Dish Network 2013 Annual Report Download - page 169

DISH NETWORK CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
F-59
Our Board of Directors has established a Special Litigation Committee to review the factual allegations and legal
claims in these actions. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits or determine the
extent of any potential liability or damages.
Norman IP Holdings, LLC
On September 15, 2011, Norman IP Holdings, LLC (“Norman”) filed a patent infringement complaint (the “2011
Action”) against Lexmark International Corporation (“Lexmark”) and Brother International Corporation
(“Brother”), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of United
States Patent Nos. 5,592,555 (the “555 patent”), 5,530,597 (the “597 patent”) and 5,502,689 (the “689 patent”) by
Lexmark, and infringement of the 555 patent and the 689 patent by Brother. On January 27, 2012, Norman filed a
second amended complaint in the 2011 Action that added us as a defendant, among others, in which it asserted the
555 patent and the 689 patent against us. On September 21, 2012, Norman served us with preliminary infringement
contentions related to the 555 patent and the 689 patent, as well as the 597 patent, which outlined Norman’s claims
with respect to certain DISH products. On February 8, 2013, Norman filed a third amended complaint in the 2011
Action, in which it added claims against us alleging infringement of the 597 patent. On April 8, 2013, Norman filed
a fourth amended complaint in the 2011 Action, in which it added new claims against us alleging infringement of
additional DISH products. On May 1, 2013, Norman filed a fifth amended complaint in the 2011 Action, in which
it named Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Xerox Corporation, ZTE (USA) Inc.,
and ZTE Solutions, Inc. as defendants, in addition to us. On July 9, 2013, the Court ordered Norman to file a new
sixth amended complaint limiting Norman’s claims against us to those specifically referenced in its September 21,
2012 preliminary infringement contentions. As a result, on July 10, 2013, Norman filed a sixth amended complaint
in the 2011 Action, in which it asserted claims against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C.
replacing us as defendant, alleging that the use of certain Broadcom chipsets in DISH DVR systems infringes the
689 patent. In addition, Norman withdrew all infringement claims against us regarding the 555 patent and the 597
patent. On July 12, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the 2011 Action, because Norman failed to comply with the
Court’s July 9, 2013 order.
In addition, on May 10, 2013, Norman filed a separate patent infringement complaint (the “2013 Action”) against us
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, asserting infringement of the 555, 597 and 689
patents, as well as United States Patent Nos. 5,608,873 (the “873 patent”) and 5,771,394 (the “394 patent”). The
infringement claims asserted in the 2013 Action relate to different DISH products than Norman identified in the
2011 Action. On June 26, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the 2013 Action, because Norman failed to join
necessary parties. Our motion to dismiss is pending, and no trial date has been set for the 2013 Action.
On October 18, 2013, the parties stipulated that Norman will dismiss all of its claims against DISH Network L.L.C.
in the 2011 Action, and re-assert them in the 2013 Action.
The 689 patent relates to a clock generator capable of shut-down mode and clock generation method, the 555 patent
relates to a wireless communications privacy method and system, the 597 patent relates to an interrupt enable circuit
that allows devices to exit processes without using a hardware reset, the 873 patent relates to a device and method
for providing inter-processor communication in a multi-processor architecture, and the 394 patent relates to a servo
loop control apparatus having a master microprocessor and at least one autonomous streamlined signal processor.
Norman is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims
recited therein.
We intend to vigorously defend these cases. 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 cause us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot
predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits or determine the extent of any potential liability or
damages.