11.Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

As of December 31, 2017, future maturities of our long-term debt, capital lease and contractual obligations are summarized as follows:


	Payments due by period
	Total		2018		2019		2020		2021		2022		Thereafter
	(In thousands)
Long-term debt obligations	$	13,037,370	$	1,027,024	$	1,401,233	$	1,101,306	$	2,001,385	$	2,001,468	$	5,504,954
Capital lease obligations		104,318		37,451		19,896		19,137		20,615		7,219		—
Interest expense on long-term debt and capital lease obligations		4,092,785		796,742		771,496		631,593		534,350		465,498		893,106
Satellite-related obligations		1,233,242		348,617		301,102		241,371		208,196		125,636		8,320
Operating lease obligations		198,890		48,029		33,125		25,404		19,996		13,556		58,780
Purchase obligations		1,449,556		1,283,645		134,859		16,019		8,833		6,200		—
Total	$	20,116,161	$	3,541,508	$	2,661,711	$	2,034,830	$	2,793,375	$	2,619,577	$	6,465,160

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

The table above does not include $201 million of liabilities associated with unrecognized tax benefits that were accrued, as discussed in Note 8, and are included on our Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2017. We do not expect any portion of this amount to be paid or settled within the next twelve months.

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. 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. In March 2017, DISH Network notified the FCC that it plans to deploy a next-generation 5G-capable network, focused on supporting narrowband Internet of Things (“IoT”). The first phase of the network deployment will be completed by March 2020, with subsequent phases to be completed thereafter. 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.

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. See Note 16 for further information regarding our dividends to DOC. 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

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 has 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. DISH Network may need to make significant additional loans to the Northstar Entities and to the SNR Entities, or they may need to partner with others, so that the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities may commercialize, build-out and integrate 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 or partnerships could vary significantly. For further information regarding the potential re-auction of AWS-3 licenses retained by the FCC, see Note 14 “Commitments and Contingencies – Wireless – 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, 2017.

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.

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 14 “Commitments and Contingencies – Wireless” in the Notes to DISH Network’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 for further information.

Guarantees

During the third quarter 2009, EchoStar entered into a satellite transponder service agreement for Nimiq 5 through 2024. We sublease this capacity from EchoStar and DISH Network guarantees a certain portion of EchoStar’s obligation under its satellite transponder service agreement through 2019. As of December 31, 2017, the remaining obligation of the DISH Network guarantee was $127 million.

As of December 31, 2017, we have not recorded a liability on the balance sheet for this guarantee.

Purchase Obligations

Our 2018 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 $473 million, $431 million and $479 million in 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

Patents and Intellectual Property

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

Contingencies

Separation Agreement

On January 1, 2008, 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 our acts or omissions following the Spin-off. On February 28, 2017, DISH Network and EchoStar completed the Share Exchange pursuant to which certain assets that were transferred to EchoStar in the Spin-off were transferred back to us. The Share Exchange Agreement contains additional indemnification provisions between us 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 (as with many patent-related cases). For these cases, however, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, though the outcomes could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

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 infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,898,799 (the “799 patent”), entitled “Multimedia Content Navigation and Playback”; 7,526,784 (the “784 patent”), entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content”; 7,543,318 (the “318 patent”), entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content”; 7,577,970 (the “970 patent”), entitled “Multimedia Content Navigation and Playback”; and 8,117,282 (the “282 patent”), entitled “Media Player Configured to Receive Playback Filters From Alternative Storage Mediums.” ClearPlay alleges that the AutoHop™ feature of our Hopper set-top box infringes the asserted patents. On February 11, 2015, the case was stayed pending various third-party challenges before the United States Patent and Trademark Office regarding the validity of certain of the patents asserted in the action. In those third-party challenges, the United States Patent and Trademark Office found that all claims of the 282 patent are unpatentable, and that certain claims of the 784 patent and 318 patent are unpatentable. ClearPlay appealed as to the 784 patent and the 318 patent, and on August 23, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the findings of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On October 31, 2016, the stay was lifted. No trial date has been set.

