Litigation

Adeia Technologies Inc. et al. v. DISH Network Corporation et al.

Open / active

1:26-cv-01373

Filed
2026-03-31

Patents at issue (5)

9661049
8219927
8239546
8327013
9369758

Summary

Adeia entities sued DISH and related entities for patent infringement, asserting five patents including US 9,661,049. The '049 patent is asserted at least as to independent claim 15, accusing DISH's server-side dynamic ad-insertion workflows in DISH TV, DISH Anywhere, and Sling TV of generating and serving interspersed manifest specifications with URLs referencing video segments hosted on different domains. The case remained open; docket activity through mid-2026 included automatic-stay notices as to certain DISH entities.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Adeia Technologies Inc. et al. v. DISH Network Corp. et al., No. 1:26-cv-01373-CNS (D. Colo.)

Parties. Plaintiffs are Adeia Technologies Inc., Adeia Media Holdings Inc., and Adeia Media Solutions Inc., subsidiaries of San Jose-based Adeia Inc. (NASDAQ: ADEA), a publicly traded R&D and intellectual-property licensing company. Adeia is the product of the 2022 spin-off of Xperi's media-IP business, which carries the Rovi/United Video Properties lineage (itself the acquirer of Unicorn Media, whose patents appear here), and describes itself as holding more than 13,750 patents across media and semiconductors; it does not sell pay-TV services, so in enforcement terms it functions as a non-practicing licensor with a genuine R&D arm (Adeia's own press release calls it a "leading R&D and IP licensing company"). Defendants are DISH Network Corporation and affiliates DISH DBS Corporation, DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Media Sales L.L.C., Sling TV Holding L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C., and parent EchoStar Corporation — the Englewood, Colorado-based satellite pay-TV and streaming group behind DISH TV (the Hopper set-top platform), the DISH Anywhere streaming app, and the Sling TV over-the-top service.

Accused technology and patents. The complaint targets DISH's server-side dynamic ad-insertion (SSAI/DAI) workflows — the systems that generate and serve "interspersed manifest file specifications" used by clients to request content and ad segments across different domains — across DISH TV (Hopper), DISH Anywhere, and Sling TV, as well as DISH's programming-guide user interface and its concurrent-stream session-authorization controls. Five patents are asserted: U.S. 9,661,049, "Systems and methods of providing interspersed manifest file specifications for adaptive video streaming" (asserted at least on claim 15, directed to an issued manifest containing an interspersing pattern of URLs referencing video segments on different domains); U.S. 8,219,927 (asserted claim 16, directed to an animated program-guide grid that reveals truncated program titles on a touch-sensitive device; I could not verify the exact patent title in the retrieved sources); U.S. 8,239,546, "Global Access Control for Segmented Streaming Delivery" (asserted claim 8, directed to beaconing data, session information, and server-side cutoff of a streaming session — a patent originating with Unicorn Media and now assigned to Adeia Media Holdings); U.S. 8,327,013; and U.S. 9,369,758 (per Adeia's release, the latter two cover content discovery and digital TV viewing-experience technologies, but the specific asserted claims and one-line technical details for the '013 and '758 patents were not available in the sources I retrieved, so treat those descriptions as unverified).

Procedural posture and venue. Filed March 31, 2026 in the District of Colorado (No. 1:26-cv-01373, nature of suit 830, 28 U.S.C. § 1338), the case was randomly assigned to Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney on May 12, 2026 after the parties declined magistrate-judge consent, with Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak handling non-dispositive matters and the scheduling conference (reset to July 21, 2026; defendants' answer deadline extended to July 13, 2026). Venue is straightforward post-TC Heartland: DISH, Sling, and EchoStar are Colorado entities headquartered at 9601 S. Meridian Blvd., Englewood, inside the district. The case remains in early pretrial phase, with no merits rulings; the docket (per PACER Monitor, last updated June 22, 2026) reflects automatic-stay notices as to certain DISH entities, consistent with EchoStar group restructuring, though I could not verify the specific bankruptcy proceedings from the sources retrieved. One day after suit, DISH Network L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. filed a mirror-image declaratory-judgment action against Adeia entities in the Northern District of California (3:26-cv-02811, Judge Richard Seeborg), invoking Adeia's "well-established history" of demanding licenses and referencing Adeia's infringement contentions against DIRECTV on related patents (including 8,156,528, 10,506,010, and 11,778,245).

Why it matters. This is a classic Adeia playbook case: the company says it has licensed "most leading U.S. providers" of pay TV for decades, and DISH is among the last major operators without a deal — CEO Paul E. Davis framed the suit as "no choice but to take action" after DISH's "continued use of our foundational technology without authorization." Technically, the '049 manifest-stitching patent reaches the SSAI/DAI machinery that drives much of streaming's ad revenue, making it the kind of high-exposure, industry-wide assertion likely to draw IPR challenges to these Rovi/Unicorn-era patents (none had been filed as of the retrieved docket data, to my knowledge). The two-front Colorado/California litigation also underscores the forum-fight dynamics of modern media-IP enforcement, and it lands at a turbulent moment for DISH/EchoStar amid pay-TV subscriber decline, streaming consolidation, and the automatic-stay issues affecting some defendants — factors that could shape both liability exposure and the realistic remedies posture in this case.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Adeia Technologies Inc. et al. v. DISH Network Corp. et al., No. 1:26-cv-01373-CNS (D. Colo.) — Key Developments Through 2026-08-28

Important framing note: This case is barely five months old (filed 2026-03-31). It has not reached claim construction, summary judgment, trial, or final disposition, and I found no PTAB IPR/PGR petitions on any of the five asserted patents. The dominant recent development is a prepackaged Chapter 11 filing by four of the seven DISH defendants, which triggered automatic-stay notices. The public PACER Monitor docket for the Colorado case is current only through 2026-06-22, so some post-bankruptcy docket activity is inferred from EchoStar's SEC disclosures rather than confirmed docket entries — I flag those below.

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

2026-03-31 — Complaint filed (D. Colo. No. 1:26-cv-01373). Adeia Technologies Inc., Adeia Media Holdings Inc., and Adeia Media Solutions Inc. sued DISH Network Corporation, DISH DBS Corporation, DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Media Sales L.L.C., Sling TV Holding L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C., and EchoStar Corporation for infringement of five patents (PACER Monitor, dkt. 1, 47 pp., with Exhibits 1–10 attaching the patents and claim charts):

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,219,927 — "Revealing truncated content on a scrollable grid"
  • U.S. Patent No. 8,239,546 — "Global access control for segmented streaming"
  • U.S. Patent No. 8,327,013 — "Dynamic index file creation for media streaming"
  • U.S. Patent No. 9,369,758 — "Multi-functional multimedia device"
  • U.S. Patent No. 9,661,049 — "Systems and methods of providing interspersed manifest file specifications for adaptive video streaming"

Per the complaint analysis (Ex Parte, dkt. 1), the accused instrumentalities are DISH TV (Hopper platform), DISH Anywhere, and Sling TV; the '049 patent is asserted at least as to independent claim 15, targeting DISH's server-side dynamic ad-insertion workflows that generate interspersed manifest specifications with URLs referencing segments on different domains; the '927 patent targets Sling TV's scrollable programming guide (claim 16); the '546 patent targets session-authorization/concurrent-streaming limits (claim 8). Inducement is alleged across all five patents. Nature of suit: 830 (patent); cause 28:1338. (PACER Monitor case page; Ex Parte complaint analysis; Adeia press release EX-99.1 dated 2026-04-01.)

2026-04-01 — Press announcement. Adeia publicly announced the suit and reiterated its full-year 2026 outlook (Adeia Newsroom, dated 2026-04-01; Nasdaq press release).

2026-04-01 — Parallel declaratory-judgment suit filed (N.D. Cal. No. 3:26-cv-02811). The day after the Colorado filing, DISH Network L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. sued Adeia Inc., Adeia Technologies, Adeia Guides, and the Adeia media entities in the Northern District of California (Judge Richard Seeborg), seeking declaratory judgments of non-infringement and, notably, § 101 unpatentability of a different set of Adeia patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,601,526; 8,640,165; 8,234,668; 12,301,922; 8,805,418; 10,506,010; 9,715,334). DISH alleged Adeia has a "well-established history" of demanding portfolio licenses or litigation (Law360, "Dish And Sling TV Infringe Pay-TV Media IP, Adeia Claims," 2026-04-02; PACER Monitor 3:26-cv-02811; Ex Parte complaint analysis). As of 2026-08-28, that case shows: joint stipulation to extend time to respond (dkt. 33), Adeia counsel appearance by Margaret E. Day (dkt. 34), and DISH's Notice of Pendency of Other Action under Civil L.R. 3-13 (dkt. 35, filed 2026-08-28).

2026-04-08/09 — Service. Summonses returned executed as to Sling TV LLC and DISH Network LLC (served 2026-04-08; original answer deadline 2026-04-29) (PACER Monitor, dkt. entries). Defense counsel appearances entered ~2026-04-09 (dkt. 18).

