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)	2013			2012		2011
Balance at beginning of period	$	404		$	6	$	71
Accruals for warranties issued during the period	416			398		(27		)
Settlements (in cash or in kind) during the period	(779		)	—		(38		)
Balance at end of period	$	41		$	404	$	6

Litigation

On July 15, 2011, we filed a lawsuit against Logitech, Inc., Logitech International S.A. and Logitech Europe S.A. in the United States District Court, Central District of California (Universal Electronics Inc. v. Logitech, Inc., Logitech International S.A. and Logitech Europe S.A., SACV 11-1056-JVS(ANx)) alleging that the Logitech companies were infringing seventeen of our patents related to remote control technology. We alleged that this complaint related to multiple Logitech remote control products and were seeking monetary relief for the infringement, including enhanced damages due to the willfulness of the Logitech companies' actions, injunctive relief to enjoin the Logitech companies from further infringing, including contributory infringement and/or inducing infringement, and attorney's fees. In its answer, filed on November 3, 2011, the Logitech companies generally denied all of our allegations of infringement and counterclaimed that we were infringing five of their patents. On November 24, 2011, we answered the Logitech companies' counterclaims, generally denying all of their allegations of infringement. On September 26, 2012, the Logitech companies and the Company entered into a long-term, confidential Settlement and License Agreement with an effective date of July 1, 2012 (the “Agreement”). During the term of the Agreement, the Logitech companies and the Company dismissed all lawsuits and, among other things, the Logitech companies will pay royalties to the Company to license the technologies covered by our patents in this suit. Additionally, the Logitech companies agreed to pay the Company $2.0 million for past royalties for the period covering July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2012. Due to the historical and ongoing relationship with the Logitech companies, this amount was included in net sales for the year ended December 31, 2012.

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 is infringing, directly and indirectly, four of our patents related to remote control technology. We have alleged that this complaint relates to multiple URC remote control products, including the URC model numbers UR5U-9000L, WR7 and other remote controls with different model names or numbers, but with substantially the same designs, features, and functionalities. We are seeking monetary relief for the infringement, including enhanced damages due to the willfulness of URC's actions, injunctive relief to enjoin URC from further infringing, including contributory infringement and/or inducing infringement, and attorney's fees. URC has denied infringing our patents. On January 29, 2013, the Court held its "Markman" hearing and on February 1, 2013, the Court issued its ruling that four of the 24 claims we have asserted against URC were invalid, effectively removing one of the four patents alleged by us to be infringed by URC from this litigation. In our estimation this ruling does not materially affect our position in this litigation. In all other respects, this litigation is continuing as scheduled with expert discovery and pre-trial motions continuing and trial is scheduled for May 2014.

In addition, 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)). In this second lawsuit, we are alleging that URC is infringing, directly and indirectly, nine additional patents that we own related to remote control technology. As in the first lawsuit, in this second lawsuit we have alleged that this complaint relates to multiple URC remote control products.

We are seeking monetary relief for infringement, including enhanced damages due to the willfulness of URC's actions, injunctive relief to enjoin URC from further infringing, including contributory infringement and/or inducing infringement, and attorney's fees. In mid-July 2013, URC filed a Notice of Related Cases seeking to join this lawsuit with the lawsuit we filed against URC on March 2, 2012 and we did not object to this Notice. Consequently, this lawsuit was transferred to the Judge and Magistrate hearing our first lawsuit filed in March 2013. In mid-November 2013, UEI filed a motion to add affiliated URC suppliers, Ohsung Electronics Co, Ltd (a South Korean entity) and Ohsung Electronics USA, Inc. (a California entity) to the lawsuit. We are waiting for these additional parties to answer the motion, and will continue efforts to join both parties to the lawsuit. In all other respects this litigation is continuing as scheduled with URC answering this compliant with a denial of infringement, asserting affirmative defenses, and seeking a ruling that URC has not infringed our patents, that our patents are invalid and unenforceable, that the patents have been licensed to URC, and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. Discovery is underway.

On September 23, 2013, we filed a lawsuit against Peel Technologies, Inc. (“Peel”) in the United States District Court, Central District of California (Universal Electronics Inc. v. Peel Technologies, Inc., SACV13-01484 GAF (RNBx)) alleging that Peel is infringing, directly and indirectly, five of our patents related to remote control technology. We have alleged that this complaint relates to software and hardware used in connection with remote control devices, including Peel’s software products called “TV App” (sometimes referred to as “Sense TV”), “WatchOn App” and “Peel Smart Remote App”, and a product called “Peel Universal Remote” consisting of a Peel “Fruit” hardware device and a software component for use with the iOS operating system. We are seeking monetary relief for the infringement, including enhanced damages due to the willfulness of Peel’s actions, injunctive relief to enjoin Peel from further infringing, including contributory infringement and/or inducing infringement, and attorney’s fees. On November 14, 2013, Peel answered our complaint with a general denial that it is infringing our patents and has filed counter-claims, seeking declaratory judgments that our patents are not infringed and are invalid. They are also seeking attorney’s fees. In our reply to Peel’s counterclaims, which we filed on December 5, 2013, we have asked the Court to deny and dismiss with prejudice Peel’s counterclaims and sought after relief. Discovery has just begun.

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, 2013 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, 2013, approximately 35 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, 2013 and 2012 for the India Plan is not material. During the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011, the net periodic benefit costs were also not material.