v3.3.1.900

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies |
Commitments and Contingencies | Note 16.Commitments and Contingencies Commitments The following table summarizes our contractual obligations at December 31, 2015:
|  | Payments Due in the Year Ending December 31, |
|  | Total |  | 2016 |  | 2017 |  | 2018 |  | 2019 |  | 2020 |  | Thereafter |
|  | (In thousands) |
Long-term debt |  | $ | 1,890,803 |  | $ | 803 |  | $ | — |  | $ | — |  | $ | 990,000 |  | $ | — |  | $ | 900,000 |
Capital lease obligations |  | 332,838 |  | 34,895 |  | 34,502 |  | 36,287 |  | 40,143 |  | 44,558 |  | 142,453 |
Interest on long-term debt and capital lease obligations |  | 761,689 |  | 166,086 |  | 162,805 |  | 159,265 |  | 123,191 |  | 86,697 |  | 63,645 |
Satellite-related obligations |  | 1,134,217 |  | 534,871 |  | 165,992 |  | 119,976 |  | 55,654 |  | 53,662 |  | 204,062 |
Operating lease obligations |  | 100,274 |  | 26,324 |  | 19,469 |  | 11,919 |  | 9,800 |  | 8,543 |  | 24,219 |
Purchase and other obligations |  | 227,028 |  | 225,361 |  | 1,667 |  | — |  | — |  | — |  | — |
Total |  | $ | 4,446,849 |  | $ | 988,340 |  | $ | 384,435 |  | $ | 327,447 |  | $ | 1,218,788 |  | $ | 193,460 |  | $ | 1,334,379 |
“Satellite-related obligations” primarily include payments pursuant to agreements for the construction of the EchoStar XIX, EchoStar XXI, EchoStar XXIII, and EchoStar 105/SES-11 satellites, payments pursuant to launch services contracts and regulatory authorizations, executory costs for our capital lease satellites, costs under satellite service agreements and in-orbit incentives relating to certain satellites, as well as commitments for long-term satellite operating leases and satellite service arrangements. We incurred satellite-related expenses of $160.8 million, $178.8 million and $181.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Our “Purchase and other obligations” primarily consists of binding purchase orders for digital set-top boxes and related components. Our purchase obligations can fluctuate significantly from period to period due to, among other things, management’s control of inventory levels, and can materially impact our future operating asset and liability balances, and our future working capital requirements. The table above does not include amounts related to deferred tax liabilities, unrecognized tax positions and certain other amounts recorded in our noncurrent liabilities as the timing of any payments is uncertain. The table also excludes long-term deferred revenue and other long-term liabilities that do not require future cash payments. In certain circumstances, the dates on which we are obligated to pay our contractual obligations could change. Rent Expense For the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, we recorded $22.0 million, $21.3 million and $22.6 million, respectively, of operating lease expense relating to the leases of office space, equipment, and other facilities. Contingencies Patents and Intellectual Property Many entities, including some of our competitors, have or may in the future obtain patents and other intellectual property rights that cover or affect products or services directly or indirectly related to those that we offer. We may not be aware of all patents and other intellectual property rights that our products and services may potentially infringe. Damages in patent infringement cases can be substantial, and in certain circumstances can be trebled. Further, we cannot estimate the extent to which we may be required in the future to obtain licenses with respect to intellectual property rights held by others and the availability and cost of any such licenses. Various parties have asserted patent and other intellectual property rights with respect to components within our DBS products and services. We cannot be certain that these persons do not own the rights they claim, that these rights are not valid or that our products and services do not infringe on these rights. Further, we cannot be certain that we would be able to obtain licenses from these persons on commercially reasonable terms or, if we were unable to obtain such licenses, that we would be able to redesign our products and services to avoid infringement. Separation Agreement In connection with the Spin-off, we entered into a separation agreement with DISH Network that provides, among other things, for the division of certain liabilities, including liabilities resulting from litigation. Under the terms of the separation agreement, we have assumed certain liabilities that relate to our business, including certain designated liabilities for acts or omissions that occurred prior to the Spin-off. Certain specific provisions govern intellectual property related claims under which, generally, we will only be liable for our acts or omissions following the Spin-off and DISH Network will indemnify us for any liabilities or damages resulting from intellectual property claims relating to the period prior to the Spin-off, as well as DISH Network’s acts or omissions following the Spin-off. Litigation We are involved in a number of legal proceedings (including those described below) concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of our business activities. Many of these proceedings are at preliminary stages and/or