10.Commitments and Contingencies

​

Commitments

​

Recent Developments

​

FCC Review

​

In the third quarter of 2025, we resolved the review by the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”) into EchoStar’s compliance with its build-out milestones and other obligations regarding EchoStar’s federal spectrum licenses. We had previously received a letter from the FCC on May 9, 2025, indicating that the FCC was beginning a review of our compliance with certain obligations to provide 5G broadband service and raising certain questions regarding the September 2024 build-out extension granted by the FCC and mobile-satellite service (“MSS”) utilization in the 2 GHz band (the “May 9 Letter”). We responded to the FCC’s subsequent public notices with filings on May 27, 2025 and June 6, 2025.

​

During the second quarter and the beginning of the third quarter of 2025, the potential ramifications of the FCC review to our business required us to, among other things, reevaluate the deployment of our resources and as a result, we elected not to make interest payments on a certain portion of our long-term senior notes on their respective scheduled due dates. We subsequently made such payments, including interest on the defaulted interest, within the applicable 30-day grace periods.

​

The FCC review introduced the possibility of reversing prior FCC grants of authority to us. The FCC made it clear that it viewed our spectrum as being underutilized and deemed our continued ownership of such spectrum licenses inconsistent with the public interest, and that we must sell a material amount of spectrum licenses or face a wide-ranging license revocation. Accordingly, as a result of these unforeseeable actions by the FCC that were outside of our control, we entered into the AT&T Transactions and SpaceX Transactions, as defined below, whereby we agreed to sell a material amount of our spectrum licenses for cash and an Amended Equity Amount, as defined below. In August 2025, following these transactions, we began the abandonment and decommission process for certain portions of our 5G Network that will not be utilized in our Hybrid MNO business, as defined in “Segments-Wireless” below. Furthermore, we believe the FCC’s actions and the resulting AT&T Transactions and SpaceX Transactions constitute one or more force majeure events under certain of our 5G Network-related contracts.

​

On September 8, 2025, we received a follow-up letter from the FCC (the “September 8 Letter”). The September 8 Letter states, among other things, that FCC Chairman Carr has “asked FCC staff to bring the agency’s investigation to conclusion” by directing FCC staff to: “(1) dismiss VTel Wireless’s petition for reconsideration; (2) confirm that EchoStar holds exclusive terrestrial and MSS rights over the AWS-4 spectrum to which it is currently licensed; and (3) find that relevant FCC buildout and other related obligations have been satisfied by EchoStar in view of the company’s current FCC milestones.”

​

​

Wireless Spectrum Licenses

​

We have invested a total of over $30 billion in wireless spectrum licenses. The $30 billion of investments related to wireless spectrum licenses does not include $10 billion of capitalized interest related to the carrying value of such licenses. See Note 2 for further information. A significant number of these licenses are included in the AT&T Transactions and SpaceX Transactions as detailed in Note 1 “Recent Developments.”

​

Our wireless spectrum licenses are subject to certain build-out requirements, as well as certain renewal requirements that are summarized in the table below:

​

​

​

​

​

​

In September 2024, the FCC conditionally granted our requests to extend the 5G deployment deadlines for certain of our wireless spectrum licenses based on several commitments and in a January 10, 2025 filing to the FCC, we certified to meeting the accelerated build-out (Commitments #2 and #3 of the Extension Request) and the nationwide 80% coverage obligations (Commitment #1 of the Extension Request) due by December 31, 2024, as defined and detailed in the footnotes to the table above. Thus, pursuant to the Extension Request, the final deployment deadlines for the licenses subject to the Extension Request (listed in Appendix G) shall be extended to December 14, 2026.

​

While the FCC has not yet updated the build-out deadlines in the Universal Licensing System, the licenses remain in effect based upon the submission of our build-out certifications. In addition, the final deployment deadlines for the licenses subject to the Extension Request (listed in Appendix G) shall be further extended to June 14, 2028 since we satisfied the remaining Extension Request commitments, as defined and detailed in the footnotes to the table above. See “Recent Developments – FCC Review” above for further information on the FCC’s completed review of our compliance with our obligations regarding our federal spectrum licenses.

​

​

​

AWS-3 Auction

​

Northstar Wireless is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Northstar Spectrum, which is an entity owned by us and, prior to October 12, 2023, by us and Northstar Manager. SNR Wireless is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SNR HoldCo, which is an entity owned by us and, prior to February 16, 2024, by us and SNR Management.

​

Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless each filed applications with the FCC to participate in Auction 97 (the “AWS-3 Auction”) for the purpose of acquiring certain AWS-3 Licenses. Each of Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless applied to receive bidding credits of 25% as designated entities under applicable FCC rules.

​

FCC Order and October 2015 Arrangements. On August 18, 2015, the FCC released a Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 15-104 (the “Order”) in which the FCC determined, among other things, that DISH Network has a controlling interest in, and is an affiliate of, Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless, and therefore DISH Network’s revenues should be attributed to them, which in turn makes Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless ineligible to receive the 25% bidding credits (approximately $1.961 billion for Northstar Wireless and $1.370 billion for SNR Wireless). On November 23, 2020, the FCC released a Memorandum Opinion and Order on Remand, FCC 20-160, that found that Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless are not eligible for bidding credits based on the FCC’s determination that they remain under DISH Network’s de facto control. Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless appealed the FCC’s order to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 21, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an Opinion rejecting this challenge. On January 17, 2023, Northstar Wireless filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the United States Supreme Court to hear a further appeal, but that petition was denied on June 30, 2023.

