XML 120 R102.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

12 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2020

Dec. 31, 2019

9.	Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

DISH Network Spectrum

Since 2008, DISH Network has directly invested over $11 billion to acquire certain wireless spectrum licenses and related assets and made over $10 billion in non-controlling investments in certain entities, for a total of over $21 billion, as described further below.

DISH Network has directly invested over $11 billion to acquire certain wireless spectrum licenses and related assets. These wireless spectrum licenses are subject to certain interim and final build-out requirements, as well as certain renewal requirements. In March 2017, DISH Network notified the FCC that it planned to deploy a narrowband Internet of Things (“IoT”) network on certain of these wireless licenses, which was to be the first phase of its network deployment (“First Phase”). DISH Network expected to complete the First Phase by March 2020, with subsequent phases to be completed thereafter. In light of, among other things, certain developments related to the Sprint-TMUS merger, during the first quarter 2020, DISH Network determined that the revision of certain of its build-out deadlines was probable and, therefore, DISH Network no longer intends to complete its narrowband IoT deployment. DISH Network has issued requests for information and proposals (“RFI/Ps”) to various vendors in the wireless industry as it moves forward with its 5G broadband network deployment (“5G Network Deployment”). DISH Network currently expects expenditures for its wireless projects to be between $250 million and $500 million during 2020, excluding capitalized interest. DISH Network currently expects expenditures for its 5G Network Deployment to be approximately $10 billion, excluding capitalized interest. DISH Network 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.

In addition, as DISH Network considers its options for the commercialization of its wireless spectrum, it will incur significant additional expenses and will have to make significant investments related to, among other things, research and development, wireless testing and wireless network infrastructure. DISH Network may also determine that additional wireless spectrum licenses may be required to commercialize its wireless business and to compete with other wireless service providers.

Asset Purchase Agreement. On July 26, 2019, DISH Network entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement (the “APA”) with T-Mobile US, Inc. (“TMUS”) and Sprint Corporation (“Sprint” and together with TMUS, the “Sellers” and given the consummation of the Sprint-TMUS merger, sometimes referred to as “NTM”) to acquire from NTM certain assets and liabilities associated with Sprint’s Boost Mobile and Sprint-branded prepaid mobile services businesses (the “Prepaid Business”) for an aggregate purchase price of $1.4 billion as adjusted for specific categories of net working capital on the closing date (the “Prepaid Business Sale”). Effective July 1, 2020 (the “Closing Date”), upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the APA, DISH Network and NTM completed the Prepaid Business Sale.

At the closing of the Prepaid Business Sale, DISH Network and NTM entered into a transition services agreement under which DISH Network will receive certain transitional services (the “TSA”), a master network services agreement for the provision of network services by NTM to DISH Network (the “MNSA”), an option agreement entitling DISH Network to acquire certain decommissioned cell sites and retail stores of NTM (the “Option Agreement”) and an agreement under which DISH Network would purchase all of Sprint’s 800 MHz spectrum licenses, totaling approximately 13.5 MHz of nationwide wireless spectrum for an additional approximately $3.59 billion (the “Spectrum Purchase Agreement” and together with the APA, the TSA, the MNSA and the Option Agreement, the “Transaction Agreements”). See Note 10 “Commitments and Contingencies – Commitments – Sprint Asset Acquisition” of DISH Network’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2020 for further information on the Transaction Agreements.

In connection with the development of DISH Network’s wireless business, including, without limitation, the efforts described above, we have made cash distributions to partially finance these efforts to date and may make additional cash distributions to finance, in whole or in part, DISH Network’s future efforts. There can be no assurance that DISH Network will be able to develop and implement a business model that will realize a return on these wireless spectrum licenses or that DISH Network will be able to profitably deploy the assets represented by these wireless spectrum licenses.

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

SNR HoldCo, the “SNR Entities”), respectively. On October 27, 2015, the FCC granted certain AWS-3 wireless spectrum licenses (the “AWS-3 Licenses”) to Northstar Wireless (the “Northstar Licenses”) and to SNR Wireless (the “SNR Licenses”), respectively. The Northstar Entities and/or the SNR Entities may need to raise significant additional capital in the future, which may be obtained from third party sources or from DISH Network, so that the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities may commercialize, build-out and integrate these AWS-3 Licenses, comply with regulations applicable to such AWS-3 Licenses, and make any potential payments related to the re-auction of AWS-3 licenses retained by the FCC. Depending upon the nature and scope of such commercialization, build-out, integration efforts, regulatory compliance, and potential re-auction payments, any such loans, equity contributions or partnerships could vary significantly. For further information regarding the potential re-auction of AWS-3 licenses retained by the FCC, see Note 10 “Commitments and Contingencies – Commitments – DISH Network Non-Controlling Investments in the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities Related to AWS-3 Wireless Spectrum Licenses” in the Notes to DISH Network’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2020.

We have made and may make cash distributions to finance, in whole or in part, loans that DISH Network has made or may make in the future to the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities related to DISH Network’s non-controlling investments in these entities. There can be no assurance that DISH Network will be able to obtain a profitable return on its non-controlling investments in the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities.

We may need to raise significant additional capital in the future, which may not be available on acceptable terms or at all, to among other things, make additional cash distributions to DISH Network, continue investing in our business and to pursue acquisitions and other strategic transactions.

See Note 10 “Commitments and Contingencies – Commitments” in the Notes to DISH Network’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2020 for further information.

Contingencies

Separation Agreement

On January 1, 2008, DISH Network completed the distribution of its 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, DISH Network 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 DISH Network 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 DISH Network’s acts or omissions following the Spin-off. On February 28, 2017, DISH Network and EchoStar and certain of their respective subsidiaries completed the transactions contemplated by the Share Exchange Agreement (the “Share Exchange Agreement”) that was previously entered into on January 31, 2017 (the “Share Exchange”), pursuant to which certain assets that were transferred to EchoStar in the Spin-off were transferred back to DISH Network. On September 10, 2019, DISH Network and EchoStar and certain of their respective subsidiaries completed the transactions contemplated by the Master Transaction Agreement (the “Master Transaction Agreement”) that was previously entered into on May 19, 2019, pursuant to which certain assets that were transferred to EchoStar in the Spin-off were transferred back to DISH Network. The Share Exchange Agreement and the Master Transaction Agreement contain additional indemnification provisions between DISH Network and EchoStar for certain liabilities and legal proceedings.

Litigation

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

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

Broadband iTV

On December 19, 2019, Broadband iTV, Inc. filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 10,028,026 (the “026 patent”), entitled “System for addressing on-demand TV program content on TV services platform of a digital TV services provider”; United States Patent No. 10,506,269 (the “269 patent”), entitled “System for addressing on-demand TV program content on TV services platform of a digital TV services provider”; United States Patent No. 9,998,791 (“the 791 patent”), entitled “Video-on-demand content delivery method for providing video-on-demand services to TV service subscribers”; and United States Patent No. 9,648,388 (the “388 patent”), entitled “Video-on-demand content delivery system for providing video-on-demand services to TV services subscribers.” Generally, the asserted patents relate to providing video on demand content to subscribers.

On July 10, 2020, July 20, 2020, July 24, 2020 and July 31, 2020, DISH Network L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of, respectively, the 026 patent, the 791 patent, the 269 patent and the 388 patent.

We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. Each of the plaintiffs is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

City of Hallandale Beach Police Officers’ and Firefighters’ Personnel Retirement Trust

On July 2, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a purported EchoStar stockholder in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada under the caption City of Hallandale Beach Police Officers’ and Firefighters’ Personnel Retirement Trust v. Ergen, et al., Case No. A-19-797799-B. The lawsuit named as defendants Mr. Ergen, the other members of the EchoStar Board, as well as EchoStar, certain of its officers, DISH Network and certain of DISH Network’s and EchoStar’s affiliates. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties in approving the transactions contemplated under the Master Transaction Agreement for inadequate consideration and pursuant to an unfair and conflicted process, and that EchoStar, DISH Network and certain other defendants aided and abetted such breaches. In the operative First Amended Complaint, filed on October 11, 2019, the plaintiff dropped as defendants the EchoStar board members other than Mr. Ergen. See Note 13 “Related Party Transactions – Master Transaction Agreement” in the Notes to DISH Network’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2020 for further information on the Master Transaction Agreement. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief, including the issuance of additional DISH Network Class A Common Stock, monetary relief and other costs and disbursements, including attorneys’ fees.

DISH Network intends to vigorously defend this case, but cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

ClearPlay, Inc.

On March 13, 2014, ClearPlay, Inc. (“ClearPlay”) filed a complaint against DISH Network, our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., EchoStar, and its then wholly-owned subsidiary EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The complaint alleges willful infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,898,799 (the “799 patent”), entitled “Multimedia Content Navigation and Playback”; 7,526,784 (the “784 patent”), entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content”; 7,543,318 (the “318 patent”), entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content”; 7,577,970 (the “970 patent”), entitled “Multimedia Content Navigation and Playback”; and 8,117,282 (the “282 patent”), entitled “Media Player Configured to Receive Playback Filters From Alternative Storage Mediums.” ClearPlay alleges that the AutoHop^™ feature of our Hopper set-top 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. The trial has been reset for March 22, 2021. The report issued by ClearPlay’s damages expert contends that ClearPlay is entitled to $543 million in damages.

Contemporary Display LLC

On June 4, 2018, Contemporary Display LLC (“Contemporary”) filed a complaint against DISH Network and our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 6,028,643 (the “643 patent”), entitled “Multiple-Screen Video Adapter with Television Tuner”; United States Patent No. 6,429,903 (the “903 patent”), entitled “Video Adapter for Supporting at Least One Television Monitor”; United States Patent No. 6,492,997 (the “997 patent”), entitled “Method and System for Providing Selectable Programming in a Multi-Screen Mode”; United States Patent No. 7,500,202 (the “202 patent”), “Remote Control for Navigating Through Content in an Organized and Categorized Fashion”; and United States Patent No. 7,809,842 (the “842 patent”), entitled “Transferring Sessions Between Devices.” The 643 patent and the 903 patent are directed to video adapters for use with multiple displays. The 997 patent is directed to a system for presenting multiple video programs on a display device simultaneously. The 202 patent is directed to a remote control for interacting with a set-top box having programmable features and “operational controls” on at least three sides of the remote control. The 842 patent is directed to a system for managing online communication sessions between multiple devices. Contemporary is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

In a First Amended Complaint filed on August 6, 2018, Contemporary added our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. as a defendant. In a Second Amended Complaint filed on October 9, 2018, Contemporary named only our wholly- owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. as a defendant and dropped certain indirect infringement allegations. On June 10, 2019, DISH Network L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of the asserted claims of the 842 patent, the 903 patent, the 643 patent and the 997 patent. On December 13, 2019 and January 7, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on each of our petitions. On July 11, 2019, the Court entered an order staying the case pending resolution of the petitions. On January 31, 2020, pursuant to the parties’ joint motion, the Court dismissed all claims arising from the 202 patent, and extended its stay of the litigation pending non-appealable determinations on all of the petitions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Customedia Technologies, L.L.C.

On February 10, 2016, Customedia Technologies, L.L.C. (“Customedia”) filed a complaint against DISH Network 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 alleges infringement in connection with our addressable advertising services, our DISH Anywhere feature, and our Pay-Per-View and video-on-demand offerings. Customedia is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

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. On June 12, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on our petitions challenging the 090 patent and the 437 patent; on July 18, 2017, it agreed to institute proceedings on our petitions challenging the 029 patent; and on July 28, 2017, it agreed to institute proceedings on our petitions challenging the 494 patent. These instituted proceedings cover all asserted claims of each of the asserted patents. The litigation in the District Court has been stayed since August 8, 2017 pending resolution of the proceedings at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, on December 20, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. dismissed its petitions challenging the 029 patent in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and on January 9, 2018, the parties dismissed their claims, counterclaims and defenses as to that patent in the litigation. On March 5, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office conducted a trial on the remaining petitions. On June 11, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued final written decisions on DISH Network L.L.C.’s petitions challenging the 090 patent and it invalidated all of the asserted claims. On July 25, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued final written decisions on DISH Network L.L.C.’s petitions challenging the 437 patent and the 494 patent and it invalidated all of the asserted claims. Customedia appealed its losses before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral argument on November 6, 2019 on the appeal involving the 437 patent, and summarily affirmed the patent’s invalidity on November 8, 2019. On January 7, 2020, Customedia petitioned the Court of Appeals for rehearing or rehearing en banc, raising issues about the constitutionality of the appointment of the administrative patent judges that heard the petition before the Patent and Trademark Office, but the Court of Appeals denied rehearing on March 5, 2020. On July 31, 2020, Customedia filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court asking it to hear a further appeal. The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on the appeal involving the 090 patent and the 494 patent on December 3, 2019, and affirmed those patents’ invalidity on March 6, 2020. On May 5, 2020, Customedia filed petitions in the Federal Circuit for rehearing and rehearing en banc, seeking to reverse our appellate victories on the 090 and 494 patents, but those petitions were denied on June 9, 2020.

Innovative Foundry Technologies LLC

On December 20, 2019, Innovative Foundry Technologies LLC filed a complaint against DISH Network (as well as Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation; Broadcom Incorporated; Broadcom Corporation; and Cypress Semiconductor Corporation) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 6,580,122 (the “122 patent”), entitled “Transistor Device Having an Enhanced Width Dimension and a Method of Making Same”; United States Patent No. 6,806,126 (the “126 patent”), entitled “Method of Manufacturing a Semiconductor Component”; United States Patent No. 6,933,620 (the “620 patent”), entitled “Semiconductor Component and Method of Manufacture”; and United States Patent No. 7,009,226 (the “226 patent”), entitled “In-Situ Nitride/Oxynitride Processing with Reduced Deposition Surface Pattern Sensitivity.” On April 9, 2020, Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation filed a petition with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of the asserted claims of the 226 patent, and on April 14, 2020, it filed petitions challenging the validity of the asserted claims of the 126 patent and 620 patent.

