DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al. v. Aylo Freesites Ltd et al.

Case Overview and Background

This patent infringement lawsuit represents a key battle in a broader enforcement campaign by DISH Technologies and its subsidiary, Sling TV, to license a portfolio of patents related to adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming technology. The plaintiffs are major operating companies in the U.S. pay-television and over-the-top (OTT) streaming market. They have sued Aylo Freesites Ltd., a Cyprus-based technology company that operates several high-traffic adult entertainment websites, including Pornhub, alleging that Aylo's video streaming services infringe on DISH's patented technology. The case is part of a multi-forum conflict involving parallel litigation in Delaware and proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), highlighting the aggressive strategies employed by both sides.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, asserts U.S. Patent No. 11,991,234 B2, which generally covers a method for providing rate-adaptive streaming of content from a server to a playback device by adjusting the stream based on a calculated transport rate. This technology is fundamental to modern video streaming, allowing for smooth playback across varying internet connection qualities. The case is assigned to District Judge Dale A. Kimball. The choice of Utah as a venue is notable; while DISH is headquartered in Colorado, it maintains a significant operational presence in American Fork, Utah, tapping into the "Silicon Slopes" tech talent pool. This local presence provides a strategic rationale for filing in a district known for having its own local patent rules.

The case is procedurally significant due to its direct linkage with multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. On August 28, 2024, the district court granted Aylo's motion to stay the case pending the outcome of IPRs that Aylo and other defendants had filed to challenge the validity of DISH's ABR patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This stay is typical in modern patent litigation where defendants use PTAB challenges as a defensive measure to invalidate asserted patents in a faster, more specialized forum. The outcome of these IPRs, and any subsequent appeals to the Federal Circuit, will likely be dispositive for this and other related lawsuits in DISH's extensive litigation campaign against various streaming service providers.

Following a stay pending a parallel patent review, the patent litigation between DISH and Aylo is poised to resume after the underlying review was abruptly terminated. The case, filed in the District of Utah, was paused in its early stages, but a procedural ruling at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has removed the basis for the stay.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

2024-01-24: Complaint for Patent Infringement Filed
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. (collectively, "DISH") filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Aylo Freesites Ltd and 9219-1568 Quebec Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The complaint (ECF No. 1) alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,991,234 B2, which relates to multi-bitrate content streaming technology. This suit is part of a broader, multi-front legal battle between the companies over DISH's adaptive video streaming patent portfolio, with related cases in other districts and countries.

2024-05-24: Court Grants Motion for Alternate Service
Reflecting the international nature of the defendants, the court granted a motion filed by DISH to serve the summons and complaint on the foreign entities via certified mail and email to their known U.S. counsel. This procedural step highlighted the contentious and multi-jurisdictional nature of the disputes between the parties.

2024-08-28: Case Stayed Pending Inter Partes Review (IPR)
Shortly after the litigation commenced, Defendant Aylo Freesites filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), challenging the validity of the claims in the '234 patent. This IPR was docketed as IPR2024-00940.

Subsequently, Aylo filed a motion in the district court to stay the litigation (ECF No. 30) until the PTAB completed its review. On August 28, 2024, Judge Dale A. Kimball granted the motion. In his Memorandum Decision and Order (ECF No. 36), the judge reasoned that a stay was appropriate because the case was in its infancy, a PTAB decision could simplify or even dispose of the issues, and DISH would not suffer undue prejudice from a delay.

2026-02-03: Parallel PTAB Review is Vacated and Terminated
In a significant and unexpected development, the Director of the USPTO issued an order initiating a sua sponte Director Review of the IPR proceeding. In the order (Paper 75), the Director vacated a prior Final Written Decision and dismissed Aylo's petition.

The dismissal stemmed from DISH's argument that Aylo had failed to name its co-defendant, 9219-1568 Quebec Inc., as a real party in interest (RPI) in the IPR petition. The Director determined that correcting the petition to add the co-defendant as an RPI would change the petition's effective filing date. This new date fell outside the one-year statutory window for filing an IPR after being served with an infringement complaint, as mandated by 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Consequently, the petition was deemed time-barred and the proceeding was terminated.

Outcome and Current Posture

As of May 9, 2026, the district court case remains officially stayed. However, the termination of the IPR proceeding that formed the basis for the stay has fundamentally altered the litigation's posture. With the PTAB review concluded, the primary justification for pausing the district court case no longer exists. It is now highly probable that DISH will file a motion to lift the stay to resume the patent infringement proceedings. The case has not reached substantive milestones such as claim construction, and no trial date has been set.

Plaintiffs' Counsel of Record

Plaintiffs DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV 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 Hatch Law Group, P.C., serving as local counsel.

Notices of requirements for pro hac vice appearance were sent by the court to the three Baker Botts attorneys on January 25, 2024 (Dkt. ECF Nos. 4, 5, 6), indicating their roles as out-of-state lead counsel. Brent O. Hatch signed and filed the original complaint and subsequent motions on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Lead Counsel

Name	Firm & Office	Notable Experience
G. Hopkins "Hop" Guy, III (Lead Counsel)	Baker Botts L.L.P. (Palo Alto, CA)	A veteran IP litigator who recently secured a major victory for DISH by reversing a $469 million patent infringement jury verdict in a Utah federal court.
Ali Dhanani (Of Counsel)	Baker Botts L.L.P. (Houston, TX)	Focuses on patent litigation for media and telecommunication companies and has represented DISH in multiple prior patent disputes, including cases involving streaming technology.
Kurt Pankratz (Of Counsel)	Baker Botts L.L.P. (Dallas, TX)	A first-chair trial lawyer and Chair of his firm's Dallas IP department, with extensive experience in high-stakes patent and trade secret litigation for technology clients.

Local Counsel

Name	Firm & Office	Notable Experience
Brent O. Hatch (Local Counsel)	Hatch Law Group, P.C. (Salt Lake City, UT)	An experienced Utah litigator who has previously handled major litigation for DISH Network, Apple, and 21st Century Fox.

Note: While Adam M. Pace of Hatch Law Group, P.C. has appeared for DISH alongside Brent O. Hatch in a related patent case in the same district (Case 2:23-cv-00552), docket entries for the current case (2:24-cv-00066) reviewed thus far only show filings by Brent O. Hatch.

Based on a review of court filings and related documents, the following counsel have been identified representing the defendants, Aylo Freesites Ltd and 9219-1568 Quebec Inc.

Lead Counsel

Attorneys from Venable LLP appear to be serving as lead counsel for the defendants, representing them in both the district court case and the parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

• Name: Frank M. Gasparo
  Role: Lead Counsel
  Firm: Venable LLP, New York, NY
  Note: Mr. Gasparo is co-chair of Venable's IP Litigation Technology Group and his representation of Aylo is noted in filings for the related IPR proceedings. His firm biography highlights extensive experience in patent litigation in U.S. district courts and before the PTAB.

• Name: Ralph A. Dengler
  Role: Counsel
  Firm: Venable LLP, New York, NY
  Note: Mr. Dengler is a first-chair trial attorney whose experience includes defending streaming media technology companies in patent litigation across multiple districts and in parallel PTAB proceedings. He is listed as counsel for Aylo in other litigation involving DISH.

• Name: J. Daniel Kang
  Role: Counsel
  Firm: Venable LLP, New York, NY
  Note: Mr. Kang's practice focuses on complex patent litigation involving technologies such as streaming media and computer software, and he has experience in cases across the U.S. and Europe.

• Name: Ian G. Paquette
  Role: Counsel
  Firm: Venable LLP, New York, NY
  Note: Mr. Paquette is listed as counsel for Aylo alongside his Venable colleagues in related litigation against DISH in the District of Utah.

• Name: Parker G. Zimmerman
  Role: Counsel
  Firm: Venable LLP, New York, NY
  Note: A declaration from a related PTAB proceeding identifies Mr. Zimmerman as being involved in the strategic and substantive aspects of the Utah district court case (2:24-cv-00066). He is also listed as counsel in other Utah litigation between the parties.

Local Counsel

• Name: Erik A. Christiansen
  Role: Local Counsel
  Firm: Parsons Behle & Latimer, Salt Lake City, UT
  Note: A docket entry from March 2024 identifies Mr. Christiansen as counsel for both defendants in this case. His firm profile indicates over 35 years of experience as a commercial litigation trial attorney.