2026-04-23 — First extension; scheduling conference set. On a joint motion (dkt. 19), Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak extended the defendants' response deadline to 2026-07-13 and reset the initial scheduling conference from 2026-06-09 to 2026-07-21 (dkt. 20).

2026-05-12/13 — Assignment. Parties declined magistrate-judge consent (dkt. 21); the case was randomly reassigned to Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney (dkt. 22), who referred the case to Magistrate Judge Varholak for non-dispositive matters (dkt. 23, 2026-05-13).

Answer/counterclaims: As of the last public docket update (2026-06-22), no answer or counterclaims had been filed; the 2026-07-13 deadline was overtaken by the bankruptcy filings below. I could not confirm from public sources whether an answer was filed on or after 2026-07-13.

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

  • Motions to dismiss / transfer / stay pending IPR / summary judgment: None identified as of 2026-08-28. The case is in the pleading/scheduling stage. The one substantive cross-proceeding — DISH's California DJ action (3:26-cv-02811) — has not yet produced a motion to transfer or dismiss; DISH merely filed the Civil L.R. 3-13 pendency notice on 2026-08-28, and Adeia obtained a stipulation extending its response time. Watch for a possible first-filed-rule transfer motion (Colorado action was filed first) or an antisuit/stay motion, but nothing is on the record yet.
  • Bankruptcy automatic stay (the controlling "stay" event): On 2026-06-30, DISH DBS Corporation and certain subsidiaries filed prepackaged Chapter 11 cases in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division), backed by a Restructuring Support Agreement dated 2026-03-19 with >88% of noteholders, to restructure ~$8.8B of debt (EchoStar press materials; Cablefax 2026-06-30; TheStreet/Yahoo Finance 2026-06-30). Per EchoStar's Form 10-Q for Q2 2026 (filed 2026-08-03): "As a result of the prepackaged Chapter 11 case filings of DISH DBS Corporation, DISH Network L.L.C., Sling TV Holding L.L.C., and Sling TV L.L.C., the defendants have filed automatic stay notices." That means four of the seven defendants (including the key operating entities DISH Network LLC and Sling TV LLC) are debtor entities, and the litigation is automatically stayed as to them under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). The 10-Q also describes the Adeia suit (five patents), states DISH intends to "vigorously defend," and discloses exposure to substantial damages, possible trebling, and injunction risk. EchoStar expects emergence from Chapter 11 before the end of Q3 2026 (i.e., by 2026-09-30).

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

Not reached. No Markman proceedings, briefing, or claim-construction orders have occurred (case filed 2026-03-31; no scheduling order entered as of the last public docket update). The Ex Parte complaint analysis flags likely future construction disputes over terms such as "animating a revealing" ('927), "beaconing data" / "session information" ('546), and the scope of the interspersed-manifest claim elements ('049), but none have been briefed.

4. Discovery Milestones

None of strategic significance yet. No scheduling order had been entered as of 2026-06-22 (the proposed scheduling order was due 2026-07-14 ahead of the 07-21 conference, both of which appear to have been overtaken by the bankruptcy stay). No discovery disputes, ESI orders, or claim-chart exchanges are publicly documented. The complaint itself notes that claim charts were attached as exhibits (dkt. 1, Exs. 6–10), so infringement contentions exist in some form from day one.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, Post-Trial Motions

None. No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion — the case is in its infancy and partially stayed.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, Appeal — Current Posture

No settlement, dismissal, or judgment. The case is open and active, with the following operative posture as of 2026-08-28:

  • Automatic stay in effect as to debtor-defendants DISH DBS Corporation, DISH Network L.L.C., Sling TV Holding L.L.C., and Sling TV L.L.C. (Chapter 11, S.D. Tex., filed 2026-06-30; stay notices filed in the Colorado case per EchoStar 10-Q, 2026-08-03).
  • Non-debtor defendants EchoStar Corporation, DISH Network Corporation, and DISH Media Sales L.L.C. remain nominally un-stayed, though no responsive pleading from them is publicly confirmed.
  • The parallel N.D. Cal. DJ action (3:26-cv-02811) remains pending before Judge Seeborg; as of 2026-08-28 DISH filed its Civil L.R. 3-13 pendency notice, which commonly precedes a motion to transfer the DJ action to the first-filed Colorado forum or a stay.
  • No appeal exists (nothing appealable has been decided).