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

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

On January 17, 2014, CRFD Research, Inc. (“CRFD”) filed a complaint against us, our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Network, EchoStar, and its then wholly-owned subsidiary EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 7,191,233 (the “233 patent”). The 233 patent is entitled “System for Automated, Mid-Session, User-Directed, Device-to-Device Session Transfer System,” and relates to transferring an ongoing software session from one device to another. CRFD alleges that our Hopper and Joey® set-top boxes infringe the 233 patent. On the same day, CRFD filed similar complaints against AT&T Inc.; Comcast Corp.; DirecTV; Time Warner Cable Inc.; Cox Communications, Inc.; Akamai Technologies, Inc.; Cablevision Systems Corp. and Limelight Networks, Inc. CRFD is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On January 26, 2015, we and EchoStar filed a petition before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of certain claims of the 233 patent. The United States Patent and Trademark Office has agreed to institute a proceeding on our petition, as well as on two third-party petitions challenging the validity of certain claims of the 233 patent, and it heard oral argument on January 16, 2016. On June 1, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office found that all claims asserted against us and the EchoStar parties were unpatentable. On July 5, 2016, CRFD filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which heard oral argument on April 6, 2017. On November 7, 2017, CRFD, we and EchoStar filed a joint motion to dismiss all claims in the action with prejudice, which the Court entered on November 9, 2017. This matter is now concluded.

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 appears to allege infringement in connection with our addressable advertising services, our DISH Anywhere feature, and our Pay-Per-View and video-on-demand offerings. In December 2016 and January 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of the asserted claims of each of the asserted patents. 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, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office conducted a trial on them on March 5, 2018. On August 8, 2017, the litigation in the District Court was stayed 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. Customedia is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC

On December 20, 2013, Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC (“Dragon IP”) filed complaints against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., as well as Apple Inc.; AT&T, Inc.; Charter Communications, Inc.; Comcast Corp.; Cox Communications, Inc.; DirecTV; Sirius XM Radio Inc.; Time Warner Cable Inc. and Verizon Communications, Inc., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 5,930,444 (the “444 patent”), which is entitled “Simultaneous Recording and Playback Apparatus.” Dragon IP alleges that various of our DVR receivers infringe the 444 patent. Dragon IP is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On December 23, 2014, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a petition before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of certain claims of the 444 patent. On April 10, 2015, the Court granted DISH Network L.L.C.’s motion to stay the action in light of DISH Network L.L.C.’s petition and certain other defendants’ petitions pending before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of certain claims of the 444 patent. On July 17, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute a proceeding on our petition. Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, on April 27, 2016, the Court entered an order of non-infringement and judgment in favor of DISH Network L.L.C. On June 15, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office entered an order that the patent claims being asserted against DISH Network L.L.C. with respect to the 444 patent are unpatentable. On August 8, 2016, Dragon filed notices of appeal with respect to the Court’s judgment and the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s decision and, on October 5, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral argument. On November 1, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of the 444 patent based on the petition filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by DISH Network L.L.C., and dismissed as moot the appeal of the order of non-infringement from the District Court. On December 1, 2017, Dragon IP filed a petition for panel rehearing with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which the Court of Appeals denied on January 31, 2018. On March 16, 2018, Dragon IP filed a petition asking the United States Supreme Court to hear a further appeal on the constitutionality of the procedure by which the United States Patent and Trademark Office invalidated the asserted claims of the 444 patent.

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

Grecia

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

On February 3, 2016, Grecia filed a new complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 8,887,308 (the “308 patent”), which is entitled “Digital Cloud Access—PDMAS Part III,” on which Grecia is also the named inventor. Grecia alleges that we violate the 308 patent in connection with our DISH Anywhere feature. On July 29, 2016, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a petition before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of certain claims of the 308 patent. On January 19, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office declined to institute a proceeding on our petition. The litigation in the District Court, which had been stayed since June 13, 2016 pending resolution of DISH Network L.L.C.’s petition to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, was further stayed on February 23, 2017 pending a claim construction order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in a separate action in which Grecia is asserting the same patent.

IPA Technologies Inc.

On December 9, 2016, IPA Technologies Inc. (“IPA”) filed suit against DISH Network and our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. IPA alleges that our Voice Remote with Hopper 3 infringes United States Patent Number 6,742,021 (the “021 patent”), which is entitled “Navigating Network-based Electronic Information Using Spoken Input with Multimodal Error Feedback”; United States Patent Number 6,523,061 (the “061 patent”), which is entitled “System, Method, and Article of Manufacture for Agent-Based Navigation in a Speech-Based Data Navigation System”; and United States Patent Number 6,757,718 (the “718 patent”), which is entitled “Mobile Navigation of Network-Based Electronic Information Using Spoken Input.” IPA is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On December 20, 2017, we and DISH Network L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of select claims of each of the asserted patents.

