Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

8.     Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

On May 5, 2011, we issued $2.0 billion aggregate principal amount of our ten-year, 6 3/4% Senior Notes due June 1, 2021 at an issue price of 99.093%.  Interest accrues at an annual rate of 6 3/4% and is payable semi-annually in cash, in arrears on June 1 and December 1 of each year, commencing on December 1, 2011.

TiVo.  DISH is responsible for making future payments to TiVo of $190 million in six equal annual installments between 2012 and 2017 related to the TiVo settlement.  See further discussion under “TiVo Inc.” below.

Guarantees

In connection with the Spin-off, we distributed certain satellite lease agreements to EchoStar and remained the guarantor under those capital leases for payments totaling approximately $245 million over approximately the next four years.

In addition, during the third quarter 2009, EchoStar entered into a new satellite transponder service agreement for Nimiq 5 through 2024.  We sublease this capacity from EchoStar and DISH guarantees a certain portion of its obligation under this agreement through 2019.  As of June 30, 2011, the remaining obligation under this agreement is the guarantee of $529 million.

As of June 30, 2011, we have not recorded a liability on the balance sheet for any of these guarantees.

Contingencies

Separation Agreement

In connection with the Spin-off, DISH 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 prior to the Spin-off.  Certain specific provisions govern intellectual property related claims under which, generally, EchoStar will only be liable for its acts or omissions following the Spin-off and DISH 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 cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages.  We regularly evaluate the status of legal proceedings in which we are involved, to assess whether a loss is probable or there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or additional loss may have been incurred and determine if accruals are appropriate.  We further evaluate each legal proceeding to assess whether an estimate of the possible loss or range of possible loss can be made, if accruals are not appropriate.

For certain cases described below, 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.

Broadcast Innovation, L.L.C.

During 2001, Broadcast Innovation, L.L.C. (“Broadcast Innovation”) filed a lawsuit against us, DirecTV, Thomson Consumer Electronics and others in United States District Court in Denver, Colorado.  Broadcast Innovation is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.  The suit alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,076,094 (the ‘094 patent) and 4,992,066 (the ‘066 patent).  The ‘094 patent relates to certain methods and devices for transmitting and receiving data along with specific formatting information for the data.  The ‘066 patent relates to certain methods and devices for providing the scrambling circuitry for a pay television system on removable cards.  Subsequently, DirecTV and Thomson settled with Broadcast Innovation leaving us as the only defendant.

During 2004, the District Court issued an order finding the ‘066 patent invalid.  Also in 2004, the District Court found the ‘094 patent invalid in a parallel case filed by Broadcast Innovation against Charter and Comcast.  In 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned that finding of invalidity with respect to the ‘094 patent and remanded the Charter case back to the District Court.  During June 2006, Charter filed a reexamination request with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  The District Court has stayed the Charter case pending reexamination, and our case has been stayed pending resolution of the Charter case.

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

Channel Bundling Class Action

During 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite subscribers filed an antitrust action against us in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.  The suit also names as defendants DirecTV, Comcast, Cablevision, Cox, Charter, Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner Cable, NBC Universal, Viacom, Fox Entertainment Group and Walt Disney Company.  The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to provide customers with access only to bundled channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the ability to purchase channels on an “a la carte” basis.  On October 16, 2009, the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice.  The plaintiffs have appealed.  We intend to vigorously defend this case.  We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

ESPN

During 2008, we filed a lawsuit against ESPN, Inc., ESPN Classic, Inc., ABC Cable Networks Group, Soapnet L.L.C. and International Family Entertainment (collectively, “ESPN”) for breach of contract in New York State Supreme Court.  Our complaint alleges that ESPN failed to provide us with certain high-definition feeds of the Disney Channel, ESPN News, Toon and ABC Family. ESPN asserted a counterclaim, and then filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that we owed approximately $35 million under the applicable affiliation agreements.  We brought a motion to amend our complaint to assert that ESPN was in breach of certain most-favored-nation provisions under the applicable affiliation agreements.  On April 15, 2009, the New York State Supreme Court granted our motion to amend the complaint, and granted, in part, ESPN’s motion on the counterclaim, finding that we are liable for some of the amount alleged to be owing but that the actual amount owing is disputed.  We appealed the partial grant of ESPN’s motion to the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.  After the partial grant of ESPN’s motion, ESPN sought an additional $30 million under the applicable affiliation agreements.  On March 15, 2010, the New York State Supreme Court affirmed the prior grant of ESPN’s motion and ruled that we owe the full amount of approximately $66 million under the applicable affiliation agreement.  On December 29, 2010, the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the partial grant of ESPN’s motion on the counterclaim.  As of December 31, 2010, we had $42 million recorded as a “Litigation accrual” on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

On June 21, 2011, the First Department affirmed the New York Supreme Court’s ruling that we owe approximately $66 million under the applicable affiliation agreements.  We intend to seek leave to appeal that decision to New York’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals.  As a result of the First Department’s ruling, during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, we recorded $24 million of “Litigation Expense” on our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss) and increased our “Litigation accrual” to a total of $66 million as of June 30, 2011.  This reflects our estimated exposure for ESPN’s counterclaim.  We intend to vigorously prosecute and defend this case.

