COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments On July 13, 2012, the Company entered into a three-year joint development agreement with Plextronics. Under the joint development agreement, the Company is committed to pay $1.0 million per year to Plextronics for three years starting on July 13, 2012. Under the 2006 Research Agreement with USC, the Company is obligated to make certain payments to USC based on work performed by USC under that agreement, and by Michigan under its subcontractor agreement with USC. See Note 5 for further explanation. Under the terms of the 1997 Amended License Agreement, the Company is required to make minimum royalty payments to Princeton. See Note 5 for further explanation. The Company has agreements with six executive officers which provide for certain cash payments and other benefits upon termination of employment of the officer in connection with a change in control of the Company. Each executive is entitled to a lump-sum cash payment equal to two times the sum of the average annual base salary and bonus of the officer and immediate vesting of all stock options and other equity awards that may be outstanding at the date of the change in control, among other items. Patent Related Challenges and Oppositions Each major jurisdiction in the world that grants patents provides third parties with opportunities and access to administrative proceedings whereby they can request for additional review of previously issued patents in the respective jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction provides unique procedures for undertaking such activities, as well as different vehicles to review and appeal the determinations made in connection with such reviews. The conclusions made by the administration bodies tend to be appealable and generally are limited in scope and applicability to the specific claims and jurisdiction in question. Below are summaries of certain proceedings that have been commenced against issued patents that are either exclusively licensed to the Company or which are now assigned to the Company. The Company notes that it currently has more than 3,000 issued patents and pending patent applications, worldwide, which are utilized in the Company's materials supply and device licensing business. The Company does not believe that the confirmation, loss or modification of the Company's rights in any individual claim or set of claim(s) that are the subject of the following legal proceedings would have a material impact on the Company's material sales or licensing business or on the Company's consolidated financial statements, including its consolidated statements of operations, as a whole. However, as noted within the descriptions, many of the following legal proceedings involve patents relating to the Company's key phosphorescent OLED technologies and the Company intends to vigorously defend against such claims, which may require the expenditure of significant amounts of the Company's resources. The entries marked with an "" relate to our UniversalPHOLED phosphorescent OLED technology. Opposition to European Patent No. 0946958 On December 8, 2006, Cambridge Display Technology Ltd. (CDT), which was acquired in 2007 by Sumitomo Chemical Company (Sumitomo), filed a Notice of Opposition to European Patent No. 0946958 (EP '958 patent), which relates to the Company's FOLED™ flexible OLED technology. The EP '958 patent, which was issued on March 8, 2006, is a European counterpart patent to U.S. patents 5,844,363; 6,602,540; 6,888,306; and 7,247,073. These patents are exclusively licensed to the Company by Princeton, and the Company is required to pay all legal costs and fees associated with this proceeding. The European Patent Office (the EPO) conducted an Oral Hearing in this matter and on November 26, 2009 issued its written decision to reject the opposition and to maintain the patent as granted. CDT has filed an appeal to the EPO panel decision. At this time, based on its current knowledge, Company management believes that the EPO panel decision will be upheld on appeal. However, Company management cannot make any assurances of this result. Opposition to European Patent No. 1449238 Between March 8, 2007 and July 27, 2007, three companies filed Notices of Opposition to European Patent No. 1449238 (EP '238 patent). The three companies are Sumation Company Limited (Sumation), a joint venture between Sumitomo and CDT, Merck Patent GmbH, of Darmstadt, Germany, and BASF Aktiengesellschaft, of Mannheim, Germany. The EP '238 patent, which was issued on November 2, 2006, is a European counterpart patent, in part, to U.S. patents 6,830,828; 6,902,830; 7,001,536; 7,291,406; 7,537,844; and 7,883,787; and to pending