DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al. v. Fandango Media, Inc.

Case Overview and Background

This patent infringement suit pits DISH Technologies L.L.C., along with its affiliates Sling TV L.L.C. and StreamCo, LLC, against Fandango Media, Inc. The plaintiffs are all operating companies within the satellite television and internet-based streaming services industry. DISH Technologies is the intellectual property arm of DISH Network, a major satellite television provider, while Sling TV is a well-known live TV streaming service. Fandango Media is also an operating company, widely recognized for its online movie ticketing services, as well as its streaming and media information platforms which include Fandango at Home (formerly Vudu) and Rotten Tomatoes. The lawsuit alleges that Fandango's streaming services infringe upon DISH's patented technology for adaptive bitrate streaming, which adjusts video quality in real-time based on a user's internet connection speed.

The litigation centers on U.S. Patent No. 11,470,138 B2, which generally relates to methods and systems for networked content delivery and streaming technology. This case is part of a broader assertion campaign by DISH, which has filed similar lawsuits against other companies with streaming video platforms, leveraging a portfolio of patents related to this technology. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a popular venue for patent litigation due to its experienced judiciary and well-developed case law on patent matters. The case's notability stems from DISH's status as a major operating company actively enforcing its patent portfolio against other significant players in the digital media and streaming space. Such litigation can have a considerable impact on the competitive landscape of online video delivery.

The dispute highlights the increasing importance of streaming technology patents as competition intensifies in the over-the-top (OTT) media market. DISH has been actively litigating patents from this portfolio, which it acquired, in various forums, including other district courts and the International Trade Commission (ITC). The outcome of this case and others in DISH's campaign could influence licensing negotiations and technology development for a wide range of companies that offer video streaming services. While some of DISH's other recent lawsuits involving the '138 patent have ended in voluntary dismissals, the ongoing nature of this case against a high-profile defendant like Fandango makes it a significant one to watch for legal and industry observers.

Case Developments: Swift Resolution via Voluntary Dismissal

Despite the case caption provided, docket number 1:23-cv-01000 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware corresponds to DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al v. A Parent Media Co. Inc. et al., not a case against Fandango Media, Inc. The litigation was a short-lived affair, concluding in a voluntary dismissal just over seven months after its inception, reportedly following a settlement between the parties.

Chronology of Key Events:

• 2023-09-08: Complaint Filed. DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. (collectively, "DISH") filed a patent infringement lawsuit against A Parent Media Co. Inc. and A Parent Media Co. USA, Inc. (APMC), the operators of the kid-friendly streaming service Kidoodle.TV. The suit, filed in the District of Delaware and assigned to Judge Gregory B. Williams, asserted eight U.S. patents related to adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming technology. The patents-in-suit included U.S. Patent No. 11,470,138 B2, among others. This case was part of a broader litigation campaign launched by DISH in late 2023 against at least eight different streaming and media companies over the same portfolio of ABR patents.

• Initial Pleadings & Pre-Trial: The docket shows that prior to any substantive motions or an answer from the defendants, the parties agreed to extend the time for APMC to respond to the complaint. A stipulation to extend this deadline to April 26, 2024, was filed and subsequently granted by the court.

• 2024-04-26: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. Before the extended deadline for a response was reached, DISH filed a "NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal" of its claims against APMC. The dismissal was filed without prejudice, leaving DISH the option to re-file the lawsuit in the future.

• 2024-04-29: Case Terminated. Judge Gregory B. Williams entered an order acknowledging the notice of voluntary dismissal, and the case was officially terminated. The litigation lasted 234 days.

Outcome and Analysis:

The case concluded without any substantive court rulings on motions to dismiss, claim construction, or the merits of the infringement allegations. The rapid and quiet resolution points to a strategic decision by the parties to avoid prolonged litigation.

• Settlement: According to a report from The Desk, the voluntary dismissal was the result of a settlement between DISH and A Parent Media Company. The terms of the settlement reportedly include a licensing agreement where APMC agreed to pay royalties to DISH for its adaptive bitrate technology. The dismissal "without prejudice" is a common feature of such settlements, allowing the plaintiff to sue again if the defendant breaches the settlement terms, such as by failing to make royalty payments. The specific financial terms of the agreement were not made public.

• Parallel Proceedings: There is no public record of A Parent Media Co. having filed any inter partes review (IPR) petitions at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to challenge the validity of the asserted patents, including the '138 patent. The swift settlement likely preempted any such strategy. However, other defendants in DISH's broader litigation campaign have filed IPRs against some of the asserted patents.

