Defendant
2 cases as defendant.
DISH Technologies LLC is a research and development subsidiary of DISH Network, which is wholly owned by EchoStar Corporation (NASDAQ: SATS). EchoStar, a telecommunications company founded in 1980, is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado. DISH Network and its subsidiaries, including Sling TV and Boost Mobile, provide satellite television, streaming video, and wireless carrier services. EchoStar, the parent company, has approximately 12,100 employees and was ranked #242 on the Fortune 500 list in 2024.
As the technology and intellectual property arm of DISH Network, DISH Technologies develops and holds patents for the parent company's various services. Its innovations support DISH TV's direct broadcast satellite services, Sling TV's over-the-top (OTT) streaming platform, and hardware like the Hopper DVR and Joey receivers. A key area of focus is adaptive bitrate streaming technology, which adjusts video quality based on a user's internet speed to ensure smooth playback. Patents related to this technology were acquired by DISH and are central to its recent litigation efforts.
DISH Technologies is an active patent litigant, primarily as a plaintiff asserting its portfolio against other companies in the streaming media and technology sectors. The provided data shows DISH Technologies as a plaintiff in four of six tracked cases. This reflects a broader strategy by DISH to enforce its patents related to streaming technology. The lawsuits have been filed in federal courts, including the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a common venue for patent cases.
The company's recent litigation targets competitors and technology companies for the alleged infringement of its adaptive bitrate streaming patents. Notable cases listed in the database include suits against iFIT Health & Fitness, A Parent Media Co. (operator of Kidoodle.TV), and MBB Ventures LLC. The cases against iFIT and A Parent Media were voluntarily dismissed by DISH, with reports indicating settlements that included licensing agreements. This pattern suggests a strategy of using litigation to drive licensing revenue for its streaming technology portfolio.
An IPR proceeding that was terminated on February 3, 2026, after a Final Written Decision was vacated. The termination occurred because the petitioner's need to add a real party in interest rendered the petition time-barred.
An Inter Partes Review that the PTAB declined to institute on procedural grounds.