DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al. v. fuboTV Media Inc.

Streaming Giants Clash Over Adaptive Bitrate Technology

This patent infringement lawsuit pits direct competitors in the U.S. market for live television streaming services against one another. The plaintiffs are DISH Technologies L.L.C. and its subsidiary Sling TV L.L.C., both operating companies under their parent, EchoStar Corporation. DISH, a long-time satellite television provider, operates Sling TV as its internet-based live TV service. The defendant is fuboTV Media Inc., a competing "virtual multichannel video programming distributor" (vMVPD) that offers a sports-centric package of live streaming channels. DISH and Sling TV allege that fuboTV's streaming service, which provides live and on-demand video to subscribers, infringes patents they own related to adaptive bitrate streaming. This technology is fundamental to modern video streaming, allowing the quality of a video feed to adjust automatically based on the user's internet connection speed and network conditions to ensure smooth playback.

The patents asserted in this case are U.S. Patent No. 11,470,138, which relates to methods for managing content delivery based on network performance, and U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798, which describes a system for providing trick play functionality (like fast-forward and rewind) in adaptive bitrate streaming. The lawsuit is part of a broader litigation campaign by DISH, which has sued at least eight different companies over the same portfolio of patents, many of which were acquired through the $45 million purchase of Move Networks. This case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a venue known for its experienced patent judges and for handling a high volume of intellectual property disputes. As of a May 21, 2024, memorandum opinion, the case is before Judge Gregory B. Williams.

The case is notable as it represents a conflict between direct market competitors over core streaming technology. According to the complaint, DISH attempted to license the technology to fuboTV for over four years before filing suit. The procedural posture is also significant; after fuboTV moved to dismiss the original complaint, arguing the asserted patent claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, DISH successfully moved for leave to file an amended complaint asserting over a hundred additional claims from the same patents. This move was granted, and fuboTV's motion to dismiss was denied as moot. The dispute is further complicated by parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where other defendants have challenged the validity of DISH's patents, potentially impacting the district court litigation.

Patent Litigation Between DISH and fuboTV Paused for Patent Office Review

Wilmington, DE – May 8, 2026 – Patent litigation brought by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. against streaming service fuboTV Media Inc. in the District of Delaware is currently on hold. The court granted a stay in August 2024, pending the resolution of multiple administrative challenges fuboTV filed against the asserted patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Those challenges have largely succeeded in invalidating the patent claims at issue, with the final outcomes now resting with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The case highlights a common strategy in patent litigation where an accused infringer challenges the validity of the asserted patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in parallel with the district court case.

Key Legal Developments

Filing and Initial Pleadings (2023)

• 2023-09-06: DISH Technologies and Sling TV filed a complaint for patent infringement against fuboTV Media Inc. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, initially asserted eight patents related to adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming technology, which allows for the smooth streaming of content regardless of internet connection speeds. The patents at issue included U.S. Patent Nos. 11,470,138 and 11,677,798. DISH alleged that fuboTV's streaming service uses this patented technology without a license.
• 2023-12-14: After several extensions, fuboTV filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. FuboTV argued that the asserted patent claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming ineligible subject matter.

Amended Complaint and Motion to Stay (2024)

• 2024-05-07: In response to the motion to dismiss, DISH filed a motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint to add more patent claims from the same set of patents.
• 2024-05-21: The court, under Judge Gregory B. Williams, granted DISH's motion for leave to amend its complaint. This decision rendered fuboTV's motion to dismiss moot, with the court noting fuboTV could raise its patent eligibility arguments again at a later stage, such as summary judgment.
• Post-May 2024: Following the filing of several inter partes review (IPR) petitions with the PTAB, fuboTV filed a motion to stay the district court case pending the outcome of those administrative reviews.
• 2024-08-13: The district court granted fuboTV's motion, staying the litigation pending the PTAB's decisions. This is evidenced by a citation in a related case, DISH Technologies LLC et al v. WebGroup Czech Republic A.S. et al, which points to an order issued on this date in the fuboTV case.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings (2024-Present)

FuboTV, along with other companies sued by DISH over the same patent portfolio, launched a comprehensive validity challenge at the PTAB.

• 2024: FuboTV filed IPR petitions challenging all eight patents asserted by DISH.
• April 2024: The PTAB instituted review on IPRs for a first group of five of the asserted patents.
• Late 2024: The PTAB instituted review on the IPRs for the remaining three patents.
• April 2025: The PTAB issued Final Written Decisions for the first five IPRs, finding a majority of the challenged claims unpatentable.
• November 2025: The PTAB issued Final Written Decisions for the remaining three patents, finding all challenged claims of all three patents unpatentable.
• Late 2025 - Early 2026: DISH's requests for Director Review of the PTAB decisions were denied. Following these decisions, both DISH and fuboTV (along with the other petitioners) filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. These appeals are currently pending.