seek an indeterminate amount of damages. We regularly evaluate the status of the legal proceedings in which we are involved to assess whether a loss is probable or there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or an additional loss may have been incurred and to determine if accruals are appropriate. We record an accrual for litigation and other loss contingencies when we determine that a loss is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. If accruals are not appropriate, we further evaluate each legal proceeding to assess whether an estimate of possible loss or range of loss can be made. There can be no assurance that legal proceedings against us will be resolved in amounts that will not differ from the amounts of our recorded accruals. Legal fees and other costs of defending litigation are charged to expense as incurred. For certain cases described below, management is unable to predict with any degree of certainty the outcome or provide a meaningful estimate of the possible loss or range of possible loss because, among other reasons, (i) the proceedings are in various stages; (ii) damages have not been sought or specified; (iii) damages are unsupported, indeterminate and/or exaggerated in management’s opinion; (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; and/or (vi) there are novel legal issues or unsettled legal theories to be presented or a large number of parties are involved (as with many patent-related cases). For these cases, however, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operating results or cash flows, though there is no assurance that the resolution and outcomes of these proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will not be material to our financial condition, operating results or cash flows for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. We intend to vigorously defend the proceedings against us. In the event that a court ultimately rules against us, we may be subject to adverse consequences, including, without limitation, substantial damages, which may include treble damages, fines, penalties, compensatory damages and/or other equitable or injunctive relief that could require us to materially modify our business operations or certain products or services that we offer to our consumers. In addition, adverse decisions against DISH Network in the proceedings described below could decrease the number of products and components we sell to DISH Network, which could have a material adverse effect on our business operations and our financial condition, results of operation and cash flows. California Institute of Technology On October 1, 2013, the California Institute of Technology (“Caltech”) filed suit against two of our subsidiaries, Hughes Communications, Inc. and Hughes Network Systems, LLC (“HNS”), as well as against DISH Network, DISH Network L.L.C., and dishNET Satellite Broadband L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 7,116,710; 7,421,032; 7,916,781; and 8,284,833, each of which is entitled “Serial Concatenation of Interleaved Convolutional Codes forming Turbo-Like Codes.” Caltech asserted that encoding data as specified by the DVB-S2 standard infringes each of the asserted patents. In the operative Amended Complaint, served on March 6, 2014, Caltech claims that the Hopper TM set-top box that we design and sell to DISH Network, as well as certain of our Hughes segment’s satellite broadband products and services, infringe the asserted patents by implementing the DVB-S2 standard. On September 26, 2014, Caltech requested leave to amend its Amended Complaint to add EchoStar Corporation and our subsidiary, EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. as defendants, as well as to allege that a number of additional set-top boxes infringe the asserted patents. On November 7, 2014, the Court rejected that request. Additionally, on November 4, 2014, the Court ruled that the patent claims at issue in the suit are directed to patentable subject matter. On February 17, 2015, Caltech filed a second complaint in the same district against the same defendants alleging that HNS’ Gen4 HT1000 and HT1100 products infringe the same patents asserted in the first case. We answered that second complaint on March 24, 2015. The trial for the first case which was scheduled to commence on April 20, 2015, was vacated by the Court on March 16, 2015 and a new trial date has yet to be set. On May 5, 2015, the Court granted summary judgment for us on a number of issues, finding that Caltech’s damages theory improperly apportioned alleged damages, that allegations of infringement against DISH Network, DISH Network L.L.C., and dishNET Satellite Broadband L.L.C. should be dismissed from the case, and affirming that Caltech could not assert infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The Court also granted motions by Caltech seeking findings that certain of its patents were not indefinite or subject to equitable estoppel. The Court otherwise denied motions for summary judgment, including a motion by Caltech seeking summary judgment of infringement. On May 14, 2015, the judge assigned to the case passed away. A new judge has not yet been formally assigned. The parties are discussing resolving these cases without further litigation. There can be no assurance