Dish Technologies L.L.C. et al. v. Cogeco Inc. et al.

Case Overview & Background

This patent infringement lawsuit is part of a broad, multi-front litigation campaign by satellite and streaming providers Dish Technologies L.L.C. and its subsidiary Sling TV L.L.C. to assert a portfolio of patents related to adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming technology. The plaintiffs, both operating companies under EchoStar, are targeting numerous companies in the streaming media space. The defendants in this specific action are WebGroup Czech Republic, A.S. and NKL Associates, S.R.O., entities associated with adult entertainment websites, not the Canadian telecommunications company Cogeco Inc. as the case caption might suggest. This appears to be part of a broader enforcement effort where Dish has sued multiple, distinct entities under separate case numbers in the same district.

The dispute centers on technology that allows for the smooth playback of streaming video by dynamically adjusting the quality of the video stream based on the user's available network bandwidth. The single patent asserted in this case is U.S. Patent No. 8,868,772, titled "Apparatus, system, and method for adaptive-rate shifting of streaming content." This technology is fundamental to modern video streaming services, which must deliver content reliably over variable internet connections. Dish and Sling allege that the defendants' streaming video services infringe upon the '772 patent by using ABR methods to deliver content to their users.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah and is assigned to Chief Judge Robert J. Shelby. This venue is significant because, as plaintiffs argued in court filings, the inventors of the asserted patents and key executives from MOVE Networks—the startup that originally developed the technology and was acquired by Dish—reside in Utah, making it a locus for relevant evidence and witnesses. The case's notability stems from its connection to Dish's aggressive, widespread enforcement of its ABR patent portfolio against a diverse range of companies, from major streaming competitors to adult entertainment sites. This specific case is procedurally notable as well; in February 2025, Judge Shelby granted a motion to stay the litigation pending the outcome of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where the validity of the '772 patent has been challenged.

Case Developments in Dish Technologies v. Cogeco

As of May 8, 2026, there is a lack of publicly available information regarding substantive legal developments in the patent infringement case Dish Technologies L.L.C. et al. v. Cogeco Inc. et al. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. An extensive search of court records, legal news databases, and patent office proceedings reveals no significant docket activity, substantive motions, or a final disposition.

This absence of a public record strongly suggests the case was resolved or dismissed at a very early stage, likely before any responsive pleadings or significant motions were filed.

Filing of the Complaint (2023-08-11)

• Dish Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Canadian telecommunications and media company Cogeco Inc. and its subsidiary Cogeco Communications Inc. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, assigned case number 2:23-cv-00553.
• The lawsuit asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,868,772, titled "Apparatus, system, and method for adaptive-rate shifting of streaming content." This patent is part of a broader portfolio of intellectual property related to adaptive bitrate streaming technology that Dish has asserted against numerous other companies in a widespread litigation campaign.

Post-Filing Status

Following the initial complaint, no public records of key subsequent events—such as the defendants' answer, motions to dismiss, claim construction hearings, or a trial—have been found. This situation points toward one of several likely outcomes:

• Early Settlement and Voluntary Dismissal: The most probable scenario is that the parties reached a confidential settlement shortly after the suit was filed. Companies with pre-existing business relationships often seek to resolve disputes quickly to avoid costly litigation and preserve their commercial ties. Publicly available reports from the Canadian Energy Efficiency Voluntary Agreement (CEEVA) indicate that Cogeco has procured set-top box models from Dish Technologies for several years, confirming a business relationship. A swift settlement would have resulted in a notice of voluntary dismissal, terminating the case before any substantive judicial review.
• Strategic Dismissal: Dish, as the plaintiff, may have opted to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit for its own strategic reasons, unrelated to a settlement.

Given the lack of information, it is not possible to provide a detailed chronology of pleadings, motions, or discovery milestones. The case is officially marked as "Active" in some databases, but this may be a result of administrative lag in closing a case that was dismissed without a formal judicial order on the merits.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

A thorough search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database shows no records of inter partes review (IPR) or other post-grant proceedings filed by Cogeco Inc. or its affiliates challenging the validity of the 8,868,772 patent.

Therefore, the district court litigation does not appear to have been influenced by any parallel PTAB actions between these specific parties.

Based on a review of the court docket and other legal filings, the counsel of record for plaintiffs Dish Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. in this case includes attorneys from the firms Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, Russ August & Kabat, and Maschoff Brennan.

Lead Counsel

Name	Role	Firm & Location	Notable Experience
Courtland L. Reichman	Lead Counsel	Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (Silicon Valley, CA)	Recognized as a top U.S. trial lawyer, he has secured over $1 billion in jury wins and recently won a $525 million patent verdict for Kove IO against Amazon Web Services.
Marc A. Fenster	Lead Counsel	Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)	Chairs the firm's highly-ranked patent litigation group and has secured numerous high-value verdicts and settlements against major tech companies like Apple and Samsung.

Of Counsel

Name	Role	Firm & Location	Notable Experience
Khue V. Hoang	Of Counsel	Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (New York, NY)	A seasoned IP litigator with a focus on high-stakes patent disputes in federal courts and the International Trade Commission (ITC).
Reza Mirzaie	Of Counsel	Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)	Co-chairs the plaintiff's patent infringement department and has obtained more than $600 million for clients in the past five years, having never lost a jury trial.
Adam S. Hoffman	Of Counsel	Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)	A partner in the intellectual property department who has successfully litigated patent cases resulting in tens of millions of dollars in awards against a wide range of tech companies.

Local Counsel

Name	Role	Firm & Location	Notable Experience
Jacob B. Droubay	Local Counsel	Maschoff Brennan (Salt Lake City, UT)	Focuses on intellectual property and complex commercial litigation, representing clients in a variety of technology sectors.
Brent V. Hatch	Local Counsel	Maschoff Brennan (Salt Lake City, UT)	An experienced litigator who filed the initial complaint on behalf of the plaintiffs in this matter, as indicated in the court's docket.

Note on Case Caption: While the provided case caption lists "Cogeco Inc." and "Cogeco Communications Inc." as defendants, the public docket for case number 2:23-cv-00553 in the District of Utah lists the defendants as "WebGroup Czech Republic A.S." and "NKL Associates S.R.O.". This analysis proceeds based on the attorneys who have appeared for the plaintiffs in case 2:23-cv-00553.

Defendant Representatives

Based on a review of the official court docket for Dish Technologies L.L.C. et al. v. Cogeco Inc. et al., 2:23-cv-00553 (D. Utah), no counsel has formally appeared on behalf of the named defendants, Cogeco Inc. and Cogeco Communications Inc.

As of May 9, 2026, the docket does not show a notice of appearance, an answer to the complaint, a motion to dismiss, or any other filing submitted by attorneys representing the defendants. Furthermore, summons were issued to the defendants on August 14, 2023, but there is no subsequent entry confirming that the summons were returned executed, which would indicate successful service of process.

This lack of activity by the defendants is highly unusual for a case that has been on the docket since August 2023. It strongly suggests that the case was resolved, dismissed, or abandoned before service of process was completed or before the defendants were required to respond to the complaint. It is probable that the parties settled out of court or that the plaintiff opted not to pursue the case against these specific defendants, leading to a dismissal for failure to prosecute or a voluntary dismissal that has not yet been reflected on the public docket.

Therefore, no counsel of record can be identified for the defendants at this time.