LightSquared/Harbinger Capital Partners LLC (LightSquared Bankruptcy)

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

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

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

On October 29, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed all of the claims in Harbinger’s complaint in their entirety, but granted leave for LightSquared to file its own complaint in intervention. On November 15, 2013, LightSquared filed its complaint, which included various claims against DISH Network, EchoStar, Mr. Ergen and SPSO. On December 2, 2013, Harbinger filed an amended complaint, asserting various claims against SPSO. On December 12, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed several of the claims asserted by LightSquared and Harbinger. The surviving claims included, among others, LightSquared’s claims against SPSO for declaratory relief, breach of contract and statutory disallowance; LightSquared’s tortious interference claim against DISH Network, EchoStar and Mr. Ergen; and Harbinger’s claim against SPSO for statutory disallowance. These claims proceeded to a non-jury trial on January 9, 2014. In its Post-Trial Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered on June 10, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court rejected all claims against DISH Network and EchoStar, and it rejected some but not all claims against the other defendants. On July 7, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Harbinger’s motion for an interlocutory appeal of certain Bankruptcy Court orders in the adversary proceeding. On March 27, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming the Modified Second Amended Joint Plan pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and, on December 7, 2015, the Plan became effective.

DISH Network intends to vigorously defend any claims against it in this proceeding and cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this proceeding or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

LightSquared Transaction Shareholder Derivative Actions

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

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

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

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

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

DISH Network’s Board of Directors established a Special Litigation Committee to review the factual allegations and legal claims in these actions. On October 24, 2014, the Special Litigation Committee filed a report in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada regarding its investigation of the claims and allegations asserted in Jacksonville PFPF’s second amended complaint. The Special Litigation Committee filed a motion to dismiss the action based, among other things, on its business judgment that it is in the best interests of DISH Network not to pursue the claims asserted by Jacksonville PFPF. The Director Defendants and Messrs. Cullen, Dodge and Kiser have also filed various motions to dismiss the action. In an order entered on September 18, 2015, the Court granted the Special Litigation Committee’s motion to defer to the Special Litigation Committee’s October 24, 2014 report, including its finding that dismissal of the action is in the best interest of DISH Network. The Court also held that, in light of granting the motion to defer, the pending motions to dismiss filed by the individual defendants were denied without prejudice as moot. On October 12, 2015, Jacksonville PFPF filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Nevada, which heard oral argument on June 5, 2017. On September 14, 2017, the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the District Court’s decision to defer to the Special Litigation Committee’s October 24, 2014 report and dismiss the action. On October 2, 2017, Jacksonville PFPF filed a petition for rehearing, to which the Special Litigation Committee filed a response on October 24, 2017. On December 8, 2017, the Nevada Supreme Court denied the petition for rehearing. This matter is now concluded.

Michael Heskiaoff, Marc Langenohl, and Rafael Mann

On July 10, 2015, Messrs. Michael Heskiaoff and Marc Langenohl, purportedly on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed suit against our subsidiary Sling Media, Inc. (now known as “Sling Media L.L.C.,” which we acquired as a result of the completion of the Share Exchange on February 28, 2017) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that Sling Media Inc.’s display of advertising to its customers violates a number of state statutes dealing with consumer deception. On September 25, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and Mr. Rafael Mann, purportedly on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed an additional complaint alleging similar causes of action. On November 16, 2015, the cases were consolidated. On August 12, 2016, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the consolidated case. On September 12, 2016, the plaintiffs moved the Court for leave to file an amended complaint, which we opposed. On March 22, 2017, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint and entered judgment in favor of Sling Media L.L.C. On April 17, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which heard oral argument on November 7, 2017. On November 22, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of Sling Media L.L.C.

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.

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., 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, LLC; and Arris Group, Inc. Realtime’s initial complaint in the Original Texas Action, filed on February 14, 2017, had named only EchoStar and Hughes Network Systems, LLC 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, 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.

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 EchoStar 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 EchoStar 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 EchoStar 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., EchoStar 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. The Court has set trial for December 16, 2019.

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

We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted 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 this suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Technology Development and Licensing L.L.C.