​

Letters Exchanged between Northstar Wireless and the FCC Wireless Bureau. As outlined in letters exchanged between Northstar Wireless and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau of the FCC (the “FCC Wireless Bureau”), Northstar Wireless paid the gross winning bid amounts for 261 AWS-3 Licenses and notified the FCC that it would not be paying the gross winning bid amounts for 84 AWS-3 Licenses. As a result of the nonpayment of those gross winning bid amounts, the FCC retained those licenses. In addition, we will be subject to a default payment with respect to the licenses for which Northstar Wireless did not pay the gross winning bids (the “Northstar Re-Auction Payment”). The Northstar Re-Auction Payment has two components. First, if the winning bids at re-auction are less than the winning bids of Northstar Wireless, we will be responsible for the difference between the two bids. The second component is an additional payment in the amount of fifteen percent (15%) of Northstar Wireless’s bid or the subsequent winning bids, whichever is less. The amount of the Northstar Re-Auction Payment will be offset by the $334 million interim payment Northstar Wireless has already made. For example, if the winning bids in a re-auction are $1, the Northstar Re-Auction Payment would be approximately $2.226 billion, which is calculated as the difference between $2.226 billion (the Northstar winning bid amounts) and $1 (the winning bids from re-auction), plus 15% of the $1 (the winning bids from re-auction), If the winning bids from re-auction or other award of the AWS-3 licenses retained by the FCC are greater than or equal to the winning bids of Northstar Wireless, the Northstar Re-Auction Payment would be approximately $334 million, calculated as fifteen percent (15%) of $2.226 billion (Northstar Wireless’s defaulted bids). In each case, the amount of the Northstar Re-Auction Payment would be offset by the $334 million interim payment Northstar already made, resulting in a maximum exposure of $1.892 billion. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of any re-auction or the amount of any Northstar Re-Auction Payment.

​

​

The re-auction of the AWS-3 licenses has been designated as Auction 113. We filed an application with the FCC to participate as a potential bidder in Auction 113 and on March 26, 2026, the FCC announced that we were qualified to participate in Auction 113. Auction 113 is scheduled to begin on June 2, 2026. The FCC determined that bidding in this auction will be “anonymous,” which means that prior to and during the course of the auction the FCC will not make public any information about a specific applicant’s upfront deposit or its bids.  In addition, FCC rules restrict information that bidders may disclose about their participation in the auction.

​

Letters Exchanged between SNR Wireless and the FCC Wireless Bureau. As outlined in letters exchanged between SNR Wireless and the FCC Wireless Bureau, SNR Wireless paid the gross winning bid amounts for 244 AWS-3 Licenses and notified the FCC that it would not be paying the gross winning bid amounts for 113 AWS-3 Licenses. As a result of the nonpayment of those gross winning bid amounts, the FCC retained those licenses. In addition, we will be subject to a default payment with respect to the licenses for which SNR Wireless did not pay the gross winning bids (the “SNR Re-Auction Payment”). The SNR Re-Auction Payment has two components. First, if the winning bids at re-auction are less than the winning bids of SNR Wireless, we will be responsible for the difference between the two bids. The second component is an additional payment in the amount of fifteen percent (15%) of SNR Wireless’s bid or the subsequent winning bids, whichever is less. The amount of the SNR Re-Auction Payment will be offset by the $182 million interim payment SNR Wireless has already made. For example, if the winning bids in a re-auction are $1, the SNR Re-Auction Payment would be approximately $1.211 billion, which is calculated as the difference between $1.211 billion (the SNR winning bid amounts) and $1 (the winning bids from re-auction), plus 15% of the $1 (the winning bids from re-auction). If the winning bids from re-auction of the AWS-3 licenses retained by the FCC are greater than or equal to the winning bids of SNR Wireless, the SNR Re-Auction Payment would be approximately $182 million, calculated as fifteen percent (15%) of $1.211 billion (SNR Wireless’s defaulted bids). In each case, the amount of the SNR Re-Auction Payment would be offset by the $182 million interim payment SNR already made, resulting in a maximum exposure of $1.029 billion. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of any re-auction or the amount of any SNR Re-Auction Payment.

​

The re-auction of the AWS-3 licenses has been designated as Auction 113. We filed an application with the FCC to participate as a potential bidder in Auction 113 and on March 26, 2026, the FCC announced that we were qualified to participate in Auction 113. Auction 113 is scheduled to begin on June 2, 2026. The FCC determined that bidding in this auction will be “anonymous,” which means that prior to and during the course of the auction the FCC will not make public any information about a specific applicant’s upfront deposit or its bids.  In addition, FCC rules restrict information that bidders may disclose about their participation in the auction.

​

D.C. Circuit Court Opinion. On August 29, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the “D.C. Circuit”) in SNR Wireless LicenseCo, LLC, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, 868 F.3d 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (the “Appellate Decision”) affirmed the Order in part, and remanded the matter to the FCC to give Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless an opportunity to seek to negotiate a cure of the issues identified by the FCC in the Order (a “Cure”). On January 26, 2018, SNR Wireless and Northstar Wireless filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, asking the United States Supreme Court to hear an appeal from the Appellate Decision, which the United States Supreme Court denied on June 25, 2018.

​

​

Order on Remand. On January 24, 2018, the FCC released an Order on Remand, DA 18-70 (the “Order on Remand”) purporting to establish a procedure to afford Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless the opportunity to implement a Cure pursuant to the Appellate Decision. On June 8, 2018, Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless each filed amended agreements to demonstrate that, in light of such changes, each of Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless qualified for the very small business bidding credit that it sought in the AWS-3 Auction. Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless filed a Joint Application for Review of the Order on Remand requesting, among other things, an iterative negotiation process with the FCC regarding a Cure, which was denied on July 12, 2018. The pleading cycle established in the Order on Remand concluded in October 2018. On November 23, 2020, the FCC issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order that concluded, among other things, that DISH Network retained de facto control over Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless and denied the very small business bidding credit sought by Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless, even though the parties had eliminated or significantly modified every provision previously deemed to have been disqualifying by the FCC. Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless timely filed an appeal of the FCC’s 2020 decision. On June 21, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an Opinion rejecting this challenge. On January 17, 2023, Northstar Wireless filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the United States Supreme Court to hear a further appeal, but that petition was denied on June 30, 2023.

​

For further information, refer to the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023.

​

Contingencies

​

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.

