Untitled case

Procedural Denial at PTAB Shifts Focus to District Court in Streaming Patent Dispute

In a notable clash between a major satellite and streaming television provider and a large operator of adult content websites, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute an inter partes review (IPR) of a key streaming technology patent. The petitioner, Aylo Freesites Ltd. (Aylo), which operates high-traffic websites including Pornhub, sought to challenge the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,991,234 B2, owned by DISH Technologies LLC and its subsidiary Sling TV LLC (DISH). DISH, the intellectual property arm of the well-known television service provider, is an active operating company that has engaged in a broad campaign to license or enforce patents related to adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming. Aylo is also an operating company, a Cyprus-based firm that runs numerous popular adult entertainment streaming platforms. The PTAB's decision to deny institution was made on procedural grounds, a move that prevents an early, centralized validity test at the patent office and keeps the dispute centered in parallel district court litigation.

The dispute centers on U.S. Patent No. 11,991,234 B2, which covers foundational adaptive bitrate streaming technology that adjusts video quality in real-time based on a user's internet connection speed. This technology is fundamental to the operation of modern video streaming services, including Aylo's platforms which deliver vast amounts of media content daily. Aylo's IPR petition was part of a multi-front legal battle, filed in response to infringement allegations from DISH. Concurrent patent infringement lawsuits are proceeding in U.S. federal courts in Delaware and Utah, as well as in the UK, where the same parties are litigating related streaming patents. The PTAB's denial, while its specific reasoning is not detailed in available public documents, is significant because it forces the patent's validity to be argued within the potentially more costly and time-consuming district court system.

This case is notable for several reasons. It highlights DISH's strategic enforcement of its streaming patent portfolio, which it acquired in part from MOVE Networks, against a specific industry sector. Shortly after this IPR was filed, DISH filed a nearly identical lawsuit against another major adult video website, Spankbang.com, asserting the same '234 patent, signaling a concerted effort to target this market. The procedural denial itself is significant within the current landscape of PTAB practice. Such denials often occur under the Fintiv framework, where the PTAB exercises its discretion to decline review due to the advanced state of a parallel district court case, aiming to avoid duplicative efforts and potentially conflicting rulings. While the specific grounds for denial in IPR2024-00941 are not confirmed by available records, the existence of active, multi-jurisdictional litigation between the parties made such a discretionary denial a likely outcome, effectively shifting the entire dispute over the patent's validity and infringement to the courts.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

This case summary addresses the parallel district court litigation and the corresponding Inter Partes Review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In the district court, DISH Technologies LLC is the plaintiff and patent holder. In the IPR, DISH is the Patent Owner and respondent, while the accused infringer, Aylo Freesites Ltd., is the Petitioner.

Chronological Developments

District Court Litigation: DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al v. Aylo Freesites Ltd et al, D. Utah, No. 2:24-cv-00066

• Complaint for Patent Infringement (2024-01-24): DISH Technologies LLC and its related entities, including Sling TV LLC, filed a lawsuit against Aylo Freesites Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The complaint alleged infringement of several patents related to adaptive bit-rate (ABR) video streaming technology, including U.S. Patent No. 11,991,234. This suit is part of a broad, multi-defendant litigation campaign by DISH to enforce a portfolio of patents it acquired from MOVE Networks.

• Stay Pending IPR (2024-08-28): The district court granted Aylo's motion to stay the case pending the resolution of IPRs filed at the PTAB. The court determined that the case was in its infancy and that a stay would simplify the issues for trial without causing undue prejudice to DISH. As of the current date, this litigation remains stayed.

PTAB Inter Partes Review: IPR2024-00941

• IPR Petition Filed (2024-05-21): Aylo Freesites Ltd. filed a petition for Inter Partes Review, challenging the patentability of claims in U.S. Patent No. 11,991,234 B2. This was filed alongside a companion petition, IPR2024-00940, also targeting the '234 patent.

• Decision Not to Institute (2024-11-21): The PTAB issued a decision declining to institute a trial. The official outcome is recorded as "Not Instituted - Procedural," meaning the denial was not based on the substantive merits of the invalidity arguments but on a procedural defect.

• Reason for Procedural Denial—Time Bar: The procedural reason for the denial became clear in a related proceeding. In the companion case IPR2024-00940, the USPTO Director issued a decision on February 3, 2026, terminating the proceeding because it was time-barred. The Director found that Aylo had failed to list all real parties in interest (RPIs) in its initial petition. When the petition was later corrected, it was accorded a new filing date. This corrected filing date fell more than one year after Aylo had been served with DISH's infringement complaint, violating the statutory deadline set by 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Given the identical parties, patent, and procedural outcome, IPR2024-00941 was almost certainly denied for the same reason.

