navigating Network-based Electronic Information Using Spoken Input with Multimodal Error Feedback”; United States Patent Number 6,523,061 (the “061 patent”), which is entitled “System, Method, and Article of Manufacture for Agent-Based Navigation in a Speech-Based Data Navigation System”; and United States Patent Number 6,757,718 (the “718 patent”), which is entitled “Mobile Navigation of Network-Based Electronic Information Using Spoken Input.” IPA is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

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 and Chief Executive Officer), 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 included, 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. On July 7, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Harbinger’s motion for an interlocutory appeal of certain Bankruptcy Court orders in the adversary proceeding. On March 27, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming the Modified Second Amended Joint Plan pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and, on December 7, 2015, the Plan became effective.

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 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 was 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, was withdrawn.

Five alleged shareholders 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 remaining 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 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. The Special Litigation Committee filed a motion to dismiss the action based, among other things, on its business judgment that it is in the best interests of the Company not to pursue the claims asserted by Jacksonville PFPF. The Director Defendants and Messrs. Cullen, Dodge and Kiser have also filed various motions to dismiss the action. In an order entered on September 18, 2015, the Court granted the Special Litigation Committee’s motion to defer to the Special Litigation Committee’s October 24, 2014 report, including its finding that dismissal of the action is in the best interest of the Company. The Court also held that, in light of granting the motion to defer, the pending motions to dismiss filed by the individual defendants were denied without prejudice as moot. On October 12, 2015, Jacksonville PFPF filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Nevada and the appeal is now fully briefed. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

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 (the “863 patent”) entitled “Highspeed WAN To Wireless LAN Gateway” and United States Patent No. 7,787,904 (the “904 patent”) entitled “Personal Area Network Having Media Player And Mobile Device Controlling The Same.” On the same day, Qurio filed similar complaints against Comcast and DirecTV. On November 13, 2014, Qurio filed a first amended complaint, which added a claim alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 8,879,567 (the “567 patent”) entitled “High-Speed WAN To Wireless LAN Gateway.” Qurio is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On February 9, 2015, the Court granted DISH Network L.L.C.’s motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In October 2015, DISH Network L.L.C. filed petitions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of certain claims of the 863, 904 and 567 patents. On November 3, 2015, the case was stayed pending resolution of these proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On April 4, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on each of our petitions, as well as on a third-party petition challenging the validity of certain claims of the 904 patent. On June 21, 2016, pursuant to Qurio’s Request for Adverse Judgment, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a cancellation of all claims of the 904 patent that we had challenged. On July 13, 2016, Qurio filed a Request for Adverse Judgment with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to cancel all claims of the 863 patent and 567 patent that we had challenged, leaving at issue in the District Court action only certain claims of the 567 patent that we had not challenged. On July 19, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a cancellation of all claims of the 863 patent and the 567 patent that we had challenged. At Qurio’s request, on October 5, 2016, the parties stipulated to a voluntary dismissal of the action with prejudice, which the Court entered on that date. This matter is now concluded.

Shipping & Transit LLC

On August 30, 2016, Shipping & Transit LLC (“Shipping & Transit”) filed suit against us and our wholly-owned subsidiary, DISH Network L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,317,060 (the “060 patent”), entitled “Base Station System and Method for Monitoring Travel of Mobile Vehicles and Communicating Notification Methods” and United States Patent No. 6,415,207 (the “207 patent”), entitled “System and Method for Automatically Providing Vehicle Status Information.” Shipping & Transit alleges that the “My Tech” application, which provides information to customers regarding their service technician appointments, infringes the 060 patent and the 207 patent. Shipping & Transit is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On January 4, 2017, Shipping & Transit dismissed the complaint without prejudice. This matter is now concluded.

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 (the “952 patent”), 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 was stayed in July 2009 pending two reexamination petitions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which concluded in August 2015 and resulted in 42 out of the 53 claims of the 952 patent being invalidated. Six of the surviving 11 claims are asserted against us. The case resumed in August 2015. In a separate matter in which TDL is asserting the same patent, the court in that action ruled that four claims of the '952 patent (which are among the six claims asserted against us) are invalid because they claim unpatentable subject matter, and TDL has stipulated that it will not appeal that order. Thus, only two claims of the ‘952 patent remain asserted against us. A trial date has not been set.

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. In August 2015, DISH Network L.L.C. filed petitions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of certain claims of the 456 patent and in February 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on our petitions. On February 25, 2016, the case was stayed pending resolution of these proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and the Court vacated all pending court dates and deadlines. On January 30, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued its final written decisions on our petitions, invalidating all claims of the 456 patent that were asserted in the litigation, which decisions may be appealed by TQ Beta.

