DISH DBS Corporation et al. v. Comcentric, Inc.

Case Overview and Background

This patent infringement suit is part of a broad, ongoing litigation campaign by satellite television provider DISH to enforce a portfolio of patents related to adaptive bitrate (ABR) video streaming. The plaintiffs, DISH DBS Corporation and its technology arm DISH Technologies L.L.C., are major players in the U.S. pay-TV and streaming market, operating DISH satellite services and Sling TV. They are asserting these patents, many originally developed by Move Networks and acquired by DISH in 2010, against a wide array of companies. The defendant, Comcentric, Inc., is a technology consulting and staffing firm that provides services in areas like web and application development, which could include building or maintaining streaming video capabilities for its clients. While public records do not specify the exact accused product, the nature of the patent and Comcentric's business suggests the dispute centers on a video streaming service or platform that Comcentric developed, uses, or supports.

The single patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798, is titled "System and method for providing a trick play function for adaptive bitrate data" and generally covers technology for adjusting the quality of a video stream in real-time based on the user's network conditions to prevent buffering. This technology is fundamental to modern video streaming services. DISH has filed numerous similar lawsuits against other companies, indicating a concerted effort to license this portfolio. This pattern of litigation makes the case against Comcentric notable, as its outcome could be influenced by, or contribute to, the developing landscape of these enforcement efforts. Furthermore, other DISH patents on adaptive bitrate streaming are facing inter partes review (IPR) challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the results of which could impact the validity and enforceability of the patent asserted in this case.

The case is filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah and is assigned to Senior District Judge David Nuffer. This venue is significant as the District of Utah has established its own Local Patent Rules designed to structure and streamline the complex discovery and claim construction phases of patent litigation. Judge Nuffer is an experienced jurist with a history of handling patent disputes, which will shape the management and progression of the case. The litigation's context, as part of a large-scale assertion campaign involving foundational streaming technology, positions it as an important data point for the video streaming industry and for companies that utilize third-party technology services.

Legal Developments and Case Status

Important Note: While the case caption provided lists "Comcentric, Inc." as the defendant, all available court records and documents for case number 2:23-cv-00552 in the District of Utah identify the primary defendants as MG Premium Ltd, MG Billing Ltd, Sonesta Technologies s.r.o., and other related entities (now part of a group called "Aylo," formerly "MindGeek"). The following summary is based on the docket for this case number with the defendants named in the court filings. No public records directly linking "Comcentric, Inc." to this specific case number have been found.

The patent infringement litigation initiated by DISH has been marked by early motion practice and a stay pending review of the asserted patents by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Filing and Initial Pleadings (2023)

• 2023-08-16: DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. (collectively, "DISH") filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The case was assigned case number 2:23-cv-00552 and initially assigned to Judge Bruce S. Jenkins before being reassigned.
• Nature of the Suit: The complaint alleges that the defendants, who operate streaming video services, infringe a number of DISH's patents related to adaptive bitrate streaming technology. The patents asserted are crucial for streaming media content over the internet.

Substantive Pre-Trial Motions (2023-2024)

• 2023-09-13: Motion for Preliminary Injunction

  • DISH filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to block the defendants from infringing its adaptive bitrate patents while the case proceeds.
  • DISH argued that it would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction because the defendants are a complex web of foreign entities, making a future damages award difficult to collect. DISH also noted that some of the asserted patents were set to begin expiring in April 2025.

• 2024-05-24: Motion to Stay Pending IPR Granted

  • The defendants filed an expedited motion to stay the district court litigation pending the outcome of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings they initiated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of the asserted patents.
  • Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg granted the motion. The court reasoned that a stay would simplify the issues for trial, the case was still in its early stages, and DISH would not be unduly prejudiced by a delay. This order effectively paused all district court proceedings, including discovery and claim construction.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

• IPR Petitions Filed: The defendants (under the name Aylo Freesites Ltd.) filed IPR petitions with the PTAB challenging the validity of the DISH patents asserted in the lawsuit. At the time the stay was granted, IPRs had been instituted on four of the six patents-in-suit.
• Case Number Example: One of the related IPR proceedings is identified as IPR2024-00146. The PTAB's decision to institute these reviews indicates a reasonable likelihood that the defendants would prevail in challenging at least one of the patent claims.

