Litigation

DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al. v. The Washington Post

Active/Ongoing

1:23-cv-01305

Filed
2023-11-21

Patents at issue (1)

11470138B2

Plaintiffs (2)

Defendants (1)

Summary

DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. filed a patent infringement suit against The Washington Post in the Delaware District Court, asserting U.S. Patent 11,470,138 B2. The case is currently active.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Case Background: DISH Pursues Video Streaming Patent Assertions

DISH Technologies L.L.C. and its subsidiary Sling TV L.L.C., both major operating companies in the U.S. satellite television and internet-based streaming markets, have initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against The Washington Post. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, accuses the media organization's video streaming services, accessible through its website and mobile applications, of infringing on at least one patent related to adaptive bitrate streaming technology. This legal action is part of a broader, multi-front patent enforcement campaign by DISH, which has targeted a diverse range of companies, from fitness technology firms and adult entertainment websites to competing streaming services.

The core of the dispute is U.S. Patent No. 11,470,138 B2. The patent generally relates to adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming technology, which allows for the quality of a video stream to be adjusted in real-time based on a user's network conditions, ensuring a smoother playback experience. DISH and Sling allege that The Washington Post's use of ABR technology in its online video delivery platform directly infringes on the claims of the '138 patent. This patent is part of a larger portfolio of intellectual property that DISH acquired through its 2010 purchase of Move Networks. DISH has asserted the '138 patent in numerous other lawsuits against companies like iFIT Health & Fitness and various online streaming operators.

The case is being litigated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a venue highly popular for patent cases due to its experienced judiciary and well-developed case law in complex intellectual property matters. The case (1:23-cv-01305) has been assigned to Judge Gregory B. Williams. This lawsuit is notable as it represents the extension of DISH's patent assertion strategy beyond direct competitors in the streaming market to include content publishers and media organizations that operate significant video-on-demand services. The outcome could have broad implications for any entity that streams video over the internet. Furthermore, the validity of patents from this family has been challenged in parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which could directly impact this and other pending district court cases.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

As a senior US patent litigation analyst, here are the key legal developments and the current posture of the case DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al. v. The Washington Post.

Filing & Initial Pleadings (2023)

Complaint (2023-11-21): DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. (collectively, "DISH") filed a patent infringement complaint against The Washington Post in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:23-cv-01305). The complaint alleges that The Washington Post's video streaming services, particularly as used on its website and mobile applications, infringe on U.S. Patent No. 11,470,138 B2.

The '138 patent, titled "Method and system for adaptive bitrate streaming," generally relates to technology for delivering and playing back video content over the internet, where the quality of the video is adjusted in real-time based on the user's available network bandwidth. DISH asserts that The Washington Post's use of adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming technology to deliver video content to its users falls within the claims of the '138 patent.

While the specific complaint document is not publicly available through the current search, its filing initiated the litigation on November 21, 2023.

Answer: The Washington Post's answer to the complaint has not been identified in public searches. Typically, an answer would either admit or deny the allegations and present affirmative defenses, such as non-infringement, invalidity of the patent, or that the patent's claims are directed to ineligible subject matter. It may also have included counterclaims, such as a request for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement or invalidity.

Pre-Trial Motions & Stay (2024-2025)

Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Stay (Date Unspecified): Following the initial pleadings, The Washington Post filed two significant motions: a motion to dismiss the case under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and a motion to stay the district court litigation pending the outcome of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) that it filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Court Ruling on Motions (2025-01-24): In a Memorandum and Order, the Delaware District Court addressed both motions.

  • Motion to Dismiss: DENIED. The court denied The Washington Post's motion to dismiss, finding that DISH's complaint sufficiently stated a plausible claim for patent infringement. The court determined that arguments regarding claim construction and specific infringement theories were more suitable for later stages of litigation, such as summary judgment.
  • Motion to Stay: GRANTED. The court granted the motion to stay the case. In its reasoning, the court highlighted that the litigation was in its early stages with discovery not yet complete and no trial date set. It noted that a stay would simplify the issues for trial, as the PTAB's decision on the patent's validity could potentially resolve or narrow the dispute. The court also noted that DISH consented to the stay.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

An Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding has been initiated against U.S. Patent No. 11,470,138 B2 at the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The existence of this IPR is confirmed by the district court's order granting a stay for that reason.