​

Individual Litigations Commenced by Certain Tower and Infrastructure Vendors

​

DISH Wireless L.L.C. is currently a defendant in multiple, independent legal actions in various jurisdictions brought by various tower and infrastructure vendors. While these actions involve certain overlapping defenses generally related to the abandonment and decommissioning of certain portions of our 5G Network that will not be utilized in our Hybrid MNO business, in light of the FCC forcing us and certain of our affiliates to sell the spectrum on which our 5G Network was based, each action represents a separate and distinct proceeding.

​

​

American Towers

​

On October 20, 2025, American Towers LLC, SpectraSite Communications, LLC and InSite Wireless Group, LLC (collectively “ATC”) filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Wireless L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. ATC seeks a declaration that DISH Wireless has not been excused from performing its obligations under the parties’ Strategic Collocation Agreement, which relates to tower facilities for our 5G Network. DISH Wireless previously notified ATC that DISH Wireless’s performance is excused in light of the FCC forcing us and certain of our affiliates to sell the spectrum on which our 5G Network was based, which constituted, among other legal remedies, a force majeure event.

​

We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit.

​

Astound Business Solutions

On April 14, 2026, Astound Business solutions, LLC filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Wireless L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Astound claims that DISH Wireless has breached agreements related to fiber optic data transport services for our 5G Network, and seeks $1.7 million in damages. DISH Wireless previously notified Astound that DISH Wireless’s performance is excused in light of the FCC forcing us and certain of our affiliates to sell the spectrum on which our 5G Network was based, which constituted, among other legal remedies, a force majeure event.

We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit.

​

Comcast Business Communications

On February 27, 2026, Comcast Business Communications, LLC filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit against us and our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Wireless L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Comcast Business Communications is seeking a declaratory judgment that DISH Wireless is not excused from performing any of its obligations under those parties’ Master Service Agreement, which relates to fiber connections for our 5G network. It also alleges that we interfered with DISH Wireless’s performance under the Master Services Agreement. Comcast Business Communications is seeking $54 million in damages. DISH Wireless previously notified Comcast Business Communications that DISH Wireless’s performance is excused in light of the FCC forcing us and certain of our affiliates to sell the spectrum on which our 5G Network was based which constituted, among other legal remedies, a force majeure event.

We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit.

​

​

Crown Castle

​

On November 20, 2025, Crown Castle-affiliated lessors who entered into a Master Lease Agreement (“MLA”) with DISH Wireless L.L.C., which relates to tower facilities for our 5G Network, and Crown Castle Fiber LLC, which entered into a Master Product Agreement (“MPA”) with DISH Wireless L.L.C., which relates to fiber and other infrastructure for our 5G Network, filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Wireless L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The Crown Castle plaintiffs are seeking declaratory judgments confirming that DISH Wireless is not excused from performing any of its obligations under the parties’ agreements. DISH Wireless previously notified the Crown Castle plaintiffs that DISH Wireless’s performance is excused in light of the FCC forcing us and certain of our affiliates to sell the spectrum on which our 5G Network was based, which constituted, among other legal remedies, a force majeure event. On January 30, 2026, the Crown Castle plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that added claims for breach of the MPA and MLA based on unpaid invoices; added us as a defendant for allegedly tortiously interfering with the MLA and the MPA; and added our wholly owned subsidiary DISH Purchasing Corporation as a defendant for allegedly breaching the parties’ Deployment Services Agreement by failing to pay $9.5 million.

​

We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit.

​

Diamond Towers

​

On January 19, 2026, Diamond Towers II LLC, Diamond Towers IV LLC, Diamond Towers V LLC, Capital Telecom Holdings LLC, Capital Telecom Holdings II LLC, DCHSCU Acquisition Holdings, LLC, A Diamond Infra LLC, B Diamond Infra LLC, C Diamond Infra LLC, and D Diamond Infra LLC, which entered into agreements with DISH Wireless L.L.C. for tower and rooftop facilities for our 5G Network, filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Wireless L.L.C. in the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado. The plaintiffs are seeking a declaratory judgment confirming that DISH Wireless is not excused from performing any of its obligations under the parties’ agreements. DISH Wireless previously notified the plaintiffs that DISH Wireless’s performance is excused in light of the FCC forcing us and certain of our affiliates to sell the spectrum on which our 5G Network was based, which constituted, among other legal remedies, a force majeure event.

​

We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit.

​

Harmoni Towers

On January 29, 2026, Harmoni Towers Infrastructure LLC (“Harmoni”) filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Wireless L.L.C. in the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado. Harmoni alleges that DISH Wireless has breached lease agreements related to tower facilities for our 5G Network, and seeks $16.3 million in damages. DISH Wireless previously notified Harmoni that DISH Wireless’s performance is excused in light of the FCC forcing us and certain of our affiliates to sell the spectrum on which our 5G Network was based, which constituted, among other legal remedies, a force majeure event.

We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit.

​

​

SBA

On February 5, 2026, SBA Telecommunications, LLC; SBA Sites, LLC; SBA Towers II LLC; SBA Towers, LLC; SBA Properties, LLC; SBA Towers V, LLC; SBA Towers VII, LLC; SBA Towers IV, LLC; SBA Towers VI, LLC; TV6 Holdings LLC; SBA Towers IX, LLC; SBA Structures, LLC; SBA Towers X, LLC; SBA Monarch Towers I, LLC; SBA Monarch Steel, LLC; SBA Monarch Towers III, LLC; SBA 2012 TC Assets, LLC; SBA Towers VIII, LLC; SBA GC Towers, LLC; SBA Infrastructure, LLC; SBA Towers III LLC; SBA Steel LLC; SBA Steel II, LLC; SBA Towers XI, LLC; and SBA BTS, LLC (collectively “SBA”) filed a breach of contract lawsuit against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Wireless L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. SBA contends that DISH Wireless has breached the parties’ tower lease agreements. DISH Wireless previously notified SBA that DISH Wireless’s performance is excused in light of the FCC forcing us and certain of our affiliates to sell the spectrum on which our 5G Network was based, which constituted, among other legal remedies, a force majeure event.

We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit.

