Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies.
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 12. Commitments and Contingencies Commitments As of March 31, 2013, our remaining satellite-related obligations were approximately $1.1 billion. Our satellite-related obligations include, among other things, costs relating to our capital lease satellites, transponder service agreements, multiple launch contracts, in-orbit incentives as well as the design and construction of EchoStar XIX. Contingencies *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 many of these proceedings 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. If accruals are not appropriate, we further evaluate each legal proceeding to assess whether an estimate of the possible loss or range of possible loss can be made. For certain cases described below, management is unable to 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; (iii) damages are unsupported and/or exaggerated; (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 (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, though the outcomes could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. CreateAds LLC On February 7, 2013, CreateAds LLC (“CreateAds”) filed suit against Hughes Network Systems, LLC, our indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 5,535,320, which is entitled “Method of Generating a Visual Design.” CreateAds appears to assert that some portion of HughesNet web design services infringes its patent. 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 our consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. E-Contact Technologies, LLC On February 22, 2012, E-Contact Technologies, LLC (“E-Contact”) filed suit against two of our indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries, Hughes Communications, Inc. and Hughes Network Systems, LLC, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 5,347,579, which is entitled “Personal Computer Diary.” E-Contact appeared to assert that some portion of HughesNet email services infringed that patent. On April 17, 2013, the Court ordered E-Contact to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed in light of a number of E-Contact’s patent claims being invalidated in an associated case, E-Contact Technologies, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. et al., 1:11-cv-432 (E.D. Tex.). On April 22, 2013, the Court granted a stipulated motion that dismissed with prejudice E-Contact’s claims against us. 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 in 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 the next day 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 Corporation 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 Sling place-shifting 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. The Central District of California matters have been assigned to a single judge, but remain separate cases. As a result of certain parties’ competing counterclaims and venue-related motions brought in both the New York and California actions, and certain networks filing various amended complaints, the claims are presently pending in the following venues: (1) the copyright and contract claims regarding the ABC parties are pending in New York; (2) the copyright and contract claims regarding the CBS parties are pending in New York; (3) the copyright and contract claims regarding the Fox parties are pending in California; and (4) the copyright and contract claims regarding the NBC parties are pending in California. On September 21, 2012, the United States District Court for the Central District of California heard the Fox plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Hopper set-top box’s PrimeTime Anytime and AutoHop features and, on November 7, 2012, entered an order denying the motion. The Fox plaintiffs have appealed and oral argument has been scheduled before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 3, 2013. On March 27, 2013, at the request of the parties, the United States District Court for 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 August 17, 2012, the NBC plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint in their California action adding us and our wholly-owned 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 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 have filed a counterclaim alleging that DISH fraudulently concealed the AutoHop feature when negotiating renewal of its CBS retransmission consent agreement. On November 23, 2012, the ABC plaintiffs filed a motion in the New York action for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Hopper set-top box’s PrimeTime Anytime and AutoHop features, and we and the ABC plaintiffs have filed briefs related to that motion. On February 21, 2013, the Fox plaintiffs filed a second motion for preliminary injunction against: (i) DISH, 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, seeking to enjoin the Sling 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. That motion was heard on April 19, 2013, and we await a ruling. We intend to vigorously prosecute and defend our position in these cases. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted copyrights, we may be subject to substantial damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to DISH. An adverse decision against DISH Network could decrease the number of Sling enabled set-top boxes we sell to DISH Network, which could have an adverse impact on the business operations of our EchoStar Technologies segment. In addition, to the extent that DISH Network experiences fewer gross new subscriber additions, sales of our digital set-top boxes and related components to DISH Network may further decline, which in turn could have a material adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. Nazomi Communications, Inc. On February 10, 2010, Nazomi Communications, Inc. (“Nazomi”) filed suit against Sling Media, Inc. (“Sling”), our indirect wholly owned subsidiary, as well as Nokia Corp, Nokia Inc., Microsoft Corp., Amazon.com Inc., Western Digital Corp., Western Digital Technologies, Inc., Garmin Ltd., Garmin Corp., Garmin International, Inc., Garmin USA, Inc., Vizio Inc. and iOmega Corp in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 7,080,362 (the “362 patent”) and United States Patent No. 7,225,436 (the “436 patent”). The 362 patent and the 436 patent relate to Java hardware acceleration. On August 14, 2012, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, to which the case had earlier been transferred, granted Sling’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. On January 15, 2013, Nazomi filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the appeal is currently being briefed. 