DISH Wireless L.L.C. et al. v. International Business Machines Corporation

Case Background: DISH Asserts Streaming Patent Against IBM

In a dispute between two major U.S. technology and telecommunications companies, DISH Wireless L.L.C. and its sister company DISH Technologies L.L.C. (collectively "DISH") have sued International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. DISH, a company that began in satellite television and has since expanded into streaming services and building out a 5G wireless network, alleges that IBM's video streaming products and services infringe on its patented technology. The lawsuit centers on U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798 B2, which relates to a "system and method for restarting delivery of content." This technology is fundamental to modern video-on-demand and streaming services that allow users to restart programs that are already in progress.

The plaintiffs, DISH Wireless and DISH Technologies, are operating companies and subsidiaries of EchoStar Corporation. They are responsible for developing and managing the technology behind DISH's various offerings, including its satellite TV service, Sling TV over-the-top (OTT) streaming service, and its growing 5G wireless business. The defendant, IBM, is a global technology corporation that provides a wide array of products and services, including software, consulting, and infrastructure. The allegedly infringing services include IBM's video streaming platforms, such as IBM Watson Media and IBM Video Streaming, which provide enterprise clients with the ability to stream live and on-demand video content. DISH contends that the functionality of these IBM platforms, specifically features that manage and deliver streaming video content, incorporate DISH's patented methods without a license.

Filed in the Southern District of New York (SDNY), the case brings the dispute to a venue known for its experience in handling complex commercial and intellectual property litigation. The case's significance lies in the context of the competitive "streaming wars," where established media companies and new entrants alike are heavily invested in the technology that underpins content delivery. DISH has shown a willingness to enforce its streaming patent portfolio through litigation, making this case a notable event for competitors in the over-the-top (OTT) media market. For IBM, a company with one of the world's largest patent portfolios and a long history of both enforcing and defending against patent claims, this lawsuit represents a challenge to its offerings in the lucrative enterprise video solutions market. The outcome could have broader implications for the licensing and use of foundational streaming technologies across the industry.

Key Legal Developments in DISH v. IBM Patent Litigation

Case Status: As of early 2026, the patent infringement litigation is stayed pending the resolution of parallel patent invalidity challenges before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Based on available docket information and PTAB records, the case caption appears to be DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al v. BritBox, LLC, not against International Business Machines Corporation. The provided case number, 1:23-cv-08971, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York corresponds to the BritBox litigation.

Here is a chronological summary of key legal developments:

Filing and Initial Pleadings

• 2023-10-12: DISH Wireless L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. filed a patent infringement complaint in the Southern District of New York, initiating the lawsuit. The complaint asserts U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798, titled "Apparatus, System, and Method for Multi-Bitrate Content Streaming."

• Information regarding the filing of an answer and any counterclaims by the defendant is not readily available in the public record at this time.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

In a move to challenge the validity of the asserted patent, petitions for inter partes review (IPR) were filed with the PTAB. These proceedings run parallel to the district court litigation and can have a significant impact on its course.

• IPR2024-00043: A petition was filed challenging the validity of claims in the '798 patent.
• IPR2024-00517: A separate IPR petition was also filed against the '798 patent.

The existence of these IPRs indicates a multi-front legal strategy by the accused infringers to invalidate the patent-in-suit.

Key Rulings and Case Posture

• 2024-08-07: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a decision in IPR2024-00517. The Board exercised its discretion to deny the institution of the inter partes review. PTAB decisions on institution are crucial, as they determine whether a full review of the patent's validity will proceed. The PTAB documents for this IPR explicitly list the DISH v. BritBox case (1:23-cv-08971) as a related proceeding.

• 2026-01-20: The parties in the district court case filed a Joint Status Letter with Judge Lorna G. Schofield, addressing the ongoing IPR proceedings.

• 2026-01-21: Based on the parties' joint request, the court issued a "Stipulated Stay Order." This order halts all proceedings and deadlines in the district court case until the final resolution of the IPRs identified by the parties, including any subsequent appeals. The stay reflects a common practice in patent litigation where courts await the outcome of PTAB reviews, which can simplify or even moot the district court case if the patent claims are found invalid. The order requires the parties to submit joint status reports every six months.

Outcome and Current Status

The litigation is currently in a state of suspension. The future of the case in the Southern District of New York is directly tied to the outcomes of the remaining parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. If the PTAB ultimately finds the asserted claims of the '798 patent to be invalid, it would likely lead to the dismissal of the district court case. Conversely, if the patent claims survive the PTAB challenges, the stay in the district court would be lifted, and the patent infringement litigation would resume. As of May 2026, the case remains stayed and ongoing.

Counsel for Plaintiff DISH Wireless L.L.C.

Based on initial filings and appearances, DISH has retained attorneys from the law firm Farney Daniels PC. The specific roles of each attorney may become clearer as the litigation progresses.

Yar R. Chaikovsky

• Role: Likely lead counsel.
• Firm: White & Case LLP (previously at Paul Hastings LLP), Palo Alto office.
• Note: Chaikovsky is a prominent intellectual property trial lawyer, now heading the technology IP litigation group at White & Case. He has served as lead trial counsel for major global technology companies in significant patent matters.

Steven R. Daniels

• Role: Counsel.
• Firm: Farney Daniels PC, Dallas, Texas.
• Note: The firm Farney Daniels PC has been noted in news reports for its representation of "patent trolls" or non-practicing entities in prior litigation.

Scott R. Farney

• Role: Counsel.
• Firm: Farney Daniels PC, Dallas, Texas.
• Note: His firm, Farney Daniels PC, has been involved in extensive patent litigation campaigns on behalf of patent assertion entities.

It is important to note that law firms that have previously represented DISH in other major litigation include Baker Botts LLP, Coblentz Law, and Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, though they have not yet appeared in this specific case.

Counsel for Defendant International Business Machines Corporation

International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) has retained counsel from the intellectual property specialty firm Desmarais LLP and the New York office of Fish & Richardson P.C. to serve as local counsel.

Based on notices of appearance and other filings in the Southern District of New York docket, the following attorneys are representing IBM:

• John M. Desmarais (Lead Counsel) - Desmarais LLP (New York)

  • Known for founding his own IP litigation boutique and for securing a $139.7 million jury verdict for IBM in a patent case against Groupon.

• Karim Oussayef (Of Counsel) - Desmarais LLP (New York)

  • Experience includes representing major technology companies in patent disputes, with a focus on software and telecommunications technologies.

• Robert C. Harrits (Of Counsel) - Desmarais LLP (New York)

  • Focuses on patent and other complex technology litigation and has been involved in cases for clients such as Cisco and IBM.

• Michael P. Sandonato (Local Counsel) - Fish & Richardson P.C. (New York)

  • Has extensive experience in patent litigation across a range of technologies and has represented clients in federal district courts and before the U.S. International Trade Commission.