XML 34 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2021
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) | 2021 |  | 2020 |  | 2019
Balance at beginning of period | $ | 1,721 |  |  | $ | 1,514 |  |  | $ | 276 |
Accruals for warranties issued during the period | 2,943 |  |  | 578 |  |  | 1,742 |
Settlements (in cash or in kind) during the period | (3,522) |  |  | (463) |  |  | (504) |
Foreign currency translation gain (loss) | (47) |  |  | 92 |  |  | — |
Balance at end of period | $ | 1,095 |  |  | $ | 1,721 |  |  | $ | 1,514 |
Litigation Roku Matters 2018 Lawsuit On September 5, 2018, we filed a lawsuit against Roku, Inc. ("Roku") in the United States District Court, Central District of California, 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 therefor 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. In October 2019, the Court stayed this lawsuit pending action by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (the "PTAB") with respect to Roku's Inter Partes Review ("IPR") requests (see discussion below).This lawsuit continues to be stayed until such time as the IPR requests and all appeals with respect to them have concluded. International Trade Commission Investigation of Roku, TCL, Hisense and Funai On April 16, 2020, we filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (the "ITC") against Roku, TCL Electronics Holding Limited and related entities (collectively, "TCL"), Hisense Co., Ltd. and related entities (collectively, "Hisense"), and Funai Electric Company, Ltd. and related entities (collectively, "Funai") claiming that certain of their televisions, set-top boxes, remote control devices, human interface devices, streaming devices, and sound bars infringe certain of our patents. We asked the ITC to issue a permanent limited exclusion order prohibiting the importation of these infringing products into the United States and a cease and desist order to stop these parties from continuing their infringing activities. On May 18, 2020, the ITC announced that it instituted its investigation as requested by us. Prior to the trial, which ended on April 23, 2021, we released TCL, Hisense and Funai from this investigation as they removed our technology from their televisions. On July 9, 2021, the Administrative Law Judge (the "ALJ") issued his Initial Determination (the "ID") finding that Roku is infringing our patents and as a result is in violation of §337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. On July 23, 2021, Roku and we filed petitions to appeal certain portions of the ID. On November 10, 2021, the full ITC issued its final determination affirming the ID and issuing a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Order against Roku which became effective on January 9, 2022. 2020 Lawsuit As a companion case to our ITC complaint, on April 9, 2020, we filed separate actions against each of Roku, TCL, Hisense, and Funai in the United States District Court, Central District of California, alleging that Roku is willfully infringing five of our patents and TCL, Hisense, and Funai are willfully infringing six of our patents by incorporating our patented technology into certain of their televisions, set-top boxes, remote control devices, human interface devices, streaming devices and sound bars. These matters have been and continue to be stayed pending the final results of the open IPR matters mentioned below. Inter Partes Reviews Throughout these litigation matters against Roku and the others identified above, Roku has filed multiple IPR requests with the PTAB on all patents at issue in the 2018 Lawsuit, the ITC Action, and the 2020 Lawsuit (see discussion above). To date, the PTAB has denied Roku's request eleven times, granted Roku's request seven times and we are awaiting the PTAB's institution decision with respect to the remaining two IPR requests. Of the seven IPR requests granted by the PTAB, the results were mixed, with the PTAB validating many of our patent claims and invalidating others. We have and will appeal any PTAB decisi on that resulted i n an invalidation of our patent claims. International Trade Commission Investigation Request made by Roku against UEI and certain UEI Customers On April 8, 2021, Roku made a request to the ITC to initiate an investigation against us and certain of our customers claiming that certain of our and those customers' remote control devices and televisions infringe two of Roku's recently acquired patents. On May 10, 2021, the ITC announced its decision to initiate the requested investigation. Immediately prior to trial Roku withdrew its complaint against us and two of our customers with respect to one of the two patents at issue. This released the complaint against us and two of our customers with respect to that patent. The trial was thus shortened and ended on January 24, 2022. We anticipate that the ALJ will issue her ID on or about June 28, 2022 and the full commission review is set for October 28, 2022. As a companion to its ITC request, Roku also filed a lawsuit against us and certain of our customers in Federal District Court in the Central District of California alleging that we are infringing the same patents they alleged being infringed in the ITC investigation explained above. This District Court case has been and will continue to be stayed pending the conclusion of the ITC investigation. Court of International Trade Action against the United States of America, et. al. On October 9, 2020, we and our subsidiaries, Ecolink Intelligent Technology, Inc. ("Ecolink") and RCS Technology, LLC ("RCS"), filed an amended complaint (20-cv-00670) in the Court of International Trade (the "CIT") against the United States of America; the Office of the United States Trade Representative; Robert E. Lighthizer, U.S. Trade Representative; U.S. Customs & Border Protection; and Mark A. Morgan, U.S. Customs & Border Protection Acting Commissioner, challenging both the substantive and procedural processes followed by the United States Trade Representative ("USTR") when instituting Section 301 Tariffs on imports from China under Lists 3 and 4A. Pursuant to this complaint, we, Ecolink and RCS are alleging that USTR's institution of Lists 3 and 4A tariffs violated the Trade Act of 1974 (the "Trade Act") on the grounds that the USTR failed to make a determination or finding that there was an unfair trade practice that required a remedy and moreover, that Lists 3 and 4A tariffs were instituted beyond the 12-month time limit provided for in the governing statute. We, Ecolink and RCS also allege that the manner in which the Lists 3 and 4A tariff actions were implemented violated the Administrative Procedures Act (the "APA") by failing to provide adequate opportunity for comments, failed to consider relevant factors when making its decision and failed to connect the record facts to the choices it made by not explaining how the comments received by USTR came to shape the final implementation of Lists 3 and 4A. We, Ecolink and RCS are asking the CIT to declare that the defendants' actions resulting in the tariffs on products covered by Lists 3 and 4A are unauthorized by and contrary to the Trade Act and were arbitrarily and unlawfully promulgated in violation of the APA; to vacate the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs; to order a refund (with interest) of any Lists 3 and 4A duties paid by us, Ecolink and RCS; to permanently enjoin the U.S. government from applying Lists 3 and 4A duties against us, Ecolink and RCS; and award us, Ecolink and RCS our costs and reasonable attorney's fees. In July 2021, the CIT issued a preliminary injunction suspending liquidation of all unliquidated entries subject to Lists 3 and 4A duties and has asked the parties to develop a process to keep track of the entries to efficiently and effectively deal with liquidation process and duties to be paid or refunded when finally adjudicated. On February 5, 2022, the CIT heard oral arguments on dispositive motions filed on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants and we expect a decision on these motions in the coming months. 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. 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, 2021 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, 2021, approximately 63 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, 2021 and 2020 for the India Plan was not material. During the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, 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://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 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration