Commitments and Contingencies

Product Warranties

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



(In thousands)	Three Months Ended March 31,
(In thousands)	2019		2018
Balance at beginning of period	$	276	$	339
Accruals for warranties issued during the period	—		—
Settlements (in cash or in kind) during the period	—		(100		)
Balance at end of period	$	276	$	239

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 (the "EPO") 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 submissions 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 were due during the second half of 2018 and early 2019 with a trial date set for January 2019. This trial date has since been moved to June 4, 2019. In September 2015, UEBV filed an Opposition with the EPO 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 was scheduled for January 29, 2019. The EPO held this hearing on January 29 and 30, 2019 and revoked Ruwido's patent as originally filed. The EPO, however, maintained the patent in an amended form with a much narrower claim. The parties have the right to appeal the EPO's decision, but at this time, neither have done so. 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 was set by the Court but it deferred its decision until the decision from the EPO has become final.

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 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. Roku has answered our complaint with a general denial. In December 2018, the Court set a trial date of June 16, 2020. We are currently proceeding with discovery and motions.

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.