Dish Network 2009 Annual Report Download - page 45

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 45 of the 2009 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 152

  • 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
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140
  • 141
  • 142
  • 143
  • 144
  • 145
  • 146
  • 147
  • 148
  • 149
  • 150
  • 151
  • 152

35
Katz Communications
During 2007, Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. (“Katz”) filed a patent infringement action against us in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit alleges infringement of 19 patents
owned by Katz. The patents relate to interactive voice response, or IVR, technology.
We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe any of the
asserted patents, we may be subject to 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. We
cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability
or damages.
Multimedia Patent Trust
On February 13, 2009, Multimedia Patent Trust (“MPT”) filed suit against us, EchoStar, DirecTV and several other
defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California alleging infringement of United
States Patent Nos. 4,958,226, 5,227,878, 5,136,377, 5,500,678 and 5,563,593, which relate to video encoding,
decoding and compression technology. MPT is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without
itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. In December 2009, we and EchoStar reached a settlement with
MPT that did not have a material impact on our results of operations.
NorthPoint Technology
On July 2, 2009, NorthPoint Technology, Ltd. filed suit against us, EchoStar, and DirecTV in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,208,636 (the
‘636 patent). The ‘636 patent relates to the use of multiple low-noise block converter feedhorns, or LNBFs, which
are antennas used for satellite reception.
We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the
asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction
that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict
with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.
Personalized Media Communications
During 2008, Personalized Media Communications, Inc. filed suit against us, EchoStar and Motorola, Inc. in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos.
4,694,490, 5,109,414, 4,965,825, 5,233,654, 5,335,277, and 5,887,243, which relate to satellite signal processing.
We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe any of the
asserted patents, we may be subject to 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. 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 courts attempting to certify nationwide
classes on behalf of certain of our 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 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 state court granted limited discovery which
ended during 2004. The plaintiffs claimed we did not provide adequate disclosure during the discovery process.
The state court agreed, and denied our motion for summary judgment as a result. In April 2008, the state court