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

None identified on the five asserted patents ('927, '546, '013, '758, '049) as of 2026-08-28. My searches of PTAB-related coverage and EchoStar's SEC filings found no IPR or PGR petitions directed to these patents. Two adjacent points, to avoid confusion:

  • EchoStar's Q1/Q2 2026 10-Qs discuss IPRs only in connection with a different case — Digital Broadcasting Solutions v. DISH (AutoHop; U.S. Patents 8,929,710 and 9,538,122), where PTAB final written decisions of 2024-12-09 invalidated 38 of 39 challenged claims and the underlying case has been stayed since 2024-05-09 pending Federal Circuit appeal — not the Adeia patents.
  • DISH's validity challenge to Adeia's other patents is being pursued as § 101 eligibility declaratory judgments in the N.D. Cal. DJ action (3:26-cv-02811), not through the PTAB.

Bottom Line

The litigation is in its early pleadings phase, now partially stayed by bankruptcy. The dispositive near-term questions are (1) whether the S.D. Tex. bankruptcy court lifts/modifies the automatic stay for the four debtor defendants or resolves Adeia's claims through the claims process, (2) whether the N.D. Cal. DJ action gets transferred to or consolidated with the Colorado case, and (3) whether DISH (or Adeia) will file IPR petitions before the 9-month/statutory windows close. No Markman, merits, or damages decisions exist yet.

Sourcing caveats: The Colorado docket entries cited (dkts. 1, 18–23) come from PACER Monitor's public case page (docket last updated 2026-06-22). The bankruptcy facts and the defendants' automatic-stay notices rest on EchoStar's 2026-08-03 Form 10-Q and contemporaneous press coverage of the 2026-06-30 Chapter 11 filing. I could not verify from public sources: (a) whether an answer was filed on 2026-07-13, (b) the contents of the 2026-07-21 status before Judge Varholak, or (c) any post-2026-06-22 Colorado docket entries (including the stay notices themselves). Those items should be confirmed on PACER/CM/ECF before citation in a filing.

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

I'll search for press coverage of this litigation from multiple angles.

I found initial coverage. Let me dig deeper into the Law360 article and search for additional outlets.

Let me search for more coverage from other outlets and the related declaratory judgment action.

Press coverage summary

Press coverage of this litigation is relatively thin but includes a dedicated trade-press article and company-side disclosures. Law360 reported on 2026-04-02 (by Gina Kim) that Adeia Technologies sued Dish and Sling TV in Colorado federal court alleging infringement of patents covering "modern pay-television technologies," and that DISH struck back the next day with a declaratory action in California federal court, accusing Adeia of a "well-established history" of demanding that providers license its portfolio or face litigation. Law360 also maintains a case page for the parallel DISH v. Adeia DJ action (5:26-cv-02811). Trade publication IAM (Intellectual Asset Management) framed the dispute the same day as "Adeia, DISH Network trade blows over media streaming patents," noting Adeia asserted five patents while DISH responded with a DJ action covering ten patents, and placed the fight in the context of Adeia's broader enforcement campaign — pointing to Adeia's late-2025 settlement with Disney that ended all outstanding litigation between those companies.

The companies' own disclosures supply the reporting with most of its concrete detail. Adeia's April 1, 2026 press release (carried on Nasdaq and MarketScreener, and furnished as Exhibit 99.1 to its 8-K) announced that its subsidiaries filed the Colorado suit alleging infringement of five patents "related to core media and pay-TV technologies," and used the occasion to reiterate its full-year 2026 outlook. On the defense side, EchoStar Corporation's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2026 (SEC.gov) identifies the three Adeia plaintiffs as a licensing company spun out of the Rovi/Xperi merger, lists the five asserted patents and their subject matter (program guides, global access control for segmented streaming, dynamic index file creation, multimedia devices, and interspersed manifest file specifications), confirms that several DISH entities filed automatic stay notices tied to their pre-packaged Chapter 11 cases, and states DISH "intend[s] to vigorously defend," warning of potential "substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction" if infringement is found.

