Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

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.

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 cases 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 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.

Broadcast Innovation, L.L.C.

During 2001, Broadcast Innovation, L.L.C. (“Broadcast Innovation”) filed a lawsuit against DISH Network, DirecTV, Thomson Consumer Electronics and others in U.S. District Court in Denver, Colorado. Broadcast Innovation is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. The suit alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,076,094 (the “‘094 patent”) and 4,992,066 (the “‘066 patent”). The ‘094 patent relates to certain methods and devices for transmitting and receiving data along with specific formatting information for the data. The ‘066 patent relates to certain methods and devices for providing the scrambling circuitry for a pay television system on removable cards. Subsequently, DirecTV and Thomson settled with Broadcast Innovation leaving DISH Network as the only defendant.

During 2004, the District Court issued an order finding the ‘066 patent invalid. Also in 2004, the District Court found the ‘094 patent invalid in a parallel case filed by Broadcast Innovation against Charter and Comcast. In 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned that finding of invalidity with respect to the ‘094 patent and remanded the Charter case back to the District Court. During June 2006, Charter filed a request for reexamination of the ‘094 patent with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and on December 13, 2011, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a certificate cancelling all claims of the ‘094 patent. On February 2, 2012, Broadcast Innovation dismissed the case against DISH Network with prejudice.

Cyberfone Systems, LLC (f/k/a LVL Patent Group, LLC)

On September 15, 2011, LVL Patent Group, LLC filed a complaint against us and our wholly-owned subsidiary, EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., as well as DISH Network L.L.C. a wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH Network, and DirecTV, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,044,382, which is entitled “Data Transaction Assembly Server.” On November 18, 2011, Cyberfone Systems, LLC (f/k/a LVL Patent Group, LLC) filed an amended complaint making the same claim. DirecTV was dismissed from the case on January 4, 2012.

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.

InterAD Technologies, LLC

On September 16, 2011, InterAD Technologies, LLC (“InterAD”) filed a complaint against us and our wholly-owned subsidiary EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., as well as DISH Network L.L.C. a wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH Network, Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC, AT&T, Inc., Bright House Networks, LLC, Cable One, Inc., Cequel Communications, LLC, Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC, Charter Communications, Inc., Comcast Corporation, Cox Communications, Inc., CSC Holdings, LLC, DirecTV, Inc., Insight Communications Company, Inc., Knology, Inc., Mediacom Broadband, LLC, RCN Telecom Services, LLC, Time Warner Cable, Inc., and Verizon, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,438,355, which is entitled “Interactive System for Processing Viewer Responses to Television Programming.” On January 5, 2012, InterAD voluntarily dismissed the case against us without prejudice.

Joao Control & Monitoring Systems

During December 2010, Joao Control & Monitoring Systems (“Joao”) filed suit against Sling Media Inc., our indirect wholly owned subsidiary, ACTI Corporation, ADT Security, Alarmclub.Com, American Honda Motor Company, BMW, Byremote, Drivecam, Honeywell, Iveda Corporation, Magtec Products, Mercedes-Benz, On-Net Surveillance, OnStar, SafeFreight Technology, Skyway Security, SmartVue Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, Tyco, UTC Fire and Xanboo in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,549,130 and 6,587,046. The abstracts of the patents state that the claims are directed to the remote control of devices and appliances. Joao is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. During 2011, the case was transferred to the Northern District of California.

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.

Nazomi Communications, Inc.

On February 10, 2010, Nazomi Communications, Inc. (“Nazomi”) filed suit against Sling Media, Inc., our indirect wholly owned subsidiary, 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 U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,080,362 (the “‘362 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,225,436 (the “‘436 patent”). The ‘362 patent and the ‘436 patent relate to Java hardware acceleration. The suit alleges that the Slingbox-Pro-HD product infringes the ‘362 patent and the ‘436 patent because the Slingbox-PRO HD allegedly incorporates an ARM926EJ-S processor core capable of Java hardware acceleration. During 2010, the case was transferred to the Northern District of California.

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.

NorthPoint Technology, Ltd.

On July 2, 2009, NorthPoint Technology, Ltd. (“NorthPoint”) filed suit against us, DISH Network, and DirecTV in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,208,636 (the “‘636 patent”). The ‘636 patent relates to the use of multiple low-noise block converter feedhorns, or LNBFs, which are antennas used for satellite reception. On April 21, 2011, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued an order granting reexamination of the ‘636 patent. On June 21, 2011, the District Court entered summary judgment in our favor, finding that all asserted claims of the ‘636 patent are invalid. NorthPoint has appealed.

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 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.

Personalized Media Communications, Inc.

During 2008, Personalized Media Communications, Inc. (“PMC”) filed suit against us, DISH Network and Motorola Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 4,694,490, 5,109,414, 4,965,825, 5,233,654, 5,335,277, and 5,887,243, which relate to satellite signal processing. 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. Trial is currently set for August 2012.

We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe any of the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain user-friendly features that we currently offer to consumers. We 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.

Suomen Colorize Oy

During October 2010, Suomen Colorize Oy (“Suomen”) filed suit against us and DISH Network L.L.C., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of DISH Network, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,277,398. The abstract of the patent states that the claims are directed to a method and terminal for providing services in a telecommunications network. Suomen is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. The action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, and on January 10, 2012, Suomen voluntarily dismissed the case against us without prejudice.

Technology Development and Licensing L.L.C.

On January 22, 2009, Technology Development and Licensing L.L.C. (“TDL”) filed suit against us and DISH Network in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging infringement of U.S. 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 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 require us to materially modify certain user-friendly 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.

TiVo Inc.

In connection with our litigation with TiVo Inc. (“TiVo”), which is described in our periodic reports filed with the SEC, including in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 under the caption “Item 3. Legal Proceedings — TiVo Inc.,” on April 20, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the District Court’s contempt ruling on infringement, articulated a new standard for determining “colorable difference” and remanded that issue back to the District Court for determination. The Federal Circuit also vacated the District Court’s amended injunction requiring that we inform the court of any further attempts to design around TiVo’s U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389 (the “‘389 patent”) and seek approval from the court before any such design-around is implemented. The Federal Circuit also vacated the infringement damages for the period after we deployed our original alternative technology (although it did not foreclose that damages may be reinstated if upon remand a new court or jury decision found that the original alternative technology infringed TiVo’s ‘389 patent). The Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s contempt ruling on disablement, holding that the original 2006 injunction required that we disable DVR functionality in all but approximately 192,000 digital set-top boxes deployed with customers (the “Disablement Provision”) and affirmed the $90 million in contempt sanctions awarded against us for violating the Disablement Provision.

On April 29, 2011, we and DISH Network entered into a settlement agreement with TiVo. The settlement resolves all pending litigation between us and DISH Network, on the one hand, and TiVo, on the other hand, including litigation relating to alleged patent infringement involving certain DISH Network digital video recorders, or DVRs, which litigation is described in our periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission including in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 under the caption “Item 3. Legal Proceedings — TiVo Inc.”

Under the settlement agreement, all pending litigation has been dismissed with prejudice and all injunctions that permanently restrain, enjoin or compel any action by us and DISH Network have been dissolved. We and DISH Network are jointly responsible for making payments to TiVo in the aggregate amount of $500 million, including an initial payment of $300 million and the remaining $200 million in six equal annual installments between 2012 and 2017. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the agreements entered into in connection with our Spin-off from DISH Network, DISH Network made the initial payment to TiVo in May 2011, except for a contribution from us totaling approximately $10 million, representing an allocation of liability relating to our sales of DVR-enabled receivers to an international customer. Future payments will be allocated between DISH Network and us based on historical sales of certain licensed products with our being responsible for 5% of each annual payment, or approximately $10 million in total. Of our initial payment of $10 million, approximately $8 million relates to prior periods and the remaining $2 million represents a prepayment. The prepayment of $2 million is being expensed ratably from April 1, 2011 through July 31, 2018, the expiration date of the ‘389 patent.

In addition, under the settlement agreement, TiVo granted us a license under its ‘389 patent and certain related patents, for the remaining life of those patents, solely to design and make certain DVR-enabled products for DISH Network and two international customers. We granted TiVo a license under certain DVR-related patents held by us for TiVo-branded, co-branded and ingredient branded products.

We and DISH Network, on the one hand, and TiVo, on the other hand, have also agreed on mutual releases of certain related claims and agreed not to challenge each other’s DVR technology-related patents that are licensed under the settlement agreement.

Because both we and DISH Network were defendants in the TiVo lawsuit, we and DISH Network were jointly and severally liable to TiVo for any final damages and sanctions that could have been awarded by the District Court. As previously disclosed, DISH Network agreed that it was obligated under the agreements entered into in connection with the Spin-off to indemnify us for substantially all liability arising from this lawsuit. We contributed an amount equal to our $5 million intellectual property liability limit under the receiver agreement, and during 2009, we recorded a charge included in “General and administrative expenses — DISH Network” on our Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss) for this amount to reflect this contribution. We and DISH Network have further agreed that our $5 million contribution would not exhaust our liability to DISH Network for other intellectual property claims that may arise under the receiver agreement. We and DISH Network also agreed that we would each be entitled to

joint ownership of, and a cross-license to use, any intellectual property developed in connection with any potential new alternative technology. Any amounts that we are responsible for under the settlement agreement with TiVo are in addition to the $5 million contribution previously made by us.

Vigilos, LLC

On February 23, 2011, Vigilos, LLC filed suit against us, two of our subsidiaries, Sling Media, Inc. and EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., and Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,839,731, which is entitled “System and Method for Providing Data Communication in a Device Network.” Subsequently in 2011, Vigilos added DISH Network L.L.C., a wholly owned subsidiary of DISH Network, as a defendant in its First Amended Complaint and the case was transferred to the Northern District of California. Later in 2011, Vigilos filed a Second Amended Complaint that added claims for infringement of a second patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,370,074, which is entitled “System and Method for Implementing Open-Protocol Remote Device Control.”

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.

Other

In addition to the above actions, we are subject to various other legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of 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.