DISH Technologies L.L.C. v. Philo, Inc.

In a legal battle between two operating companies in the streaming media sector, satellite and streaming provider DISH Technologies L.L.C. has sued competitor Philo, Inc. for patent infringement. DISH, a well-known entity in pay-TV and a subsidiary of EchoStar Corporation, is an active and aggressive patent litigator, frequently asserting its portfolio against other streaming services. The defendant, Philo, is a venture-backed over-the-top (OTT) streaming television company known for its "skinny bundle" of entertainment and lifestyle channels. The lawsuit accuses Philo's core streaming service—which delivers live and on-demand video content to users via its website, mobile applications, and smart TV apps—of infringing on DISH's patented technology.

The case centers on U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798 B2, which is part of DISH's broader portfolio related to adaptive bitrate streaming technology. This technology is fundamental to modern video streaming, allowing a service to adjust the quality of the video stream in real-time based on a user's available bandwidth and device capabilities to ensure smooth playback. The asserted patent generally covers methods and systems for managing the delivery of such variable-rate streaming content. This lawsuit is part of a wider litigation campaign by DISH, which has sued numerous other streaming companies, including Fubo and BritBox, over the same set of patents, signaling a strategic effort to license or litigate against competitors in the crowded OTT market.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, the case is situated in one of the nation's most popular venues for patent litigation due to its experienced judiciary and established body of case law. The specific judge assigned to the case could not be confirmed from available public sources. This venue is notable for judges like Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly, who has implemented standing orders requiring detailed disclosures of corporate ownership and litigation funding, which can impact non-practicing entities (NPEs) and other frequent filers. The case is significant as it highlights the ongoing intellectual property clashes between established media distribution companies like DISH and newer, venture-backed streaming services like Philo. The outcome could have broader implications for the streaming industry, potentially affecting licensing norms and the competitive landscape for OTT services.

Case Resolved Through Voluntary Dismissal, Likely Indicating Settlement

The patent infringement litigation initiated by DISH Technologies L.L.C. against streaming video providers under case number 1:23-cv-01000 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware concluded approximately seven months after its filing. While the case caption provided listed Philo, Inc. as the defendant, court records and news reports associated with this case number primarily identify the defendant as A Parent Media Co. Inc., the owner of the Kidoodle.TV streaming service. The matter was resolved via a voluntary dismissal, a common outcome in patent litigation that frequently points to a confidential settlement agreement between the parties.

Key Legal Developments (Chronological):

• Filing of the Complaint (2023-09-13): DISH Technologies L.L.C. filed a patent infringement lawsuit asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798 B2. This action was part of a broader litigation campaign by DISH against multiple streaming service providers over patents related to adaptive bitrate streaming technology. One court filing in a related case indicates the filing date for case 1:23-cv-01000 may have been September 8, 2023.

• Initial Pleadings: Publicly available records from web searches do not provide specific details on the answer or any counterclaims filed by the defendant in this particular case. In parallel cases filed by DISH against other streaming companies like fuboTV, defendants have filed motions to dismiss, arguing the asserted patents are invalid. It is plausible that similar defensive pleadings were filed or anticipated in this case before it was resolved.

• Pre-trial Motions and Discovery: The case was resolved before any substantive pre-trial motions, such as those for summary judgment, were decided. Similarly, the litigation did not advance to significant milestones like a Markman hearing for claim construction, which is typical for cases that settle early.

• Outcome: Voluntary Dismissal (2024-04-29): DISH filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, which was acknowledged by an order from Judge Gregory B. Williams, formally terminating the case. The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning DISH retains the right to re-file the lawsuit in the future if terms of a potential settlement are breached. The terms of the resolution were not publicly disclosed, but the nature of the dismissal strongly suggests a confidential settlement and licensing agreement was reached. This aligns with reports that DISH has settled several of its streaming patent lawsuits.

• Parallel PTAB Proceedings: There is no public record of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding being filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) against U.S. Patent 11,677,798 B2 by Philo, Inc. or A Parent Media Co. Inc. In other lawsuits, different defendants have challenged the validity of other DISH-asserted patents at the PTAB.