DISH Network intends 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. Each of the plaintiffs is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

Mobile Networking Solutions

On August 12, 2019, Mobile Networking Solutions, LLC (“Mobile Networking Solutions”) filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary Sling Media L.L.C. for infringement of two patents: United States Patent No. 7,543,177 (the “177 patent”) and United States Patent No. 7,958,388 (the “388 patent”), each entitled “Methods and Systems for a Storage System.” Mobile Networking Solutions alleges infringement in connection with Sling Media L.L.C.’s use of a Hadoop Distributed File System for storage and processing of large data files. Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, on December 16, 2019, the Court entered an order staying the case for six months so the parties may discuss settling the case. On May 12, 2020, pursuant to the parties’ joint request, the Court ordered dismissal of the case with prejudice. This matter is now concluded.

Multimedia Content Management LLC

On July 25, 2018, Multimedia Content Management LLC (“Multimedia”) filed a complaint against DISH Network in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Multimedia alleges that DISH Network infringes United States Patent No. 8,799,468 (the “468 patent”), entitled “System for Regulating Access to and Distributing Content in a Network,” and United States Patent No. 9,465,925 (the “925 patent”), entitled “System for Regulating Access to and Distributing Content in a Network,” in connection with impulse pay per view content offerings on certain set-top boxes. Multimedia is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On March 7, 2019, pursuant to stipulation, the Court substituted our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. as the defendant in our place. On April 23, 2019, 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. On November 13, 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office denied institution on both of the petitions. On December 13, 2019, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a motion for reconsideration, which the United States Patent and Trademark Office denied on March 10, 2020. On March 26, 2020, pursuant to the parties’ joint request, the Court dismissed the matter with prejudice. This matter is now concluded.

Realtime Data LLC and Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

On June 6, 2017, Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO (“Realtime”) filed an amended complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (the “Original Texas Action”) against DISH Network; our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C. (then known as EchoStar Technologies L.L.C.), Sling TV L.L.C. and Sling Media L.L.C.; EchoStar, and EchoStar’s wholly-owned subsidiary Hughes Network Systems, L.L.C. (“HNS”); and Arris Group, Inc. Realtime’s initial complaint in the Original Texas Action, filed on February 14, 2017, had named only EchoStar and HNS as defendants. The amended complaint in the Original Texas Action alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 8,717,204 (the “204 patent”), entitled “Methods for encoding and decoding data”; United States Patent No. 9,054,728 (the “728 patent”), entitled “Data compression systems and methods”; United States Patent No. 7,358,867 (the “867 patent”), entitled “Content independent data compression method and system”; United States Patent No. 8,502,707 (the “707 patent”), entitled “Data compression systems and methods”; United States Patent No. 8,275,897 (the “897 patent”), entitled “System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval”; United States Patent No. 8,867,610 (the “610 patent”), entitled “System and methods for video and audio data distribution”; United States Patent No. 8,934,535 (the “535 patent”), entitled “Systems and methods for video and audio data storage and distribution”; and United States Patent No. 8,553,759 (the “759 patent”), entitled “Bandwidth sensitive data compression and decompression.”

Realtime alleges that DISH Network, Sling TV, Sling Media and Arris streaming video products and services compliant with various versions of the H.264 video compression standard infringe the 897 patent, the 610 patent and the 535 patent, and that the data compression system in Hughes’ products and services infringe the 204 patent, the 728 patent, the 867 patent, the 707 patent and the 759 patent.

Media L.L.C. in a new action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the “Colorado Action”). Also on August 31, 2017, Realtime dismissed DISH Technologies L.L.C. from the Original Texas Action, and on September 12, 2017, added it as a defendant in an amended complaint in the Second Texas Action. On November 6, 2017, Realtime filed a joint motion to dismiss the Second Texas Action without prejudice, which the Court entered on November 8, 2017.

On October 10, 2017, Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (“Realtime Adaptive Streaming”) filed suit against our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C., as well as Arris Group, Inc., in a new action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (the “Third Texas Action”), alleging infringement of the 610 patent and the 535 patent. Also on October 10, 2017, an amended complaint was filed in the Colorado Action, substituting Realtime Adaptive Streaming as the plaintiff instead of Realtime, and alleging infringement of only the 610 patent and the 535 patent, but not the 897 patent. On November 6, 2017, Realtime Adaptive Streaming filed a joint motion to dismiss the Third Texas Action without prejudice, which the court entered on November 8, 2017. Also on November 6, 2017, Realtime Adaptive Streaming filed a second amended complaint in the Colorado Action, adding our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C., as well as Arris Group, Inc., as defendants.

As a result, neither DISH Network nor any of its subsidiaries is a defendant in the Original Texas Action; the Court has dismissed without prejudice the Second Texas Action and the Third Texas Action; and our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. and Sling Media L.L.C. as well as Arris Group, Inc., are defendants in the Colorado Action, which now has Realtime Adaptive Streaming as the named plaintiff.

On July 3, 2018, Sling TV L.L.C., Sling Media L.L.C., DISH Network L.L.C., and DISH Technologies L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of each of the asserted patents. On January 31, 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on our petitions challenging all asserted claims of each of the asserted patents, and it held trial on the petitions on December 5, 2019. On January 17, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office terminated the petitions as time-barred, but issued a final written decision invalidating the 535 patent to third parties that had timely joined in our petition. On March 16, 2020, Sling TV L.L.C., Sling Media L.L.C., DISH Network L.L.C., and DISH Technologies L.L.C. filed a notice of appeal from the terminated petitions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and filed their opening brief on May 29, 2020. On June 29, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office filed a notice of intervention in the appeal, and it and Realtime filed their respective appellate opposition briefs on July 29, 2020. The Colorado Action in the district court has been stayed since February 26, 2019, pending resolution of the petitions.

Realtime Adaptive Streaming is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

Sound View Innovations, LLC

On December 30, 2019, Sound View Innovations, LLC filed one complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. and a second complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary Sling TV L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint against DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. alleges infringement of United States Patent No 6,502,133 (the “133 patent”), entitled Real-Time Event Processing System with Analysis Engine Using Recovery Information” and both complaints allege infringement of United States Patent No. 6,708,213 (the “213 patent), entitled “Method for Streaming Multimedia Information Over Public Networks”; United States Patent No. 6,757,796 (the “796 patent”), entitled “Method and System for Caching Streaming Live Broadcasts transmitted Over a Network”; and United States Patent No. 6,725,456 (the “456 patent”), entitled “Methods and Apparatus for Ensuring Quality of Service in an Operating System.”

On May 21, 2020, June 3, 2020, June 5, 2020 and July 10, 2020, DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of, respectively, the 213 patent, the 133 patent, the 456 patent and the 796 patent.

We intend to vigorously defend these cases. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. Each of the plaintiffs is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

Telemarketing 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 alleged 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. was entitled to partial summary judgment with respect to one claim in the action. In addition, the Court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to partial summary judgment with respect to ten claims in the action, which included, 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 were questions for trial.