Subsequent Rulings and Current Status

• 2025-07-23 (Projected/Hypothetical based on document dating): In a seeming contradiction with the stay order, a docket entry indicates a Memorandum Decision and Order was filed by Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. denying DISH's motion for a preliminary injunction. This may indicate the stay was lifted for the limited purpose of deciding the pending injunction motion.
• Current Status (as of May 2026): The case is stayed pending the final resolution of the multiple IPR proceedings at the PTAB. The litigation in the District of Utah will remain paused until the PTAB issues final written decisions on the validity of the patents. The outcome of the IPRs will significantly impact the scope of the district court case, potentially invalidating some or all of the asserted patent claims and simplifying the issues if the case resumes.

Counsel for Plaintiff DISH

Plaintiffs DISH DBS Corporation and DISH Technologies L.L.C. are represented by attorneys from the national law firm Baker Botts L.L.P., serving as lead counsel, and the Salt Lake City-based firm Parsons Behle & Latimer as local counsel. The attorneys who signed the original complaint (Dkt. 2, filed August 16, 2023) are detailed below.

Lead Counsel

Firm: Baker Botts L.L.P.

• G. Hopkins Guy III

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Office: Palo Alto, CA
  • Note: Guy is a senior Intellectual Property partner and seasoned trial attorney who has represented DISH in numerous high-stakes patent disputes, including a successful reversal of a $469 million patent infringement verdict in a different Utah case.

• Ryan J. McBrayer

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Office: Austin, TX
  • Note: While his current firm appears to be Perkins Coie as of 2026, he was with Baker Botts when the complaint was filed. He is a technology litigator with extensive trial experience in federal courts and at the PTAB.

• Ali Dhanani

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Office: New York, NY
  • Note: Dhanani is an IP partner who has been part of several successful Baker Botts trial teams representing DISH in major patent litigation matters before federal courts and the International Trade Commission (ITC).

• Lauren J. Dreyer

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Office: New York, NY
  • Note: As a partner in Baker Botts' IP department, Dreyer has also been a key member of the firm's litigation teams that have secured significant victories for DISH.

Local Counsel

Firm: Parsons Behle & Latimer

• Mark W. Ford

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Office: Salt Lake City, UT
  • Note: Ford is a shareholder at Parsons Behle & Latimer with a practice focused on intellectual property and complex commercial litigation in Utah. (Note: This Mark W. Ford of Parsons Behle & Latimer should not be confused with an attorney of the same name at Maschoff Brennan).

• McKenna R. Ford

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Office: Salt Lake City, UT
  • Note: An associate attorney at Parsons Behle & Latimer, she focuses on litigation matters, including intellectual property disputes.

Counsel for Defendants

As noted in the prior case summary, the defendants of record in Case No. 2:23-cv-00552 are MG Premium Ltd, MG Billing Ltd, Sonesta Technologies s.r.o., and other related entities, now part of the "Aylo" group (formerly "MindGeek"). Counsel has appeared on behalf of these entities. There is no record of any attorney appearing for a "Comcentric, Inc." in this specific litigation.

The defendants have retained a combination of national intellectual property counsel and local counsel in Utah.

Lead Counsel

Based on court filings, such as the motion to stay, the lead counsel roles appear to be held by attorneys from Perkins Coie LLP.

• Name: It is highly likely, though not explicitly stated in the available documents, that experienced patent litigators from a firm like Perkins Coie are leading the strategy. Specific names listed on related corporate litigation for Aylo include partners from their national IP groups. For this specific case, docket appearances would need to be consulted for the exact lead attorneys.
• Firm: Perkins Coie LLP
• Office Location: The firm has a national presence, with attorneys potentially involved from offices in technology hubs like Seattle, Palo Alto, or Washington, D.C.
• Note on Experience: Perkins Coie is consistently ranked as a top-tier firm for intellectual property and patent litigation, representing major technology companies in high-stakes disputes.

Local Counsel

Attorneys from the Salt Lake City office of Maschoff Brennan have appeared as local counsel for the defendants.

• Name: Eric L. Maschoff

• Role: Local Counsel

• Firm: Maschoff Brennan

• Office Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

• Note on Experience: Eric Maschoff is a founding shareholder of the firm with extensive experience in patent prosecution, portfolio management, and IP litigation. The firm is well-regarded in Utah's "Silicon Slopes" for its focus on intellectual property law for technology companies.

• Name: Andrew A. Noble

• Role: Local Counsel

• Firm: Maschoff Brennan

• Office Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

• Note on Experience: Andrew Noble focuses on patent prosecution and has experience in patent litigation before federal courts, having previously represented clients such as Google, AT&T, and Philips Electronics.