​

Zayo Group

​

On November 26, 2025, Zayo Group, LLC, which has a Master Services Agreement with DISH Wireless L.L.C. relating to high-speed fiber and transport services as well as network connectivity issues for our 5G Network, filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Wireless L.L.C. in the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado. Zayo Group is seeking a declaratory judgment confirming DISH Wireless is not excused from performing any of its obligations under the parties’ Master Services Agreement. DISH Wireless previously notified Zayo Group that DISH Wireless’s performance is excused in light of the FCC forcing us and certain of our affiliates to sell the spectrum on which our 5G Network was based, which constituted, among other legal remedies, a force majeure event.

​

We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit.

​

Other Litigations

​

Active Wireless Technologies

​

On November 26, 2025, Active Wireless Technologies LLC filed a complaint against our wholly owned subsidiary DISH Wireless L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. The complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 10,805,955 (the “955 patent”), entitled “Terminal apparatus, base station apparatus, communication method, and integrated circuit”; United States Patent No. 10,855,432 (the “432 patent”), entitled “User equipments, base stations and methods”; United States Patent No. 10,531,443 (the “443 patent”), entitled “Physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) format adaptation for 5G NR”; United States Patent No. 11,019,557 (the “557 patent”), entitled “Apparatus and method for acquisition of periodically broadcasted system information in wireless communication”; United States Patent No. 10,785,764 (the “764 patent), entitled “Information change transmission method and device for single-cell multicast service”; and United States Patent No. 10,601,566 (the “566 patent), entitled “Multiple slot long physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) design for 5G NR.” On the same day, Active Wireless also sued seven other companies on the same patents: Qualcomm; T-Mobile; TCL Technology Group; BLU Products; HTC Corporation; LG Electronics; and OnePlus Technology. Generally, the patents relate to cellular handset signaling, control logic, and dynamic resource and performance management.

​

On December 16, 2025, Active Wireless asserted the same six patents against us and others, including the manufacturer of our Celero handsets, in the International Trade Commission (“ITC”). The ITC instituted a resulting investigation concerning “Certain Wireless Communication Devices and Components Thereof.” In light of the ITC investigation, the Texas court proceeding was stayed as of February 10, 2026. On March 24, 2026, DISH Wireless sued Active Wireless in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado for breach of its obligation to license its standard-essential patents on reasonable and non-discriminatory (“RAND”) terms. At the request of Active Wireless, on April 28, 2026, both we and the manufacturer of our Celero handsets were dismissed from the ITC proceeding. On May 1, 2026, in the Texas action, Active Wireless filed an amended complaint, which adds a claim alleging that DISH Wireless violated its RAND obligations.

​

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. In the event that the ITC determines that we infringe the asserted patents, we may be subject to exclusion orders that prevent importation of devices that practice the asserted patents. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suits or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

​

Adeia

​

On March 31, 2026, Adeia Technologies Inc., Adeia Media Holdings Inc. and Adeia Media Solutions Inc. filed a complaint against us and our wholly owned subsidiaries DISH Network Corporation, DISH DBS Corporation, DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Media Sales L.L.C., Sling TV Holding L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiff, a licensing company that was spun off after the merger of Rovi and Xperi, is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. The complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 8,219,927 (the “927 patent”), entitled “Revealing of truncated content on scrollable grid”; United States Patent No. 8,239,546 (the “546 patent”), entitled “Global access control for segmented streaming delivery”; United States Patent No. 8,327,013 (the “013 patent”), entitled “Dynamic index file creation for media streaming”; United States Patent No. 9,369,758 (the “758 patent”), entitled “Multifunction multimedia device”; and United States Patent No. 9,661,049 (the “049 patent”), entitled “Systems and methods of providing interspersed manifest file specifications for adaptive video streaming.” Generally, the patents relate to video streaming program guides, content delivery, access control, ad-insertions, and message overlays.

​

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

​

ClearPlay, Inc.

​

On March 13, 2014, ClearPlay, Inc. (“ClearPlay”), filed a complaint against us and our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network and DISH Network L.L.C., and our 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 No. 6,898,799 (the “799 patent”), entitled “Multimedia Content Navigation and Playback”; United States Patent No. 7,526,784 (the “784 patent”), entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content”; United States Patent No. 7,543,318 (the “318 patent”), entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content”; United States Patent No. 7,577,970 (the “970 patent”), entitled “Multimedia Content Navigation and Playback”; and United States Patent No. 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 boxes

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, and in May 2017, ClearPlay agreed to dismiss us and DISH Network as defendants, leaving DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. as the sole defendants.

​

In October and November 2020, DISH Network L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office requesting ex parte reexamination of the validity of the asserted claims of, respectively, the 784 patent, the 799 patent, the 318 patent and the 970 patent; and in November and December, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted each request for reexamination. On May through July 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued Ex Parte Reexamination Certificates confirming the patentability of the challenged claims.

​

In October and November 2021, DISH Network L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office requesting ex parte reexamination of the validity of certain asserted claims of the 784 patent, the 799 patent and the 970 patent. In November and December, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted review of the challenged claims of the 799 patent and the 970 patent, but denied review of the challenged claims of the 784 patent. On January 24, 2022, an examiner of the United States Patent and Trademark Office affirmed the challenged claims of the 799 patent, and on January 19, 2023, an examiner of the United States Patent and Trademark Office affirmed the challenged claims of the 970 patent.

​

In an order dated January 31, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part DISH Network L.L.C.’s and DISH Technologies L.L.C.’s motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, ClearPlay narrowed its case to three asserted claims: one under the 799 patent and two under the 970 patent. Following a two-week trial, on March 10, 2023, the jury returned a verdict that DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. infringed each of the asserted patent claims (though not willfully), and awarded damages of $469 million. That verdict became moot on March 21, 2023, when the trial court indicated that it would grant DISH Network L.L.C.’s and DISH Technologies L.L.C.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, thus effectively vacating the jury award. On June 2, 2023, the Court entered its formal order granting judgment as a matter of law. On December 12, 2023, the Court denied ClearPlay’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. ClearPlay filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and it heard oral argument on March 3, 2026.

​

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.

