Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

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.

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

On September 15, 2011, LVL Patent Group, LLC filed a suit against EchoStar Corporation 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 United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,044,382, which is entitled “Data Transaction Assembly Server.” DirecTV was dismissed from the case on January 4, 2012. On July 12, 2012, Cyberfone Systems, LLC (“Cyberfone”) filed the operative second amended complaint making the same claim. On January 24, 2013, Cyberfone voluntarily dismissed the action against us and DISH Network L.L.C. without prejudice, and the matter is now concluded.

CreateAds LLC

On February 7, 2013, CreateAds LLC (“CreateAds”) filed suit against our wholly-owned subsidiary, Hughes Network Systems, LLC 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 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 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 appears to assert that some portion of HughesNet email services infringe that patent. HughesNet email services are provided by a third-party service provider, who has assumed indemnification obligations for the case. On May 31, 2012, E-Contact filed a first amended complaint. The amended complaint removed the original complaint’s requests for a finding of willfulness and entry of an injunction.

We, along with the third-party service provider, 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. 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 a lawsuit 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 Hopper™ set-top boxes. The PrimeTime Anytime feature allows a user of a Hopper set-top box, 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. The AutoHop feature allows a subscriber, 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.

As a result of certain parties’ competing 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 claims regarding the NBC parties are pending in California, while the contract claims involving NBC are venued in both New York and California. Additional venue-related motions are still pending in the NBC actions in New York and California.

On September 21, 2012, the California court heard the Fox plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Hopper’s PrimeTime Anytime and AutoHop features. The Court denied that motion.

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. 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.

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.

Joao Control & Monitoring Systems

During December 2010, Joao Control & Monitoring Systems (“Joao”) filed suit against Sling Media Inc., our indirectly wholly owned subsidiary, as well as 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 United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging infringement of United States 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. On February 5, 2013, the case was dismissed by the plaintiff without prejudice.

Nazomi Communications, Inc.

On February 10, 2010, Nazomi Communications, Inc. (“Nazomi”) filed suit against Sling Media, Inc. (“Sling”), our indirectly 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. 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. On August 14, 2012, the Court entered an order granting Sling’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. On December 21, 2012, the Court entered final judgment in Sling’s favor. On January 15, 2013, Nazomi filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

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 indirectly 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. 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 sub licensees. 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 a suit against EchoStar Corporation, our wholly-owned subsidiary EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. and DISH Network and its 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.

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 of our products. 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 a suit 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 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 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.

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 indirectly 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 Texas, 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.”

We intend to vigorously litigate this case. 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 EchoStar’s 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 our indirectly wholly owned subsidiary Hughes Network Systems, LLC, 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.

Vigilos, LLC

On February 23, 2011, Vigilos, LLC (“Vigilos”) filed suit against EchoStar Corporation, two of our subsidiaries, Sling Media, Inc. and EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., and Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of United States 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, United States Patent No. 7,370,074, which is entitled “System and Method for Implementing Open-Protocol Remote Device Control.” Vigilos is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. On December 21, 2012, we and DISH Network L.L.C. entered into a settlement agreement with Vigilos under which we and DISH Network L.L.C. made an immaterial payment in exchange for a license to certain patents and patent applications. The case has been dismissed with prejudice.

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.