U.S. patent applications 13/009,001, filed on January 19, 2011, and 13/205,290, filed on August 9, 2011 (hereinafter the “U.S. '828 Patent Family”). They are exclusively licensed to the Company by Princeton, and the Company is required to pay all legal costs and fees associated with this proceeding. The EPO combined all three oppositions into a single opposition proceeding. The EPO conducted an Oral Hearing in this matter and at the conclusion of the Oral Hearing, the EPO panel announced its decision to maintain the patent with claims directed to OLEDs comprising phosphorescent organometallic iridium compounds. The official minutes from the Oral Hearing and written decision were published on January 13, 2012. All the parties filed notices of appeal to the EPO's panel decision and submitted their initial papers in support of their respective requests for appellate review. An Oral Hearing has been scheduled by the EPO in the second half of 2013. At this time, based on its current knowledge, Company management believes that the EPO will uphold the Company's positions on appeal. However, Company management cannot make any assurances of this result. Opposition to European Patent No. 1394870* On April 20, 2010, five European companies filed Notices of Opposition to European Patent No. 1394870 (the EP '870 patent). The EP '870 patent, which was issued on July 22, 2009, is a European counterpart patent, in part, to U.S. patents 6,303,238; 6,579,632; 6,872,477; 7,279,235; 7,279,237; 7,488,542; 7,563,519; and 7,901,795; and to pending U.S. patent application 13/035,051, filed on February 25, 2011 (hereinafter the “U.S. '238 Patent Family”). They are exclusively licensed to the Company by Princeton, and the Company is required to pay all legal costs and fees associated with this proceeding. The five companies are Merck Patent GmbH; BASF Schweitz AG of Basel, Switzerland; Osram GmbH of Munich, Germany; Siemens Aktiengesellschaft of Munich, Germany; and Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., of Eindhoven, The Netherlands. The EPO combined the oppositions into a single opposition proceeding. The matter has been briefed and an Oral hearing has been scheduled by the EPO in the second quarter of 2014. At this time, based on its current knowledge, Company management believes there is a substantial likelihood that the patent being challenged will be declared valid and that all or a significant portion of the Company's claims will be upheld. However, Company management cannot make any assurances of this result. Invalidation Trials in Japan for Japan Patent Nos. 4357781 and 4358168* On May 24, 2010, the Company received two Notices of Invalidation Trials against Japan Patent Nos. 4357781 (the JP '781 patent) and 4358168 (the JP '168 patent), which were both issued on August 14, 2009. The requests for these two additional Invalidation Trials were filed by Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd. (SEL) of Kanagawa, Japan. The JP '781 and '168 patents are also Japanese counterpart patents, in part, to the above-noted U.S. '828 Patent Family and EP '238 Patent. They are exclusively licensed to the Company by Princeton, and the Company is required to pay all legal costs and fees associated with this proceeding. On March 31, 2011, the Company learned that the Japanese Patent Office ("JPO") had issued decisions finding all claims in the JP '781 and JP '168 patents invalid. Company management believed that the JPO's decisions invalidating these claims were erroneous, and the Company filed appeals for both cases to the Japanese IP High Court. Both parties filed appeal briefs in this matter with the Japanese IP High Court. The Japanese IP High Court held hearings for this matter on November 22, 2011, March 5, 2012, and June 18, 2012. On November 7, 2012, the Company was notified by the Company's Japanese counsel that the Japanese IP High Court had reversed the JPO's finding of invalidity and remanded the case back to the JPO for further consideration. In a decision reported to the Company on April 15, 2013, all claims in the Company's JP '781 and JP '168 patents were upheld as valid by the JPO. The Company's opponent filed an appeal and submitted their appeal briefs. The Company has filed a timely response to the Opponent's papers. At this time, based on its current knowledge, Company management believes that the claims on the patents should be upheld. However, Company management cannot make any assurances of this result. Invalidation Trial in Japan for Japan Patent No. 4511024* On June 16, 2011, the Company learned that a Request for an Invalidation Trial was filed in Japan for its Japanese Patent No. JP-4511024 (the JP '024 patent), which issued on May 