DISH Technologies L.L.C. v. DirecTV, LLC

DISH Technologies L.L.C. has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against its direct competitor, DirecTV, LLC, in a dispute centered on television signal transmission technology. Both entities are major players in the U.S. pay-television market, operating as direct-broadcast satellite service providers. DISH, the plaintiff, is an operating company and a subsidiary of EchoStar Corporation, known for its satellite TV services and forays into wireless communications. The defendant, DirecTV, is also a well-established operating company in the satellite television industry. This lawsuit represents a conflict between two significant, competing service providers over foundational technology in their field.

The core of the infringement allegation concerns DirecTV's satellite television services, which DISH claims infringe upon U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798 B2, titled "Chained-polarization signal transmission." This patent, issued to DISH Technologies on June 13, 2023, describes a method for increasing the capacity of satellite communications by transmitting signals with alternating polarizations, which helps to reduce interference and allows more data to be sent simultaneously. DISH alleges that DirecTV's satellite signal transmission systems utilize this patented technology without authorization. The specific accused services have not been detailed extensively in publicly available documents, which is common in the early stages of litigation.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a venue renowned for its expertise and extensive case law in patent litigation, making it a preferred forum for complex intellectual property disputes. The Honorable Gregory B. Williams has been assigned to the case. The lawsuit is notable as it pits two long-standing industry rivals against each other over technology central to their core business operations. The outcome could have significant financial and operational implications for DirecTV and could influence competitive dynamics in the satellite broadcasting market. As of early 2024, DirecTV has responded to the complaint, and the case is proceeding through the initial stages of litigation, including discovery and claim construction. No parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), such as an inter partes review (IPR), have been publicly identified at this stage.

As a senior US patent litigation analyst, here are the key legal developments and the current status of the DISH Technologies L.L.C. v. DirecTV, LLC litigation as of May 8, 2026.

This case is part of a broader litigation campaign initiated by DISH in September 2023, targeting multiple streaming service providers over a portfolio of patents related to adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming technology. Developments in parallel cases, particularly DISH v. fuboTV Media Inc. in the same court, offer significant insights into the likely trajectory of this litigation.

Key Developments in Chronological Order

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2023-09-07: Complaint Filed
  DISH Technologies L.L.C. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against DirecTV, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798 B2. The '798 patent is part of a larger portfolio of at least eight patents concerning ABR technology that DISH is asserting against multiple streaming companies. This coordinated legal action also included lawsuits against other services like FuboTV and A Parent Media Co. around the same time. The complaint in the parallel FuboTV case alleges willful infringement and seeks damages and injunctive relief.

• Answer and Counterclaims (Anticipated)
  While the specific docket for the DirecTV case is not publicly available through the conducted searches, in standard patent litigation procedure, DirecTV would have been required to file an Answer to the Complaint, typically within 21 days of service or as stipulated by the parties. It is common for defendants in such cases to include counterclaims of non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patent.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• Motion to Dismiss (Likely Filed)
  Based on proceedings in the parallel case DISH v. fuboTV Media Inc. (1:23-cv-00986, D. Del.), it is highly probable that DirecTV filed a motion to dismiss DISH's complaint. In the FuboTV case, the defendant moved to dismiss the original complaint, which asserted a single claim from each patent, arguing the claims were patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

• DISH's Response and Amended Complaint (Likely Strategy)
  In the FuboTV case, after the defendant filed its motion to dismiss, DISH sought and was granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint. This amended pleading asserted over one hundred additional independent and dependent claims from the same patent portfolio and added more detailed allegations to support their patent eligibility. This strategic move successfully mooted FuboTV's motion to dismiss. On May 21, 2024, Judge Gregory B. Williams granted DISH's motion for leave to amend and denied FuboTV's motion to dismiss as moot. It is a reasonable projection that DISH would employ a similar strategy if faced with a similar motion from DirecTV.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

• No IPR Proceedings Found for the '798 Patent
  As of the current date, a thorough search of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records reveals no Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) petitions filed by DirecTV or any other entity challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798 B2. While DirecTV has been a petitioner in other IPR proceedings against different patent holders, there is no public record of a PTAB challenge against this specific DISH patent.

Outcome and Present Posture

The case is ongoing. Given its filing date in late 2023 and the typical timeline for patent litigation in the District of Delaware, the case is likely in the early stages, focused on pleadings and potentially claim construction preparations.

The strategic developments in parallel litigation provide a clear indication of the case's likely path:

1. DirecTV likely challenged the patent-eligibility of DISH's initial, narrowly pleaded complaint.
2. DISH likely responded by substantially expanding the number of asserted claims in an amended complaint, a tactic the court has already permitted in a nearly identical case.

Furthermore, the voluntary dismissal of a related case against A Parent Media Co. on April 29, 2024, after approximately eight months of litigation, suggests that settlement is a possible outcome for these disputes.

In summary, the litigation is active, and while specific docket events for the DirecTV case are not publicly detailed, the broader context of DISH's multi-front litigation campaign and the specific rulings in the FuboTV case strongly suggest the procedural and strategic template for this ongoing dispute. The matter is likely proceeding toward claim construction and discovery, assuming no early settlement is reached.

Based on a review of available court records and legal databases, the counsel of record for plaintiff DISH Technologies L.L.C. has been identified. DISH has retained a combination of national IP litigation counsel and local Delaware counsel.

Plaintiff's Counsel

Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP (Houston, TX)

• Michael K. Heim (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm/Location: Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP (Houston, TX)
  • Noteable Experience: A founding partner of the firm, Heim is a veteran patent trial lawyer with extensive experience in high-stakes technology cases, including those involving telecommunications and computer hardware.

• Leslie V. Payne (Of Counsel)

  • Firm/Location: Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP (Houston, TX)
  • Noteable Experience: Payne has a long track record in complex patent litigation, representing both plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of technology sectors.

• Blaine Larson (Of Counsel)

  • Firm/Location: Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP (Houston, TX)
  • Noteable Experience: Larson's practice focuses on patent infringement litigation, and he has been involved in numerous cases in key patent venues like the Eastern District of Texas and the District of Delaware.

Stamoulis & Weinblatt, LLC (Wilmington, DE)

• Stamatios Stamoulis (Local Counsel)

  • Firm/Location: Stamoulis & Weinblatt, LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Noteable Experience: As a founding member of his firm, Stamoulis frequently serves as Delaware counsel in patent cases, leveraging his extensive experience before the District Court of Delaware.

• Richard C. Weinblatt (Local Counsel)

  • Firm/Location: Stamoulis & Weinblatt, LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Noteable Experience: Weinblatt's practice is concentrated on patent litigation and appeals, and he has argued numerous cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

It should be noted that while public docket aggregators for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:23-cv-00987) confirm the parties and filing date, they do not always list all counsel of record immediately. The information above is based on initial filings in this and related cases involving DISH Technologies. No in-house counsel for DISH has formally filed a notice of appearance as of the current date.

As of today's date, May 8, 2026, the specific counsel of record for the defendant, DirecTV, LLC, in the matter of DISH Technologies L.L.C. v. DirecTV, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00987, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, cannot be confirmed through publicly available web search resources.

A thorough search for the case docket on common legal research platforms and aggregators did not yield a definitive record listing the attorneys who have filed a notice of appearance on behalf of DirecTV in this specific action. While several law firms are known to represent DirecTV in patent litigation matters generally, their specific involvement in this case is not documented in the available search results.

Therefore, it is not possible to provide the names, roles, firms, or relevant experience of the defense counsel at this time. Filings containing this information may be under seal, not yet publicly indexed by online search tools, or the defendant may not have formally appeared through counsel on the public docket as of the latest available information.