Final Disposition and Current Posture

The IPR challenge to U.S. Patent No. 11,991,234 was procedurally barred and therefore unsuccessful. The PTAB never reached the substantive question of whether the patent was invalid over the prior art.

As a result of the IPR's termination, the stay in the District of Utah litigation may be subject to being lifted, allowing DISH's infringement claims against Aylo to proceed toward claim construction, discovery, and trial. The patent emerges from this specific PTAB challenge without a decision on its validity.

In the Inter Partes Review IPR2024-00941 before the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the petitioner challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,991,234 is Aylo Freesites Ltd. While PTAB dockets for this specific IPR do not readily identify counsel, filings in a related federal court case, Aylo Freesites Ltd. v. DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. (D. Del., No. 24-086-GBW), reveal the legal team representing Aylo.

Based on these court records, the counsel for Aylo Freesites Ltd. are from the law firms Venable LLP, serving as lead counsel, and Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., serving as local counsel in Delaware.

Lead Counsel

Venable LLP
The team from Venable's New York office is comprised of several experienced patent litigators. Venable is recognized for its extensive experience in patent litigation across key venues, including federal district courts, the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where it has handled hundreds of post-grant proceedings.

• Frank M. Gasparo - Partner (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm & Office: Venable LLP, New York, NY.
  • Noteworthy Experience: Co-chair of Venable's Intellectual Property Litigation Technology Group, he has served as lead counsel in numerous patent cases and post-grant proceedings, with extensive experience at the ITC and in district courts across the U.S.

• Ralph A. Dengler - Partner

  • Firm & Office: Venable LLP, New York, NY.
  • Noteworthy Experience: A first-chair trial attorney with experience in patent, trademark, and trade secret litigation across diverse technologies, including streaming media and telecommunications, in federal courts and before the UPC in Europe.

• J. Daniel Kang - Associate

  • Firm & Office: Venable LLP, New York, NY.
  • Noteworthy Experience: A registered patent attorney with a background in electrical engineering, focusing on complex patent litigation involving technologies like streaming media, computer software, and telecommunications.

• Ian G. Paquette - Associate

  • Firm & Office: Venable LLP, New York, NY.
  • Noteworthy Experience: Focuses on patent litigation in district courts, the ITC, and PTAB proceedings, and previously worked as a patent examiner at the USPTO.

• Parker G. Zimmerman - Associate

  • Firm & Office: Venable LLP, New York, NY.
  • Noteworthy Experience: Focuses on intellectual property litigation with a background in computer science and experience in patent prosecution matters before the USPTO.

Local Counsel

Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
As one of Delaware's largest and most respected firms, Richards, Layton & Finger has a highly active and top-ranked intellectual property litigation practice, frequently serving as Delaware counsel in large-scale patent infringement cases.

• Kelly E. Farnan - Director (Local Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE.
  • Noteworthy Experience: Head of the firm's Intellectual Property Group, she is a highly acclaimed trial lawyer focusing on complex patent disputes in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and was named Delaware Litigator of the Year for 2025 by Managing IP.

Based on a review of the official Power of Attorney filed in this Inter Partes Review, the following counsel appeared on behalf of Patent Owner DISH Technologies LLC.

Outside Counsel

Firm: Baker Botts L.L.P.

• Eliot D. Williams - Lead Counsel

  • Office: Washington, D.C.
  • Note: Co-Practice Group Chair for PTAB Trials at Baker Botts, he has appeared in over 300 PTAB proceedings and argued nearly two dozen cases at the Federal Circuit.

• Ali Dhanani - Back-up Counsel

  • Office: Houston, TX
  • Note: Represents media and telecommunication companies, including DISH, in disputes related to set-top boxes, over-the-top content delivery, and DVR technology.

• G. Hopkins Guy III - Back-up Counsel

  • Office: Palo Alto, CA
  • Note: A lead trial attorney focusing on patent and trade secret litigation who has represented DISH Network in multiple patent infringement cases and PTAB proceedings.

• Thomas B. Carter, Jr. - Back-up Counsel

  • Office: Houston, TX
  • Note: Actively practices in adversarial proceedings at the USPTO, including inter partes reviews, and has defended DISH in litigation involving voice-activated remote control technology.

In-House Counsel

• James Hanft - In-House
  • Office: Englewood, CO (DISH Headquarters)
  • Note: Signed the Power of Attorney as Vice President & Associate General Counsel for DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. He has been listed in this role on other PTAB filings for DISH.