On January 22, 2009, Technology Development and Licensing L.L.C. (“TDL”) filed suit against DISH Network and EchoStar, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. Re. 35,952 (the “952 patent”), which relates to certain favorite channel features. TDL is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. The case was stayed in July 2009 pending two reexamination petitions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which concluded in August 2015 and resulted in 42 out of the 53 claims of the 952 patent being invalidated. Six of the surviving 11 claims are asserted against us. The case resumed in August 2015. In a separate matter in which TDL is asserting the same patent, the court in that action ruled that four claims of the 952 patent (which are among the six claims asserted against us) are invalid because they claim unpatentable subject matter, and TDL has stipulated that it will not appeal that order. On June 19, 2017, the District Court ruled that the two remaining asserted claims of the 952 patent are invalid because they claim unpatentable subject matter. On July 11, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation pursuant to which TDL dismissed the action and waived its appeal rights, and DISH Network and EchoStar agreed not to seek recovery of their court costs. This matter is now concluded.

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.

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

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

On October 3, 2016, the plaintiffs further modified their request for injunctive relief and were seeking, among other things, to enjoin DISH Network L.L.C., whether acting directly or indirectly through authorized telemarketers or independent third-party retailers, from placing any outbound telemarketing calls to market or promote its goods or services for five years, and enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from accepting activations or sales from some or all existing independent third-party retailers. The second phase of the bench trial, which commenced on October 25, 2016 and concluded on November 2, 2016, covered the plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief, as well as certain evidence related to the state plaintiffs’ claims.

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. On February 2, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a notice claiming that DISH Network L.L.C. failed to prove that it met the Demonstration Requirements, as required by the Injunction, and asking the Court to impose a two-year ban on telemarketing by us, and a two-year ban on accepting orders from our primary retailers. The Court has set a hearing on the matter on June 18, 2018.

During the year ended December 31, 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 prior periods. Our total accrual at December 31, 2017 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 March 7, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed motions with the Court for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, for a new trial, which the Court denied on May 16, 2017. 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 January 25, 2018, the Court indicated that it will be entering judgment in favor of approximately 11,000 of the 18,000 potential class members whose identities, the Court found, are not subject to reasonable dispute. During the year ended December 31, 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, 2017 was $61 million and is included in “Other accrued expenses” on our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

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; Gary S. Howard; and Joseph P. Clayton (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 cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

TQ Beta LLC

On June 30, 2014, TQ Beta LLC (“TQ Beta”) filed a complaint against us; our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C.; DISH Network; EchoStar; and EchoStar’s subsidiary Hughes Satellite Systems Corporation, and EchoStar’s then wholly-owned subsidiaries Sling Media Inc. (now known as “Sling Media L.L.C.”) and EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The Complaint alleged infringement of United States Patent No. 7,203,456 (the “456 patent”), which is entitled “Method and Apparatus for Time and Space Domain Shifting of Broadcast Signals.” TQ Beta alleged that our Hopper set-top boxes, ViP 722 and ViP 722k DVR devices, as well as our DISH Anywhere™ service and DISH Anywhere mobile application, infringed the 456 patent. TQ Beta is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. In August 2015, DISH Network L.L.C. filed petitions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of certain claims of the 456 patent and in February 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on our petitions. On February 25, 2016, the case was stayed pending resolution of these proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and the Court vacated all pending court dates and deadlines. On January 30, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued its final written decisions on our petitions, invalidating all claims of the 456 patent that were asserted in the litigation, which decisions may be appealed by TQ Beta. On April 3, 2017, TQ Beta filed a notice of appeal. On October 25, 2017, TQ Beta dismissed all of its claims in the action with prejudice. This matter is now concluded.

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 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 August 3, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office heard oral argument on the third-party petitions challenging the 158 patent, the 243 patent, the 412 patent and the 430 patent; on September 7, 2017, it heard oral argument on the third-party petition challenging the 404 patent. 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 November 8, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office heard oral argument on our petitions challenging the 404 patent and the 268 patent. 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.

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 Complaint alleges that DISH Network L.L.C. improperly calculated and withheld licensing fees owing to Turner in connection with its carriage of CNN. 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.

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.

Vermont National Telephone Company

On September 22, 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 11 “Commitments – DISH Network Non-Controlling Investments in the Northstar Entities and the SNR Entities Related to AWS-3 Wireless Spectrum Licenses” above for further information. On September 7, 2017, the defendants in the Vermont National action filed a motion with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to further stay the litigation until resolution of the FCC proceedings. On December 12, 2017, the Court entered a further stay. Following submission of a January 22, 2018 Joint Status Report in which the defendants asked the Court to maintain the stay and Vermont National asked the Court to lift the stay, on January 29, 2018, the Court extended the stay until April 30, 2018, at which time a further status report will be due.

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.