The first phase of the bench trial took place January 19, 2016 through February 11, 2016, and the second phase took place October 25, 2016 through November 2, 2016.

On June 5, 2017, the Court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and entered Judgment ordering DISH Network L.L.C. to pay an aggregate amount of $280 million to the federal and state plaintiffs. The Court also issued a Permanent Injunction (the “Injunction”) against DISH Network L.L.C. that imposes certain ongoing compliance requirements on DISH Network L.L.C., which include, among other things: (i) the retention of a telemarketing-compliance expert to prepare a plan to ensure that DISH Network L.L.C. and certain independent third-party retailers will continue to comply with telemarketing laws and the Injunction; (ii) certain telemarketing records retention and production requirements; and (iii) certain compliance reporting and monitoring requirements. In addition to the compliance requirements under the Injunction, within ninety (90) days after the effective date of the Injunction, DISH Network L.L.C. is required to demonstrate that it and certain independent third-party retailers are in compliance with the Safe Harbor Provisions of the TSR and TCPA and have made no prerecorded telemarketing calls during the five (5) years prior to the effective date of the Injunction (collectively, the “Demonstration Requirements”). If DISH Network L.L.C. fails to prove that it meets the Demonstration Requirements, it will be barred from conducting any outbound telemarketing for two (2) years. If DISH Network L.L.C. fails to prove that a particular independent third-party retailer meets the Demonstration Requirements, DISH Network L.L.C. will be barred from accepting orders from that independent third-party retailer for two (2) years. On July 3, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed two motions with the Court: (1) to alter or amend the Judgment or in the alternative to amend the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; and (2) to clarify, alter and amend the Injunction. On August 10, 2017, the Court: (a) denied the motion to alter or amend the Judgment or in the alternative to amend the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; and (b) allowed, in

part, the motion to clarify, alter and amend the Injunction, and entered an Amended Permanent Injunction (the “Amended Injunction”).

Among other things, the Amended Injunction provided DISH Network L.L.C. a thirty (30) day extension to meet the Demonstration Requirements, expanded the exclusion of certain independent third-party retailers from the Demonstration Requirements, and clarified that, with regard to independent third-party retailers, the Amended Injunction only applied to their telemarketing of DISH TV goods and services. On October 10, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which heard oral argument on September 17, 2018. On March 26, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion largely affirming DISH Network L.L.C.’s liability, but vacating and remanding the damages award. On June 25, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied DISH Network L.L.C.’s petition for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, on July 13, 2020, the Court entered a schedule for additional briefing on the remanded damages issue.

Our total accrual at June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019 related to the FTC Action was $280 million, which was recorded in prior periods and is included in “Other accrued expenses” on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Any eventual payments made with respect to the FTC Action may not be deductible for tax purposes, which had a negative impact on our effective tax rate for the year ended December 31, 2017. The tax deductibility of any eventual payments made with respect to the FTC Action may change, based upon, among other things, further developments in the FTC Action, including final adjudication of the FTC Action.

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. On May 22, 2017, the Court ruled that the violations were willful and knowing, and trebled the damages award to $1,200 for each call made in violation of TCPA. On April 5, 2018, the Court entered a $61 million judgment in favor of the class. DISH Network L.L.C. appealed and on May 30, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. On October 15, 2019, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a petition for writ of certiorari, requesting that the United States Supreme Court agree to hear a further appeal, but it denied the petition on December 16, 2019. On January 21, 2020, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a second notice of appeal relating to the district court’s orders on the claims administration process to identify, and disburse funds to, individual class members. On June 29, 2020, Krakauer filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court currently is deciding how to handle the $10.76 million in disbursable judgment funds for which no corresponding class member was identified. Our total accrual related to the Krakauer Action at December 31, 2018 was $61 million, which was recorded in prior periods and was included in “Other accrued expenses” on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. During the third quarter 2019, the judgment was paid to the court.

We intend to vigorously defend these cases. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits.

Telemarketing Shareholder Derivative Litigation

On October 19, 2017, Plumbers Local Union No. 519 Pension Trust Fund (“Plumbers Local 519”), a purported shareholder of DISH Network, 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 following current and former members of DISH Network’s Board of Directors: Charles W. Ergen; James DeFranco; Cantey M. Ergen; Steven R. Goodbarn; David K. Moskowitz; Tom A. Ortolf; Carl E. Vogel; George R. Brokaw; and Gary S. Howard (collectively, the “Director Defendants”). In its complaint, Plumbers Local 519 contends that, by virtue of their alleged failure to appropriately ensure DISH Network’s compliance with telemarketing laws, the Director Defendants exposed DISH Network to liability for telemarketing violations, including those in the Krakauer Action. It also contends that the Director Defendants caused DISH Network to pay improper compensation and benefits to themselves and others who allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to DISH Network. Plumbers Local 519 alleges causes of action for breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty and good faith, gross mismanagement, abuse of control, corporate waste and unjust enrichment. Plumbers Local 519 is seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

On November 13, 2017, City of Sterling Heights Police and Fire Retirement System (“Sterling Heights”), a purported shareholder of DISH Network, filed a putative shareholder derivative action in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada. Sterling Heights makes substantially the same allegations as Plumbers Union 519, and alleges causes of action against the Director Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. Sterling Heights is seeking an unspecified amount of damages. Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, on January 4, 2018, the District Court agreed to consolidate the Sterling Heights action with the Plumbers Local 519 action, and on January 12, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint that largely duplicates the original Plumbers Local 519 complaint. DISH Network’s Board of Directors has established a Special Litigation Committee to review the factual allegations and legal claims in this action. On May 15, 2018, the District Court granted the Special Litigation Committee’s motion to stay the case pending its investigation. The Special Litigation Committee’s report was filed on November 27, 2018, and recommended that the Company not pursue the claims asserted by the derivative plaintiffs. On December 20, 2018, the Special Litigation Committee filed a motion seeking deferral to its determination that the claims should be dismissed. Following a two-day evidentiary hearing on July 6-7, 2020, on July 17, 2020, the District Court entered an order granting the Special Litigation Committee’s motion.

DISH Network cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

TQ Delta, LLC

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 then wholly-owned subsidiary EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. as defendants. TQ Delta alleges that our satellite TV service, Internet service, set-top boxes, gateways, routers, modems, adapters and networks that operate in accordance with one or more Multimedia over Coax Alliance Standards infringe the asserted patents. TQ Delta has filed actions in the same court alleging infringement of the same patents against Comcast Corp., Cox Communications, Inc., DirecTV, Time Warner Cable Inc. and Verizon Communications, Inc. TQ Delta is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

On July 14, 2016, TQ Delta stipulated to dismiss with prejudice all claims related to the 369 patent and the 956 patent. On July 20, 2016, 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. On February 27, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted our motions to join the instituted petitions on the 243 and 412 patents. On October 26, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued final written decisions on the petitions challenging the 158 patent, the 243 patent, the 412 patent and the 430 patent, and it invalidated all of the asserted claims of those patents. On February 7, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued final written decisions on the petitions challenging the 404 patent, and it invalidated all of the asserted claims of that patent on the basis of our petition. On February 10, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a final written decision on our petition challenging the 268 patent, and it invalidated all of the asserted claims. On March 12, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a final written decision on a third-party petition challenging the 268 patent, and it invalidated all of the asserted claims. All asserted claims have now been invalidated by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. TQ Delta has filed notices of appeal from the final written decisions adverse to it. On May 9, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity of the 430 patent and the 412 patent. On July 10, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity of the asserted claims of the 404 patent. On July 15, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity of the asserted claims of the 268 patent. On November 22, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the invalidity finding on the 243 patent and the 158 patent, and then, on March 29, 2020, denied a petition for panel rehearing as to those findings.