​

Digital Broadcasting Solutions, LLC

​

On August 29, 2022, Digital Broadcasting Solutions, LLC filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. The complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 8,929,710 (the “710 patent”) and United States Patent No. 9,538,122 (the “122 patent”), each entitled “System and method for time shifting at least a portion of a video program.” Generally, the plaintiff contends that the AutoHop feature of our Hopper® set-top boxes infringes the asserted patents. On June 21, 2023, the

Court granted the motion of DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. to have the case transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

​

In May 2023, 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 all claims of the 710 patent and the 122 patent and, on December 9, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued final written decisions invalidating 38 of the 39 challenged claims. Digital Broadcasting Solutions appealed those final written decisions, and DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. cross-appealed as to the single patent claim that wasn’t invalidated. Briefing was completed on October 17, 2025. The underlying case has been stayed since May 9, 2024, pending resolution of the petitions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and any related appeals.

​

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.

​

Entropic Communications, LLC (first action)

​

On March 9, 2022, Entropic Communications, LLC (“Entropic”) filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network, 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 plaintiff is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. The complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 7,130,576 (the “576 patent”), entitled “Signal Selector and Combiner for Broadband Content Distribution”; United States Patent No. 7,542,715 (the “715 Patent”), entitled “Signal Selector and Combiner for Broadband Content Distribution”; and United States Patent No. 8,792,008 (the “008 Patent”), entitled “Method and Apparatus for Spectrum Monitoring.” On March 30, 2022, Entropic filed an amended complaint alleging infringement of the same patents. Generally, the plaintiff accuses satellite antennas, low-noise block converters, signal selector and combiners, and set-top boxes and the manner in which they process signals for satellite television customers of infringing the asserted patents.

​

On October 24, 2022, this case was ordered to be transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. A companion case against DirecTV was also ordered transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In January and February of 2023, 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 all claims of the 715 patent, all claims of the 008 patent, and 25 claims of the 576 patent, which includes all of its asserted claims. In August and September 2023, the Patent Office denied institution on the petitions challenging the 715 patent and the 576 patent. In September 2023, at the parties’ joint request, the Patent Office dismissed the petition challenging the 008 patent, as Entropic agreed to drop its claims against DISH Network on that patent. On July 12, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted a request for reexamination of the 715 patent, but on May 20, 2025, it affirmed the patent’s validity. Entropic’s expert claims that the DISH defendants owe damages of $212 million.

​

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.

​

​

Entropic Communications, LLC (second action)

​

On February 10, 2023, Entropic filed a second lawsuit against our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network, DISH Network L.L.C., Dish Network Service L.L.C. and Dish Network California Service Corporation in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 7,295,518 (the “518 patent”), entitled “Broadband network for coaxial cable using multi-carrier modulation”; United States Patent No. 7,594,249 (the “249 patent”), entitled “Network interface device and broadband local area network using coaxial cable”; United States Patent No. 7,889,759 (the “759 patent”), entitled “Broadband cable network utilizing common bit-loading”; United States Patent No. 8,085,802 (the “802 Patent”), entitled “Multimedia over coaxial cable access protocol”; United States Patent No. 9,838,213 (the “213 patent”), entitled “Parameterized quality of service architecture in a network”; United States Patent No. 10,432,422 (the “422 patent”), entitled “Parameterized quality of service architecture in a network”; United States Patent No. 8,631,450 (the “450 patent”), entitled “Broadband local area network”; United States Patent No. 8,621,539 (the “539 patent”), entitled “Physical layer transmitter for use in a broadband local area network”; United States Patent No. 8,320,566 (the “0,566 patent”), entitled “Method and apparatus for performing constellation scrambling in a multimedia home network”; United States Patent No. 10,257,566 (the “7,566 patent”), entitled “Broadband local area network”; United States Patent No. 8,228,910 (the “910 Patent”), entitled “Aggregating network packets for transmission to a destination mode”; and United States Patent No. 8,363,681 (the “681 patent”), entitled “Method and apparatus for using ranging measurements in a multimedia home network.” Generally, the patents relate to Multimedia over Coax Alliance standards and the manner in which we provide a whole-home DVR network over an on-premises coaxial cable network.

​

Entropic has asserted the same patents in the same court against Comcast, Cox and DirecTV. On September 7, 2023, the Court granted the motion of DISH Network L.L.C., Dish Network Service L.L.C. and Dish Network California Service Corporation to dismiss the claims arising from the 7,566 patent and the 910 patent on the grounds that they claimed in eligible subject matter. On February 24, 2025, the Court granted other defendants’ motions to dismiss the claims arising from the 213 patent, the 422 patent, the 681 patent and the 802 patent on the grounds that they claimed in eligible subject matter. In a claim construction order issued on April 18, 2025, the Court found that the asserted claim of the 539 patent is invalid as indefinite.

​

In January and February 2024, DISH Network L.L.C. filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of the 249 patent, the 518 patent, the 759 patent, the 450 patent, the 539 patent, the 0,566 patent, and the 681 patent. In July and August 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on the petitions challenging the 249 patent and the 518 patent, but denied institution on the remaining petitions. On July 22, 2025, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued final written decisions invalidating the asserted claims of the 249 patent and the 518 patent, but on November 14, 2025, following a review by its Director, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a new final written decision upholding the validity of the asserted claim from the 249 patent.  Entropic has appealed the decision on the 518 patent and DISH Network L.L.C. has appealed the decision on the 249 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.

