DISH DBS Corporation et al. v. FuboTV Inc.

Case Overview: DISH and Fubo Clash Over Streaming Technology

In a legal battle between two major players in the video streaming market, DISH DBS Corporation and its technology arm are asserting patent infringement against sports-focused streaming service FuboTV Inc.. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, centers on technology that enables the smooth streaming of content regardless of internet connection speeds. Both companies are direct competitors, offering subscription-based, multi-channel live television services delivered over the internet, often referred to as virtual Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (vMVPDs). DISH, a long-established satellite television provider, also operates the Sling TV streaming service, while FuboTV has carved out a niche with its strong emphasis on live sports programming.

The core of the dispute is FuboTV's alleged use of patented technology for adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming in its service. DISH claims that FuboTV's platform, which adjusts video quality in real-time based on a user's available bandwidth to prevent buffering, infringes on its intellectual property. The specific patent at issue in this case is U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798 B2, which generally relates to methods for adaptive-rate shifting for streaming media content. DISH alleges it tried to negotiate a license with FuboTV for years before filing the suit, a claim FuboTV disputes, arguing it does not need a license. This case is part of a broader litigation campaign by DISH to enforce its ABR patent portfolio, which includes patents originally developed by Move Networks, a company DISH's parent acquired. DISH has previously asserted these patents against other companies, including Peloton, iFit, and Lululemon.

The case (1:23-cv-01305) is before Judge Gregory B. Williams in the District of Delaware, a prominent and popular venue for patent litigation due to its experienced judiciary and well-developed case law. The court's familiarity with complex patent disputes makes it a strategic choice for plaintiffs like DISH. The litigation is notable as it highlights the competitive friction in the growing "cord-cutting" market and underscores the value of foundational streaming technologies. Further complicating the matter, FuboTV has challenged the validity of DISH's patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) through an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, a common defensive strategy for accused infringers seeking to invalidate the asserted patent outside of the district court litigation. The outcome of both the Delaware case and the parallel PTAB review could have significant implications for the streaming industry, potentially affecting licensing standards and the use of ABR technology.

As a senior US patent litigation analyst, here is a summary of the key legal developments and outcome for DISH DBS Corporation et al. v. FuboTV Inc.

Executive Summary

The patent infringement litigation between DISH and FuboTV, initiated in late 2023, is currently shaped by significant parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While the district court case saw initial pleading and motion practice, its progression has been largely overshadowed by FuboTV's aggressive strategy of challenging the validity of all asserted patents through inter partes review (IPR). The PTAB has issued final decisions on several of these patents, leading to appeals at the Federal Circuit. The district court action is effectively on hold, pending the resolution of these validity challenges.

Chronological Developments

1. Filing and Initial Pleadings (2023)

• 2023-09-06: DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. filed a broad patent infringement lawsuit against fuboTV Media Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, docketed as Case No. 1:23-cv-00986. The complaint asserted eight patents related to adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming technology, including U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798 B2.
• 2023-11-27: A related action, Case No. 1:23-cv-01305, was filed, focusing on the '798 patent. However, the primary litigation and key rulings have occurred under the '986 docket.
• 2023-12-14: After receiving extensions, FuboTV filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint in the '986 case, arguing that the asserted patent claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming ineligible subject matter.

2. Pre-Trial Motions and Amended Complaint (2024)

• 2024-03-25: The court held a hearing on FuboTV's motion to dismiss.
• 2024-05-07: Before the court could rule on the motion, DISH filed a motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. This strategic move sought to add more patent claims and supplemental facts to bolster their eligibility arguments.
• 2024-05-21: District Judge Gregory B. Williams granted DISH's motion to file an amended complaint. Consequently, the court denied FuboTV's initial motion to dismiss as moot, allowing FuboTV to raise its patent eligibility arguments again at a later stage, such as summary judgment.

3. Parallel PTAB Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceedings (2024-2025)

FuboTV's primary defense strategy has been to challenge the validity of DISH's patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

• 2024-05-13: FuboTV, along with other companies, filed a petition for IPR against the patent-at-issue, U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798 B2. This proceeding is docketed as IPR2024-00901.
• 2024: Throughout 2024, FuboTV filed IPR petitions against all eight patents asserted in the district court litigation.
• 2024-08-13: The PTAB instituted trial for IPR2024-00901, finding a reasonable likelihood that FuboTV would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one claim of the '798 patent. The institution of this and other IPRs represented a significant victory for FuboTV, signaling that the PTAB saw merit in its invalidity arguments.
• 2025-04-29: The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision for IPR2024-00901 concerning the '798 patent. While the specific outcome of this decision is not detailed in the available search results, subsequent appeals suggest some claims may have been invalidated.
• 2025-12-05: A Final Written Decision was also issued in a related IPR filed by FuboTV, IPR2024-00917, challenging a different DISH patent.

4. Stay of District Court Litigation and Present Posture (2024-Present)

• 2024-06-04: Following the PTAB's decision to institute IPRs, FuboTV filed a motion to stay the district court case (1:23-cv-00986) pending the outcome of the PTAB proceedings.
• The district court litigation has been effectively paused while the validity of the asserted patents is litigated before the PTAB and now the Federal Circuit. This is a common outcome in patent cases where parallel IPRs are instituted. The case status remains "Ongoing" but is stayed.

