Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended |
Mar. 31, 2015 |
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) | Three Months Ended March 31, |
2015 | | 2014 |
Balance at beginning of period | $ | 353 | | | $ | 41 | |
|
Accruals for warranties issued during the period | — | | | 21 | |
|
Settlements (in cash or in kind) during the period | (180 | ) | | (41 | ) |
Balance at end of period | $ | 173 | | | $ | 21 | |
|
Litigation |
|
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 was infringing, directly and indirectly, four of our patents related to remote control technology. We alleged that this complaint related 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 sought 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 denied infringing our patents and asserted a variety of counterclaims and affirmative defenses including invalidity and unenforceability of our patents, misuse of patents, and a breach of contract action stemming from the settlement by us of an earlier lawsuit against URC. 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 asserted against URC were invalid, effectively removing one of the four patents alleged by us to be infringed by URC from this litigation. In March 2014, the Court further narrowed the scope of this litigation granting URC's motion for summary judgment with respect to certain issues that effectively removed two additional patents. In March 2014, the Court also granted our motion for summary judgment on certain of URC's defenses and counterclaims, including URC's counterclaim for breach of contract. A trial was held from May 6, 2014 through May 20, 2014, and the jury returned a verdict that URC did not infringe on our remaining patent, and found for URC on patent validity and several equitable defenses in the lawsuit, although the jury's verdict on the equitable defenses was advisory in nature. A hearing on motions pertaining to the jury's verdict was held on August 18, 2014. On December 16, 2014, the Court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law on the equitable issues and determined that our assertion of URC's infringement of one of the patents at issue was barred by laches, but not by equitable estoppel or patent misuse. Further, the Court determined that our right to seek relief was not barred by unclean hands and on January 27, 2015, final judgment was entered by the Court accepting the jury's verdict pertaining to invalidity, non-infringement, marking, and the equitable defense of laches and ordered us to pay URC's costs of litigation, exclusive of attorney's fees. The parties have filed briefs in support of and opposition to the amount of such costs and fees to be awarded. URC is seeking an award of its costs in excess of $0.2 million. We have vigorously opposed this request as unreasonably excessive. We are awaiting the Court's determination of the amount of the award and depending upon the Court's decision, we will decide whether to appeal the ruling or not. At this time, since URC's and our opinions are very far apart as to the amount of costs to which URC should be awarded, we cannot estimate the amount the Court may award. On January 22, 2015, URC filed a motion seeking to recover its attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with its defense of this lawsuit. We opposed this motion. On March 10, 2015, after a hearing, the Court granted URC's motion for a portion of its attorneys' fees and expenses and the parties have filed briefs in support of and opposition to the amount of fees and expenses to be awarded. URC is seeking an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in excess of $5.7 million. We have vigorously opposed this request as unreasonably excessive. We are awaiting the Court's determination of the amount of the award and depending upon the Court's decision, we will decide whether to appeal the ruling or not. At this time, since URC's and our opinions are very far apart as to the amount of fees and expenses to which URC could be awarded and due to the lack of guiding judicial precedent, we cannot estimate the amount the Court may award and thus no accrual for potential loss has been recorded as of March 31, 2015. On February 26, 2015, URC filed its notice of appeal with respect to rulings against it pertaining to the issues of patent misuse, unclean hands, implied license and all adverse orders, decisions, and opinions rulings of the Court, which appeal we will vigorously defend against and on March 11, 2015, we filed our notice of appeal with respect to the final judgment entered against us on January 27, 2015, with respect to the Court's claim construction order entered on February 1, 2013 and from the order granted URC's motion for attorneys' fees. Finally, on April 8, 2015, URC filed its notice of appeal with respect to the Court's order granting its motion for attorneys' fees. |
|
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, ten 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 against URC. In addition, URC answered this complaint 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. In mid-November 2013, we filed a motion to add affiliated URC suppliers, Ohsung Electronics Co, Ltd, a South Korean entity, and Ohsung Electronics USA, Inc., a California entity, (collectively "Ohsung"), to the lawsuit. In February 2014, Ohsung answered and counterclaimed with a general denial of wrongdoing and asserted the standard affirmative defenses of non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability of our patents and breach of contract action stemming from the settlement by us of an earlier lawsuit against URC. In March 2014, we answered by disputing Ohsung's defenses and with a general denial of Ohsung's breach of contract complaint. In late June and early July of 2014, URC and Ohsung requested inter partes review ("IPR") with the US Patent and Trademark Office ("Patent Office" or "USPTO") for each of the ten patents pending in the second URC lawsuit. We intend to vigorously defend each patent before the Patent Office. During December 2014 and January 2015, the Patent Office issued its decisions on URC's petitions and accepted for review all claims at issue with respect to five of the patents, certain claims at issue with respect to two of the patents and denied in full the request to review the other three patents at issue.We are presently reviewing the Patent Office's decisions to determine our next steps which could include appealing the Patent Office's acceptance of some or all of the seven patents and/or defending the patents in front of the USPTO. While the Patent Office was considering the IPR requests, this second lawsuit was stayed by the Court. On March 5, 2015, the Court granted the parties Joint Stipulation agreeing that the stay continue while the Patent Office decides the IPRs, which decisions are not expected until January 2016. |
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. |