Litigation

DISH Technologies LLC et al. v. WebGroup Czech Republic A.S. et al.

Active

2:23-cv-00553

Filed
2023-08-22

Patents at issue (1)

11470138

Plaintiffs (2)

Defendants (2)

Summary

The case is active. The defendants have filed a motion to transfer venue.

Case overview & background

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

Case Overview: DISH Asserts Streaming Patents Against Major Adult Entertainment Operator

Satellite broadcast provider DISH Network and its streaming subsidiary, Sling TV, are actively enforcing a portfolio of patents related to adaptive bitrate streaming technology. In this case, they allege that two Czech entities, WebGroup Czech Republic A.S. and NKL Associates SRO, infringe U.S. Patent No. 11,470,138. The defendants operate some of the world's most visited adult entertainment websites, including XVideos and XNXX, which allegedly use the patented streaming technology to deliver video content to users in the United States. This litigation is part of a broader assertion campaign by DISH, which has filed similar lawsuits against other streaming services.

The plaintiffs, DISH Technologies LLC and Sling TV LLC, are Colorado-based operating companies in the television and video streaming market. The defendants, WebGroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates, are Prague-based entities that operate in the "Motion Picture and Sound Recording Industries" and "Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals" sectors, respectively. The technology at issue, adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming, is a method for dynamically adjusting the quality of a video stream in real-time based on a user's network conditions to ensure smooth playback. The asserted '138 patent specifically relates to methods and systems for this type of networked content delivery. DISH acquired the patents as part of its 2010 purchase of MOVE Networks.

The case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah before Chief Judge Robert J. Shelby. The choice of venue is significant; DISH argued that the ABR technology was developed and commercialized at its Utah office and that key personnel, including inventors and the original prosecuting attorney from the MOVE Networks acquisition, reside in the state. The defendants unsuccessfully moved to transfer the case. The litigation has been impacted by parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In response to the lawsuit, the defendants filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) of the asserted patent. On February 20, 2025, Judge Shelby granted the defendants' motion to stay the district court case pending the conclusion of the IPR. This highlights a common strategy in patent litigation where an accused infringer challenges a patent's validity at the USPTO in an attempt to pause or terminate the more costly district court litigation.

Key legal developments & outcome

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

Legal Battle Over Video Streaming Technology Unfolds in Utah

Case Summary (Active as of 2026-05-08)

DISH Technologies and Sling TV have brought a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah against two Czech Republic-based companies, WebGroup Czech Republic A.S. and NKL Associates SRO, who are allegedly associated with adult video websites. The plaintiffs assert that the defendants' video streaming services infringe on U.S. Patent No. 11,470,138, which covers adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming technology. This technology allows for the real-time adjustment of video quality based on a user's internet bandwidth. The case is currently in the pre-trial phase, with significant rulings on jurisdictional and venue challenges having been issued.

Chronological Developments

Filing and Initial Pleadings (2023)

  • 2023-08-22: Complaint Filed DISH Technologies LLC and Sling TV L.L.C. filed a complaint against WebGroup Czech Republic A.S. and NKL Associates S.R.O., alleging willful infringement of multiple patents related to ABR technology, including the '138 patent. The suit was filed in the District of Utah. The plaintiffs contended that the technology, which was developed and commercialized by their Utah office, is used by the defendants' websites.

Substantive Pre-Trial Motions (2023-2025)

  • Motion to Transfer Venue: The defendants filed a motion to transfer the case from the District of Utah to another venue, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
  • 2024-07-23: Motion to Transfer Denied Chief Judge Robert J. Shelby denied the defendants' motion to transfer venue. The court noted that key individuals involved in the invention and commercialization of the patents at issue, including inventors and the original prosecuting attorney from MOVE Networks, Inc. (which originally owned the patents), reside in Utah.
  • Motion to Dismiss: In August 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them and that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
  • 2025-02-20: Motion to Dismiss Denied Chief Judge Shelby denied the motion to dismiss. The court found that the defendants had waived their personal jurisdiction defense by previously filing the motion to transfer. The judge also determined that the defendants' arguments were more suitable for a summary judgment motion after discovery and claim construction had occurred.
  • Motion to Stay: The defendants also filed a motion to stay the proceedings. The court granted this motion. The specific reasons for the stay are not detailed in the available documents but often relate to parallel proceedings, such as those at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings (2025)

The defendants have challenged the validity of the patent-in-suit at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

  • 2025-01-17: IPR Petition Filed WebGroup Czech Republic A.S. and NKL Associates SRO filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) against U.S. Patent No. 11,470,138, case number IPR2025-00468.
  • 2025-07-16: IPR Institution Discretionarily Denied The PTAB exercised its discretion to deny the institution of the IPR. A discretionary denial often occurs for reasons other than the merits of the invalidity arguments, such as the advanced state of a parallel district court case. This decision means the patent's validity will be adjudicated in the Utah district court litigation without a concurrent PTAB trial.

DISH has been actively asserting its streaming patent portfolio against various companies in different jurisdictions. The '138 patent has been part of infringement actions against other streaming services like fuboTV. The defendants in this case, WebGroup and NKL, have also been involved in other U.S. litigation where personal jurisdiction was a central issue.

Current Status

As of May 2026, the case remains active in the District of Utah. With the denial of the defendants' motions to transfer and dismiss, and the PTAB's refusal to institute an IPR, the litigation is poised to proceed to claim construction, discovery, and potentially a trial on the merits of infringement and validity. The court's order granting a stay may impact the immediate timeline of these next steps.

Plaintiff representatives

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

Plaintiffs' Counsel of Record

DISH Technologies and Sling TV have retained a combination of national and local counsel from the law firms Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP and Workman Nydegger.

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP

  • Taylor J. Pfingst (Lead Counsel) - Partner, Denver, CO. Pfingst has experience in patent infringement, trade secret, and other intellectual property disputes, representing clients in federal courts, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).
  • Afsaneh Ashley Ragheb (Of Counsel) - Attorney, Denver, CO. Ragheb focuses her practice on complex intellectual property litigation, including patent and trademark disputes.
  • Dario A. Machleidt (Of Counsel) - Partner, Seattle, WA. Machleidt's practice centers on intellectual property litigation and counseling, with a focus on patent, trade secret, and copyright cases across various technologies.
  • Kristopher L. Reed (Of Counsel) - Partner, Denver, CO. Reed has represented clients in a wide range of intellectual property matters, including patent litigation involving streaming media technology.
  • V. Andrew (Drew) Serby (Of Counsel) - Partner, Atlanta, GA. Serby has over two decades of experience litigating high-stakes patent infringement cases in district courts, the ITC, and the PTAB.

Workman Nydegger (Local Counsel)

  • David R. Wright (Local Counsel) - Shareholder, Salt Lake City, UT. Wright has extensive experience in patent, trademark, and copyright litigation and has been recognized as a top patent litigator in Utah.
  • Matthew D. Welling (Local Counsel) - Shareholder, Salt Lake City, UT. Welling's practice focuses on intellectual property litigation, particularly patent infringement cases.
  • J. Trevor histology (Local Counsel) - Shareholder, Salt Lake City, UT. Histology specializes in intellectual property litigation, with an emphasis on patent and trademark enforcement and defense.

The legal team representing DISH combines Kilpatrick Townsend's national patent litigation experience, particularly in technology sectors, with Workman Nydegger's deep expertise in the District of Utah. This structure is common in patent cases, leveraging a local firm's familiarity with the court's specific rules and judges. The appearance of counsel was noted in the initial complaint filed on August 22, 2023. (D.I. 2).

Defendant representatives

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

Counsel for Defendants

Defendants WebGroup Czech Republic A.S. and NKL Associates SRO are represented by attorneys from the intellectual property specialty firm Maschoff Brennan and the international law firm Cooley LLP. The team combines local Utah counsel with experienced patent litigators from major market offices.

Maschoff Brennan Laycock Gilmore Israelsen & Wright, LLP (Salt Lake City, UT)

  • R. Burns Israelsen (Local Counsel): A shareholder at Maschoff Brennan in Salt Lake City, Israelsen has extensive experience in patent, trademark, and copyright litigation in Utah.
  • Jared J. Braithwaite (Local Counsel): Also a shareholder in Maschoff Brennan's Salt Lake City office, Braithwaite's practice focuses on intellectual property and complex commercial litigation.

Cooley LLP

  • Orion Armon (Lead Counsel): A partner in Cooley's San Francisco office, Armon is a veteran patent litigator who has represented major technology companies in high-stakes disputes. Notably, he was part of the team that defended Meta against a $174.5 million patent infringement verdict involving live-streaming technology, which was ultimately overturned.
  • Matthew D. Gettinger (Of Counsel): A special counsel based in Cooley's New York office, Gettinger's practice centers on intellectual property litigation and counseling.
  • Julie M. Holloway (Of Counsel): A special counsel in Cooley's Reston, Virginia office, Holloway focuses on patent litigation in federal district courts and at the International Trade Commission (ITC).
  • Jordan R. Jaffe (Of Counsel): A partner in the San Francisco office, Jaffe has experience representing clients in patent cases involving video streaming, software, and consumer electronics.
  • Alexandra Leeper (Of Counsel): An associate in Cooley's San Francisco office, Leeper's practice includes patent and technology litigation.

The appearance of counsel from both firms was noted on the docket in connection with the defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Transfer Venue, filed on December 1, 2023 (Dkt. 26).