5. Appeal of PTAB Decisions (2025-Present)

• Following adverse rulings in the Final Written Decisions from the PTAB, DISH has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. For example, the outcome of IPR2024-00917 is now part of appeal number 26-1542.
• The outcome of these appeals will be determinative for the district court case. If the Federal Circuit affirms the PTAB's invalidation of the asserted patent claims, DISH's infringement case against FuboTV will likely be dismissed.

Outcome

As of May 2026, there has been no trial, settlement, or final judgment in the district court. The case is effectively in limbo, stayed pending the high-stakes appeals of the PTAB's IPR decisions at the Federal Circuit. The final disposition of this litigation now rests on the outcome of the appellate review of the patents' validity.

Counsel for Plaintiff DISH

Plaintiffs DISH DBS Corporation and DISH Technologies L.L.C. are represented by attorneys from the national law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP. Filings in a related DISH case in the same court also show attorneys from Ashby & Geddes acting as local counsel.

Lead Counsel

• Stuart H. Singer, Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
  • Note: A managing partner of the firm, Singer has a national trial and appellate practice and has served as lead counsel for major corporations like Carnival Corp. and NextEra Energy in high-stakes litigation.

• Yar R. Chaikovsky, Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Initially Paul Hastings LLP, now White & Case LLP, Palo Alto, CA.
  • Note: Chaikovsky is a prominent intellectual property trial lawyer who heads the global technology IP litigation group at White & Case, having previously co-chaired the IP litigation practice at Paul Hastings.

• E. Martin Masat

  • Firm: Workman Nydegger, Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Note: While not explicitly listed on the docket for this specific case based on available information, Masat is known to represent DISH in its broader streaming patent litigation campaign.

• David Boies, Of Counsel

  • Firm: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Armonk, NY.
  • Note: As the firm's founder and chairman emeritus, Boies is one of the country's most well-known trial lawyers, famous for representing the U.S. government in its antitrust case against Microsoft and Al Gore in the 2000 election litigation.

Local Counsel

It is standard practice in the District of Delaware for out-of-state law firms to partner with a Delaware-based firm. While specific local counsel for this case (1:23-cv-01305) is not explicitly named in the search results, court documents from a parallel DISH case (1:23-cv-00986) against FuboTV before the same judge identify the following attorneys who may be serving in a similar capacity in this matter.

• John G. Day, likely Local Counsel

  • Firm: Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE.
  • Note: Day is a director at Ashby & Geddes with extensive experience in Delaware patent litigation, frequently serving as local counsel for out-of-state firms.

• Andrew C. Mayo, likely Local Counsel

  • Firm: Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE.
  • Note: Mayo is a director at Ashby & Geddes focusing on intellectual property and commercial litigation in Delaware's district and bankruptcy courts.

FuboTV Assembles Experienced Patent Litigation Team for DISH Lawsuit

For its defense against DISH's patent infringement claims, FuboTV Inc. has retained a team of seasoned patent litigators from Paul Hastings LLP as lead counsel, supported by local counsel from Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC.

Lead Counsel: Paul Hastings LLP

The Paul Hastings team is led by attorneys known for their extensive experience in high-stakes patent disputes, particularly before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which is relevant given FuboTV's parallel IPR challenge to the patent-in-suit.

• Naveen Modi - Lead Counsel. Mr. Modi is the Global Co-chair of the Intellectual Property practice at Paul Hastings, based in the Washington, D.C. office. He is a nationally recognized leader in PTAB proceedings, having been involved in over 500 post-grant reviews and named "Practitioner of the Year – PTAB" by Managing IP. His practice covers a wide array of technology areas, and he has led numerous "bet-the-company" intellectual property cases.
• Ameet A. Modi - Of Counsel. A partner in the firm's Palo Alto office, Mr. Modi has significant experience in patent litigation. He has been recognized for his approach to case work and client relations.
• Samuel A. Steakley - Of Counsel. An associate in the Washington, D.C. office of Paul Hastings. Further details on his specific litigation experience were not readily available in public sources.

Local Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC

Based in Wilmington, Delaware, the firm serves as FuboTV's local counsel, handling court filings and providing expertise on practicing in the District of Delaware, a popular venue for patent cases.

• Stamatios "Sam" Stamoulis - Local Counsel. A founding member of the firm, Mr. Stamoulis has over 20 years of experience in intellectual property and complex commercial litigation. He has litigated patent infringement cases in numerous key districts, including Delaware, and has been repeatedly recognized as an "IP Star" by Managing Intellectual Property.
• Richard C. Weinblatt - Local Counsel. Mr. Weinblatt is also a founding member of Stamoulis & Weinblatt and has been a registered patent agent for over two decades. He has extensive experience arguing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and has been recognized for his work in intellectual property litigation.

This combination of a nationally recognized PTAB and litigation practice with a well-regarded local Delaware firm provides FuboTV with a robust defense team for both the district court case and the parallel PTAB review.