Ganas L.L.C.

During August 2010, Ganas, L.L.C. (“Ganas”) filed suit against us, Sabre Holdings Corporation, SAP America, Inc., SAS Institute Inc., Scottrade, Inc., TD Ameritrade, Inc., The Charles Schwab Corporation, TiVo Inc., Unicoi Systems Inc., Xerox Corporation, Adobe Systems Inc., AOL Inc., Apple Inc., Axibase Corporation, DirecTV, E*Trade Securities L.L.C., Exinda Networks, Fidelity Brokerage Services L.L.C., Firstrade Securities Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, iControl Inc., International Business Machines Corporation and JPMorgan Chase & Co. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos.  7,136,913, 7,325,053, and 7,734,756.  The patents relate to hypertext transfer protocol and simple object access protocol.  Ganas is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

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

Katz Communications

During 2007, Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. (“Katz”) filed a patent infringement action against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  The suit alleges infringement of 19 patents owned by Katz.  The patents relate to interactive voice response, or IVR, technology.  The case has been transferred and consolidated for pretrial purposes in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

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

NorthPoint Technology

On July 2, 2009, NorthPoint Technology, Ltd. filed suit against us, EchoStar and DirecTV in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,208,636 (the ‘636 patent).  The ‘636 patent relates to the use of multiple low-noise block converter feedhorns, or LNBFs, which are antennas used for satellite reception.  On April 21, 2011, the US Patent and Trademark Office issued an order granting reexamination of the ‘636 patent.  On June 21, 2011, the District Court entered summary judgment in our favor, finding that all asserted claims of the ‘636 patent are invalid.  The plaintiff has appealed.

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.

Olympic Developments

On January 20, 2011, Olympic Developments AG, LLC (“Olympic”) filed suit against us, Atlantic Broadband, Inc., Bright House Networks, LLC, Cable One, Inc., Cequel Communications Holdings I, LLC, CSC Holdings, LLC, GCI Communication Corp., Insight Communications Company, Inc., Knology, Inc., Mediacom Communications Corporation and RCN Telecom Services, LLC in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging infringement of  United States Patent Nos. 5,475,585 and 6,246,400.  The patents relate to on-demand services.  Olympic is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.  On June 13, 2011, the case was transferred to the Northern District of California.

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.

Personalized Media Communications

During 2008, Personalized Media Communications, Inc. (“PMC”) filed suit against us, EchoStar and Motorola Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 4,694,490; 5,109,414; 4,965,825; 5,233,654; 5,335,277; and 5,887,243, which relate to satellite signal processing.  PMC is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.  Subsequently, Motorola, Inc. settled with PMC leaving EchoStar and us as the only defendants.

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

Retailer Class Actions

During 2000, lawsuits were filed by retailers in Colorado state and federal courts attempting to certify nationwide classes on behalf of certain of our retailers.  The plaintiffs requested that the Courts declare certain provisions of, and changes to, alleged agreements between us and the retailers invalid and unenforceable, and to award damages for lost incentives and payments, charge backs and other compensation.  On September 20, 2010, we agreed to a settlement of both lawsuits that provides, among other things, for mutual releases of the claims underlying the litigation, payment by us of up to $60 million, and the option for certain class members to elect to reinstate certain monthly incentive payments, which the parties agreed have an aggregate maximum value of $23 million.  We cannot predict with any degree of certainty how many class members will elect to reinstate these monthly incentive payments.  As a result, a $60 million “Litigation accrual” was recorded as of December 31, 2010 on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.  On February 9, 2011, the court granted final approval of the settlement, and we made a $60 million settlement payment on April 28, 2011.

Suomen Colorize Oy

During October 2010, Suomen Colorize Oy (“Suomen”) filed suit against DISH Network L.L.C., our indirect wholly owned subsidiary, and EchoStar in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 7,277,398.  Suomen is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.  The abstract of the patent states that the claims are directed to a method and terminal for providing services in a telecommunication network.  The action has been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

We intend to vigorously defend this case.  In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted 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.

Technology Development Licensing

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

TiVo Inc.

In connection with DISH’s litigation with TiVo Inc. (“TiVo”), which is described in our periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 under the caption “Item 3.   Legal Proceedings - TiVo Inc.,” on April 20, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the District Court’s contempt ruling on infringement, articulated a new standard for determining “colorable difference” and remanded that issue back to the District Court for determination.  The Federal Circuit also vacated the District Court’s amended injunction requiring that DISH inform the court of any further attempts to design around TiVo’s United States Patent No. 6,233,389 (the ‘389 patent) and seek approval from the court before any such design-around is implemented.  The Federal Circuit also vacated the infringement damages for the period after DISH deployed its original alternative technology (although it did not foreclose that damages may be reinstated if upon remand a new court or jury decision found that the original alternative technology infringed TiVo’s ‘389 patent).  The Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s contempt ruling on disablement, holding that the original 2006 injunction required that DISH disable DVR functionality in all but approximately 192,000 digital set-top boxes deployed with customers (the “Disablement Provision”) and affirmed the $90 million in contempt sanctions awarded against DISH for violating the Disablement Provision.

On April 29, 2011, DISH and EchoStar entered into a settlement agreement with TiVo.  The settlement resolves all pending litigation between DISH and EchoStar, on the one hand, and TiVo, on the other hand, including litigation relating to alleged patent infringement involving certain DISH Network digital video recorders, or DVRs, which litigation is described in our periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission including in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 under the caption “Item 3.  Legal Proceedings - TiVo Inc.”

Under the settlement agreement, all pending litigation has been dismissed with prejudice and all injunctions that permanently restrain, enjoin or compel any action by DISH or EchoStar have been dissolved.  DISH and EchoStar are jointly responsible for making payments to TiVo in the aggregate amount of $500 million, including an initial payment of $300 million and the remaining $200 million in six equal annual installments between 2012 and 2017.  Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the agreements entered into in connection with the Spin-off of EchoStar from DISH, DISH made the initial payment to TiVo in May 2011, except for a contribution from EchoStar totaling approximately $10 million, representing an allocation of liability relating to EchoStar’s sales of DVR-enabled receivers to an international customer.  Future payments will be allocated between DISH and EchoStar based on historical sales of certain licensed products, with DISH being responsible for 95% of each annual payment.

As previously disclosed, our total litigation accrual for TiVo was $517 million as of December 31, 2010.  As a result of the settlement agreement, we reversed $335 million of this accrual and made a payment of approximately $290 million for our portion of the initial payment to TiVo.  Of this amount, approximately $182 million relates to prior periods and the remaining $108 million represents a prepayment.  Our $108 million prepayment and our $190 million share of the remaining payments, a total of $298 million, will be expensed ratably as a subscriber-related expense from April 1, 2011 through July 31, 2018, the expiration date of the ‘389 patent.  In connection with our TiVo settlement, TiVo agreed to advertise and market certain of our products and services.  As a result, $6 million was recognized as a reduction of litigation expense and we recorded a pre-paid marketing asset on our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss) and our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, respectively.

In addition, under the settlement agreement, TiVo granted DISH a license under its ‘389 patent and certain related patents, for the remaining life of those patents, with respect to DISH-branded and co-branded products and services.

DISH and EchoStar, on the one hand, and TiVo, on the other hand, have also agreed on mutual releases of certain related claims and agreed not to challenge each other’s DVR technology-related patents that are licensed under the settlement agreement.

Because both DISH and EchoStar were defendants in the TiVo lawsuit, DISH and EchoStar were jointly and severally liable to TiVo for any final damages and sanctions that could have been awarded by the District Court.  As previously disclosed, DISH determined that it was obligated under the agreements entered into in connection with the Spin-off to indemnify EchoStar for substantially all liability arising from this lawsuit.  EchoStar contributed an amount equal to its $5 million intellectual property liability limit under the receiver agreement.  DISH and EchoStar further agreed that EchoStar’s $5 million contribution would not exhaust EchoStar’s liability to us for other intellectual property claims that may arise under the receiver agreement. DISH and EchoStar also agreed that DISH and EchoStar would each be entitled to joint ownership of, and a cross-license to use, any intellectual property developed in connection with any potential new alternative technology.  Any amounts that EchoStar is responsible for under the settlement agreement with TiVo are in addition to the $5 million contribution previously made by EchoStar.

Voom

In January 2008, Voom HD Holdings (“Voom”) filed a lawsuit against us in New York Supreme Court, alleging breach of contract and other claims arising from our termination of the affiliation agreement governing carriage of certain Voom HD channels on the DISH Network satellite TV service.  At that time, Voom also sought a preliminary injunction to prevent us from terminating the agreement.  The Court denied Voom’s request, finding, among other things, that Voom had not demonstrated that it was likely to prevail on the merits.  In April 2010, we and Voom each filed motions for summary judgment.  Voom later filed two motions seeking discovery sanctions.  On November 9, 2010, the Court issued a decision denying both motions for summary judgment, but granting Voom’s motions for discovery sanctions.  The Court’s decision provides for an adverse inference jury instruction at trial and precludes our damages expert from testifying at trial.  We appealed the grant of Voom’s motion for discovery sanctions to the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.  On February 15, 2011, the appellate Court granted our motion to stay the trial pending our appeal.  Oral argument on the appeal took place on April 27, 2011.  Voom is claiming over $2.5 billion in damages.  We intend to vigorously defend this case.  We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Other

In addition to the above actions, we are subject to various other legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of business, including, among other things, disputes with programmers regarding fees.  In our opinion, the amount of ultimate liability with respect to any of these actions is unlikely to materially affect our financial position, results of operations or liquidity.