COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2020

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

16. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES:

Commitments

Under the 2006 Research Agreement with USC, the Company is obligated to make certain payments to USC based on work performed by USC under that agreement, and by Michigan under its subcontractor agreement with USC. See Note 10 for further explanation.

Under the terms of the 1997 Amended License Agreement, the Company is required to make minimum royalty payments to Princeton. See Note 10 for further explanation.

The Company has agreements with six executive officers and two employees which provide for certain cash and other benefits upon termination of employment of the officer or employee in connection with a change in control of the Company. If the executive’s employment is terminated in connection with the change in control, the executive is entitled to a lump-sum cash payment equal to two times the sum of the average annual base salary and bonus of the officer and immediate vesting of all stock options and other equity awards that may be outstanding at the date of the change in control, among other items.

In order to manage manufacturing lead times and help ensure adequate material supply, the Company entered into a New OLED Materials Agreement (see Note 11) that allows PPG to procure and produce inventory based upon criteria as defined by the Company. These purchase commitments consist of firm, noncancelable and unconditional commitments. In certain instances, this agreement allows the Company the option to reschedule and adjust the Company’s requirements based on its business needs prior to firm orders being placed. As of December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018, the Company had purchase commitments for inventory of $13.7 million, $22.0 million and $15.9 million, respectively.

Patent Related Challenges and Oppositions

Each major jurisdiction in the world that issues patents provides both third parties and applicants an opportunity to seek a further review of an issued patent. The process for requesting and considering such reviews is specific to the jurisdiction that issued the patent in question, and generally does not provide for claims of monetary damages or a review of specific claims of infringement. The conclusions made by the reviewing administrative bodies tend to be appealable and generally are limited in scope and applicability to the specific claims and jurisdiction in question.

The Company believes that opposition proceedings are frequently commenced in the ordinary course of business by third parties who may believe that one or more claims in a patent do not comply with the technical or legal requirements of the specific jurisdiction in which the patent was issued. The Company views these proceedings as reflective of its goal of obtaining the broadest legally

permissible patent coverage permitted in each jurisdiction. Once a proceeding is initiated, as a general matter, the issued patent continues to be presumed valid until the jurisdiction’s applicable administrative body issues a final non-appealable decision. Depending on the jurisdiction, the outcome of these proceedings could include affirmation, denial or modification of some or all of the originally issued claims. The Company believes that as OLED technology becomes more established and its patent portfolio increases in size, so will the number of these proceedings.

Below is a summary of an active proceeding that has been commenced against an issued patent that is exclusively licensed to the Company. The Company does not believe that the confirmation, loss or modification of the Company’s rights in any individual claim or set of claims that are the subject of the following legal proceeding would have a material impact on the Company’s materials sales or licensing business or on the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements, including its Consolidated Statements of Income, as a whole. However, as noted within the description, the following proceeding involves an issued patent that relates to the Company’s fundamental phosphorescent OLED technologies and the Company intends to vigorously defend against claims that, in the Company’s opinion, seek to restrict or reduce the scope of the originally issued claim, which may require the expenditure of significant amounts of the Company’s resources. In certain circumstances, when permitted, the Company may also utilize a proceeding to request modification of the claims to better distinguish the patented invention from any newly identified prior art and/or improve the claim scope of the patent relative to commercially important categories of the invention.

Opposition to European Patent No. 1390962

On November 16, 2011, Osram AG and BASF SE each filed a Notice of Opposition to European Patent No. 1390962 (the EP '962 patent), which relates to the Company’s white phosphorescent OLED technology. The EP '962 patent, which was issued on February 16, 2011, is a European counterpart patent to U.S. patents 7,009,338 and 7,285,907. They are exclusively licensed to the Company by Princeton, and the Company is required to pay all legal costs and fees associated with this proceeding.

The European Patent Office (EPO) combined the oppositions into a single opposition proceeding, and a hearing on this matter was held in December 2015, wherein the EPO Opposition Division revoked the patent claims for alleged insufficiencies under European Patent Convention Article 83. The Company believes the EPO's decision is erroneous and appealed the decision. Subsequent to the filing of the appeal, BASF withdrew its opposition to the patent. On appeal, the Appeals Division withdrew the lower Opposition Division’s rejections with respect to a portion of the original subject matter and remanded the matter to the lower Opposition Division for further consideration. The patent, as originally granted, is deemed valid during the pendency of the opposition process.

At this time, based on its current knowledge, the Company believes that the patent being challenged should be declared valid and that a significant portion of the Company's claims should be upheld. However, the Company cannot make any assurances of this result.

In addition to the above proceeding and now concluded proceedings which have been referenced in prior filings, from time to time, the Company may have other proceedings that are pending which relate to patents the Company acquired as part of the Fujifilm patent or BASF OLED patent acquisitions or which relate to technologies that are not currently widely used in the marketplace.