The accounts differ mainly in emphasis. Law360's framing highlights the procedural tit-for-tat — DISH's same-week DJ filing attacking Adeia's licensing practices — whereas the EchoStar 10-Q and Adeia's press release each present the case through their own corporate lens: Adeia stresses portfolio value and a reiterated financial outlook (no damages figure is stated anywhere), while EchoStar stresses the plaintiffs' non-practicing, licensing-company status and the litigation risk to consumer features. IAM adds industry context absent from the court record by linking the DISH suit to Adeia's settlement with Disney. Beyond these sources, coverage is limited: no mainstream outlets (Reuters, Bloomberg, Ars Technica, The Verge) appear to have written about the case specifically, and the only additional press found was a July 2, 2026 MoneyDJ item reporting a parallel Adeia Media Holdings suit against FuboTV asserting overlapping patents — evidence, as IAM suggested, that the DISH action is part of a broader Adeia enforcement push. No reporting of any verdict, settlement, or specific damages demand was found.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I found the case on PACER Monitor with initial attorney names. Let me dig deeper into the full docket and attorney appearances.

Let me get the full docket details from PACER Monitor and verify the attorneys' firms.

Based on the available docket and firm sources, here is what I can establish — and what remains unverified — about plaintiffs' counsel in Adeia Technologies Inc. et al. v. DISH Network Corporation et al., No. 1:26-cv-01373 (D. Colo.):

Verified counsel of record (appearances on the docket)

1. Richard Kamprath — Lead/Out-of-State Counsel

  • Firm: McKool Smith P.C. (Principal), Dallas, TX office.
  • Docket evidence: PACER Monitor's public docket for 1:26-cv-01373 shows "NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Richard Kamprath on behalf of All Plaintiffs," and docket entry 21 (Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction, filed 5/12/2026) was electronically filed by Kamprath on behalf of all three Adeia plaintiffs.
  • Experience: Highly experienced patent trial lawyer specializing in licensing and litigation. Notable matters (per his McKool Smith bio): Rovi/TiVo v. Comcast, et al. (SDNY/ITC) involving interactive program guides — directly relevant, since Rovi is Adeia's predecessor; Summit 6 v. Samsung ($15M verdict, N.D. Tex.); ParkerVision v. Qualcomm ($172M verdict, M.D. Fla.); Ericsson v. Apple FRAND litigation; two ITC exclusion orders against Comcast. He also clerked for Judge Jorge Solis (N.D. Tex.).

2. Brian Scott Boerman — Local Colorado Counsel

  • Firm: Sheridan Ross P.C., Denver, CO (shareholder; co-chair of the Litigation Group).
  • Docket evidence: Docket entry 19 (Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Answer, filed 4/23/2026) was filed by "(Boerman, Brian)" on behalf of the plaintiffs; PACER Monitor also reflects his entry of appearance.
  • Experience: IP litigator admitted in Colorado (2017) and before the Federal Circuit (2022), with patent prosecution and PTAB/IPR defense experience (electrical engineering background). Notably, Sheridan Ross announced in August 2026 that Boerman was named Colorado IP Litigation Lawyer of the Year by RankWell. His Denver presence fits the role of Local Rule 83.3 local counsel for a Colorado forum.

Appeared on the docket but firm affiliation not independently verified

3. Bradley Jarrett — Co-counsel (firm unverified)

  • PACER Monitor docket shows: "NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Bradley Jarrett on behalf of All Plaintiffs" (added to all three Adeia plaintiff parties). His firm and office could not be confirmed from the sources available in this search; based on the appearance pattern with Mr. Kamprath, he is most likely co-counsel from the same lead firm (McKool Smith, Dallas), but I could not verify that affiliation and do not want to assert it as fact.

4. Joshua Budwin — Co-counsel (firm unverified)

  • PACER Monitor docket shows: "NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Joshua Budwin on behalf of All Plaintiffs" (added to all three Adeia plaintiff parties). Same caveat: firm/office not confirmed in the available search results.

Notes and caveats

  • No in-house counsel identified: No Adeia in-house attorney appears in the public docket entries surfaced. Adeia's litigation is generally run by outside counsel (Adeia CEO Paul Davis publicly commented on the filing).
  • Docket currency: The PACER Monitor mirror was last updated 6/22/2026. The docket through that date includes only the four attorney appearances above (Kamprath, Boerman, Jarrett, Budwin) for plaintiffs. Any additional appearances filed after that date — or any counsel identified only in sealed filings (there is no indication of sealing here) — would not be captured.
  • Recommended verification: The definitive roster (including firm addresses and pro hac vice status) is in the CM/ECF docket on PACER (case 1:26-cv-01373-CNS, D. Colo.), which is the authoritative source; PACER Monitor is a third-party mirror. The complaint (dkt. 1) signature block would also confirm who signed for the plaintiffs.