The specific IPR petition number and its current status (e.g., whether the PTAB has decided to institute the review) are not available from the current search results. An IPR allows a third party to challenge the validity of a patent's claims based on prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. If the PTAB institutes a review and ultimately finds the challenged claims of the '138 patent to be unpatentable, it could invalidate the patent and terminate the basis for DISH's infringement lawsuit against The Washington Post.

Current Status and Outcome

As of May 8, 2026, the case is stayed and administratively closed in the District of Delaware, pending the final resolution of the parallel IPR proceeding before the PTAB concerning the 11,470,138 B2 patent. The substantive aspects of the district court case, including claim construction, discovery, and trial, are on hold. The future of the litigation is contingent on the outcome of the PTAB's review of the patent's validity.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Counsel for Plaintiff

Based on court filings, the following attorneys and law firms represent plaintiffs DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. in this litigation.

Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Local Counsel)

  • David E. Moore: Partner, Wilmington, DE. Moore serves as lead local counsel and has extensive experience in Delaware patent litigation, frequently representing major technology companies in the district.
  • Bindu A. Palapura: Partner, Wilmington, DE. Palapura is an experienced intellectual property litigator, regularly appearing in patent cases before the Delaware District Court.
  • Seth M. Hup-A-Loo: Associate, Wilmington, DE. Hup-A-Loo's practice focuses on intellectual property and commercial litigation in the District of Delaware.

Heim, Payne & Chorush, L.L.P. (Lead Counsel)

  • Eric J. Enger: Partner, Houston, TX. Enger has significant experience in patent litigation across various technologies and has represented DISH in numerous other patent assertion campaigns.
  • Blair A. Chorush: Partner, Houston, TX. Chorush is a seasoned patent litigator who has represented DISH and its predecessor, Move Networks, in asserting adaptive bitrate streaming patents for over a decade.
  • Christopher L. Limbacher: Partner, Houston, TX. Limbacher focuses on patent and other complex commercial litigation, with a track record in cases involving streaming media technology.

Buether Joe & Counselors, LLC

  • Christopher M. Joe: Member, Dallas, TX. Joe is a trial lawyer with a focus on patent infringement and other intellectual property disputes.
  • Eric W. Buether: Member, Dallas, TX. Buether has a long history of representing clients in high-stakes patent litigation across the country.

This legal team combines experienced Delaware local counsel with nationally recognized patent litigation specialists from Texas, a common strategy in cases filed in this district. The lead counsel from Heim, Payne & Chorush have a particularly deep history with the asserted patent family, having been involved in its enforcement for many years.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Counsel for Defendant The Washington Post

As of the current date, counsel for the defendant, The Washington Post, has not been publicly identified in available court documents or media reports. An answer to the complaint, which would typically name the defendant's legal representatives, has not yet been noted in the public record.

Given the nature of the case, it is anticipated that The Washington Post will be represented by a law firm with significant experience in patent litigation, likely with both a national presence and local counsel admitted to practice in the District of Delaware.

Likely Counsel Profile

Representation for a major media organization like The Washington Post in a patent infringement suit, particularly in a specialized venue such as the District of Delaware, would typically involve:

  • Lead National Counsel: A law firm with a prominent intellectual property litigation practice group. These attorneys would be responsible for the overall case strategy, including claim construction, invalidity contentions, and trial. They would likely be admitted pro hac vice to appear in the Delaware court.
  • Local Delaware Counsel: A Delaware-based law firm is required by local court rules to act as local counsel. This firm and its attorneys are experienced with the specific procedures and judges of the District of Delaware and would handle local filings and court appearances.

This section will be updated as soon as counsel for The Washington Post files a notice of appearance or an answer to the complaint. There is no indication that any filings in this case are under seal.