XML 30 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.2.u1

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Product Warranties Changes in the liability for product warranty claims costs were as follows:
(In thousands) | Six Months Ended June 30,
2024 |  | 2023
Balance at beginning of period | $ | 522 |  |  | $ | 522 |
Accruals for warranties issued during the period | — |  |  | — |
Settlements (in cash or in kind) during the period | — |  |  | — |
Foreign currency translation gain (loss) | — |  |  | — |
Balance at end of period | $ | 522 |  |  | $ | 522 |
Restructuring Activities Asia In conjunction with our plan to restructure and optimize our manufacturing footprint while reducing our concentration risk in the PRC, we stopped all production activities and began to shutdown of our southwestern China factory beginning in the third quarter of 2023. We incurred no severance or other exit costs during the three months ended June 30, 2024. We incurred $0.1 million of severance and $0.1 million of other exit costs during the six months ended June 30, 2024. These costs are included within factory restructuring charges on our consolidated statements of operations. We have recognized a total of $4.2 million in factory restructuring charges since September 2023. This factory restructuring was completed in the second quarter of 2024 and we do not expect any further expenses associated with this plan. Mexico As part of our plan to restructure and optimize our factory footprint, we are working to downsize our factory in Mexico due to decreased demand in the U.S. market and our Vietnam facility's ability to supply our North American customers. We have leased a smaller facility and reduced our factory headcount during the six months ended June 30, 2024. As a result, we incurred $0.9 million of severance and $0.6 million of other exit costs during the three months ended June 30, 2024. We incurred $1.4 million of severance and $1.0 million of other exit costs during the six months ended June 30, 2024. These costs are included within factory restructuring charges on our consolidated statements of operations. We expect this factory restructuring to be completed in the fourth quarter of 2024 with total estimated restructuring charges of $2.7 million including $0.3 million expected to be recognized subsequent to June 30, 2024. Restructuring liabilities are included in accrued compensation, accounts payable and other accrued liabilities on our consolidated balance sheets. Total restructuring activities for the six months ended June 30, 2024 are as follows:
| Restructuring Costs
(In thousands) | Total |  | Severance Expense |  | Other Exit Expense
Balance at December 31, 2023 | $ | 462 |  |  | $ | 147 |  |  | $ | 315 |
Restructuring charges | 2,619 |  |  | 1,481 |  |  | 1,138 |
Cash payments | (2,060) |  |  | (817) |  |  | (1,243) |
Balance at June 30, 2024 | $ | 1,021 |  |  | $ | 811 |  |  | $ | 210 |
Total costs incurred inception to date | $ | 6,634 |  |  | $ | 4,906 |  |  | $ | 1,728 |
Total remaining expected expense to be incurred as of June 30, 2024 | $ | 277 |  |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | 277 |
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 requests for Inter Partes Review ("IPR") and with respect to the International Trade Commission Investigation. At this time, we are only waiting for the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to Roku's appeal request (see discussion below) and once received, we expect to be able to ask the District Court to lift this stay. 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 dismissed TCL, Hisense and Funai from this investigation as they either removed or limited the amount of our technology from their televisions as compared to our patent claims that we asserted at the time. 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 (the "Tariff Act"). 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 (the "LEO") and Cease and Desist Order (the "CDO") against Roku, which became effective on January 9, 2022. In January 2022, Roku filed its appeal of the ITC ruling with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the "USCAFC"). Oral argument for this appeal was held on September 5, 2023 and in January 2024 the USCAFC issued its decision affirming the ITC ruling in full. On March 4, 2024, Roku filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc and on April 3, 2024, the USCAFC denied Roku’s petition. In June, Roku advised us that they would file an appeal of the adverse ruling against them in this investigation to the U.S. Supreme Count and on June 12, 2024, Roku filed an application seeking a 45-day extension (to August 16, 2024) to file their Writ of Certiorari. This extension was approved. As soon as Roku files its Writ, we will timely prepare and file our reply. We expect the U.S. Supreme Court to make its decision whether or not to hear Roku’s appeal sometime during or after September of this year. 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. The Court stayed this lawsuit pending action by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (the "PTAB") with respect to Roku's requests for Inter Partes Review ("IPR") and with respect to the International Trade Commission Investigation. At this time, we are only waiting for the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to Roku’s appeal request (see discussion above) and once received, we expect to be able to ask the District Court to lift this stay. 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 fourteen times, and granted Roku's request twelve times. Roku has since filed two IPRs on two of our patents not yet asserted against it, and we are awaiting the PTAB's institution decision with respect to those new IPR requests. Of the twelve IPR requests granted by the PTAB, the results were mixed, with the PTAB upholding the validity of many of our patent claims and invalidating others. Most of these PTAB actions have been completed, and as soon as we learn the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, we expect to be able to petition the District Court to lift the stay on the 2018 and 2020 cases. 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, the '511 patent and the '875 patent. On May 10, 2021, the ITC announced its decision to initiate the requested investigation. Immediately prior to trial Roku stipulated to summary determination as to its complaint against us and two of our customers with respect to one of the two patents at issue. This stipulation resulted in the complaint against us and two of our customers with respect to that patent not going to trial. The trial was thus shortened and ended on January 24, 2022. On June 24, 2022, the ALJ, pursuant to Roku's stipulation, found the '511 patent invalid as indefinite. Thereafter, on June 28, 2022, the ALJ issued an ID fully exonerating us and our customers finding the '875 patent invalid and that Roku failed to prove it established the requisite domestic industry and thus no violation of the Tariff Act. In advance of the full Commission's review, Roku and we filed petitions to appeal certain portions of the ID. In addition, the PTAB granted our request for an IPR with respect to the '875 patent. On October 28, 2022, the full ITC issued its final determination affirming the ID, ruling there was no violation of the Tariff Act and terminated the investigation. In December 2022, Roku filed an appeal, which remains pending. In addition, Roku, along with the ITC, filed a joint motion to dismiss the '511 patent as moot as it recently expired. We are opposing this motion. Further, on October 23, 2023, the PTBA issued its Final Written Decision invalidating all of the claims Roku alleges we infringe. As a companion to its ITC request, Roku also filed a lawsuit against us in Federal District Court in the Central District of California alleging that we are infringing the same two patents they alleged being infringed in the ITC investigation explained above. This District Court case has been stayed pending the ITC case, and will likely continue to be stayed pending the conclusion of Roku's appeal of the ITC case. 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, Ecolink, RCS and we 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. Ecolink, RCS and we 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. Ecolink, RCS and we 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 Ecolink, RCS and us; to permanently enjoin the U.S. government from applying Lists 3 and 4A duties against Ecolink, RCS and us; and award Ecolink, RCS and us 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. On April 1, 2022, the CIT issued its opinion on these dispositive motions, ruling that the USTR had the legal authority to promulgate List 3 and List 4A under Section 307(a)(1)(B) of the Trade Act, but that the USTR violated the APA when it promulgated List 3 and List 4A concluding that the USTR failed to adequately explain its decision as required under the APA. The Court ordered that List 3 and List 4A be remanded to the USTR for reconsideration or further explanation regarding its rationale for imposing the tariffs. The Court declined to vacate List 3 and List 4A, which means that they are still in place while on remand. The Court's preliminary injunction regarding liquidation of entries also remains in effect. The Court initially set a deadline of June 30, 2022, for the USTR to complete this process, which was extended to August 1, 2022. On August 1, 2022, the USTR provided the Court with that further explanation and also purported to respond to the significant comments received during the original notice-and-comment process. On September 14, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed its comments to the USTR's August 1, 2022 filing, asserting that the USTR did not adequately respond to the Court's remand order and requested the Court to vacate the List 3 and List 4A tariffs and issue refunds immediately. On March 17, 2023, the CIT sustained the List 3 and List 4 tariffs, concluding that USTR’s rationale in support of the tariffs was not impermissibly post hoc. The court also concluded that USTR adequately explained its reliance on presidential direction and adequately responded to significant comments regarding the harm to the U.S. economy, efficacy of the tariffs, and alternatives to the tariffs. Lead plaintiffs have appealed this decision. The parties have fully briefed their positions on this appeal and oral argument is expected to be set for later in 2024 and a decision sometime in 2025. Tongshun Matters On January 23, 2024, Tongshun Company ("TS") filed suit against one of our subsidiaries, Gemstar Technology (Yangzhou) Co. Ltd. ("GTY"), claiming among other things, breach of an employment agency contract, and as is standard in Chinese litigation matters such as these, TS has also requested the court to order a hold on GTY's bank account for the total claimed amount of RMB 35 million. This asset protection order is a standard request and routinely granted. On February 5, 2024, we learned that the court accepted the lawsuit filed by TS. On February 8, 2024, we deposited RMB 35 million (approximately $4.8 million) with the court. This deposit is included in prepaid expenses and other current assets on our consolidated balance sheets. The hearing on this matter has been stayed pending settlement discussions between the parties. 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://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration