Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Product Warranties

Changes in the liability for product warranty claims costs were as follows:


(In thousands)	Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2020		2019
Balance at beginning of period	$	1,514	$	276
Accruals for warranties issued during the period	578		695
Settlements (in cash or in kind) during the period/Foreign exchange effects	(295)		—
Balance at end of period	$	1,797	$	971

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 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. 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 requests (see discussion below).

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. We are in the discovery phase of this investigation which is set to end in early November 2020.

Inter Partes Reviews

In September and October 2019, Roku filed Inter Partes Review ("IPR") requests with the PTAB on the nine patents at issue in the 2018 Lawsuit (see discussion above). To date, the PTAB has denied Roku's request with respect to three of the nine patents and granted Roku's request with respect to six of the nine patents. As for those IPRs for which the PTAB granted Roku's request for review, we will vigorously defend our patents. In May and June 2020, Roku filed four IPR requests against three patents asserted in the ITC investigation. UEI has responded to these requests and we are awaiting the PTAB decision in early to mid 2021.

Federal District Court Actions against each of Roku, TCL, Hisense, and Funai related to the ITC Matter

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 stayed pending the results of the ITC investigation mentioned above.

Court of International Trade Action against the United States of America, et. al.

On October 9, 2020, Universal Electronics Inc. ("UEI") 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.

By this complaint, UEI, 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. UEI, 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.

UEI, Ecolink and RCS are asking the CIT to declare that Defendants' actions resulting in the tariffs on products covered by Lists 3 and 4A are unauthorized by and contrary to the Trade Act and was 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 UEI, Ecolink and RCS; to permanently enjoin the U.S. government from applying Lists 3 and 4A duties against UEI, Ecolink and RCS; and award UEI, Ecolink and RCS their costs and reasonable attorney fees.

The Government has requested an automatic stay of all pending cases challenging the List 3 and List 4A tariffs except for one or more "test cases." It proposed the first-filed case—the case filed by HMTX—as the test case. The government also asked the court to appoint a "steering committee" consisting of several lead counsel for the plaintiffs to direct the litigation. The government proposed a bifurcated briefing schedule, under which the parties would first brief the government's upcoming motion to dismiss before briefing the merits of plaintiffs' claims. We will agree to a stay in our case. HMTX has filed a response agreeing to the stay and to being the test case but opposed the Government's proposed briefing schedule.

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.