Dish Network 2006 Annual Report Download - page 44

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 44 of the 2006 Dish Network annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 132

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132

34
substantial damages, which may include treble damages and/or an injunction that could require us to materially
modify certain user-friendly features that we currently offer to consumers. Trial is currently scheduled for May
2007 in Tyler, Texas. On October 2, 2006, the Patent and Trademark Office granted our petition for reexamination
of the ‘746 patent. On October 27, 2006, the Patent and Trademark Office issued its initial office action rejecting all
of the claims of the ‘746 patent in light of several prior art references. Forgent will have an opportunity to challenge
the initial office action. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the
extent of any potential liability or damages.
Finisar Corporation
Finisar Corporation (“Finisar”) recently obtained a $100.0 million verdict in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas against DirecTV for patent infringement. Finisar alleged that DirecTV's electronic
program guide and other elements of its system infringe United States Patent No. 5,404,505 (the ‘505 patent).
On July 10, 2006, we, together with NagraStar LLC, filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware against Finisar that asks the Court to declare that they and we do
not infringe, and have not infringed, any valid claim of the ‘505 patent. Trial is not currently scheduled. We intend
to vigorously defend our rights in this action. In the event that a Court ultimately determines that we infringe this
patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages and/or an injunction that could
require us to modify our system architecture. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit
or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.
Trans Video
In August 2006, Trans Video Electronic, Ltd. (“Trans Video”) filed a patent infringement action against us in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit alleges infringement of United States
Patent Nos. 5,903,621 (the ‘621 patent) and 5,991,801 (the ‘801 patent). The patents relate to various methods
related to the transmission of digital data by satellite. Trial has been set for July 2008. We intend to vigorously
defend this case. In the event that a Court ultimately determines that we infringe any of the patents, we may be
subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages and/or an injunction. We cannot predict with any
degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.
Retailer Class Actions
During 2000, lawsuits were filed by retailers in Colorado state and federal court attempting to certify nationwide
classes on behalf of certain of our satellite hardware retailers. The plaintiffs are requesting the Courts declare certain
provisions of, and changes to, alleged agreements between us and the retailers invalid and unenforceable, and to award
damages for lost incentives and payments, charge backs, and other compensation. We are vigorously defending against
the suits and have asserted a variety of counterclaims. The federal court action has been stayed during the pendency of
the state court action. We filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts and against all plaintiffs. The plaintiffs
filed a motion for additional time to conduct discovery to enable them to respond to our motion. The Court granted
limited discovery which ended during 2004. The plaintiffs claimed we did not provide adequate disclosure during the
discovery process. The Court agreed, and recently denied our motion for summary judgment as a result. A trial date
has not been set. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any
potential liability or damages.
Enron Commercial Paper Investment
During October 2001, we received approximately $40.0 million from the sale of Enron commercial paper to a third
party broker. That commercial paper was ultimately purchased by Enron. During November 2003, an action was
commenced in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York against approximately 100
defendants, including us, who invested in Enron’s commercial paper. The complaint alleges that Enron’s October
2001 purchase of its commercial paper was a fraudulent conveyance and voidable preference under bankruptcy
laws. We dispute these allegations. We typically invest in commercial paper and notes which are rated in one of the
four highest rating categories by at least two nationally recognized statistical rating organizations. At the time of our