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)	2018			2017			2016
Balance at beginning of period	$	339		$	134		$	35
Accruals for warranties issued during the period	787			312			102
Settlements (in cash or in kind) during the period	(850		)	(107		)	(3		)
Balance at end of period	$	276		$	339		$	134

Restructuring Activities and Sale of Guangzhou Factory

In the first quarter of 2016, we implemented a plan to transition manufacturing activities from our southern-most China factory,

located in the city of Guangzhou in the Guangdong province, to our other China factories. As a result, we incurred severance costs of $6.1 million and $4.5 million during the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, which are included within operating expenses. All operations ceased in our Guangzhou factory in the third quarter of 2017 and the transition to the other China factories was completed by the end of 2017. Since all operations at our Guangzhou manufacturing facility ceased as of the end of July 2017, the related building and land lease assets were classified as assets held for sale in our consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2017.

On September 26, 2016, we entered into an agreement to sell our Guangzhou manufacturing facility for RMB 320 million. In accordance with the terms of the agreement, the buyer deposited 10% of the purchase price into an escrow account upon the execution of the agreement, which we have presented as restricted cash in our consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2017 (also refer to Note 3). In April 2018, we and the buyer mutually agreed to terminate the sale. The mutually agreed termination took effect immediately with no incremental penalty or costs to either party. In connection with this termination, the deposit was returned to the buyer.

On April 23, 2018, we entered into a new agreement to sell our Guangzhou manufacturing facility to a second buyer for RMB 339 million (approximately $51.4 million based on exchange rates in effect at the time of closing). On April 26, 2018, the second buyer paid to us a deposit of RMB 34 million (approximately $5.1 million based on exchange rates in effect at the time of closing), which under the terms of the agreement was nonrefundable. Upon receipt by the Governmental Agency of the second buyer’s application of approval of transfer, the second buyer was to pay to us RMB 237 million (approximately $35.8 million based on exchange rates in effect at the time of closing). Additionally, within two days after the second payment was made to us, the second buyer was to deposit the remaining consideration of RMB 68 million (approximately $10.3 million based on exchange rates in effect at the time of closing) into escrow, which was to be released to us upon the closing of the sale. Per the terms of the agreement, the sale was to be completed no later than June 30, 2018. On June 26, 2018, all conditions to closing were satisfied and the sale was completed, resulting in a pre-tax gain of $37.0 million ($32.1 million, net of income taxes).

Other Restructuring Activities

In the fourth quarter of 2018, we implemented a plan to relocate our corporate office from Santa Ana, California to Scottsdale, Arizona and to relocate our Asian engineering leadership, supply chain and customer support functions from Hong Kong to our other facilities in China. In connection with these restructuring activities, we incurred severance costs of $0.9 million during the year ended December 31, 2018, which are included within selling, general and administrative expenses. These relocations are expected to be completed in the first half of 2019 and are not expected to result in significant additional severance costs.

Litigation

On March 2, 2012 and June 28, 2013, we filed two different lawsuits against Universal Remote Control, Inc. ("URC") alleging that URC, and in some cases its affiliated suppliers Ohsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Ohsung Electronics USA, Inc. (collectively "Ohsung"), were infringing on certain of our patents. In September 2015, the court awarded URC $4.6 million in attorneys' fees and costs related to the first lawsuit. In December 2016, in connection with these matters, we entered into a confidential Settlement, License and Release Agreement dated September 22, 2016 with URC and Ohsung (collectively the “URC Parties”) to settle all litigation matters between us and the URC Parties. By and during the term of this agreement, we and the URC Parties dismissed all litigation matters and appeals with prejudice. Additionally, the URC Parties received a limited paid up license to the technologies covered by the patents in this litigation and a limited covenant not to sue with respect to certain of URC's products existing as of the settlement date. As a result of the Settlement, License and Release Agreement, we accrued $2.0 million within selling, general and administrative expenses for the year ended December 31, 2016, bringing the total liability accrued in connection with the URC matters to $6.6 million at December 31, 2016. On January 30, 2017, we paid URC $6.6 million.

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 ("Telenet"), claiming that one of the products UEBV supplied to 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 product 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 and argued before the appellate court and we are awaiting the appellate court's ruling. In addition, on or about February 9, 2016, Ruwido filed a writ of summons for proceeding on the merits with respect to the asserted patents. UEBV and Telenet have replied, denying all of Ruwido's allegations and in June 2017, a hearing was held before the trial court. During this hearing, Ruwido sought to have a second product which we are currently selling to Telenet included in this case. In September 2017, the Court ruled in our favor that our current product cannot be made part of this case. The Court also refused to rule on whether the original product (which we are no longer selling) infringes the Ruwido patent, instead deciding to wait until the European Patent Office (the "EPO") has ruled on our Opposition (see below). Finally, the Court ruled that our original product (which we are no longer selling) infringes certain of Ruwido's design rights, but stayed any decision of compensation and/or damages until all aspects of the case have been decided. We have filed an appeal as to the Court's ruling of infringement and submissions by the parties were due to the Court during the second quarter of 2018 with a hearing expected to take place in late 2018. Subsequent to the Court's ruling that a second product could not be added to the first case on the merits, Ruwido filed a separate case on the merits with respect to this second product, claiming that it too infringes the same patent at issue in the first suit. We have denied these claims. According to the Court's trial schedule, briefs from both parties will be due during the second half of 2018 and early 2019 with a trial date set for January 2019. This trial date has since been moved to June 4, 2019. In September 2015, UEBV filed an Opposition with the EPO seeking to invalidate the one utility patent asserted against UEBV and Telenet by Ruwido. The hearing on this opposition was held in July 2017. During this hearing the panel requested additional information. We have assembled this additional information and the final hearing was scheduled for January 29, 2019. The EPO held this hearing on January 29 and 30, 2019 and revoked Ruwido's patent as originally filed. The EPO, however, maintained the patent in an amended form with a much narrower claim. The parties have the right to appeal the EPO's decision, but at this time, neither have done so. On September 5, 2017, Ruwido and FMH filed a patent infringement case on the merits against UEBV and Telenet in the Netherlands alleging the same claims of infringement as in the Belgium Courts (see above). We have denied these claims and filed a counterclaim seeking to invalidate the Ruwido patent. A November 30, 2018 hearing date was set by the Court but it deferred its decision until the decision from the EPO has become final.

On September 5, 2018, we filed a lawsuit against Roku, Inc. (“Roku”) in the United States District Court, Central District of California (Universal Electronics Inc. v. Roku, Inc.) alleging that Roku is willfully infringing nine of our patents that are in four patent families related to remote control set-up and touchscreen remotes. On December 5, 2018, we amended our complaint to add additional details supporting our infringement and willfulness allegations. We have alleged that this complaint relates to multiple Roku streaming players and components therefore and certain universal control devices, including but not limited to the Roku App, Roku TV, Roku Ultra, Roku Express, Roku Streaming Stick, Roku Ultra, Roku Premiere, Roku 4, Roku 3, Roku 2, Roku Enhanced Remote and any other Roku product that provides for the remote control of an external device such as a TV, audiovisual receiver, sound bar or Roku TV Wireless Speakers. Roku has answered our complaint with a general denial. In December 2018, the Court set a trial date of June 16, 2020. We are currently proceeding with discovery and motions.

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, 2018 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, 2018, approximately 52 percent of our India subsidiary employees had qualified for eligibility. An individual must be employed by our India subsidiary for a minimum of five 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, 2018 and 2017 for the India Plan was not material. During the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017, and 2016, the net periodic benefit costs were also not material.