XML 22 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.3

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Product Warranties Changes in the liability for product warranty claim costs were as follows:
(In thousands) | Nine Months Ended September 30,
2019 |  | 2018
Balance at beginning of period | $ | 276 |  |  | $ | 339 |
Accruals for warranties issued during the period | 695 |  |  | 787 |
Settlements (in cash or in kind) during the period | — |  |  | (850 | )
Balance at end of period | $ | 971 |  |  | $ | 276 |
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. 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. 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. 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 pretax gain of $37.0 million ($32.1 million, net of income taxes). Litigation 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 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 to 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. On September 16, 2019, the appellate court ruled in our favor concluding that our original product did not infringe Ruwido’s design rights. Now that the EPO has issued its ruling (see below), we expect the trial on Ruwido’s remaining infringement and unfair competition claims to occur in the summer of 2020. 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 were due during the second half of 2018 and early 2019 with a trial date set for January 2019. This trial date has since been postponed pending a request to submit additional pleadings which the Court is expected to rule upon during the fourth quarter of 2019. Presently, the oral hearing on the merits with respect to this is set for February 10, 2020. 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. On August 23, 2019, the EPO issued its written opinion. The parties had until November 1, 2019 to file its notice of appeal. We and Ruwido have each filed notices of appeal and we are to file the detailed grounds for the appeal by the end of December. 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. Subsequently, the parties requested they each be allowed to submit additional pleadings. The Court is expected to rule on this request during the fourth quarter of 2019. At about the same time, the Court is expected to set a trial date. 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 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 September and October, 2019, Roku filed Inter Party Review (“IPR”) requests with the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (the “PTAB”) on the nine patents at issue in this case, seeking to invalidate our patents. We have three months from those dates to file our responses with the PTAB, which we will do. The PTAB, in turn has three months after we file our responses to decide whether to institute the requested IPRs. We will vigorously defend against the IPRs. As a further result of Roku filing the IPRs, the Court has stayed the underlying patent lawsuit pending the resolution of IPRs. 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 consolidated 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.

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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration