DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al. v. Vidgo, Inc.

Case Overview and Background

Parties and Accused Technology

Plaintiffs DISH Technologies L.L.C. and its subsidiary Sling TV L.L.C. are operating companies in the U.S. pay-television and over-the-top (OTT) streaming market. DISH operates its satellite television service, while Sling TV is its direct competitor to other "cord-cutting" live TV streaming services. The defendant, Vidgo, Inc., is also an operating company that offers a competing OTT live TV streaming service in the United States, with packages including sports, news, and entertainment content. This lawsuit alleges that Vidgo's streaming service, which provides live and on-demand video content to subscribers over the internet, infringes on DISH's patented technology. The core of the dispute centers on the use of adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming, a ubiquitous technology that adjusts the quality of a video stream in real time based on a user's available bandwidth to ensure smooth playback.

Asserted Patent and Procedural Posture

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, originally developed by Move Networks and acquired by a DISH-related entity, generally describes a method for breaking a content file into smaller segments ("streamlets") at different quality levels and intelligently requesting higher or lower quality segments based on network performance to provide a continuous playback experience. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. While the specific judge for this case is not definitively stated in all public documents, related cases in DISH's litigation campaign filed simultaneously in the same district have been assigned to Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. The choice of venue is significant as DISH has stated in related proceedings that key witnesses, including inventors and executives from Move Networks, reside in Utah.

Notability and Market Context

This case is notable as one front in a broad, multi-defendant patent enforcement campaign initiated by DISH and Sling TV in 2023 against numerous competitors in the streaming video market. DISH has filed similar lawsuits against fuboTV, BritBox, and others, asserting a portfolio of ABR patents acquired from Move Networks. This aggressive legal strategy suggests an effort by DISH to license its foundational streaming technology across the industry, targeting direct competitors to its Sling TV service. The litigation is also intertwined with challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While the '772 patent itself has been challenged via inter partes review (IPR), other patents in DISH's broader campaign have also faced IPRs, leading to stays in some of the parallel district court cases pending the outcomes of those administrative reviews. The resolution of this case and its companion suits could have significant financial and operational impacts on the competitive landscape of the U.S. video streaming industry.

Key Legal Developments in DISH v. Vidgo Patent Litigation

The patent infringement lawsuit filed by DISH Technologies against streaming competitor Vidgo Inc. in the District of Utah was swiftly impacted by the defendant's operational collapse, leading to a default judgment in favor of DISH. The case, part of a broad enforcement campaign for patents related to adaptive bitrate streaming technology, concluded before any substantive motions or claim construction could be litigated.

Filing and Default (2023-2024)

Complaint Filed (2023-09-11): DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Vidgo, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, docketed as Case No. 2:23-cv-00624. The complaint alleged that Vidgo's streaming service infringed U.S. Patent No. 8,868,772, which covers technology for adjusting the quality of a video stream based on the viewer's internet connection speed. This technology was originally developed by Move Networks, a company whose patent portfolio DISH acquired. Court filings in related cases indicate DISH had attempted to license the technology to Vidgo prior to filing suit.

Vidgo Ceases Operations (2023-09-29): Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Vidgo's streaming service went offline. Reports confirmed that the company had run out of money and was unable to pay its vendors, effectively ceasing all business operations. The company has not formally filed for bankruptcy but is defunct.

Clerk's Entry of Default (2024-01-09): After Vidgo failed to file an answer or otherwise defend itself in the lawsuit, the Clerk of the Court for the District of Utah entered a default against Vidgo upon DISH's request.

Default Judgment Granted (2024-02-12): DISH filed a motion for default judgment against the now-defunct Vidgo. On February 12, 2024, U.S. District Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. granted the motion. The judgment included a permanent injunction against Vidgo, prohibiting the company from infringing the '772 patent. The court deferred a decision on damages at that time.

Final Outcome

The litigation effectively ended with the entry of default judgment. Given that Vidgo is no longer in business, the permanent injunction is largely symbolic, and it is unlikely that DISH will be able to recover any monetary damages. The case was administratively closed, bringing a definitive end to the proceedings in the district court.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 8,868,772, has been the subject of multiple challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB):

• IPR2024-00048 (Institution Denied): A petition for inter partes review (IPR) filed by Aylo Freesites Ltd. against the '772 patent was denied by the PTAB on April 15, 2024. The board found the petitioner had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the patent's claims were invalid.
• IPR2024-00919 (Institution Granted): In a separate proceeding, a petition for IPR filed by another DISH competitor, fuboTV Media Inc., was granted on June 11, 2025. The PTAB determined there was a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims of the '772 patent is unpatentable. This proceeding, which also includes other joined petitioners, is ongoing and could impact the validity of the patent asserted in DISH's broader litigation campaign.

The PTAB's decision to institute the IPR in the fuboTV case occurred long after the Vidgo litigation had concluded and therefore had no bearing on its outcome. However, it is a significant development for other active cases in DISH's enforcement efforts.

Plaintiffs' Counsel of Record

DISH Technologies and Sling TV have retained a multi-firm legal team, including national counsel from Fish & Richardson and Nyemaster Goode, P.C., with Snell & Wilmer serving as local counsel in Utah. The specific attorneys who have appeared in this case are detailed below.

Lead Counsel

Name	Role	Firm	Office	Representative Experience
Y. Jing	Lead Counsel	Fish & Richardson P.C.	Washington, D.C.	Jing is a principal at Fish & Richardson and has experience in patent litigation involving complex technologies, including those related to telecommunications and software.
Jeffrey D. Harty	Lead Counsel	Nyemaster Goode, P.C.	Des Moines, IA	Harty is a shareholder and registered patent attorney who focuses on intellectual property litigation and has represented clients in patent disputes across the country.

Local Counsel

Name	Role	Firm	Office	Representative Experience
Stephen R. Lareau	Local Counsel	Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.	Salt Lake City, UT	Lareau is a partner whose practice includes intellectual property litigation, with experience in patent, trademark, and copyright disputes in federal courts.

This list is based on appearances filed on the public docket. The legal team may include other attorneys who have not formally appeared.

Defendant Representatives

No counsel entered an appearance on behalf of the defendant, Vidgo, Inc., in this case.

Court records show that after DISH filed the complaint on September 11, 2023, and served Vidgo, the defendant failed to file an answer or otherwise appear to defend itself in the litigation. This failure to respond occurred shortly after public reports confirmed that Vidgo had ceased all business operations in late September 2023 due to financial issues.

Given Vidgo's failure to participate in the case, DISH moved for a clerk's entry of default, which was entered on January 9, 2024. Subsequently, the court granted DISH's motion for default judgment on February 12, 2024, resolving the case without any defense counsel ever having been involved.

Complaint, DISH Techs. L.L.C. v. Vidgo, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00552 (D. Utah Sept. 11, 2023), ECF No. 2.
Affidavit of Service, DISH Techs. L.L.C. v. Vidgo, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00552 (D. Utah Oct. 16, 2023), ECF No. 6.
"Live TV Streaming Service Vidgo Shuts Down," Cord Cutters News, September 29, 2023.
Clerk's Entry of Default, DISH Techs. L.L.C. v. Vidgo, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00552 (D. Utah Jan. 9, 2024), ECF No. 9.
Order and Default Judgment, DISH Techs. L.L.C. v. Vidgo, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00552 (D. Utah Feb. 12, 2024), ECF No. 13.