Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 14. Commitments and Contingencies Commitments As of March 31, 2014, our satellite-related obligations were approximately $1.16 billion. Our satellite-related obligations primarily include, among other things, payments pursuant to agreements for the construction of the EchoStar XIX and TerreStar-2 satellites, payments pursuant to launch services contracts, executory costs for our capital lease satellites, costs under transponder agreements and in-orbit incentives relating to certain satellites, including certain satellites received from DISH Network as a result of the Satellite and Tracking Stock Transaction. As discussed in Note 17, in April 2014 we entered into certain agreements that increased our satellite-related contractual obligations by approximately $234.7 million. 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. 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. Legal fees and other costs of defending litigation are charged to expense as incurred. 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 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, though the outcomes could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. California Institute of Technology On October 1, 2013, the California Institute of Technology (“Caltech”) filed suit against two of our indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries, Hughes Communications, Inc. and Hughes Network Systems, LLC, 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 appears to assert 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 set-top box, as well as certain of our Hughes subsidiaries’ satellite broadband products and services, infringe the asserted patents by implementing the DVB-S2 standard. We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe 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 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. ClearPlay, Inc. On March 13, 2014, ClearPlay, Inc. (“ClearPlay”) filed a complaint against DISH Network Corporation, DISH Network L.L.C., us, and our wholly-owned subsidiary EchoStar Technologies 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” (the “799 patent”); 7,526,784, entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content” (the “784 patent”); 7,543,318, entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content” (the “318 patent”); 7,577,970, entitled “Multimedia Content Navigation and Playback” (the “970 patent”); and 8,117,282, entitled “Media Player Configured to Receive Playback Filters From Alternative Storage Mediums” (the “282 patent”). ClearPlay alleges that the AutoHop™ feature in the Hopper set-top box infringes the asserted patents. We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe 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. CRFD Research, Inc. (a subsidiary of Marathon Patent Group, Inc.) On January 17, 2014, CRFD Research, Inc. (“CRFD”) filed a complaint against us and our wholly-owned subsidiary, EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., as well as against DISH Network, DISH DBS 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. CRFD 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, 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. 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 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 Sling 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, 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 parties and NBC parties in California. California Actions. 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 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 appealed and 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 has granted the Fox plaintiffs an extension until May 23, 2014 to file a petition for writ of certiorari. In addition, 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. The Fox plaintiffs’ motion was denied on September 23, 2013. The Fox plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will hear oral argument on July 7, 2014. The Fox claims are set for trial on January 13, 2015. 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 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 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 are set to be trial-ready on April 17, 2015. 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 Network. 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. 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., filed an adversary proceeding against EchoStar Corporation, DISH Network Corporation, 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 EchoStar Corporation, DISH Network Corporation 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 Corporation, 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 include, among others, LightSquared’s claims against SPSO for declaratory relief, breach of contract and statutory disallowance; LightSquared’s tortious interference claim against EchoStar Corporation, DISH Network Corporation and Mr. Ergen; and Harbinger’s claim against SPSO for equitable 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. We intend to vigorously defend this proceeding and cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this proceeding 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 10, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment, and the matter is now concluded. 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 re-filed its case on July 19, 2013. 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. No trial date is currently 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. 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. 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. 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. Technology Development and Licensing, LLC On January 22, 2009, Technology Development and Licensing, LLC (“TDL”) filed suit against us 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 indirectly wholly-owned subsidiary, Sling Media, Inc., in the United States District Court for 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 indirectly 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. On July 8, 2013, the Court granted a joint motion to dismiss the claims against Sling without prejudice. On February 24, 2014, the Court granted a joint motion to dismiss the claims against Hughes Network Systems, LLC, without prejudice and the matter is now concluded. 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 14. Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

As of March 31, 2014, our satellite-related obligations were approximately $1.16 billion. Our satellite-related obligations primarily include, among other things, payments pursuant to agreements for the construction of the EchoStar XIX and TerreStar-2 satellites, payments pursuant to launch services contracts, executory costs for our capital lease satellites, costs under transponder agreements and in-orbit incentives relating to certain satellites, including certain satellites received from DISH Network as a result of the Satellite and Tracking Stock Transaction.

As discussed in Note 17, in April 2014 we entered into certain agreements that increased our satellite-related contractual obligations by approximately $234.7 million.

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. 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. Legal fees and other costs of defending litigation are charged to expense as incurred.

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

California Institute of Technology

On October 1, 2013, the California Institute of Technology (“Caltech”) filed suit against two of our indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries, Hughes Communications, Inc. and Hughes Network Systems, LLC, 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 appears to assert 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 set-top box, as well as certain of our Hughes subsidiaries’ satellite broadband products and services, infringe the asserted patents by implementing the DVB-S2 standard.

We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe 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 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.

ClearPlay, Inc.

On March 13, 2014, ClearPlay, Inc. (“ClearPlay”) filed a complaint against DISH Network Corporation, DISH Network L.L.C., us, and our wholly-owned subsidiary EchoStar Technologies 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” (the “799 patent”); 7,526,784, entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content” (the “784 patent”); 7,543,318, entitled “Delivery of Navigation Data for Playback of Audio and Video Content” (the “318 patent”); 7,577,970, entitled “Multimedia Content Navigation and Playback” (the “970 patent”); and 8,117,282, entitled “Media Player Configured to Receive Playback Filters From Alternative Storage Mediums” (the “282 patent”). ClearPlay alleges that the AutoHop™ feature in the Hopper set-top box infringes the asserted patents.

We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe 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.

CRFD Research, Inc. (a subsidiary of Marathon Patent Group, Inc.)

On January 17, 2014, CRFD Research, Inc. (“CRFD”) filed a complaint against us and our wholly-owned subsidiary, EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., as well as against DISH Network, DISH DBS 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. CRFD 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, 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.

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 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 Sling 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, 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 parties and NBC parties in California.

California Actions. 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 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 appealed and 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 has granted the Fox plaintiffs an extension until May 23, 2014 to file a petition for writ of certiorari.

In addition, 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. The Fox plaintiffs’ motion was denied on September 23, 2013. The Fox plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will hear oral argument on July 7, 2014. The Fox claims are set for trial on January 13, 2015.

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 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 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 are set to be trial-ready on April 17, 2015.

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 Network. 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.

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., filed an adversary proceeding against EchoStar Corporation, DISH Network Corporation, 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 EchoStar Corporation, DISH Network Corporation 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 Corporation, 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 include, among others, LightSquared’s claims against SPSO for declaratory relief, breach of contract and statutory disallowance; LightSquared’s tortious interference claim against EchoStar Corporation, DISH Network Corporation and Mr. Ergen; and Harbinger’s claim against SPSO for equitable 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.

We intend to vigorously defend this proceeding and cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this proceeding 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 10, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment, and the matter is now concluded.

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 re-filed its case on July 19, 2013. 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. No trial date is currently 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.

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. 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.

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.

Technology Development and Licensing, LLC

On January 22, 2009, Technology Development and Licensing, LLC (“TDL”) filed suit against us 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 indirectly wholly-owned subsidiary, Sling Media, Inc., in the United States District Court for 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 indirectly 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. On July 8, 2013, the Court granted a joint motion to dismiss the claims against Sling without prejudice. On February 24, 2014, the Court granted a joint motion to dismiss the claims against Hughes Network Systems, LLC, without prejudice and the matter is now concluded.

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.