14, 2010. The Request was filed by SEL, the same opponent as in the above-noted Japanese Invalidation Trials for the JP '781 and '168 patents. The JP '024 patent is a counterpart patent, in part, to the U.S. '238 Patent Family, which relate to the EP '870 patent, which is subject to one of the above-noted European oppositions and which relates to the Company's UniversalPHOLED phosphorescent OLED technology. They are exclusively licensed to the Company by Princeton, and the Company is required to pay all legal costs and fees associated with this proceeding. On May 10, 2012, after a scheduled hearing, the Company learned that the JPO issued a decision upholding the validity of certain claimed inventions in the JP '024 Patent but invalidating the broadest claims in the patent. The Company appealed the JPO’s decision to the Japanese IP High Court. After holding a Technical Hearing on May 30, 2013 and considering numerous supporting briefs filed by all relevant parties, the Japanese IP High Court delivered a decision on October 31, 2013, ruling that the prior art references relied on by the JPO did not support the JPO’s findings. The Japanese IP High Court reversed the JPO’s decision with respect to the previously invalidated broad claims in the JP ‘024 patent and remanded the matter back to the JPO for further consideration consistent with its decision. At this time, based on its current knowledge, Company management believes that the patent being challenged should be declared valid and that all or a significant portion of the Company's claims should be upheld. However, Company management cannot make any assurances of this result. Opposition to European Patent No. 1252803* On July 12 and 13, 2011, Sumitomo, Merck Patent GmbH and BASF SE, of Ludwigshaven, Germany filed oppositions to the Company's European Patent No. 1252803 (the EP '803 patent). The EP '803 patent, which was issued on October 13, 2010, is a European counterpart patent, in part, to the U.S. '828 Patent Family. They are exclusively licensed to the Company by Princeton, and the Company is required to pay all legal costs and fees associated with this proceeding. The EPO combined the oppositions into a single opposition proceeding. On December 7, 2012 the EPO rendered a decision at an Oral Hearing wherein it upheld the broadest claim of the granted patent. All three opponents filed an appeal and have submitted their appeal briefs. The Company's responses are currently under preparation. At this time, based on its current knowledge, Company management believes there is a substantial likelihood that the patent being challenged will be declared valid and that all or a significant portion of the Company's claims will be further upheld on appeal. However, Company management cannot make any assurances of this result. Opposition to European Patent No. 1390962 On November 16, 2011, Osram AG and BASF SE each filed a Notice of Opposition to European Patent No. 1390962 (EP '962 patent), which relates to the Company's white phosphorescent OLED technology. The EP '962 patent, which was issued on February 16, 2011, is a European counterpart patent to U.S. patents 7,009,338 and 7,285,907. They are exclusively licensed to the Company by Princeton, and the Company is required to pay all legal costs and fees associated with this proceeding. The EPO combined the oppositions into a single opposition proceeding. The Company's response to the opponents' opposition briefs was timely filed on June 28, 2012. At this time, based on its current knowledge, Company management believes there is a substantial likelihood that the patent being challenged will be declared valid, and that all or a significant portion of the Company's claims will be upheld. However, Company management cannot make any assurances of this result. Opposition to European Patent No. 1933395* On February 24 and 27, 2012, Sumitomo, Merck Patent GmbH and BASF SE filed oppositions to the Company's European Patent No. 1933395 (the EP '395 patent). The EP '395 patent is a counterpart patent to the above-noted JP '168 patent and, in part, to the U.S. '828 Patent Family. This patent is exclusively licensed to the Company by Princeton, and the Company is required to pay all legal costs and fees associated with this proceeding. At an Oral Hearing on October 14, 2013, the EPO panel issued a decision that affirmed the basic invention and broad patent coverage in the '395 patent, but narrowed the scope of the original claims. The Company will likely appeal the ruling to reinstate a broader set of claims. This patent, as originally granted by the EPO, would be deemed valid during the pendency of an appeals process.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

