DISH Technologies L.L.C. v. fuboTV Inc.

Case Overview and Background

This patent infringement suit represents a key battleground in the escalating technology disputes within the live-streaming industry. Plaintiff DISH Technologies L.L.C., an operating company and subsidiary of DISH Network, has launched a broad litigation campaign to enforce its patent portfolio related to streaming technology. The defendant, fuboTV Inc., is a competing operating company that provides a "sports-first" virtual multichannel video programming distributor (vMVPD) service, offering subscribers live television channels over the internet as an alternative to traditional cable. This case is one of several similar lawsuits DISH has filed against various streaming and media companies, indicating a strategic effort to license or otherwise monetize patents it has developed or acquired.

The core of the dispute is fuboTV's alleged infringement of DISH's U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798 B2. This patent, and others in DISH's portfolio asserted in related cases, generally covers adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming technology. ABR technology is fundamental to modern video streaming, as it allows the quality of a video stream to adjust automatically based on a user's internet connection speed and network conditions, ensuring a smoother viewing experience without buffering. DISH accuses fuboTV's live streaming service of using this patented ABR technology without a license. The complaint follows what DISH describes as over four years of unsuccessful attempts to negotiate a licensing agreement with fuboTV, which ultimately concluded with fuboTV stating it did not believe a license was necessary.

The case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a premier venue for patent litigation due to its experienced judiciary and well-developed case law. The case is assigned to Judge Gregory B. Williams. This venue is particularly notable as its former Chief Judge, Colm F. Connolly, has been actively scrutinizing the ownership and funding of patent plaintiffs, which has impacted litigation strategies in the district. The lawsuit is significant not only for the two direct competitors but also for the wider streaming industry, as its outcome could set a precedent for how ABR technology patents are licensed and enforced. Underscoring the stakes, fuboTV has challenged the validity of the '798 patent and others in parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), seeking to invalidate the asserted claims.

Legal Developments in DISH v. fuboTV Patent Litigation

Case Posture: As of May 2026, the patent infringement lawsuit brought by DISH Technologies against fuboTV remains ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The case is in the pre-trial phase, with the defendant, fuboTV, having recently survived a motion to dismiss. A parallel proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has been instituted and is running concurrently, which could significantly impact the district court litigation.

Note on Case Number: While the provided case number is 1:23-cv-00963, extensive docket research reveals that the correct case number for the litigation between DISH Technologies L.L.C. and fuboTV Inc. is 1:23-cv-00986. The -963 docket number corresponds to a separate case filed by DISH against iFIT Health & Fitness Inc. This analysis proceeds based on the correct -986 docket.

Filing and Initial Pleadings

Complaint (2023-09-06): DISH Technologies L.L.C. and its affiliate Sling TV L.L.C. filed a patent infringement suit against fuboTV Inc. in the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:23-cv-00986). The complaint initially asserted eight patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798, related to adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming technology. This technology allows for the smooth streaming of content by adjusting the video quality based on a user's internet connection speed. DISH claimed that it had attempted to negotiate a license with fuboTV for four years prior to filing the suit.

Motion to Dismiss (2023-11-13): In lieu of an answer, fuboTV filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The motion argued that the asserted patent claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to an abstract idea. (D.I. 10 in 1:23-cv-00986).

Pre-Trial Motions and Rulings

Amended Complaint and Mooted Motion to Dismiss (2024-05-21): The court, under Judge Gregory B. Williams, granted DISH's motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (D.I. 33). Concurrently, the court denied fuboTV's initial motion to dismiss as moot, allowing fuboTV to raise the patent eligibility issues again at the summary judgment stage. This ruling allowed the case to proceed into discovery.

As of May 2026, there have been no publicly available rulings on claim construction (Markman), summary judgment, or significant discovery disputes that have been resolved by the court. The case is proceeding through the pre-trial schedule.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

IPR Petition Filing (2024-05-17): fuboTV Media Inc. filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of all 18 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798 B2, one of the patents asserted in the district court litigation. The IPR case is designated as IPR2024-00917.

IPR Institution (2024-11-21): The PTAB issued a decision to institute the IPR, finding that fuboTV had established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the challenged claims were unpatentable as obvious over prior art.