In summary, the litigation in case 1:23-cv-01000 followed a trajectory common for patent infringement suits brought by large portfolio holders like DISH. The case was filed, and before significant litigation expenses were incurred in discovery and claim construction, the parties reached a resolution, leading to a voluntary dismissal of the case. The specific involvement of Philo, Inc. under this case number could not be independently verified through the available search results.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record Identified in Streaming Patent Case

As of May 8, 2026, court filings identify attorneys from the Delaware firm Ashby & Geddes, P.A. and the California-based intellectual property firm Russ August & Kabat as counsel for plaintiff DISH Technologies L.L.C. in its patent infringement suit against Philo, Inc.

The case, captioned DISH Technologies L.L.C. v. Philo, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-01000, was one of several similar lawsuits DISH filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against various streaming companies in September 2023. This particular case, which public records sometimes list as against "A Parent Media Co. Inc.", was voluntarily dismissed by DISH on April 29, 2024. Due to the case's short lifespan, not all counsel may have filed notices of appearance, but filings in this and parallel cases reveal the legal team.

Local Counsel

• Name: John G. Day

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Ashby & Geddes, P.A. (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: A director at Ashby & Geddes, Day is an experienced Delaware litigator who frequently serves as local counsel in complex patent disputes before the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Docket entries from this case and the related DISH v. Beachbody, LLC (1:23-cv-00987) show Day filing documents on behalf of DISH.

• Name: Andrew C. Mayo

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Ashby & Geddes, P.A. (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Mayo is a director at Ashby & Geddes whose practice includes intellectual property litigation. PacerMonitor records from the related Beachbody case show him as counsel for DISH alongside John G. Day.

Lead Counsel

While a signed complaint specifically for the Philo case was not retrieved in public searches, the complaint filed in the parallel case DISH Technologies L.L.C. v. fuboTV Media Inc. (1:23-cv-00986), filed just two days prior, lists the following attorneys from Russ August & Kabat, who likely served as lead counsel in the Philo matter as well.

• Name: Marc A. Fenster

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Fenster chairs his firm's patent litigation group and has secured multiple nine-figure jury verdicts for patent holders in high-stakes technology cases.

• Name: Reza Mirzaie

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Mirzaie is a partner at the firm and has been part of trial teams with Marc Fenster that have won significant verdicts, including in SPEX Technologies, Inc. v. Western Digital Corp.

• Name: Adam S. Hoffman

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Hoffman is a partner whose practice focuses on patent litigation and has been involved in numerous actions on behalf of DISH and Sling TV.

• Name: C. Jay Chung

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Chung is a partner with experience in patent litigation across various technology sectors and has previously represented DISH-related entities in Federal Circuit appeals.

• Name: Neil A. Rubin

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Rubin is a partner at the firm active in its patent litigation group and was also counsel for an appellee in a Federal Circuit case alongside colleagues from the firm.

Counsel for Defendant Philo, Inc. in this matter has not been formally identified on the public docket, as the defendant listed in court records for case number 1:23-cv-01000 is A Parent Media Co. Inc.

Analysis of the case docket and related litigation indicates that the case caption provided, DISH Technologies L.L.C. v. Philo, Inc., may be inaccurate or that Philo, Inc. is a related entity to the documented defendant. Public records for the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, case number 1:23-cv-01000, identify the defendants as "A Parent Media Co. Inc." and "A Parent Media Co. USA, Inc." This case was part of a broader series of patent infringement lawsuits filed by DISH Technologies on September 8 and 13, 2023, against various streaming service providers.

The case against A Parent Media Co. Inc. was voluntarily dismissed by DISH on April 29, 2024. During the course of the litigation, the defendants were represented by counsel from the Delaware firm Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP.

Based on the representation in the documented case, the following attorneys appeared for the defendants:

Counsel for A Parent Media Co. Inc. (Case No. 1:23-cv-01000)

• Name: Philip A. Rovner

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Rovner is an experienced Delaware patent litigator who has represented major technology companies like Sonos and Cisco in high-stakes intellectual property disputes.

• Name: Jonathan A. Choa

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Choa focuses on intellectual property litigation and complex commercial disputes in Delaware's federal and state courts.

It is common practice for out-of-state lead counsel to retain a Delaware-based firm for their expertise in local court procedures. However, no lead counsel from another firm had formally appeared on the docket for the defendant before the case was dismissed. Filings indicate that the retention of experienced Delaware counsel was a key part of the defense strategy.

At present, no attorneys have filed a notice of appearance specifically on behalf of "Philo, Inc." in connection with this case number. The discrepancy in the defendant's name has not been clarified in the public record.