On July 13, 2012, the Company entered into a three-year joint development agreement with Plextronics. Under the joint development agreement, the Company is committed to pay $1.0 million per year to Plextronics for three years starting on July 13, 2012.

Under the 2006 Research Agreement with USC, the Company is obligated to make certain payments to USC based on work performed by USC under that agreement, and by Michigan under its subcontractor agreement with USC. See Note 5 for further explanation.

Under the terms of the 1997 Amended License Agreement, the Company is required to make minimum royalty payments to Princeton. See Note 5 for further explanation.

The Company has agreements with six executive officers which provide for certain cash payments and other benefits upon termination of employment of the officer in connection with a change in control of the Company. Each executive is entitled to a lump-sum cash payment equal to two times the sum of the average annual base salary and bonus of the officer and immediate vesting of all stock options and other equity awards that may be outstanding at the date of the change in control, among other items.

Patent Related Challenges and Oppositions

Each major jurisdiction in the world that grants patents provides third parties with opportunities and access to administrative proceedings whereby they can request for additional review of previously issued patents in the respective jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction provides unique procedures for undertaking such activities, as well as different vehicles to review and appeal the determinations made in connection with such reviews. The conclusions made by the administration bodies tend to be appealable and generally are limited in scope and applicability to the specific claims and jurisdiction in question.

Below are summaries of certain proceedings that have been commenced against issued patents that are either exclusively licensed to the Company or which are now assigned to the Company. The Company notes that it currently has more than 3,000 issued patents and pending patent applications, worldwide, which are utilized in the Company's materials supply and device licensing business. The Company does not believe that the confirmation, loss or modification of the Company's rights in any individual claim or set of claim(s) that are the subject of the following legal proceedings would have a material impact on the Company's material sales or licensing business or on the Company's consolidated financial statements, including its consolidated statements of operations, as a whole. However, as noted within the descriptions, many of the following legal proceedings involve patents relating to the Company's key phosphorescent OLED technologies and the Company intends to vigorously defend against such claims, which may require the expenditure of significant amounts of the Company's resources. The entries marked with an "*" relate to our UniversalPHOLED phosphorescent OLED technology.

Opposition to European Patent No. 0946958

On December 8, 2006, Cambridge Display Technology Ltd. (CDT), which was acquired in 2007 by Sumitomo Chemical Company (Sumitomo), filed a Notice of Opposition to European Patent No. 0946958 (EP '958 patent), which relates to the Company's FOLED™ flexible OLED technology. The EP '958 patent, which was issued on March 8, 2006, is a European counterpart patent to U.S. patents 5,844,363; 6,602,540; 6,888,306; and 7,247,073. These patents are exclusively licensed to the Company by Princeton, and the Company is required to pay all legal costs and fees associated with this proceeding.

The European Patent Office (the EPO) conducted an Oral Hearing in this matter and on November 26, 2009 issued its written decision to reject the opposition and to maintain the patent as granted. CDT has filed an appeal to the EPO panel decision.

At this time, based on its current knowledge, Company management believes that the EPO panel decision will be upheld on appeal. However, Company management cannot make any assurances of this result.

Opposition to European Patent No. 1449238*

Between March 8, 2007 and July 27, 2007, three companies filed Notices of Opposition to European Patent No. 1449238 (EP '238 patent). The three companies are Sumation Company Limited (Sumation), a joint venture between Sumitomo and CDT, Merck Patent GmbH, of Darmstadt, Germany, and BASF Aktiengesellschaft, of Mannheim, Germany. The EP '238 patent, which was issued on November 2, 2006, is a European counterpart patent, in part, to U.S. patents 6,830,828; 6,902,830; 7,001,536; 7,291,406; 7,537,844; and 7,883,787; and to pending U.S. patent applications 13/009,001, filed on January 19, 2011, and 13/205,290, filed on August 9, 2011 (hereinafter the “U.S. '828 Patent Family”). They are exclusively licensed to the Company by Princeton, and the Company is required to pay all legal costs and fees associated with this proceeding.

The EPO combined all three oppositions into a single opposition proceeding. The EPO conducted an Oral Hearing in this matter and at the conclusion of the Oral Hearing, the EPO panel announced its decision to maintain the patent with claims directed to OLEDs comprising phosphorescent organometallic iridium compounds. The official minutes from the Oral Hearing and written decision were published on January 13, 2012.

All the parties filed notices of appeal to the EPO's panel decision and submitted their initial papers in support of their respective requests for appellate review. An Oral Hearing has been scheduled by the EPO in the second half of 2013.

At this time, based on its current knowledge, Company management believes that the EPO will uphold the Company's positions on appeal. However, Company management cannot make any assurances of this result.

Opposition to European Patent No. 1394870*

On April 20, 2010, five European companies filed Notices of Opposition to European Patent No. 1394870 (the EP '870 patent). The EP '870 patent, which was issued on July 22, 2009, is a European counterpart patent, in part, to U.S. patents 6,303,238; 6,579,632; 6,872,477; 7,279,235; 7,279,237; 7,488,542; 7,563,519; and 7,901,795; and to pending U.S. patent application 13/035,051, filed on February 25, 2011 (hereinafter the “U.S. '238 Patent Family”). They are exclusively licensed to the Company by Princeton, and the Company is required to pay all legal costs and fees associated with this proceeding.

The five companies are Merck Patent GmbH; BASF Schweitz AG of Basel, Switzerland; Osram GmbH of Munich, Germany; Siemens Aktiengesellschaft of Munich, Germany; and Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., of Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

The EPO combined the oppositions into a single opposition proceeding. The matter has been briefed and an Oral hearing has been scheduled by the EPO in the second quarter of 2014.

At this time, based on its current knowledge, Company management believes there is a substantial likelihood that the patent being challenged will be declared valid and that all or a significant portion of the Company's claims will be upheld. However, Company management cannot make any assurances of this result.

Invalidation Trials in Japan for Japan Patent Nos. 4357781 and 4358168*

On May 24, 2010, the Company received two Notices of Invalidation Trials against Japan Patent Nos. 4357781 (the JP '781 patent) and 4358168 (the JP '168 patent), which were both issued on August 14, 2009. The requests for these two additional Invalidation Trials were filed by Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd. (SEL) of Kanagawa, Japan. The JP '781 and '168 patents are also Japanese counterpart patents, in part, to the above-noted U.S. '828 Patent Family and EP '238 Patent. They are exclusively licensed to the Company by Princeton, and the Company is required to pay all legal costs and fees associated with this proceeding.

On March 31, 2011, the Company learned that the Japanese Patent Office ("JPO") had issued decisions finding all claims in the JP '781 and JP '168 patents invalid. Company management believed that the JPO's decisions invalidating these claims were erroneous, and the Company filed appeals for both cases to the Japanese IP High Court.

Both parties filed appeal briefs in this matter with the Japanese IP High Court. The Japanese IP High Court held hearings for this matter on November 22, 2011, March 5, 2012, and June 18, 2012. On November 7, 2012, the Company was notified by the Company's Japanese counsel that the Japanese IP High Court had reversed the JPO's finding of invalidity and remanded the case back to the JPO for further consideration.

In a decision reported to the Company on April 15, 2013, all claims in the Company's JP '781 and JP '168 patents were upheld as valid by the JPO. The Company's opponent filed an appeal and submitted their appeal briefs. The Company has filed a timely response to the Opponent's papers.

At this time, based on its current knowledge, Company management believes that the claims on the patents should be upheld. However, Company management cannot make any assurances of this result.

Invalidation Trial in Japan for Japan Patent No. 4511024*

On June 16, 2011, the Company learned that a Request for an Invalidation Trial was filed in Japan for its Japanese Patent No. JP-4511024 (the JP '024 patent), which issued on May 14, 2010. The Request was filed by SEL, the same opponent as in the above-noted Japanese Invalidation Trials for the JP '781 and '168 patents. The JP '024 patent is a counterpart patent, in part, to the U.S. '238 Patent Family, which relate to the EP '870 patent, which is subject to one of the above-noted European oppositions and which relates to the Company's UniversalPHOLED phosphorescent OLED technology. They are exclusively licensed to the Company by Princeton, and the Company is required to pay all legal costs and fees associated with this proceeding.

On May 10, 2012, after a scheduled hearing, the Company learned that the JPO issued a decision upholding the validity of certain claimed inventions in the JP '024 Patent but invalidating the broadest claims in the patent.

The Company appealed the JPO’s decision to the Japanese IP High Court. After holding a Technical Hearing on May 30, 2013 and considering numerous supporting briefs filed by all relevant parties, the Japanese IP High Court delivered a decision on October 31, 2013, ruling that the prior art references relied on by the JPO did not support the JPO’s findings. The Japanese IP High Court reversed the JPO’s decision with respect to the previously invalidated broad claims in the JP ‘024 patent and remanded the matter back to the JPO for further consideration consistent with its decision.

At this time, based on its current knowledge, Company management believes that the patent being challenged should be declared valid and that all or a significant portion of the Company's claims should be upheld. However, Company management cannot make any assurances of this result.

Opposition to European Patent No. 1252803*

On July 12 and 13, 2011, Sumitomo, Merck Patent GmbH and BASF SE, of Ludwigshaven, Germany filed oppositions to the Company's European Patent No. 1252803 (the EP '803 patent). The EP '803 patent, which was issued on October 13, 2010, is a European counterpart patent, in part, to the U.S. '828 Patent Family. They are exclusively licensed to the Company by Princeton, and the Company is required to pay all legal costs and fees associated with this proceeding.

The EPO combined the oppositions into a single opposition proceeding. On December 7, 2012 the EPO rendered a decision at an Oral Hearing wherein it upheld the broadest claim of the granted patent. All three opponents filed an appeal and have submitted their appeal briefs. The Company's responses are currently under preparation.

At this time, based on its current knowledge, Company management believes there is a substantial likelihood that the patent being challenged will be declared valid and that all or a significant portion of the Company's claims will be further upheld on appeal. However, Company management cannot make any assurances of this result.

Opposition to European Patent No. 1390962

On November 16, 2011, Osram AG and BASF SE each filed a Notice of Opposition to European Patent No. 1390962 (EP '962 patent), which relates to the Company's white phosphorescent OLED technology. The EP '962 patent, which was issued on February 16, 2011, is a European counterpart patent to U.S. patents 7,009,338 and 7,285,907. They are exclusively licensed to the Company by Princeton, and the Company is required to pay all legal costs and fees associated with this proceeding.

The EPO combined the oppositions into a single opposition proceeding. The Company's response to the opponents' opposition briefs was timely filed on June 28, 2012.

At this time, based on its current knowledge, Company management believes there is a substantial likelihood that the patent being challenged will be declared valid, and that all or a significant portion of the Company's claims will be upheld. However, Company management cannot make any assurances of this result.

Opposition to European Patent No. 1933395*

On February 24 and 27, 2012, Sumitomo, Merck Patent GmbH and BASF SE filed oppositions to the Company's European Patent No. 1933395 (the EP '395 patent). The EP '395 patent is a counterpart patent to the above-noted JP '168 patent and, in part, to the U.S. '828 Patent Family. This patent is exclusively licensed to the Company by Princeton, and the Company is required to pay all legal costs and fees associated with this proceeding.

At an Oral Hearing on October 14, 2013, the EPO panel issued a decision that affirmed the basic invention and broad patent coverage in the '395 patent, but narrowed the scope of the original claims.

The Company will likely appeal the ruling to reinstate a broader set of claims. This patent, as originally granted by the EPO, would be deemed valid during the pendency of an appeals process.