that a settlement agreement will be reached. If a settlement agreement is not reached, we cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages and we intend to vigorously defend these cases. ClearPlay, Inc. On March 13, 2014, ClearPlay, Inc. (“ClearPlay”) filed a complaint against EchoStar Corporation and our subsidiary, EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., as well as against DISH Network and DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,898,799, entitled “Multimedia Content Navigation and Playback”; 7,526,784, entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content”; 7,543,318, entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content”; 7,577,970, entitled “Multimedia Content Navigation and Playback”; and 8,117,282, entitled “Media Player Configured to Receive Playback Filters From Alternative Storage Mediums.” ClearPlay alleges that the AutoHop™ feature of the Hopper TM set-top box infringes the asserted patents. On February 11, 2015, the Court stayed the case pending various third-party challenges before the United States Patent and Trademark Office regarding the validity of certain of the patents ClearPlay asserted in the case. CRFD Research, Inc. (a subsidiary of Marathon Patent Group, Inc.) On January 17, 2014, CRFD Research, Inc. (“CRFD”) filed a complaint against EchoStar Corporation and our subsidiary, EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., as well as against DISH Network, DISH DBS Corporation and DISH Network L.L.C., in United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 7,191,233 (the “233 patent”). The 233 patent is entitled “System for Automated, Mid-Session, User-Directed, Device-to-Device Session Transfer System,” and relates to transferring an ongoing software session from one device to another. CRFD alleges that certain of our set-top boxes infringe the 233 patent. On the same day, CRFD filed patent infringement complaints against AT&T Inc.; Comcast Corp.; DirecTV; Time Warner Cable Inc.; Cox Communications, Inc.; Level 3 Communications, Inc.; Akamai Technologies, Inc.; Cablevision Systems Corp. and Limelight Networks, Inc. On January 26, 2015, we and DISH Network filed a petition before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of the 233 patent, which was subsequently instituted along with two third-party petitions also challenging the validity of the 233 patent. On June 4, 2015, the litigation in the District Court was ordered stayed pending resolution of our petition before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and on January 16, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office held oral arguments on the merits of the petition. CRFD is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. Elbit On January 23, 2015, Elbit Systems Land and C4I LTD and Elbit Systems of America Ltd. (together referred to as “Elbit”) filed a complaint against our subsidiary HNS, as well as against Black Elk Energy Offshore Operations, LLC, Bluetide Communications, Inc. and Helm Hotels Group, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,240,073 (the “073 patent”) and 7,245,874 (“874 patent”). The 073 patent is entitled “Reverse Link for a Satellite Communication Network” and the 874 patent is entitled “Infrastructure for Telephony Network.” Elbit alleges that the 073 patent is infringed by broadband satellite systems that practice the Internet Protocol Over Satellite standard. Elbit alleges that the 874 patent is infringed by the manufacture and sale of broadband satellite systems that provide cellular backhaul service via connections to E1 or T1 interfaces at cellular backhaul base stations. On April 2, 2015, Elbit filed an amended complaint removing Helm Hotels Group as a defendant, but making similar allegations against a new defendant, Country Home Investments, Inc. On April 20, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss portions of Elbit’s amended complaint. On January 15, 2016, the defendants filed a petition challenging the validity of the 073 patent and the 874 patent. The Hopper Litigation On May 24, 2012, DISH Network L.L.C., filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (“ABC”), CBS Corporation (“CBS”), Fox Entertainment Group, Inc., Fox Television Holdings, Inc., Fox Cable Network Services, L.L.C. (collectively, “Fox”) and NBCUniversal Media, LLC (“NBC”). The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that DISH Network L.L.C is not infringing any defendant’s copyright, or breaching any defendant’s retransmission consent agreement, by virtue of the PrimeTime Anytime™ and AutoHop™ features of the Hopper™ set-top boxes we design and sell to DISH Network. A consumer can use the PrimeTime Anytime feature at his or her option, to record certain primetime programs airing on ABC, CBS, Fox, and/or NBC up to every night, and to store those recordings for up to eight days. A consumer can use the AutoHop feature at his or her option, to watch certain recordings the subscriber made with our PrimeTime Anytime feature, commercial-free, if played back at a certain point after the show’s original airing. Later on May 24, 2012, (i) Fox Broadcasting Company, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. and Fox Television Holdings, Inc. filed a lawsuit against DISH Network and DISH Network