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 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. Network Acceleration Technologies, LLC On November 30, 2012, Network Acceleration Technologies, LLC (“NAT”) filed suit against Hughes Network Systems, LLC, our indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,091,710 (the “710 patent”), which is entitled “System and Method for Preventing Data Slow Down Over Asymmetric Data Transmission Links.” NAT 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 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, as well as an ongoing royalty obligation. 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, 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. A new trial date has not yet been set. 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 cause us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We are being indemnified by DISH Network for any potential liability or damages resulting from this suit relating to the period prior to the effective date of the Spin-off. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. Premier International Associates, LLC On August 3, 2012, Premier International Associates, LLC (“Premier International Associates”) filed suit against EchoStar Corporation, our wholly-owned subsidiary EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. and DISH Network and its indirect wholly owned subsidiaries, DISH DBS and DISH Network L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,243,725 (the “725 patent”), which is entitled “List Building System.” The 725 patent relates to a system for building an inventory of audio/visual works. Premier International Associates is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On March 27, 2013, Premier International Associates dismissed the action against us and the DISH Network defendants with prejudice, pursuant to a settlement under which we and the DISH Network defendants made an immaterial payment in exchange for a license to certain patents and patent applications. Shareholder Derivative Litigation On December 5, 2012, Greg Jacobi, 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. Of the attempted grant of 1.5 million options to Mr. Ergen in 2011, only 800,000 were validly granted and remain outstanding. We intend to vigorously defend these cases. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability. Sling Media v. Monsoon Multimedia Inc. and Belkin International Inc. On January 7, 2013, our indirect wholly owned subsidiary Sling Media, Inc. filed suit against Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. and Belkin International, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,725,912, “Method for Implementing a Remote Display System with Transcoding;” 7,877,776, “Personal Media Broadcasting System;” 8,051,454, “Personal Media Broadcasting System with Output Buffer;” 8,060,909, “Personal Media Broadcasting System;” and 8,266,657, “Method for Effectively Implementing a Multi-Room Television System.” Based on the same patents, on March 12, 2013, Sling Media, Inc. filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) against Monsoon Multimedia, Inc., Belkin International, Inc., and C2 Microsystems, Inc. under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Section 337 investigation”). On April 1, 2013, the Court in the Northern District of California granted a joint motion to stay proceedings due to pending institution of the Section 337 investigation by the ITC. On April 17, 2013, the ITC instituted the Section 337 investigation. We intend to vigorously litigate this matter before the ITC, and thereafter in the Northern District of California. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit. Technology Development and Licensing L.L.C. On January 22, 2009, Technology Development and Licensing L.L.C. (“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. In July 2009, the Court granted our motion to stay the case pending two reexamination petitions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. 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 cause us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We are being indemnified by DISH Network for any potential liability or damages resulting from this suit relating to the period prior to the effective date of the Spin-off. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. TQP Development, LLC On October 11, 2012, TQP Development LLC (“TQP”) filed suit against our indirect wholly owned subsidiary Sling Media, Inc. in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 5,412,730, which is entitled “Encrypted Data Transmission System Employing Means for Randomly Altering the Encryption Keys.” On November 14, 2012, TQP filed suit in the same venue against Hughes Network Systems, LLC, our indirect wholly owned subsidiary, alleging infringement of the same patent. TQP 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 the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. 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. 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 liquidity, though the outcomes could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