Bottom line: The lead/out-of-state team appears to be McKool Smith's Richard Kamprath (Dallas), with Sheridan Ross's Brian Boerman as Denver local counsel, plus entered appearances by Bradley Jarrett and Joshua Budwin whose firm affiliations I could not confirm from the available record. If you need the complete verified roster, pull dkt. 1 and the notices of appearance from PACER directly.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the docket and related filings to identify defense counsel in this case.

The PACER Monitor docket snapshot is from June 22, 2026. Let me dig deeper into the docket for defendant appearances and related filings.

I found a parallel DJ action in N.D. California where Baker Botts represents DISH. Now let me look for defendant appearances in the Colorado case specifically, including post-June docket entries.

Defense Counsel of Record — Adeia v. DISH (D. Colo. 1:26-cv-01373)

Bottom line up front: As of the most recent publicly available docket snapshot (PACER Monitor, last updated June 22, 2026), no attorney had entered an appearance on behalf of any defendant in the Colorado case. The docket through that date shows only plaintiffs' counsel appearances, a joint extension of time to answer (deadline extended to July 13, 2026), and a scheduling conference reset to July 21, 2026 before Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak. Defense counsel therefore may have appeared after that snapshot, but I could not confirm any defense appearances from public sources, and I will not invent names.

What the public docket actually shows

Per PACER Monitor (case 63896596) and the Ex Parte docket analysis for 1:26-cv-01373 (Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney; MJ Scott T. Varholak):

  • Docket entries through 6/22/2026 consist of the complaint (filed 3/31/2026), patent/trademark report to the USPTO, summons, appearances by plaintiffs' counsel only, the consent-to-MJ process, the case-referral order (5/13/2026), and the 4/23/2026 order granting the joint extension (Doc. 20) — which was filed jointly, indicating defendants had some form of counsel lined up, but no defense Notice of Entry of Appearance appears on the public docket text.
  • Plaintiffs' counsel of record (for context, not defendants): Richard Kamprath, Joshua Budwin, Bradley Jarrett, and Brian Scott Boerman — the only attorneys whose appearances appear in the public docket text. (No defense counterpart entries appear.)

The parallel N.D. California DJ action (closest available signal)

DISH Network L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. filed a declaratory-judgment action against Adeia in the Northern District of California the same day the Colorado suit was filed — Dish Network L.L.C. et al. v. Adeia Inc. et al., 3:26-cv-02811 (N.D. Cal., Judge Richard Seeborg) — and the docket there (updated more recently) shows the defendants in that action are represented by:

  • George Hopkins Guy, III — Baker Botts LLP — listed as the filing/representing attorney for DISH Network L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. (filed the DJ complaint 4/1/2026; filed a 4/28/2026 notice of pendency of other action referencing the Colorado case).
  • Kurt Pankratz — Baker Botts LLP — filed the 4/23/2026 joint stipulation to extend time to respond in the N.D. Cal. case.

Baker Botts is well-known for high-stakes IP litigation (e.g., representing patent owners and defendants in Section 101 and FRAND disputes; the N.D. Cal. DJ complaint includes § 101 unpatentability claims against Adeia's patents). Caveat: These are counsel of record in the N.D. Cal. action, not in the Colorado case. It is plausible (but not confirmed) that Baker Botts or another firm will enter for the DISH defendants in Colorado.

The automatic-stay complication

The case summary notes automatic-stay notices as to certain DISH entities. EchoStar/DISH entities' Chapter 11 proceedings (and the associated automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362) would explain why the docket may show stays or delayed appearances for specific debtor defendants. The public docket text I retrieved does not identify which defendants are subject to the stay, so I can't attribute the absence of defense appearances to the stay with certainty.

Gaps and how to close them

  • PACER (the Colorado docket is not on free RECAP/CourtListener in full): retrieve the docket sheet for 1:26-cv-01373 directly from PACER (District of Colorado) to see post-6/22/2026 entries — the answer was due 7/13/2026 and the scheduling conference was set for 7/21/2026, so appearances/answers/motions to dismiss should appear in that window.
  • Firm announcements/Law360/Reuters: none located announcing DISH's Colorado defense team as of today's search.
  • In-house counsel: DISH/EchoStar in-house litigation counsel (who often co-sign) are not identifiable from public sources for this specific case.

Summary: No defendant-side counsel of record is verifiable from public docket sources for the Colorado case as of the last public update; Baker Botts LLP (George Hopkins Guy III, Kurt Pankratz) represents DISH/Sling in the parallel N.D. Cal. DJ action but has not been confirmed as Colorado counsel of record. I have not identified — and will not speculate as to — any specific attorneys as defense counsel of record in 1:26-cv-01373.