Commitments and Contingencies

Product Warranties

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



(In thousands)	Nine Months Ended September 30,
(In thousands)	2018			2017
Balance at beginning of period	$	339		$	134
Accruals for warranties issued during the period	787			169
Settlements (in cash or in kind) during the period	(850		)	(85		)
Balance at end of period	$	276		$	218

Restructuring Activities and Sale of Guangzhou Factory

In the first quarter of 2016, we implemented a plan to transition manufacturing activities from our southern-most China factory, located in the city of Guangzhou in the Guangdong province, to our other China factories. As a result, we incurred severance costs of $0.4 million and $6.1 million during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017, respectively, which are included within operating expenses. All operations ceased in our Guangzhou factory in the third quarter of 2017 and the transition to the other China factories was completed by the end of 2017. Since all operations at our Guangzhou manufacturing facility ceased as of the end of July 2017, the related building and land lease assets were classified as assets held for sale in our consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2017.

On September 26, 2016, we entered into an agreement to sell our Guangzhou manufacturing facility for RMB 320 million. In accordance with the terms of the agreement, the buyer deposited 10% of the purchase price into an escrow account upon the execution of the agreement, which we presented as restricted cash in our consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2017 (also refer to Note 2). In April 2018, we and the buyer mutually agreed to terminate the sale. The mutually agreed termination took effect immediately with no incremental penalty or costs to either party. In connection with this termination, the deposit was returned to the buyer.

On April 23, 2018, we entered into a new agreement to sell our Guangzhou manufacturing facility to a second buyer for RMB 339 million (approximately $51.4 million based on exchange rates in effect at the time of closing). On April 26, 2018, the second buyer paid to us a deposit of RMB 34 million (approximately $5.1 million based on exchange rates in effect at the time of closing), which under the terms of the agreement was nonrefundable. Upon receipt by the Governmental Agency of the second buyer’s application of approval of transfer, the second buyer was to pay to us RMB 237 million (approximately $35.8 million based on exchange rates in effect at the time of closing). Additionally, within two days after the second payment was made to us, the second buyer was to deposit the remaining consideration of RMB 68 million (approximately $10.3 million based on exchange rates in effect at the time of closing) into escrow, which was to be released to us upon the closing of the sale. Per the terms of the agreement, the sale was to be completed no later than June 30, 2018. On June 26, 2018, all conditions to closing were satisfied and the sale was completed, resulting in a pre-tax gain of $37.0 million ($32.1 million, net of income taxes).

Litigation

On or about June 10, 2015, FM Marketing GmbH ("FMH") and Ruwido Austria GmbH ("Ruwido"), filed a Summons in Summary Proceedings in Belgium court against one of our subsidiaries, Universal Electronics BV ("UEBV") and one of its customers, Telenet N.V. ("Telenet"), claiming that one of the products UEBV supplied to Telenet violates two design patents and one utility patent owned by FMH and/or Ruwido. By this summons, FMH and Ruwido sought to enjoin Telenet and UEBV from continued distribution and use of the product at issue. After the September 29, 2015 hearing, the court issued its ruling in our and Telenet’s favor, rejecting FMH and Ruwido’s request entirely. On October 22, 2015, Ruwido filed its notice of appeal in this ruling. The parties have fully briefed and argued before the appellate court and we are awaiting the appellate court’s ruling. In addition, on or about February 9, 2016, Ruwido filed a writ of summons for proceeding on the merits with respect to the asserted patents. UEBV and Telenet have replied, denying all of Ruwido's allegations and in June 2017, a hearing was held before the trial court. During this hearing, Ruwido sought to have a second product which we are currently selling to Telenet included in this case. In September 2017, the Court ruled in our favor that our current product cannot be made part of this case. The Court also refused to rule on whether the original product (which we are no longer selling) infringes the Ruwido patent, instead deciding to wait until the European Patent Office has ruled on our Opposition (see below). Finally, the Court ruled that our original product (which we are no longer selling) infringes certain of Ruwido’s design rights, but stayed any decision of compensation and/or damages until all aspects of the case have been decided. We have filed an appeal as to the Court’s ruling of infringement, and submission by the parties were due to the Court during the second quarter of 2018 with a hearing expected to take place in late 2018. Subsequent to the Court's ruling that a second product could not be added to the first case on the merits, Ruwido filed a separate case on the merits with respect to this second product, claiming that it too infringes the same patent at issue in the first suit. We have denied these claims. According to the Court’s trial schedule, briefs from both parties will be due during the second half of 2018 and early 2019 with a trial date set for January 2019. In September 2015, UEBV filed an Opposition with the European Patent Office seeking to invalidate the one utility patent asserted against UEBV and Telenet by Ruwido. The hearing on this opposition was held in July 2017. During this hearing the panel requested additional information. We have assembled this additional information and the final hearing has been scheduled for January 29, 2019. On September 5, 2017, Ruwido and FMH filed a patent infringement case on the merits against UEBV and Telenet in the Netherlands alleging the same claims of infringement as in the Belgium Courts (see above). We have denied these claims and filed a counterclaim seeking to invalidate the Ruwido patent. A November 30, 2018 hearing date has been set by the Court.

On September 5, 2018, we filed a lawsuit against Roku, Inc. (“Roku”) in the United States District Court, Central District of California (Universal Electronics Inc. v. Roku, Inc.) alleging that Roku is infringing nine patents that are in four patent families related to remote control set-up and touchscreen remotes. We have alleged that this complaint relates to multiple Roku streaming players and components therefore and certain universal control devices, including but not limited, the Roku App, Roku TV, Roku Ultra, 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. Roku has not yet answered our complaint.

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.