Current Status of IPR: The IPR proceeding is ongoing. A final written decision on the patent's validity is expected from the PTAB around November 2025. This timeline runs parallel to the district court case. A finding of invalidity by the PTAB could be grounds for fuboTV to seek a stay of the district court case or file for summary judgment of invalidity.

Outlook

The litigation is currently proceeding on two parallel tracks: the infringement case in the District of Delaware and the validity challenge at the PTAB. The outcome of the IPR will likely have a substantial influence on the district court action. Should the PTAB invalidate the '798 patent, fuboTV would have a strong basis to exit the litigation. If the patent survives the IPR challenge, DISH's position in the Delaware case will be strengthened as it proceeds toward a potential claim construction hearing and trial. No settlement has been publicly announced.

Based on a review of court filings and other public records, the counsel of record for plaintiff DISH Technologies L.L.C. are from the firms Baker Botts L.L.P. and Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC.

Lead Counsel

Firm: Baker Botts L.L.P.

Attorneys from Baker Botts have a long-standing relationship with DISH, representing the company in numerous high-stakes patent infringement cases, including a significant victory involving the reversal of a $470 million jury verdict. The firm and its lawyers are frequently listed as counsel for DISH and its subsidiaries in patent disputes before federal courts and the International Trade Commission (ITC).

• G. Hopkins "Hop" Guy, III (Partner, Palo Alto, CA)
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • A veteran IP litigator with extensive trial and appellate experience, often leading representation for major technology clients like DISH in complex patent and trade secret matters.
• Eliot D. Williams (Partner, Palo Alto, CA)
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Co-chair of his firm's PTAB Trials practice, with deep experience in patent disputes before the USPTO and in federal courts, including arguing numerous appeals at the Federal Circuit.
• Ali Dhanani (Partner, Houston, TX)
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Focuses on IP litigation for media and telecommunication companies, defending clients in disputes related to over-the-top media delivery and other complex software technologies.
• Kurt Pankratz (Partner, Dallas, TX)
  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Identified as part of the broader team representing DISH in its patent assertion campaigns.

Local Counsel

Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC

This Wilmington-based firm specializes in patent litigation and frequently serves as Delaware counsel for parties in the state's busy district court. Both founding partners were identified as counsel for DISH in a May 2024 court order in a parallel case against Fubo Inc. involving the same family of patents.

• Stamatios Stamoulis (Partner, Wilmington, DE)
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • A founding partner of the firm with over 20 years of experience in intellectual property litigation, frequently appearing in the District of Delaware on behalf of patent holders.
• Richard C. Weinblatt (Partner, Wilmington, DE)
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • A registered patent attorney and founding partner of the firm who has focused on patent litigation and appellate work for over two decades in Delaware.

As of the case filing and subsequent appearances, the following counsel have been identified representing defendant fuboTV Inc.

Lead Counsel

Name	Role	Firm & Location	Relevant Experience
Tara D. Elliott	Lead Counsel	Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, D.C.	First-chair trial lawyer focusing on high-profile intellectual property disputes for major technology, retail, and manufacturing companies.
Gabriel K. Bell	Lead Counsel	Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, D.C.	Head of the firm's Intellectual Property Appellate Practice, with extensive experience arguing patent cases before the Federal Circuit.
Richard G. Frenkel	Lead Counsel	Latham & Watkins LLP, Menlo Park, CA	Former Director of IP at Cisco with over 30 years of experience as a trial lawyer in patent disputes for technology companies.

Of Counsel

Name	Role	Firm & Location	Relevant Experience
Rebecca L. Rabenstein	Of Counsel	Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, D.C.	Represents clients in all stages of patent litigation and previously clerked for Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore of the Federal Circuit.
Aaron Macris	Of Counsel	Latham & Watkins LLP, Boston, MA	Identified as counsel for the defendant in court filings; specific litigation experience is not detailed in the available search results.

Local Counsel

Name	Role	Firm & Location	Relevant Experience
Kelly E. Farnan	Local Counsel	Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE	Heads the firm's IP Group and is a highly-ranked litigator focused on complex patent disputes in the District of Delaware.