L.L.C. (collectively, “DISH”) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the PrimeTime Anytime feature, the AutoHop feature, as well as DISH’s use of Slingbox unit’s placeshifting functionality infringe their copyrights and breach their retransmission consent agreements, (ii) NBC Studios LLC, Universal Network Television, LLC, Open 4 Business Productions LLC and NBCUniversal Media, LLC filed a lawsuit against DISH in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the PrimeTime Anytime feature and the AutoHop feature infringe their copyrights, and (iii) CBS Broadcasting Inc., CBS Studios Inc. and Survivor Productions LLC filed a lawsuit against DISH in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the PrimeTime Anytime feature and the AutoHop feature infringe their copyrights. As a result of certain parties’ competing counterclaims and venue-related motions brought in both the New York and California actions, as described below, and certain networks filing various amended complaints, the claims have proceeded in the following venues: (1) the copyright and contract claims regarding the ABC and CBS parties in New York; and (2) the copyright and contract claims regarding the Fox and NBC parties in California. California Actions. On August 17, 2012, the NBC plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint in their California action adding EchoStar Corporation and our subsidiary EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. to the NBC litigation, alleging various claims of copyright infringement. We and our subsidiary answered on September 18, 2012. On November 7, 2012, the California court denied the Fox plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Hopper set-top box’s PrimeTime Anytime and AutoHop features, and the Fox plaintiffs appealed. On March 27, 2013, at the request of the parties, the Central District of California granted a stay of all proceedings in the action brought by the NBC plaintiffs, pending resolution of the appeal by the Fox plaintiffs. On July 24, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the Fox plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction as to the PrimeTime Anytime and AutoHop features. On August 7, 2013, the Fox plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, which was denied on January 24, 2014. The United States Supreme Court granted the Fox plaintiffs an extension until May 23, 2014 to file a petition for writ of certiorari, but they did not file. As a result, the stay of the NBC plaintiffs’ action expired. On August 6, 2014, at the request of the parties, the Central District of California granted a further stay of all proceedings in the action brought by the NBC plaintiffs, pending a final judgment on all claims in the Fox plaintiffs’ action. As discussed below, the Fox action was dismissed on February 11, 2016. As a result, the parties to the NBC action have until February 26, 2016 to file a status report indicating their intended course of action. No trial date is currently set on the NBC claims. In addition, on February 21, 2013, the Fox plaintiffs filed a second motion for preliminary injunction against: (i) DISH Network, seeking to enjoin the Hopper Transfers™ feature in the second-generation Hopper set-top box, alleging breach of a retransmission consent agreement; and (ii) EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. and DISH Network, seeking to enjoin the Slingbox unit’s placeshifting functionality in the second-generation Hopper set-top box, alleging copyright infringement by both defendants, and breach of the earlier-mentioned retransmission consent agreement by DISH Network. The Fox plaintiffs’ motion was denied on September 23, 2013. The Fox plaintiffs appealed, and on July 14, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the Fox plaintiffs’ motion. On October 17, 2014, the California court heard oral argument on the Fox plaintiffs’ and our respective motions for summary judgment. On January 12, 2015, the Court entered an order ruling on the parties’ respective summary judgment motions, holding that: (a) the Slingbox unit’s placeshifting functionality and the PrimeTime Anytime, AutoHop and Hopper Transfers features do not violate copyright law; (b) certain quality assurance copies (which were discontinued in November 2012) did violate copyright law; and (c) the Slingbox unit’s placeshifting functionality, the Hopper Transfers feature and certain quality assurance copies breach DISH’s retransmission consent agreement with Fox. At the parties’ joint request, the Court had stayed the case until January 15, 2016. Pursuant to a settlement agreement between us, DISH Network and the Fox plaintiffs, on February 10, 2016, we, DISH Network and the Fox plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice all of our respective claims pending in the California Court. That motion was granted on February 11, 2016. New York Actions. On October 9, 2012, the ABC plaintiffs filed copyright counterclaims in the New York action against EchoStar Technologies, L.L.C., with the CBS plaintiffs filing similar copyright counterclaims in the New York action against EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. on October 12, 2012. Additionally, the CBS plaintiffs filed a counterclaim alleging that DISH Network fraudulently