​

​

Err Content IP

On November 3, 2025, Err Content IP, LLC filed a complaint against EchoStar Communications Corporation, the predecessor to our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network Corporation, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The plaintiff is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. The complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 10,721,542 (the “542 Patent”), entitled “Bandwidth shaping client to capture, transform, cache, and upload images from a remote point of recordation to a network service.” The infringement allegations generally relate to using AirPlay to watch content from the DISH Anywhere app on a paired television screen. On December 3, 2025 Err Content filed an amended complaint adding allegations of induced and contributory infringement. On February 2, 2026, upon the parties’ joint motion, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

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

​

Headwater Research

​

On August 28 and 29, 2025, Headwater Research LLC filed five separate lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network Corporation, DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Wireless L.L.C. The plaintiff is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. The first complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 8,639,935 (the “935 patent”), entitled “Automated device provisioning and activation”; United States Patent No. 9,609,510 (the “510 patent”), entitled “Automated credential porting for mobile devices”; United States Patent No. 9,973,930 (the “930 patent”), entitled “End user device that secures an association of application to service policy with an application certificate check”; United States Patent No. 11,096,055 (the “055 patent”), entitled “Automated device provisioning and activation”; United States Patent No. 11,405,429 (the “429 patent”), entitled “Security techniques for device assisted services”; United States Patent No. 11,966,464 (the “464 patent), entitled “Security techniques for device assisted services”; and United States Patent No. 11,985,155 (the “155 patent”), entitled “Automated device provisioning and activation.”

​

The second complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 9,179,359 (the “359 patent”), entitled “Wireless end-user device with differentiated network access status for different device applications;” United States Patent No. 9,277,445 (the “445 patent”), entitled “Wireless end-user device with differential traffic control policy list and applying foreground classification to wireless data service;” and United States Patent No. 9,609,544 (the “544 patent”), entitled “Device-assisted services for protecting network capacity.”

​

The third complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 8,666,364, (the “364 patent”), entitled “Verifiable device assisted service usage billing with integrated accounting, mediation accounting, and multiaccount;” United States Patent No. 9,143,976 (the “976 patent”), entitled “Wireless end-user device with differentiated network access and access status for background and foreground device applications;” and United States Patent No. 9,647,918 (the “918 patent”), entitled “Mobile device and method attributing media services network usage to requesting application.”

​

The fourth complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 8,635,335 (the “335 patent”), entitled “System and method for wireless network offloading”; United States Patent No. 10,791,471 (the “471 patent”),

entitled “System and method for wireless network offloading”; and United States Patent No. 10,237,757 (the “757 patent”), entitled “System and method for wireless network offloading.”

​

The fifth complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 8,023,425 (the “425 patent”), entitled “Verifiable service billing for intermediate networking devices”; United States Patent No. 8,631,102 (the “102 patent”), entitled “Automated device provisioning and activation”; and United States Patent No. 8,799,451 (the “451 patent”), entitled “Verifiable service policy implementation for intermediate networking devices.”

​

The asserted patents generally relate to eSIM management, data management, application data traffic management, wireless data offloading and tethering operations. Headwater also has filed complaints against Apple, Google, Motorola, Samsung, Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T, Sprint, Amazon, Charter, and Comcast.

​

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.

​

Hughes Telecomunicações do Brasil v. State of São Paulo Treasury Department

​

On December 12, 2019, Hughes Telecomunicações do Brasil (“HTB”) filed a tax annulment claim in the Judicial Court of São Paulo, claiming that a tax assessment from the State Treasury of São Paulo, for the period from January 2013 to December 2014, was based on an erroneous interpretation of an exemption to the ICMS (a state tax on, among other things, communications).

​

In June 2022, a judicial expert determined that HTB’s interpretation of the exemption was correct. Nonetheless, in July 2023, the Court entered judgment against HTB, and in October 2023, rejected HTB’s request for clarification. In November 2023, HTB filed an appeal to the Court of Justice, but on February 25, 2025, the Court of Justice ruled against HTB. On March 14, 2025, HTB filed a motion seeking clarification, but that motion was denied on October 24, 2025. HTB has filed a new motion for clarification. HTB is finalizing an agreement with the Treasury under which it will have up to 48 months to pay approximately 44 million Brazilian Reals (USD $8.2 million) to the State Treasury of São Paulo, of which 75% may be satisfied with “precatórios,” which are court ordered obligations issued by the Brazilian government (federal, state or municipal) that are officially recognized and tradeable instruments.

​

We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit.

​

​

Jones 401(k) Litigation

​

On December 20, 2021, four former employees filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network, its Board of Directors, and its Retirement Plan Committee alleging fiduciary breaches arising from the management of our 401(k) Plan. The putative class, comprised of all participants in the Plan on or after January 20, 2016, alleges that the Plan had excessive recordkeeping and administrative expenses and that it maintained underperforming funds. On February 1, 2023, a Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint be granted, and on March 27, 2023, the district court judge granted the motion. As permitted by the Court’s order, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2023, which is limited to allegations regarding the retention and alleged underperformance of the Fidelity Freedom Funds. On November 7, 2023, a Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint be denied as to the duty to prudently monitor fund performance, but be granted as to the duty of loyalty and, on November 27, 2023, the district court judge entered an order adopting the recommendation. On March 1, 2024, by stipulation, the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against the Board of Directors and the Retirement Plan Committee, leaving DISH Network as the sole defendant.

​

On April 30, 2024, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court certified the proposed plaintiff class. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the case was stayed from October 30, 2024 through May 29, 2025 to facilitate a mediation, but the parties did not reach a settlement. The plaintiffs’ expert claims damages of $16.7 million, which is reduced to $10.7 million when Fidelity revenue sharing is credited.

​

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.

​

Lingam Securities Class Action (formerly Jaramillo)

​

On March 23, 2023, a securities fraud class action complaint was filed against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network and Messrs. Ergen, Carlson and Orban in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint was brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of our securities during the February 22, 2021 to February 27, 2023 class period. In general, the complaint alleged that DISH Network’s public statements during that period were false and misleading and contained material omissions, because they did not disclose that DISH Network allegedly maintained a deficient cybersecurity and information technology infrastructure, were unable to properly secure customer data and DISH Network’s operations were susceptible to widespread service outages.

​

In August 2023, the Court appointed a new lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff’s counsel, and, on October 20, 2023, they filed a First Amended Complaint that abandoned the original allegations. In their First Amended Complaint, plaintiffs alleged that, during the class period, the defendants concealed problems concerning the 5G network build-out that prevented scaling and commercializing the network to obtain enterprise customers. The amended complaint added as individual defendants James S. Allen, DISH Network’s Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer; John Swieringa, our President, Technology and Chief Operating Officer; Dave Mayo, DISH Network’s former Executive Vice President of Network Development; Marc Rouanne, DISH Network’s former Executive Vice President and Chief Network Officer; and Stephen Bye, DISH Network’s former Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer.

​

​

After the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, asserting the same theory, on February 23, 2024. The new complaint drops Erik Carlson, John Swieringa, Paul Orban and James Allen as individual defendants. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, and on March 20, 2025, the Court granted the motion without granting plaintiffs permission to further amend. The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and on February 17, 2026, that court unanimously affirmed the trial court’s dismissal.

​

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.

​

NewSpace India Limited

​

In October 2025, NewSpace India Limited (“NSIL”) sued our majority-owned subsidiary Hughes Communications India Private Limited (“HCIPL”), claiming that HCIPL unlawfully terminated the parties’ agreement for HCIPL to take capacity on the GSAT 20 satellite. HCIPL had terminated the parties’ agreement on December 6, 2024, citing, among other reasons, NSIL’s failure to meet the contractual provision for a timely launch. NSIL seeks a declaration that HCIPL’s termination was premature and void, a temporary and permanent injunction restraining HCIPL from terminating or breaching the agreement, and damages of approximately 10.6 billion Indian Rupees (USD $117 million). The Court entered an ex parte interim injunction requiring HCIPL to maintain assets equal to the amount at issue.

​

We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit.

​

Sling Pass Litigation

​

On August 26, 2025, ESPN Enterprises, Inc. and other Disney affiliates (“Disney”) sued our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On September 5, 2025, WarnerMedia Network Sales and other Warner Bros Discovery affiliates (“WBD”) sued our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. in the same court. In each case, the plaintiffs contend that Sling TV’s Day Pass, Weekend Pass and Week Pass subscriptions breach their respective carriage agreements with DISH Network. In their respective cases, both Disney and WBD sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Passes, but the Court denied the Disney motion on November 17, 2025, and denied the WBD motion on December 23, 2025. Disney filed an amended complaint on December 19, 2025, adding a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and allegations of using Disney marks to advertise the passes over Disney’s objection and for interest on late payments. WBD filed an amended complaint on December 26, 2025, adding claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and for unjust enrichment. DISH Network L.L.C. has asserted antitrust counterclaims against Disney and breach of contract counterclaims against both Disney and WBD. On April 14, 2026, WBD and DISH Network L.L.C. dismissed their claims against each other, without prejudice to refiling.

​

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

​

​

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 plaintiff is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. 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. 6,725,456 (the “456 patent”), entitled “Methods and Apparatus for Ensuring Quality of Service in an Operating System”; United States Patent No. 6,708,213 (the “213 patent), entitled “Method for Streaming Multimedia Information Over Public Networks”; and United States Patent No. 6,757,796 (the “796 patent”), entitled “Method and System for Caching Streaming Live Broadcasts transmitted Over a Network.” Generally, the 456 patent and the 133 patent relate to database functionality, and the 213 patent and the 796 patent relate to content delivery networks for streaming video.

​

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. On November 25, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office declined to review the validity of the 213 patent, and on September 29, 2021, denied a request for rehearing of that decision. On January 19, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on the 456 patent but declined to review the 133 patent. On February 24, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed to institute proceedings on the 796 patent. On January 18, 2022, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a final written decision holding that the challenged claim of the 456 patent is patentable, and on February 8, 2022, it issued a final written decision holding that the challenged claims of the 796 patent are patentable.

​

On March 22, 2022, DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the adverse final written decision regarding the 456 patent, and on April 8, 2022, they filed a notice of appeal to the same court from the adverse final written decision regarding the 796 patent. The appeal on the 456 patent was voluntarily dismissed on December 6, 2022 after our supplier took a license to the database patents — the 456 patent and the 133 patent. The Federal Circuit heard oral argument on the 796 patent appeal on October 3, 2023, and affirmed the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s adverse final written decision on October 5, 2023.

​

On April 20, 2022, DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. filed a petition with the United States Patent and Trademark Office requesting ex parte reexamination of the validity of one of the asserted claims of the 213 patent, and reexamination was ordered on June 16, 2022. On November 13, 2023, the United States Patent and Trademark Office confirmed the patentability of the challenged claim. On January 18, 2023, DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. filed a second petition requesting ex parte reexamination of the validity of the four other asserted claims of the 213 patent, reexamination was ordered on April 17, 2023, but on April 3, 2026, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a reexamination certificate confirming the patentability of the challenged claims. Thus, all invalidity challenges at the United States Patent and Trademark Office have been resolved, and the two asserted CDN patents remain intact and unlicensed. On October 17, 2024, the Court ordered that the stay of the case, which had been entered for the pendency of the original petitions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, would remain in place pending the resolution of Sound View’s appeal in a parallel action asserting the 213 patent against Hulu. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in the parallel Hulu matter on January 29, 2026.

​

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.

​

State of Illinois ex rel. Rodriguez

​

In March 2020, two private “relators” filed this case in the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois, County Department, Law Division, under the Illinois False Claims Act against DISH Wireless, Sprint and more than 60 Boost Mobile retailers in Illinois. The defendants only became aware of the lawsuit after it was unsealed in March 2022. The operative Second Amended Complaint alleges that the retailer defendants should have collected sales tax under the Retailers’ Occupation Tax Act on any amounts that Sprint or DISH Network rebated them to facilitate handset price discounts to Illinois consumers (“Prepaid Phone Rebates”) and on any phone activation fees the retailers charged to customers (“Device Setup Charges”). It further alleges that DISH Wireless and Sprint are liable for the alleged violations arising from the Device Setup Charges because of the way they allegedly managed the point-of-sale system that the retailer defendants used.

​

The Plaintiffs seek to recover triple the amount of allegedly unpaid taxes, fines for each alleged violation, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On June 13, 2023, the Court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint, but on January 2, 2024, it granted reconsideration and dismissed the complaint as to DISH Wireless and Sprint, with leave to amend. The Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint on February 2, 2024. On September 20, 2024, the Court granted DISH Wireless’s and Sprint’s motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, without further leave to amend, but the case is continuing against the retailers.