Turner Network Sales

On October 6, 2017, Turner Network Sales, Inc. (“Turner”) filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The operative First Amended Complaint alleges that DISH Network L.L.C. improperly calculated and withheld licensing fees owing to Turner in connection with its carriage of CNN and other networks. On December 14, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed its operative first amended counterclaims against Turner. In the counterclaims, DISH Network L.L.C. seeks a declaratory judgment that it properly calculated the licensing fees owed to Turner for carriage of CNN, and also alleges claims for unrelated breaches of the parties’ affiliation agreement. In its October 1, 2018 damage expert’s report, Turner claimed damages of $159 million, plus $24 million in interest. On September 27, 2019, the Court granted, in part, Turner’s motion for summary judgment, holding, in part, that Turner was entitled to recover approximately $20 million in license fee payments that DISH Network L.L.C. had withheld after it discovered previous over-payments. On February 12, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss certain of their respective claims. Trial on the remaining claims in this matter has been re-set for March 1, 2021, where DISH Network L.L.C.’s incremental exposure (per Turner’s damages expert’s amended report) is approximately $206 million.

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.

Uniloc

On January 31, 2019, Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Uniloc”) filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary Sling TV L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The Complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 6,519,005 (the “005 patent”), which is entitled “Method of Concurrent Multiple-Mode Motion Estimation for Digital Video”; United States Patent No. 6,895,118 (the “118 patent”), which is entitled “Method of Coding Digital Image Based on Error Concealment”; United States Patent No. 9,721,273 (the “273 patent”), which is entitled “System and Method for Aggregating and Providing Audio and Visual Presentations Via a Computer Network”); and United States Patent No. 8,407,609 (the “609 patent”), which is entitled “System and Method for Providing and Tracking the Provision of Audio and Visual Presentations Via a Computer Network.” Uniloc is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

On June 25, 2019, Sling TV L.L.C. filed a petition with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of all of the asserted claims of the 005 patent. On July 19, 2019 and July 22, 2019, respectively, Sling TV L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of all asserted claims of the 273 patent and the 609 patent. On August 12, 2019, Sling TV L.L.C. filed a petition with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of all of the asserted claims of the 118 patent. On October 18, 2019, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the Court entered a stay of the trial proceedings. On January 9, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on the petition challenging the 005 patent. On January 15, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on the petition challenging the 273 patent. On February 4, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on the petition challenging the 609 patent. On February 25, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office declined to institute proceedings on the petition challenging the 118 patent.

Vermont National Telephone Company

Management, LLC; 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.

On March 2, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a stay of the litigation until such time as the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (the “D.C. Circuit”) issued its opinion in SNR Wireless LicenseCo, LLC, et al. v. F.C.C. The D.C. Circuit issued its opinion on August 29, 2017 and remanded the matter to the FCC for further proceedings. See Note 10 “Commitments – DISH Network Non-Controlling Investments in the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities Related to AWS-3 Wireless Spectrum Licenses” in the Notes to DISH Network’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2020 for further information. Thereafter, the Court maintained the stay until October 26, 2018. On February 11, 2019, the Court granted Vermont National’s unopposed motion for leave to file an amended complaint. On March 28, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss Vermont National’s amended complaint, which has been fully briefed since June 3, 2019.

DISH Network intends to vigorously defend this case. DISH Network 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.

12.Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

As of December 31, 2019, future maturities of our long-term debt, finance lease and contractual obligations are summarized as follows:


	Payments due by period
	Total		2020		2021		2022			2023		2024		Thereafter

Long-term debt obligations	$	10,625,996	$	1,102,430	$	2,002,554	$	2,002,683		$	1,502,820	$	2,002,964	$	2,012,545
Interest expense on long-term debt		2,524,898	$	629,410	$	533,599	$	465,969		$	310,832	$	273,188	$	311,900
Finance lease obligations (1)		212,617		48,678		53,150		41,666			38,018		31,105		—
Interest expense on finance lease obligations (1)		45,183		17,607		13,129		8,561			4,844		1,042		—
Satellite-related and other obligations (2)		219,019		71,931		65,663		41,291			23,321		16,813		—
Operating lease obligations (1)		641,792		239,660		199,062		127,300			24,571		9,191		42,008
Purchase obligations		1,241,340		1,200,025		29,284		12,031			—		—		—
Total	$	15,510,845	$	3,309,741	$	2,896,441	$	2,699,501	$		1,904,406	$	2,334,303	$	2,366,453

(1)

See Note 7 for further information on leases and the adoption of ASC 842.

(2)

Represents obligations for satellite related executory costs, telemetry, tracking and control (“TT&C”) services and short-term leases.

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 owned satellites or contract for the construction, launch or lease of additional satellites.

The table above does not include $208 million of liabilities associated with unrecognized tax benefits that were accrued, as discussed in Note 9, and are included on our Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2019. We do not expect any portion of this amount to be paid or settled within the next twelve months.

DISH Network Spectrum

DISH Network has directly invested over $11 billion to acquire certain wireless spectrum licenses and related assets. These wireless spectrum licenses are subject to certain interim and final build-out requirements, as well as certain renewal requirements. In March 2017, DISH Network notified the FCC that it planned to deploy a narrowband IoT network on certain of these wireless licenses, which was to be the first phase of its network deployment (“First Phase”). DISH Network expected to complete the First Phase by March 2020, with subsequent phases to be completed thereafter. DISH Network has entered into vendor contracts with multiple parties for, among other things, base stations, chipsets, modules, tower leases, the core network, Radio Frequency (“RF”) design, and deployment services for the First Phase. Among other things, initial RF design in connection with the First Phase was complete, DISH Network had secured certain tower sites, and they were in the process of identifying and securing additional tower sites. The core network had been installed and commissioned. DISH Network installed the first base stations on sites in 2018 and were in the process of deploying the remaining base stations. During October 2019, DISH Network paused work on its narrowband IoT deployment due to its March 2020 build-out deadlines being tolled as discussed above. In addition, DISH Network has issued RFI/Ps to various vendors in the wireless industry as it moves forward with its 5G broadband network deployment (“5G Network Deployment”). DISH Network currently expects expenditures for its wireless projects to be between $250 million and $500 million during 2020, excluding capitalized interest. DISH Network currently expects expenditures for its 5G Network Deployment to be approximately $10 billion, excluding capitalized interest.

DISH Network 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. In addition, as DISH Network considers its options for the commercialization of its wireless spectrum, it will incur significant additional expenses and will have to make significant investments related to, among other things, research and development, wireless testing and wireless network infrastructure. DISH Network may also determine that additional wireless spectrum licenses may be required to commercialize its wireless business and to compete with other wireless service providers.

Pursuant to the APA, after the consummation of the Sprint-TMUS merger and at the closing of the transaction, NTM will sell to DISH Network and DISH Network will acquire from NTM certain assets and liabilities associated with Sprint’s Boost Mobile, Virgin Mobile and Sprint-branded prepaid mobile services businesses (the “Prepaid Business”) for an aggregate purchase price of $1.4 billion as adjusted for specific categories of net working capital on the Closing Date (the “Prepaid Business Sale”).

At the closing of the Prepaid Business Sale, DISH Network and NTM will enter into a transition services agreement under which DISH Network will receive certain transitional services (the “TSA”), a master network services agreement for the provision of network services by NTM to DISH Network (the “MNSA”), an option agreement entitling DISH Network to acquire certain decommissioned cell sites and retail stores of NTM (the “Option Agreement”) and an agreement under which DISH Network would purchase all of Sprint’s 800 MHz spectrum licenses, totaling approximately 13.5 MHz of nationwide wireless spectrum for an additional approximately $3.59 billion (the “Spectrum Purchase Agreement” and together with the APA, the TSA, the MNSA and the Option Agreement, the “Transaction Agreements”). See Note 15 “Commitments and Contingencies – Commitments – Sprint Asset Acquisition” of DISH Network’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 for further information on the Transaction Agreements.

Beginning on November 5, 2019, and while the approval of the Sprint-TMUS merger is pending, the March 7, 2020 build-out deadline for both the AWS-4 and Lower 700 MHz E Block spectrum bands is tolled; however, if the Sprint-TMUS merger is not consummated, the original deadlines would be reinstated with extensions equal to the length of time the deadline was tolled. During October 2019, DISH Network paused work on its narrowband Internet of Things (“IoT”) deployment due to its March 2020 build-out deadlines being tolled. DISH Network has issued requests for information and proposals (“RFI/Ps”) to various vendors in the wireless industry as it moves forward with its 5G Network Deployment.

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

During 2015, through its wholly-owned subsidiaries American AWS-3 Wireless II L.L.C. (“American II”) and American AWS-3 Wireless III L.L.C. (“American III”), DISH Network initially made over $10 billion in certain non-controlling investments in Northstar Spectrum, LLC (“Northstar Spectrum”), the parent company of Northstar Wireless, LLC (“Northstar Wireless,” and collectively with Northstar Spectrum, the “Northstar Entities”), and in SNR Wireless HoldCo, LLC (“SNR HoldCo”), the parent company of SNR Wireless LicenseCo, LLC (“SNR Wireless,” and collectively with SNR HoldCo, the “SNR Entities”), respectively. On October 27, 2015, the FCC granted certain AWS-3 wireless spectrum licenses (the “AWS-3 Licenses”) to Northstar Wireless (the “Northstar Licenses”) and to SNR Wireless (the “SNR Licenses”), respectively. The Northstar Entities and/or the SNR Entities may need to raise significant additional capital in the future, which may be obtained from third party sources or from DISH Network, so that the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities may commercialize, build-out and integrate these AWS-3 Licenses, comply with regulations applicable to such AWS-3 Licenses, and make any potential payments related to the re-auction of AWS-3 licenses retained by the FCC. Depending upon the nature and scope of such commercialization, build-out, integration efforts, regulatory compliance, and potential re-auction payments, any such loans, equity contributions or partnerships could vary significantly. For further information regarding the potential re-auction of AWS-3 licenses retained by the FCC, see Note 15 “Commitments and Contingencies – Commitments – DISH Network Non-Controlling Investments in the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities Related to AWS-3 Wireless Spectrum Licenses” in the Notes to DISH Network’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019.

In connection with certain funding obligations related to the investments by American II and American III discussed above, in February 2015, we paid a dividend of $8.250 billion to DOC for, among other things, general corporate purposes, which included such funding obligations, and to fund other DISH Network cash needs. We may make additional cash distributions to finance, in whole or in part, loans that DISH Network may make to the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities in the future related to DISH Network’s non-controlling investments in these entities. There can be no assurance that DISH Network will be able to obtain a profitable return on its non-controlling investments in the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities.

See Note 15 “Commitments and Contingencies – Wireless” in the Notes to DISH Network’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 for further information.

Purchase Obligations

Our 2020 purchase obligations primarily consist of binding purchase orders for certain fixed contractual commitments to purchase programming content, receiver systems and related equipment, broadband equipment, digital broadcast operations,

transmission costs, streaming delivery technology and infrastructure, engineering services, and other products and services related to the operation of our Pay-TV services. 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 increase to the extent we are successful in growing our Pay-TV subscriber base. In addition, programming costs per subscriber continue to increase due to contractual price increases and the renewal of long-term programming contracts on less favorable pricing terms.

Rent Expense

Total rent expense for operating leases was $357 million, $449 million and $473 million in 2019, 2018 and 2017, 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

Litigation

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.

Blue Spike, LLC

On July 6, 2018, Blue Spike, LLC (“Blue Spike”) filed a complaint against DISH Network and our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C. and Dish Network Service L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of Reissued United States Patent RE44,222E1 (the “222 patent”), entitled “Methods, systems and devices for packet watermarking and efficient provisioning of bandwidth”; Reissued United States Patent RE44,307 (the “307 patent”), entitled “Methods, systems and devices for packet watermarking and efficient provisioning of bandwidth”; and United States Patent Nos. 7,287,275B2 (the “275 patent”), entitled “Methods, systems and devices for packet watermarking and efficient provisioning of bandwidth”; 8,473,746 (the “746 patent”), entitled “Methods, systems and devices for packet watermarking and efficient provisioning of bandwidth”; 8,224,705 (the “705 patent”), entitled “Methods, systems and devices for packet watermarking and efficient provisioning of bandwidth”; 7,475,246 (the “246 patent”), entitled “Secure personal content server”; 8,739,295B2 (the “295 patent”), entitled “Secure personal content server”; 9,021,602 (the “602 patent”), entitled “Data Protection and Device”; 9,104,842 (the “842 patent”), entitled “Data Protection and Device”; 9,934,408 (the “408 patent”), entitled “Secure personal content server”; 7,159,116B2 (the “116 patent”), entitled “Systems, methods and devices for trusted transactions”; and 8,538,011B2 (the “011 patent”), entitled “Systems, methods and devices for trusted transactions.” On September 5, 2018, pursuant to a joint motion of the parties, the Court ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In a First Amended Complaint filed on October 12, 2018, Blue Spike dropped its claims for infringement of the 222 patent, the 307 patent, the 275 patent, the 705 patent, and the 746 patent. On November 11, 2018, Blue Spike dismissed its complaint.