TQ Delta, LLC

On July 17, 2015, TQ Delta, LLC (“TQ Delta”) filed a complaint against us and our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH DBS Corporation and DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The Complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 6,961,369 (the “369 patent”), which is entitled “System and Method for Scrambling the Phase of the Carriers in a Multicarrier Communications System”; United States Patent No. 8,718,158 (the “158 patent”), which is entitled “System and Method for Scrambling the Phase of the Carriers in a Multicarrier Communications System”; United States Patent No. 9,014,243 (the “243 patent”), which is entitled “System and Method for Scrambling Using a Bit Scrambler and a Phase Scrambler”; United States Patent No. 7,835,430 (the “430 patent”), which is entitled “Multicarrier Modulation Messaging for Frequency Domain Received Idle Channel Noise Information”; United States Patent No. 8,238,412 (the “412 patent”), which is entitled “Multicarrier Modulation Messaging for Power Level per Subchannel Information”; United States Patent No. 8,432,956 (the “956 patent”), which is entitled “Multicarrier Modulation Messaging for Power Level per Subchannel Information”; and United States Patent No. 8,611,404 (the “404 patent”), which is entitled “Multicarrier Transmission System with Low Power Sleep Mode and Rapid-On Capability.” On September 9, 2015, TQ Delta filed a first amended complaint that added allegations of infringement of United States Patent No. 9,094,268 (the “268 patent”), which is entitled “Multicarrier Transmission System With Low Power Sleep Mode and Rapid-On Capability.” On May 16, 2016, TQ Delta filed a second amended complaint that added EchoStar Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. as defendants. TQ Delta alleges that our satellite TV service, Internet service, set-top boxes, gateways, routers, modems, adapters and networks that operate in accordance with one or more Multimedia over Coax Alliance Standards infringe the asserted patents. TQ Delta has filed actions in the same court alleging infringement of the same patents against Comcast Corp., Cox Communications, Inc., DirecTV, Time Warner Cable Inc. and Verizon Communications, Inc. TQ Delta is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. Trial has been set for November 13, 2017. On July 14, 2016, TQ Delta stipulated to dismiss with prejudice all claims related to the 369 patent and the 956 patent. On July 20, 2016, we filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of all of the patent claims of the 404 patent and the 268 patent that have been asserted against us. Third parties have filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of all of the patent claims that have been asserted against us in the action. On November 4, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on the third-party petitions related to the 158 patent, the 243 patent, the 412 patent and the 430 patent. On December 20, 2016, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the Court stayed the case until the resolution of all petitions to the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of all of the patent claims at issue. On January 19, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted our motions to join the instituted petitions on the 430 and 158 patents. On February 9, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on our petition related to the 404 patent, and on February 13, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on our petition related to the 268 patent.

Two-Way Media Ltd.

On February 17, 2016, Two-Way Media Ltd. (“TWM”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against us; our subsidiaries DISH DBS Corporation, DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Network Service L.L.C., Sling TV Holding L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C., and Sling TV Purchasing L.L.C.; and EchoStar Corporation, EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., EchoStar Satellite Services L.L.C. and Sling Media, Inc. The complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,778,187, 5,983,005, 6,434,622 and 7,266,686, each entitled “Multicasting Method and Apparatus,” and United States Patent No. 9,124,607, entitled “Methods and Systems for Playing Media.” TWM claims infringement by our Sling TV domestic and international services, Slingboxes and DISH DVRs incorporating Slingbox technology, and the DISH Anywhere application and website. TWM is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. Pursuant to a settlement between the parties, the case was dismissed with prejudice on December 15, 2016. This matter is now concluded.

Vermont National Telephone Company

On September 23, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia unsealed a qui tam complaint that was filed by Vermont National against us; our wholly-owned subsidiaries, American AWS-3 Wireless I L.L.C., American II, American III, and DISH Wireless Holding L.L.C.; Charles W. Ergen (our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer) and Cantey M. Ergen (a member of our board of directors); Northstar Wireless; Northstar Spectrum; Northstar Manager; SNR Wireless; SNR HoldCo; SNR Management; and certain other parties. The complaint was unsealed after the United States Department of Justice notified the Court that it had declined to intervene in the action. The complaint is a civil action that was filed under seal on May 13, 2015 by Vermont National, which participated in the AWS-3 Auction through its wholly-owned subsidiary, VTel Wireless. The complaint alleges violations of the federal civil False Claims Act (the “FCA”) based on, among other things, allegations that Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless falsely claimed bidding credits of 25% in the AWS-3 Auction when they were allegedly under the de facto control of DISH Network and, therefore, were not entitled to the bidding credits as designated entities under applicable FCC rules. Vermont National seeks to recover on behalf of the United States government approximately $10 billion, which reflects the $3.3 billion in bidding credits that Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless claimed in the AWS-3 Auction, trebled under the FCA. Vermont National also seeks civil penalties of not less than $5,500 and not more than $11,000 for each violation of the FCA.

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

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