Note 12. Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

As of March 31, 2013, our remaining satellite-related obligations were approximately $1.1 billion. Our satellite-related obligations include, among other things, costs relating to our capital lease satellites, transponder service agreements, multiple launch contracts, in-orbit incentives as well as the design and construction of EchoStar XIX.

Contingencies

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 many of these proceedings 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. If accruals are not appropriate, we further evaluate each legal proceeding to assess whether an estimate of the possible loss or range of possible loss can be made.

For certain cases described below, management is unable to 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; (iii) damages are unsupported and/or exaggerated; (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 (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, though the outcomes could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

CreateAds LLC

On February 7, 2013, CreateAds LLC (“CreateAds”) filed suit against Hughes Network Systems, LLC, our indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 5,535,320, which is entitled “Method of Generating a Visual Design.” CreateAds appears to assert that some portion of HughesNet web design services infringes its patent.

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 our consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

E-Contact Technologies, LLC

On February 22, 2012, E-Contact Technologies, LLC (“E-Contact”) filed suit against two of our indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries, Hughes Communications, Inc. and Hughes Network Systems, LLC, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 5,347,579, which is entitled “Personal Computer Diary.” E-Contact appeared to assert that some portion of HughesNet email services infringed that patent. On April 17, 2013, the Court ordered E-Contact to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed in light of a number of E-Contact’s patent claims being invalidated in an associated case, E-Contact Technologies, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. et al., 1:11-cv-432 (E.D. Tex.). On April 22, 2013, the Court granted a stipulated motion that dismissed with prejudice E-Contact’s claims against us.

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 in 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 the next day 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 Corporation 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 Sling place-shifting 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. The Central District of California matters have been assigned to a single judge, but remain separate cases.

As a result of certain parties’ competing counterclaims and venue-related motions brought in both the New York and California actions, and certain networks filing various amended complaints, the claims are presently pending in the following venues: (1) the copyright and contract claims regarding the ABC parties are pending in New York; (2) the copyright and contract claims regarding the CBS parties are pending in New York; (3) the copyright and contract claims regarding the Fox parties are pending in California; and (4) the copyright and contract claims regarding the NBC parties are pending in California.

On September 21, 2012, the United States District Court for the Central District of California heard the Fox plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Hopper set-top box’s PrimeTime Anytime and AutoHop features and, on November 7, 2012, entered an order denying the motion. The Fox plaintiffs have appealed and oral argument has been scheduled before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 3, 2013. On March 27, 2013, at the request of the parties, the United States District Court for 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 August 17, 2012, the NBC plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint in their California action adding us and our wholly-owned 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 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 have filed a counterclaim alleging that DISH fraudulently concealed the AutoHop feature when negotiating renewal of its CBS retransmission consent agreement. On November 23, 2012, the ABC plaintiffs filed a motion in the New York action for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Hopper set-top box’s PrimeTime Anytime and AutoHop features, and we and the ABC plaintiffs have filed briefs related to that motion. On February 21, 2013, the Fox plaintiffs filed a second motion for preliminary injunction against: (i) DISH, 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, seeking to enjoin the Sling 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. That motion was heard on April 19, 2013, and we await a ruling.

We intend to vigorously prosecute and defend our position in these cases. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted copyrights, we may be subject to substantial damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to DISH. An adverse decision against DISH Network could decrease the number of Sling enabled set-top boxes we sell to DISH Network, which could have an adverse impact on the business operations of our EchoStar Technologies segment. In addition, to the extent that DISH Network experiences fewer gross new subscriber additions, sales of our digital set-top boxes and related components to DISH Network may further decline, which in turn could have a material adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Nazomi Communications, Inc.