Current Posture and Outlook

As of May 2026, the district court case remains stayed. The focus of the dispute has shifted entirely to the Federal Circuit, which will review the PTAB's invalidity findings. The outcome of these appeals will be determinative for the Delaware litigation. If the Federal Circuit affirms the PTAB's decisions finding the patent claims unpatentable, DISH's infringement case against fuboTV will likely be dismissed. If the decisions are reversed, the stay in Delaware will likely be lifted, and the patent infringement litigation would resume.

Based on a review of the docket, including the initial complaint and subsequent court orders, the following attorneys represent the plaintiffs, DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., in this litigation. The legal team combines the national patent litigation expertise of Baker Botts L.L.P. with the specialized Delaware local knowledge of Ashby & Geddes, P.A.

Lead Counsel

• Name: G. Hopkins Guy, III

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Baker Botts L.L.P. (Palo Alto, CA)
  • Note: Guy is a seasoned patent litigator with extensive experience in federal courts and the ITC, often representing clients in complex technology disputes.

• Name: Ali Dhanani

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Baker Botts L.L.P. (Houston, TX)
  • Note: Dhanani's practice focuses on intellectual property litigation, and he has represented technology clients in patent infringement cases across the country.

• Name: Kurt Pankratz

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Baker Botts L.L.P. (Dallas, TX)
  • Note: Pankratz is an IP attorney with a focus on patent litigation and counseling, frequently working on cases involving sophisticated technologies.

Local Counsel

• Name: John G. Day

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Ashby & Geddes, P.A. (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: A director at Ashby & Geddes, Day has deep experience in the District of Delaware, handling corporate, commercial, and intellectual property litigation.

• Name: Andrew C. Mayo

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Ashby & Geddes, P.A. (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Mayo's practice concentrates on corporate and intellectual property litigation in Delaware's state and federal courts.

This counsel team was explicitly identified in a Memorandum Opinion issued by Judge Gregory B. Williams on May 21, 2024. The initial complaint, filed September 6, 2023, also lists attorneys from these firms.

Counsel for Defendant fuboTV Media Inc.

Defendant fuboTV Media Inc. is represented by a team of attorneys from the national law firm Latham & Watkins LLP, supported by local counsel from Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. in Delaware. The counsel of record was identified in court filings, including a Memorandum Opinion issued on May 21, 2024 (D.I. 38).

Lead Counsel

• Name: Tara D. Elliott

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Latham & Watkins LLP (Washington, D.C.)
  • Note: A first-chair trial lawyer, Elliott has a strong focus on high-stakes intellectual property disputes and previously clerked for Judge Gregory M. Sleet in the District of Delaware, giving her significant experience in that venue.

• Name: Richard G. Frenkel

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Latham & Watkins LLP (Menlo Park, CA)
  • Note: Frenkel is an experienced patent trial lawyer and former in-house Director of Intellectual Property at Cisco Systems, with a background in aerospace engineering.

Of Counsel

• Name: Gabriel K. Bell

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Latham & Watkins LLP (Washington, D.C.)
  • Note: As head of the firm's Intellectual Property Appellate Practice, Bell is a seasoned appellate litigator with particular expertise in patent eligibility issues under Section 101.

• Name: Inge A. Osman

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Latham & Watkins LLP (Washington, D.C.)
  • Note: Osman focuses on complex patent litigation, including matters before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and previously clerked at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

• Name: Rebecca L. Rabenstein

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Latham & Watkins LLP (Washington, D.C.)
  • Note: Rabenstein's appearance is noted in court filings alongside other Latham & Watkins attorneys representing fuboTV.

• Name: Aaron Macris

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Latham & Watkins LLP (Boston, MA)
  • Note: Macris is listed as counsel for fuboTV in the District of Delaware court filings.

Local Counsel

• Name: Kelly E. Farnan
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Farnan is a director at one of Delaware's oldest and largest firms, frequently serving as Delaware counsel in significant intellectual property litigation in the district.

In-House Counsel

• Name: Gina DiGioia
  • Role: In-House (Chief Legal Officer)
  • Firm: FuboTV Inc.
  • Note: As Chief Legal Officer, DiGioia oversees all legal matters for the company; she was fuboTV's first in-house general counsel, joining in 2020.