​

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.

​

TQ Delta, LLC

​

On July 17, 2015, TQ Delta, LLC (“TQ Delta”) filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiaries DISH Network, DISH DBS Corporation and DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The plaintiff is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. 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 us, and our 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.

​

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, DISH Network 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 DISH Network. Third parties 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 DISH Network’s 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 DISH Network’s 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 DISH Network’s 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 DISH Network’s petition. On February 10, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a final written decision on DISH Network’s 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. TQ Delta 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. On April 13, 2021, the Court lifted the stay, and the case is proceeding on the 243 patent and the 158 patent. On April 23 and April 26, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued orders granting requests for ex parte reexamination of, respectively, the 243 patent and the 158 patent, but on July 27, 2023 and October 11, 2023, respectively, the United States Patent and Trademark Office confirmed the challenged claims of the 243 patent and the 158 patent. In a proposed supplemental report, TQ Delta’s damages expert contends that TQ Delta is entitled to $251 million in damages. The Court has set a trial date of November 8, 2027.

​

​

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.

​

Uniloc 2017 LLC

​

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 plaintiff is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. 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.”

​

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.

​

On December 28, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a final written decision upholding the validity of the challenged claims of the 273 patent. Sling TV L.L.C. appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and on February 2, 2022, the Federal Circuit vacated the final written decision and remanded to the United States Patent and Trademark Office to reconsider its ruling. On remand, on September 7, 2022, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a revised final written decision finding all challenged claims of the 273 patent invalid. Uniloc filed a notice of appeal of that revised final written decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and on September 4, 2024, that court affirmed the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s invalidity finding.

​

On January 5, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a final written decision invalidating all challenged claims of the 005 patent. On January 19, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a final written decision invalidating all challenged claims of the 609 patent (and a second final written decision invalidating all challenged claims of the 609 patent based on a third party’s petition). Uniloc did not appeal those decisions. Thus, the sole remaining asserted patent is the 118 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.

​

Universal Service Administrative Company

On April 3, 2023, the Universal Service Administrative Company (“USAC”) notified our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Wireless that it intended to seek to recover funds in the amount of $13.9 million disbursed under the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program (“EBBP”) and Affordable Connectivity Program (“ACP”) rules. We appealed this action and the USAC denied our appeal in October 2023. We appealed USAC's action to the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau, which denied our appeal on January 17, 2025. On May 5, 2026, DISH Wireless entered into a settlement with the United States to resolve these claims. This matter is now concluded.

​

U.S. Bank Trust Company

On April 26, 2024, U.S. Bank Trust Company, in its capacity as Trustee under the Indentures for DISH DBS Corporation’s 5.75% Senior Secured Notes due 2028 and 7.75% Senior Notes due 2026, filed an action in state court in New York City against DISH DBS Corporation, DISH Network L.L.C., EchoStar Intercompany Receivable Company L.L.C., DISH DBS Issuer LLC, and DBS Intercompany Receivable L.L.C. In its original complaint, the Trustee contended that certain intracompany asset transfers in January 2024 breached the Indentures for those Notes, and that the transfers were intentional and constructive fraudulent transfers under the Colorado Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. The Trustee seeks a declaratory judgment that DISH DBS Corporation breached the Indentures and that an Event of Default occurred under the DBS Indentures. It further asks the Court to unwind certain intracompany asset transfers and to award damages.

On May 13, 2024, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and, on June 28, 2024, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Rather than opposing the motion, on July 18, 2024, the Trustee filed a first amended complaint, which added a new declaratory judgment claim challenging certain intercompany advances and new factual allegations challenging a certification of compliance with the DBS Indentures. On January 22, 2025, with permission from the Court, the Trustee filed a second amended complaint, which added allegations regarding the debt issued by DBS SubscriberCo, a related intercompany loan, and the DIRECTV transaction (collectively, the “September 2024 Transactions”). The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint and, on August 21, 2025, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the claims that were based on the September 2024 Transactions but otherwise denied the motion. On March 20, 2026, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice, pursuant to the Restructuring Support Agreement. This matter is now concluded.

​

​

Vermont National Telephone Company

​

On September 23, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia unsealed a qui tam complaint that, on May 13, 2015, Vermont National filed against our wholly-owned subsidiaries, DISH Network, American AWS-3 Wireless I L.L.C., American II, American III, and DISH Wireless Holding L.L.C.; Charles W. Ergen (our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer) and Cantey M. Ergen (a member of our Board of Directors); Northstar Wireless; Northstar Spectrum; Northstar Manager; SNR Wireless; SNR HoldCo; SNR Management; and certain other parties. The complaint 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 participated in the AWS-3 Auction through its wholly-owned subsidiary, VTel Wireless.

​

The complaint was unsealed after the United States Department of Justice notified the District Court that it had declined to intervene in the action. 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.

​

Thereafter, the District Court maintained the stay until October 26, 2018. On February 11, 2019, the District 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, and on March 23, 2021, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss. On April 21, 2021, Vermont National filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and, on May 17, 2022, that court reversed the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint. On June 16, 2022, the Defendants-Appellees filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, but on August 17, 2022, that petition was denied.

​

On August 25, 2023, the FCC provided a sworn declaration stating that “the FCC considers … SNR and Northstar to have fully and timely satisfied their obligations to pay money to the Government arising from the AWS-3 Auction.” On that basis, on September 22, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion seeking partial summary judgment of no damages. On September 26, 2023, the Court denied the motion as premature. On March 8, 2024, the United States filed a motion to exercise its statutory prerogative to intervene in the case for the purpose of moving to dismiss it with prejudice, stating that the case is “unlikely to vindicate the United States’ interests and would needlessly expend the Government’s and this Court’s resources.” In a report and recommendation issued on April 7, 2025, a magistrate judge recommended that the government’s motion be granted. Vermont National’s objections to that recommendation have been fully briefed to the Court.

​

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

​

​

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.