On February 10, 2010, Nazomi Communications, Inc. (“Nazomi”) filed suit against Sling Media, Inc. (“Sling”), our indirect wholly owned subsidiary, as well as Nokia Corp, Nokia Inc., Microsoft Corp., Amazon.com Inc., Western Digital Corp., Western Digital Technologies, Inc., Garmin Ltd., Garmin Corp., Garmin International, Inc., Garmin USA, Inc., Vizio Inc. and iOmega Corp in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 7,080,362 (the “362 patent”) and United States Patent No. 7,225,436 (the “436 patent”). The 362 patent and the 436 patent relate to Java hardware acceleration. On August 14, 2012, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, to which the case had earlier been transferred, granted Sling’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. On January 15, 2013, Nazomi filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the appeal is currently being briefed.

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 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.

Network Acceleration Technologies, LLC

On November 30, 2012, Network Acceleration Technologies, LLC (“NAT”) filed suit against Hughes Network Systems, LLC, our indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,091,710 (the “710 patent”), which is entitled “System and Method for Preventing Data Slow Down Over Asymmetric Data Transmission Links.” NAT 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 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, as well as an ongoing royalty obligation. 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, 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. A new trial date has not yet been set.

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 cause us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We are being indemnified by DISH Network for any potential liability or damages resulting from this suit relating to the period prior to the effective date of the Spin-off. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Premier International Associates, LLC

On August 3, 2012, Premier International Associates, LLC (“Premier International Associates”) filed suit against EchoStar Corporation, our wholly-owned subsidiary EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. and DISH Network and its indirect wholly owned subsidiaries, DISH DBS and DISH Network L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,243,725 (the “725 patent”), which is entitled “List Building System.” The 725 patent relates to a system for building an inventory of audio/visual works. Premier International Associates is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On March 27, 2013, Premier International Associates dismissed the action against us and the DISH Network defendants with prejudice, pursuant to a settlement under which we and the DISH Network defendants made an immaterial payment in exchange for a license to certain patents and patent applications.

Shareholder Derivative Litigation

On December 5, 2012, Greg Jacobi, 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.

Of the attempted grant of 1.5 million options to Mr. Ergen in 2011, only 800,000 were validly granted and remain outstanding. We intend to vigorously defend these cases. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability.

Sling Media v. Monsoon Multimedia Inc. and Belkin International Inc.

On January 7, 2013, our indirect wholly owned subsidiary Sling Media, Inc. filed suit against Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. and Belkin International, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,725,912, “Method for Implementing a Remote Display System with Transcoding;” 7,877,776, “Personal Media Broadcasting System;” 8,051,454, “Personal Media Broadcasting System with Output Buffer;” 8,060,909, “Personal Media Broadcasting System;” and 8,266,657, “Method for Effectively Implementing a Multi-Room Television System.” Based on the same patents, on March 12, 2013, Sling Media, Inc. filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) against Monsoon Multimedia, Inc., Belkin International, Inc., and C2 Microsystems, Inc. under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Section 337 investigation”). On April 1, 2013, the Court in the Northern District of California granted a joint motion to stay proceedings due to pending institution of the Section 337 investigation by the ITC. On April 17, 2013, the ITC instituted the Section 337 investigation.

We intend to vigorously litigate this matter before the ITC, and thereafter in the Northern District of California. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit.

Technology Development and Licensing L.L.C.

On January 22, 2009, Technology Development and Licensing L.L.C. (“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. In July 2009, the Court granted our motion to stay the case pending two reexamination petitions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

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 cause us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We are being indemnified by DISH Network for any potential liability or damages resulting from this suit relating to the period prior to the effective date of the Spin-off. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

TQP Development, LLC

On October 11, 2012, TQP Development LLC (“TQP”) filed suit against our indirect wholly owned subsidiary Sling Media, Inc. in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 5,412,730, which is entitled “Encrypted Data Transmission System Employing Means for Randomly Altering the Encryption Keys.” On November 14, 2012, TQP filed suit in the same venue against Hughes Network Systems, LLC, our indirect wholly owned subsidiary, alleging infringement of the same patent. TQP 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 the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

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. 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 liquidity, though the outcomes could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.