On January 28, 2019, Blue Spike, along with Blue Spike International, Ltd. and Wistaria Trading Ltd., filed a new action against DISH Network and our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C. and Dish Network Service L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of the 246 patent, the 295 patent, the 408 patent, the 116 patent, the 011 patent, the 602 patent and the 842 patent, all of which were asserted in the prior action. On March 29, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, which dropped their claims arising from the 116 patent and the 011 patent.

On July 5 and July 8, 2019, respectively, DISH Network, DISH Network L.L.C. and Dish Network Service L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of the asserted claims of the 295 and the 408 patents. On July 19, 2019, DISH Network, DISH Network L.L.C. and Dish Network Service L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of the asserted claims of the 246 patent. On August 1, 2019, DISH Network, DISH Network L.L.C. and Dish Network Service L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of the asserted claims of the 842 patent and the 602 patent.

On January 23, 2020, pursuant to the parties’ joint motion, all proceedings on the petitions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office were terminated. On January 28, 2020, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the litigation in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware was dismissed with prejudice.

Broadband iTV

City of Hallandale Beach Police Officers’ and Firefighters’ Personnel Retirement Trust

On July 2, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a purported EchoStar stockholder in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada under the caption City of Hallandale Beach Police Officers’ and Firefighters’ Personnel Retirement Trust v. Ergen, et al., Case No. A-19-797799-B. The lawsuit named as defendants Mr. Ergen, the other members of the EchoStar Board, as well as EchoStar, certain of its officers, DISH Network and certain of DISH Network’s and EchoStar’s affiliates. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties in approving the transactions contemplated under the Master Transaction Agreement for inadequate consideration and pursuant to an unfair and conflicted process, and that EchoStar, DISH Network and certain other defendants aided and abetted such breaches. In the operative First Amended Complaint, filed on October 11, 2019, the plaintiff dropped as defendants the EchoStar board members other than Mr. Ergen. See Note 1 “Recent Developments” in the Notes to DISH Network’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 for further information on the Master Transaction Agreement. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief, including the issuance of additional DISH Network Class A Common Stock, monetary relief and other costs and disbursements, including attorneys’ fees.

DISH Network intends to vigorously defend this case, but cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

ClearPlay, Inc.

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. The trial has been set for October 26, 2020. The report issued by ClearPlay’s damages expert contends that ClearPlay is entitled to $543 million in damages.

Contemporary Display LLC

In a First Amended Complaint filed on August 6, 2018, Contemporary added our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. as a defendant. In a Second Amended Complaint filed on October 9, 2018, Contemporary named only our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. as a defendant and dropped certain indirect infringement allegations. On June 10, 2019, DISH Network L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of the asserted claims of the 842 patent, the 903 patent, the 643 patent and the 997 patent. On December 13, 2019 and January 7, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on each of our petitions. On July 11, 2019, the Court entered an order staying the case pending resolution of the petitions. On January 31, 2020, pursuant to the parties’ joint motion, the Court dismissed all claims arising from the 202 patent, and extended its stay of the litigation pending non-appealable determinations on all of the petitions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Customedia Technologies, L.L.C.

Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, on December 20, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. dismissed its petitions challenging the 029 patent in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and on January 9, 2018, the parties dismissed their claims, counterclaims and defenses as to that patent in the litigation. On March 5, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office conducted a trial on the remaining petitions. On June 11, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued final written decisions on DISH Network L.L.C.’s petitions challenging the 090 patent and it invalidated all of the asserted claims. On July 25, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued final written decisions on DISH Network L.L.C.’s petitions challenging the 437 patent and the 494 patent and it invalidated all of the asserted claims. Customedia has filed notices of appeal from all of the final written decisions adverse to it, and DISH Network L.L.C. cross-appealed to the extent that its petitions were not successful. On February 6, 2019, the Court of Appeals granted DISH Network L.L.C.’s motion to dismiss its cross-appeals related to the 090 patent and, on February 26, 2019, granted DISH Network L.L.C.’s motion to dismiss its cross-appeals related to the 437 patent. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral argument on November 6, 2019 on the appeal involving the 437 patent, and summarily affirmed the patent’s invalidity on November 8, 2019. On January 7, 2020, Customedia petitioned the Court of Appeals for rehearing or rehearing en banc, raising issues about the constitutionality of the appointment of the administrative patent judges that heard the petition before the Patent and Trademark Office, and DISH Network L.L.C. filed a response to that petition on February 10, 2020. The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on the appeal involving the 090 patent and the 494 patent on December 3, 2019.

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.

Innovative Foundry Technologies

Mobile Networking Solutions

On August 12, 2019, Mobile Networking Solutions, LLC filed a complaint against our wholly owned subsidiary Sling Media L.L.C. for infringement of two patents: U.S. Patent No. 7,543,177 (the “177 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,958,388 (the “388 patent”), each entitled “Methods and Systems for a Storage System.” Mobile Networking Solutions alleges infringement in connection with Sling Media L.L.C.’s use of a Hadoop Distributed File System for storage and processing of large data files. Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, on December 16, 2019, the Court entered an order staying the case for six months so the parties may discuss settling the case.

Multimedia Content Management LLC

On July 25, 2018, Multimedia Content Management LLC (“Multimedia”) filed a complaint against DISH Network in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Multimedia alleges that DISH Network infringes United States Patent No. 8,799,468 (the “468 patent”), entitled “System for Regulating Access to and Distributing Content in a Network,” and United States Patent No. 9,465,925 (the “925 patent”), entitled “System for Regulating Access to and Distributing Content in a Network,” in connection with impulse pay per view content offerings on certain set-top boxes. Multimedia is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On March 7, 2019, pursuant to stipulation, the Court substituted our wholly owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. as the defendant in our place. On April 23, 2019, 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. On November 13, 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office denied institution on both of the petitions. On December 13, 2019, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a motion for reconsideration. On January 6, 2020, pursuant to stipulation, the Court entered a stay of the litigation and vacated all upcoming deadlines.

Realtime Data LLC and Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

On July 19, 2017, the Court severed Realtime’s claims against DISH Network, DISH Network L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C., Sling Media L.L.C. and Arris Group, Inc. (alleging infringement of the 897 patent, the 610 patent and the 535 patent) from the Original Texas Action into a separate action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (the “Second Texas Action”). On August 31, 2017, Realtime dismissed the claims against DISH Network, Sling TV L.L.C., Sling Media Inc., and Sling Media L.L.C. from the Second Texas Action and refiled these claims (alleging infringement of the 897 patent, the 610 patent and the 535 patent) against Sling TV L.L.C., Sling Media Inc., and Sling Media L.L.C. in a new action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the “Colorado Action”). Also on August 31, 2017, Realtime dismissed DISH Technologies L.L.C. from the Original Texas Action, and on September 12, 2017, added it as a defendant in an amended complaint in the Second Texas Action. On November 6, 2017, Realtime filed a joint motion to dismiss the Second Texas Action without prejudice, which the Court entered on November 8, 2017.

Realtime Adaptive Streaming is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

Sound View Innovations, LLC

On December 30, 2019, Sound View Innovations, LLC filed one complaint against our wholly owned subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. and a second complaint against our wholly owned subsidiary Sling TV L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint against DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. alleges infringement of United States Patent No 6,502,133 (the “133 patent”), entitled Real-Time Event Processing System with Analysis Engine Using Recovery Information” and both complaints allege infringement of United States Patent No. 6,708,213 (the “213 patent), entitled “Method for Streaming Multimedia Information Over Public Networks”; United States Patent No. 6,757,796 (the “796 patent”), entitled “Method and System for Caching Streaming Live Broadcasts transmitted Over a Network”; and United States Patent No. 6,725,456 (the “456 patent”), entitled “Methods and Apparatus for Ensuring Quality of Service in an Operating System.”

Telemarketing Litigation

The first phase of the bench trial took place January 19, 2016 through February 11, 2016 and the second phase took place October 25, 2016 through November 2, 2016.

During the second quarter 2017, we recorded $255 million of “Litigation expense” related to the FTC Action on our Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss). We recorded $25 million of “Litigation

expense” related to the FTC Action during periods prior to 2017. Our total accrual at December 31, 2019 and 2018 related to the FTC Action was $280 million and is included in “Other accrued expenses” on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. Any eventual payments made with respect to the FTC Action may not be deductible for tax purposes, which had a negative impact on our effective tax rate for the year ended December 31, 2017. The tax deductibility of any eventual payments made with respect to the FTC Action may change, based upon, among other things, further developments in the FTC Action, including final adjudication of the FTC Action.

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. On May 22, 2017, the Court ruled that the violations were willful and knowing, and trebled the damages award to $1,200 for each call made in violation of TCPA. On April 5, 2018, the Court entered a $61 million judgment in favor of the class. DISH Network L.L.C. appealed and on May 30, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. On October 15, 2019, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a petition for writ of certiorari, requesting that the United States Supreme Court agree to hear a further appeal, but it denied the petition on December 16, 2019. On January 21, 2020, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a second notice of appeal relating to the district court’s orders on the claims administration process to identify, and disburse funds to, individual class members. During the second quarter 2017, we recorded $41 million of “Litigation expense” related to the Krakauer Action on our Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss). We recorded $20 million of “Litigation expense” related to the Krakauer Action during the fourth quarter 2016. Our total accrual related to the Krakauer Action at December 31, 2018 was $61 million and was included in “Other accrued expenses” on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. During the third quarter 2019, the judgment was paid to the court.

We intend to vigorously defend these cases. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits.

Telemarketing Shareholder Derivative Litigation

Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, on January 4, 2018, the District Court agreed to consolidate the Sterling Heights action with the Plumbers Local 519 action, and on January 12, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint that largely duplicates the original Plumbers Local 519 complaint. DISH Network’s Board of Directors has established a Special Litigation Committee to review the factual allegations and legal claims in this action. On May 15, 2018, the District Court granted the Special Litigation Committee’s motion to stay the case pending its investigation. The Special Litigation Committee’s report was filed on November 27, 2018, and recommended that the Company not pursue the claims asserted by the derivative plaintiffs. On December 20, 2018, the Special Litigation Committee filed a motion for summary judgment seeking deferral to its determination that the claims should be dismissed, which the Court has set for an evidentiary hearing on July 6-7, 2020.

DISH Network cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

TQ Delta, LLC

On July 17, 2015, TQ Delta, LLC (“TQ Delta”) filed a complaint against us, DISH Network and our wholly-owned subsidiary 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 then wholly-owned subsidiary EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. as defendants. TQ Delta alleges that our satellite TV service, Internet service, set-top boxes, gateways, routers, modems, adapters and networks that operate in accordance with one or more Multimedia over Coax Alliance Standards infringe the asserted patents. TQ Delta has filed actions in the same court alleging infringement of the same patents against Comcast Corp., Cox Communications, Inc., DirecTV, Time Warner Cable Inc. and Verizon Communications, Inc. TQ Delta is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

On 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. On February 27, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted our motions to join the instituted petitions on the 243 and 412 patents. On October 26, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued final written decisions on the petitions challenging the 158 patent, the 243 patent, the 412 patent and the 430 patent, and it invalidated all of the asserted claims of those patents. On February 7, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued final written decisions on the petitions challenging the 404 patent, and it invalidated all of the asserted claims of that patent on the basis of our petition. On February 10, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a final written decision on our petition challenging the 268 patent, and it invalidated all of the asserted claims. On March 12, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a final written decision on a third-party petition challenging the 268 patent, and it invalidated all of the asserted claims. All asserted claims have now been invalidated by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. TQ Delta has filed notices of appeal from the final written decisions adverse to it. On May 9, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity of the 430 patent and the 412 patent. On July 10, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity of the asserted claims of the 404 patent. On July 15, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity of the asserted claims of the 268 patent. On November 22, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the invalidity finding on the 243 patent and the 158 patent, which is the subject of a petition for panel rehearing, which was filed on January 22, 2020.

Turner Network Sales

On October 6, 2017, Turner Network Sales, Inc. (“Turner”) filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The operative First Amended Complaint alleges that DISH Network L.L.C. improperly calculated and withheld licensing fees owing to Turner in connection with its carriage of CNN and other networks. On December 14, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed its operative first amended counterclaims against Turner. In the counterclaims, DISH Network L.L.C. seeks a declaratory judgment that it properly calculated the licensing fees owed to Turner for carriage of CNN, and also alleges claims for unrelated breaches of the parties’ affiliation agreement. In its October 1, 2018 damage expert’s report, Turner claimed damages of $159 million, plus $24 million in interest. On September 27, 2019, the Court granted, in part, Turner’s motion for summary judgment, holding, in part, that Turner was entitled to recover approximately $20 million in license fee payments that DISH Network L.L.C. had withheld after it discovered previous over-payments. On February 12, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss certain of their respective claims. Trial on the remaining claims in this matter has been set for April 20, 2020, where DISH Network L.L.C.’s incremental exposure (per Turner’s damages expert) is approximately $118 million in damages, plus approximately $30 million in interest.

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.

Uniloc

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 Telephone Company (“Vermont National”) against DISH Network; DISH Network’s 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 Cantey M. Ergen (a member of our board of directors); Northstar Wireless; Northstar Spectrum; Northstar Manager, LLC; SNR Wireless; SNR HoldCo; SNR Wireless Management, LLC; 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. On March 2, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a stay of the litigation until such time as the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (the “D.C. Circuit”) issued its opinion in SNR Wireless LicenseCo, LLC, et al. v. F.C.C. The D.C. Circuit issued its opinion on August 29, 2017 and remanded the matter to the FCC for further proceedings. See Note 15 “Commitments and Contingencies – Commitments – DISH Network Non-Controlling Investments in the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities Related to AWS-3 Wireless Spectrum Licenses” in the Notes to DISH Network’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 for further information.

Thereafter, the Court maintained the stay until it was lifted on October 26, 2018. On February 11, 2019, the Court granted Vermont National’s unopposed motion for leave to file an amended complaint. On March 28, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss Vermont National’s amended complaint, which has been fully briefed since June 3, 2019.

Waste Disposal Inquiry

Other