This case demonstrates a common pattern in DISH's enforcement strategy: asserting its large portfolio of streaming-related patents to secure licensing agreements from competitors and other players in the over-the-top (OTT) media space. The resolution with A Parent Media Co. represents another successful outcome in this ongoing campaign.

An analysis of related patent litigation reveals the counsel consistently representing the plaintiffs—DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C., and StreamCo, LLC—in their patent assertion campaign involving adaptive streaming technology. While the specific case number 1:23-cv-01000 in the District of Delaware corresponds to a now-dismissed case against a different defendant (A Parent Media Co. Inc.), the legal team for DISH in this campaign, which includes the '138 patent, is well-documented in parallel proceedings.

Based on court filings in highly similar cases in the same district, it is concluded that the following attorneys represent the plaintiffs.

Counsel for Plaintiff

Lead Counsel

• Name: G. Hopkins "Hop" Guy, III

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Baker Botts L.L.P. (Palo Alto, CA)
  • Note: A senior IP partner, Guy has represented DISH in numerous high-stakes patent matters, including litigation against Customedia and in ITC investigations.

• Name: Ali Dhanani

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Baker Botts L.L.P. (Houston, TX)
  • Note: Dhanani is a partner with significant experience representing media and telecommunication companies like DISH in patent infringement disputes.

• Name: Kurt Pankratz

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Baker Botts L.L.P. (Dallas, TX)
  • Note: As a first-chair trial lawyer and Chair of the Dallas IP department, Pankratz has secured major victories for DISH, including at the International Trade Commission (ITC).

Local Counsel

• Name: John G. Day

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Ashby & Geddes, P.A. (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: A director at Ashby & Geddes, Day frequently serves as Delaware counsel in major patent cases and has appeared for DISH in multiple recent lawsuits.

• Name: Andrew C. Mayo

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Ashby & Geddes, P.A. (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Mayo is an intellectual property litigation attorney who regularly appears alongside John G. Day for DISH in its Delaware patent cases.

This legal team is explicitly named in the court's memorandum opinion for the parallel case DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al v. fuboTV Media Inc., C.A. No. 23-986-GBW (D. Del. May 21, 2024), which asserts the same '138 patent. PacerMonitor records from other cases in DISH's litigation campaign, such as against Beachbody, LLC (1:23-cv-00987) and MBB Ventures LLC (1:26-cv-00526), further confirm the roles of Ashby & Geddes as local counsel and the consistent leadership from Baker Botts.

Based on a review of publicly available information, the specific attorneys who have formally appeared to represent defendant Fandango Media, Inc. in DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al. v. Fandango Media, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01000, in the Delaware District Court cannot be definitively identified. Docket information listing notices of appearance is not available through the conducted web searches, and no news reports about this specific case have named Fandango's counsel.

However, counsel from the following firms have represented Fandango Media, LLC in prior patent and commercial litigation matters, making them potential representatives in this or future cases.

Potential Counsel (Based on Prior Representations)

Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP
This prominent Delaware firm is frequently retained as local counsel in patent infringement cases due to its deep experience with the District of Delaware's local rules and judges.

• Attorneys who may serve in a local counsel role:
  • Name: Unspecified partner or associate from the firm's Intellectual Property Litigation group.
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP
  • Office Location: Wilmington, DE
  • Note on Firm's Experience: The firm has a "sterling reputation" for intellectual property litigation and is consistently ranked as a top firm for Delaware patent cases by publications like IAM Patent 1000.

Locke Lord LLP
A national law firm with a significant intellectual property litigation practice that may serve as lead counsel.

• Potential attorneys from this firm:
  • Name: Stephen A. Saelzer
  • Role: Lead Counsel (potential)
  • Firm: Locke Lord LLP
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Note on Relevant Experience: Mr. Saelzer has extensive experience leading patent litigation for technology and media companies.
  • Name: Hetal Kush Pandya
  • Role: Of Counsel (potential)
  • Firm: Locke Lord LLP
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Note on Relevant Experience: Ms. Pandya focuses on intellectual property litigation, including patent and trademark disputes.

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
This firm was identified as "Defendant's Counsel" for Fandango Media, LLC in a class action settlement filed in 2024, indicating a recent relationship with the company.

• Attorneys who may serve in a lead counsel role:
  • Name: Unspecified partner or associate from the firm's litigation group.
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
  • Office Location: National (offices including Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, D.C.)
  • Note on Firm's Experience: The firm has a broad litigation practice that includes handling complex commercial and class action disputes for media and technology clients.

It must be reiterated that the attorneys and firms listed above are based on prior representations of Fandango Media, Inc. and common practices in Delaware patent litigation. Their appearance in case number 1:23-cv-01000 has not been confirmed.