concealed the AutoHop feature when negotiating the renewal of its CBS retransmission consent agreement. On November 23, 2012, the ABC plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Hopper set-top box’s PrimeTime Anytime and AutoHop features. On September 18, 2013, the New York court denied that motion. The ABC plaintiffs appealed, and oral argument on the appeal was heard on February 20, 2014 before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Pursuant to a settlement between us and the ABC parties, on March 4, 2014, the ABC parties withdrew their appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and, on March 6, 2014, we and the ABC parties dismissed without prejudice all of our respective claims pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The CBS claims in the New York action were scheduled for trial on May 29, 2015. However, on December 6, 2014 the parties to the CBS case reached a settlement agreement and all claims pending in New York Court were dismissed with prejudice on December 10, 2014. Kappa Digital, LLC On June 1, 2015, Kappa Digital LLC (“Kappa”) filed suit against our subsidiary HNS in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,349,135, entitled “Method and System for a Wireless Digital Message Service.” Kappa generally alleges that HNS’ “HughesNet Gen 4 residential internet service/systems” and “HughesNet Business Broadband service/systems” infringe its asserted patent. Kappa is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On February 1, 2016, Kappa filed a motion to dismiss its claims with prejudice and on February 2, 2016, the action was dismissed accordingly. LightSquared/Harbinger Capital Partners LLC (LightSquared Bankruptcy) On August 6, 2013, Harbinger Capital Partners LLC and other affiliates of Harbinger (collectively, “Harbinger”), a shareholder of LightSquared Inc. (“LightSquared”), filed an adversary proceeding against EchoStar Corporation, DISH Network, L-Band Acquisition, LLC (“LBAC”), Charles W. Ergen (our Chairman), SP Special Opportunities, LLC (“SPSO”) (an entity controlled by Mr. Ergen), and certain other parties, in the LightSquared bankruptcy cases pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”), which cases are jointly administered under the caption In re LightSquared Inc., et. al., Case No. 12 12080 (SCC). Harbinger alleged, among other things, claims based on fraud, unfair competition, civil conspiracy and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage related to certain purchases of LightSquared secured debt by SPSO. Subsequently, LightSquared intervened to join in certain claims alleged against certain defendants other than us, DISH Network and LBAC. On October 29, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed all of the claims against us in Harbinger’s complaint in their entirety, but granted leave for LightSquared to file its own complaint in intervention. On November 15, 2013, LightSquared filed its complaint, which included various claims against us, DISH Network, Mr. Ergen and SPSO. On December 2, 2013, Harbinger filed an amended complaint, asserting various claims against SPSO. On December 12, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed several of the claims asserted by LightSquared and Harbinger. The surviving claims included, among others, LightSquared’s claims against SPSO for declaratory relief, breach of contract and statutory disallowance; LightSquared’s tortious interference claim against us, DISH Network and Mr. Ergen; and Harbinger’s claim against SPSO for statutory disallowance. These claims proceeded to a non-jury trial on January 9, 2014, which concluded on January 17, 2014. The parties submitted post-trial briefs and a hearing for closing arguments occurred on March 17, 2014. In its Post-Trial Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered on June 10, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court rejected all claims against us and DISH Network, and it rejected some but not all claims against the other defendants. On July 7, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Harbinger’s motion for an appeal of certain Bankruptcy Court orders in the adversary proceeding. Michael Heskiaoff, Marc Langenohl, and Rafael Mann On July 10, 2015, Messrs. Michael Heskiaoff and Marc Langenohl, purportedly on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed suit against our subsidiary Sling Media, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that Sling Media Inc.’s display of advertising to its customers violates a number of state statutes dealing with consumer deception. On September 25, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and Mr. Rafael Mann, purportedly on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed an additional complaint alleging similar causes of action. On November 16, 2015, the cases were consolidated. Personalized Media Communications, Inc. During 2008, Personalized Media Communications, Inc. (“PMC”) filed suit against EchoStar Corporation, DISH Network and Motorola Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,109,414; 4,965,825; 5,233,654; 5,335,277; and 5,887,243, which relate to satellite signal processing. PMC is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. Subsequently, Motorola Inc. settled with PMC, leaving DISH Network and us as defendants. On July 18, 2012, pursuant to a Court order, PMC filed a Second Amended Complaint that added Rovi Guides, Inc. (f/k/a/ Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc.) and TVG-PMC, Inc. (collectively, “Gemstar”) as a party, and added a new claim against all defendants seeking a declaratory judgment as to the scope of Gemstar’s license to the patents in suit, under which DISH Network and we are sublicensees. On August 12, 2014, in response to the parties’ respective summary judgment motions related to the Gemstar license issues, the Court ruled in favor of PMC and dismissed all claims by or against Gemstar and entered partial final judgment in PMC’s favor as to those claims. On September 16, 2014, we and DISH Network filed a notice of appeal of that partial final judgment, which is pending. On November 5, 2014, PMC supplemented its expert report on damages, dropping a higher value damages theory and disclosing that it seeks damages ranging from $167 million to $447 million as of September 30, 2014, excluding pre-judgment interest and possible treble damages under Federal law. On May 7, 2015, we, DISH Network and PMC entered into a settlement and release agreement that provided, among other things, for a license by PMC to us and DISH Network for certain patents and patent applications and the dismissal of all of PMC’s claims in the action against us and DISH Network with prejudice. In June 2015, we and DISH Network agreed that we would contribute a one-time payment of $5.0 million towards the settlement under the agreements entered into in connection with the Spin-off and the 2012 Receiver Agreement. On June 4, 2015, the Court dismissed all of PMC’s claims in the action against us and DISH Network with prejudice. We have recorded a loss related to the settlement within “Selling, general and administrative expenses” in our consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive income (loss) of $5.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2015. Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C./LPL Licensing, L.L.C. On July 30, 2015, Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C. and LPL Licensing, L.L.C. (together referred to as “Phoenix”) filed a complaint against our subsidiary HNS in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,987,434, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Transacting Marketing and Sales of Financial Products”; 7,890,366, entitled “Personalized Communication Documents, System and Method for Preparing Same”; 8,352,317, entitled “System for Facilitating Production of Variable Offer Communications”; 8,234,184, entitled “Automated Reply Generation Direct Marketing System”; 6,999,938, entitled “Automated Reply Generation Direct Marketing System”; 8,738,435, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Presenting Personalized Content Relating to Offered Products and Services”; and 7,860,744, entitled “System and Method for Automatically Providing Personalized Notices Concerning Financial Products and/or Services.” Phoenix alleged that HNS infringes the asserted patents by making and using products and services that generate customized marketing materials. Phoenix is an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein against us. On October 16, 2015, Phoenix moved to dismiss the litigation against us without prejudice pursuant to a settlement agreement, and on November 3, 2015, the action was dismissed accordingly. Realtime Data LLC On May 8, 2015, Realtime Data LLC (“Realtime”) filed suit against EchoStar Corporation and our subsidiary HNS in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 7,378,992, entitled “Content Independent Data Compression Method and System”; 7,415,530, entitled “System and Methods for Accelerated Data Storage and Retrieval”; and 8,643,513, entitled “Data Compression System and Methods.” Realtime generally alleges that the asserted patents are infringed by certain HNS data compression products and services. Realtime is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. Shareholder Derivative Litigation On December 5, 2012, Greg Jacobi, purporting to sue derivatively on behalf of EchoStar Corporation, filed suit (the “Jacobi Litigation”) against Charles W. Ergen, Michael T. Dugan, R. Stanton Dodge, Tom A. Ortolf, C. Michael Schroeder, Joseph P. Clayton, David K. Moskowitz, and EchoStar Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The complaint alleges that a March 2011 attempted grant of 1.5 million stock options to Charles Ergen breached defendants’ fiduciary duties, resulted in unjust enrichment, and constituted a waste of corporate assets. On December 18, 2012, Chester County Employees’ Retirement Fund, derivatively on behalf of EchoStar Corporation, filed a suit (the “Chester County Litigation”) against Charles W. Ergen, Michael T. Dugan, R. Stanton Dodge, Tom A. Ortolf, C. Michael Schroeder, Anthony M. Federico, Pradman P. Kaul, Joseph P. Clayton, and EchoStar Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint similarly alleges that the March 2011 attempted grant of 1.5 million stock options to Charles Ergen breached defendants’ fiduciary duties, resulted in unjust enrichment, and constituted a waste of corporate assets. On February 22, 2013, the Chester County Litigation was transferred to the District of Nevada, and on April 3, 2013, the Chester County Litigation was consolidated into the Jacobi Litigation. Oral argument on a motion to dismiss the Jacobi Litigation was held February 21, 2014. On April 11, 2014, the Chester County litigation was stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. On March 30, 2015, the Court dismissed the Jacobi litigation, with leave for Jacobi to amend his complaint by April 20, 2015. On April 20, 2015, Jacobi filed an amended complaint, which on June 12, 2015, we moved to dismiss. Of the attempted grant of 1.5 million options to Mr. Ergen in 2011, only 800,000 were validly granted and remain outstanding. Technology Development and Licensing, LLC On January 22, 2009, Technology Development and Licensing, LLC (“TDL”) filed suit against EchoStar Corporation and DISH Network in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging infringement of United States Patent No. Re. 35,952, which relates to certain favorite channel features. TDL is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. The case has been stayed since July 2009, pending two reexamination petitions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which concluded in August 2015 resulting in 42 out of the 53 claims of the 952 patent being cancelled. As a result, the case resumed in August 2015. A trial date has not been set. TQ Beta LLC On June 30, 2014, TQ Beta LLC (“TQ Beta”) filed suit against DISH Network, DISH DBS Corporation, DISH Network L.L.C., as well as EchoStar Corporation and our subsidiaries, EchoStar Technologies, L.L.C, HSS, and Sling Media, Inc., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 7,203,456 (the “456 patent”), which is entitled “Method and Apparatus for Time and Space Domain Shifting of Broadcast Signals.” TQ Beta alleges that the Hopper, Hopper with Sling, ViP 722 and ViP 722k DVR devices, as well as the DISH Anywhere service and DISH Anywhere mobile application, infringe the 456 patent, but has not specified the amount of damages that it seeks. TQ Beta is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. During August 2015, EchoStar Corporation and DISH Network L.L.C. filed petitions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of the 456 patent. Trial is scheduled to commence on December 12, 2016. Two-Way Media Ltd On February 17, 2016, Two-Way Media Ltd (“TWM”) filed a complaint against EchoStar Corporation and our subsidiaries EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., EchoStar Satellite Services L.L.C., and Sling Media, Inc., as well as against DISH Network Corporation, DISH DBS Corporation, DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Network Service L.L.C., Sling TV Holding L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C., and Sling TV Purchasing L.L.C. TWM brought the suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,778,187; 5,983,005; 6,434,622; and 7,266,686, each entitled “Multicasting Method and Apparatus”; and 9,124,607, entitled “Methods and Systems for Playing Media.” TWM alleges that the SlingTV, Sling International, DISH Anywhere, and DISHWorld services, as well as the Slingbox units and Sling-enabled DISH DVRs, infringe the asserted patents. TWM is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. Other In addition to the above actions, we are subject to various other legal proceedings and claims, which arise in the ordinary course of our business. As part of our ongoing operations, the Company is subject to various inspections, audits, inquiries, investigations and similar actions by third parties, as well as by governmental/regulatory authorities responsible for enforcing the laws and regulations to which the Company is subject. Further, under the federal False Claims Act, private parties have the right to bring qui tam, or “whistleblower,” suits against companies that submit false claims for payments to, or improperly retain overpayments from, the federal government. Some states have adopted similar state whistleblower and false claims provisions. In addition, the Company from time to time receives inquiries from federal, state and foreign agencies regarding compliance with various laws and regulations. In our opinion, the amount of ultimate liability with respect to any of these actions is unlikely to materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows, though the resolutions and outcomes, individually or in the aggregate, could be material to our financial position, operating results or cash flows for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. The Company indemnifies its directors, officers and employees for certain liabilities that might arise from the performance of their responsibilities for the Company. Additionally, in the normal course of its business, the Company enters into contracts pursuant to which the Company may make a variety of representations and warranties and indemnify the counterparty for certain losses. The Company’s possible exposure under these arrangements cannot be reasonably estimated as this involves the resolution of claims made, or future claims that may be made, against the Company or its officers, directors or employees, the outcomes of which are unknown and not currently predictable or estimable.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration