XML 36 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.3.1.900

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Indemnifications We indemnify our directors and officers to the maximum extent permitted under the laws of the state of Delaware and we have entered into indemnification agreements with each of our directors and executive officers. In addition, we insure our individual directors and officers against certain claims and attorney’s fees and related expenses incurred in connection with the defense of such claims. The amounts and types of coverage may vary from period to period as dictated by market conditions. Management is not aware of any matters that require indemnification of its officers or directors. Fair Price Provisions and Other Anti-Takeover Measures Our Restated Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, contains certain provisions restricting business combinations with interested stockholders under certain circumstances and imposing higher voting requirements for the approval of certain transactions ("fair price" provisions). Any of these provisions may delay or prevent a change in control. The "fair price" provisions require that holders of at least two-thirds of our outstanding shares of voting stock approve certain business combinations and significant transactions with interested stockholders. Product Warranties Changes in the liability for product warranty claim costs were as follows:
| Year Ended December 31,
(In thousands) | 2015 |  | 2014 |  | 2013
Balance at beginning of period | $ | 353 |  |  | $ | 41 |  |  | $ | 404 |
Accruals for warranties issued during the period | 23 |  |  | 1,178 |  |  | 416 |
Settlements (in cash or in kind) during the period | (341 | ) |  | (866 | ) |  | (779 | )
Balance at end of period | $ | 35 |  |  | $ | 353 |  |  | $ | 41 |
Litigation On March 2, 2012, we filed a lawsuit against Universal Remote Control, Inc. ("URC") in the United States District Court, Central District of California (Universal Electronics Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc., SACV12-0039 AG (JPRx)) alleging that URC was infringing, directly and indirectly, four of our patents related to remote control technology. Following a jury verdict in favor of URC, on September 4, 2015 the District Court awarded URC $4.6 million in attorneys’ fees and costs, approximately 50% of the attorneys’ fees and costs URC claims it incurred. Both parties filed Notices of Appeal. URC is appealing various portions of the judgment and the District Court’s decision to award less than the full amount of attorneys’ fees. We have elected not to appeal the award of attorneys’ fees. URC has filed its opening appellate brief and we filed our response on February 26, 2016. We expect oral arguments in the summer of 2016, with a decision approximately six months later. As a result of the District Court's order, we accrued $4.6 million within selling, general and administrative expenses for the year ended December 31, 2015. Additionally, as described in Note 3, we placed $4.6 million into a surety bond as collateral for this court order. On June 28, 2013, we filed a second lawsuit against URC, also in the United States District Court, Central District of California (Universal Electronics Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc., SACV13-00987 JAK (SHx)) claiming that URC has violated ten patents not implicated in our first lawsuit against it. Of the ten patents, four of them have expired. In mid-November 2013, we filed a motion to add affiliated URC suppliers, Ohsung Electronics Co, Ltd., a South Korean entity, and Ohsung Electronics USA, Inc., a California entity, (collectively "Ohsung"), to the lawsuit. In late June and early July of 2014, URC and Ohsung requested inter partes review ("IPR") with the US Patent and Trademark Office Appeal Board ("PTAB") for each of the ten patents pending in the second URC lawsuit. On July 9, 2014, the Court entered stipulated stay, pending the IPR outcome. In January 2016, the PTAB issued its decisions in all of the IPR proceedings, sustaining most of the claims of the six unexpired patents and invalidating the majority of the claims of the four expired patents. URC has filed a notice of appeal with respect to the PTAB’s ruling against it. We have elected to not appeal the PTAB’s rulings. On March 21, 2016, a status conference is scheduled with the Court. On or about June 10, 2015, FM Marketing GmbH ("FMH") and Ruwido Austria GmbH ("Ruwido"), filed a Summons in Summary Proceedings in Belgium court against one of our subsidiaries, Universal Electronics BV ("UEBV") and one of its customers, Telenet N.V. ("Telenet"), claiming that one of the products UEBV supplies Telenet violates two design patents and one utility patent owned by FMH and/or Ruwido. By this summons, FMH and Ruwido sought to enjoin Telenet and UEBV from continued distribution and use of the products at issue. After the September 29, 2015 hearing, the Court issued its ruling in our and Telenet’s favor, rejecting FMH and Ruwido’s request entirely. On October 22, 2015, Ruwido filed its notice of appeal in this ruling. The parties have fully briefed the appeal and on February 15, 2016, the appellate court heard oral arguments. We expect the appellate court’s ruling on the motion in the next three to six months. In addition, in September 2015, UEBV filed an Opposition with the European Patent Office seeking to invalidate the one utility patent asserted against UEBV and Telenet by Ruwido. Finally, on or about February 9, 2016, Ruwido filed a writ of summons for proceeding on the merits with respect to asserted patents. UEBV and Telenet intend to vigorously defend against Ruwido's claims. There are no other material pending legal proceedings to which we or any of our subsidiaries is a party or of which our respective property is the subject. However, as is typical in our industry and to the nature and kind of business in which we are engaged, from time to time, various claims, charges and litigation are asserted or commenced by third parties against us or by us against third parties arising from or related to product liability, infringement of patent or other intellectual property rights, breach of warranty, contractual relations, or employee relations. The amounts claimed may be substantial but may not bear any reasonable relationship to the merits of the claims or the extent of any real risk of court awards assessed against us or in our favor. However, no assurances can be made as to the outcome of any of these matters, nor can we estimate the range of potential losses to us. In our opinion, final judgments, if any, which might be rendered against us in potential or pending litigation would not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Moreover, we believe that our products do not infringe any third parties' patents or other intellectual property rights. We maintain directors' and officers' liability insurance which insures our individual directors and officers against certain claims, as well as attorney's fees and related expenses incurred in connection with the defense of such claims. Defined Benefit Plan Our subsidiary in India maintains a defined benefit pension plan ("India Plan") for local employees, which is consistent with local statutes and practices. The pension plan was adequately funded on December 31, 2015 based on its latest actuarial report. The India Plan has an independent external manager that advises us of the appropriate funding contribution requirements to which we comply. At December 31, 2015, approximately 45 percent of our India subsidiary employees had qualified for eligibility. An individual must be employed by our India subsidiary for a minimum of 5 years before becoming eligible. Upon the termination, resignation or retirement of an eligible employee, we are liable to pay the employee an amount equal to 15 days salary for each full year of service completed. The total amount of liability outstanding at December 31, 2015 and 2014 for the India Plan was not material. During the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014, and 2013, the net periodic benefit costs were also not material.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51674963&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration