6-30-OLED 2015 10-Q2
Table of Contents

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q
(Mark One)

[X] QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015

OR

[  ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from ____________ to ___________

Commission File Number 1-12031
UNIVERSAL DISPLAY CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Pennsylvania
 
23-2372688
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
 
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
 
 
 
375 Phillips Boulevard, Ewing, New Jersey
 
08618
(Address of principal executive offices)
 
(Zip Code)
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (609) 671-0980

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes  X    No     

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes  X    No     

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer   X   
 
Accelerated filer       
Non-accelerated filer       (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
 
Smaller reporting company  ____   

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).  Yes        No  X 

As of August 4, 2015, the registrant had outstanding 46,453,778 shares of common stock.




Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 





Table of Contents

PART I – FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
UNIVERSAL DISPLAY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(UNAUDITED)
(in thousands, except share and per share data)
 
 
June 30, 2015
 
December 31, 2014
ASSETS
CURRENT ASSETS:
 
 
 
 
Cash and cash equivalents
 
$
109,251

 
$
45,418

Short-term investments
 
246,986

 
243,088

Accounts receivable
 
17,378

 
22,075

Inventory
 
16,969

 
37,109

Deferred income taxes
 
14,863

 
18,459

Other current assets
 
4,773

 
4,356

Total current assets
 
410,220

 
370,505

PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT, net of accumulated depreciation of $26,250 and $24,813
 
20,905

 
19,922

ACQUIRED TECHNOLOGY, net of accumulated amortization of $49,338 and $43,838
 
77,514

 
83,014

INVESTMENTS
 
3,888

 
3,047

DEFERRED INCOME TAXES
 
12,299

 
12,934

OTHER ASSETS
 
345

 
425

TOTAL ASSETS
 
$
525,171

 
$
489,847

LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
CURRENT LIABILITIES:
 
 
 
 
Accounts payable
 
$
6,656

 
$
9,260

Accrued expenses
 
16,424

 
14,986

Deferred revenue
 
22,020

 
2,466

Other current liabilities
 
53

 
111

Total current liabilities
 
45,153

 
26,823

DEFERRED REVENUE
 
27,331

 
3,366

RETIREMENT PLAN BENEFIT LIABILITY
 
11,750

 
10,916

Total liabilities
 
84,234

 
41,105

 
 
 
 
 
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 13)
 
 
 


 
 
 
 
 
SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY:
 
 
 
 
Preferred Stock, par value $0.01 per share, 5,000,000 shares authorized, 200,000 shares of Series A Nonconvertible Preferred Stock issued and outstanding (liquidation value of $7.50 per share or $1,500)
 
2

 
2

Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share, 100,000,000 shares authorized, 47,457,719 and 47,061,826 shares issued and outstanding at June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively
 
475

 
471

Additional paid-in capital
 
583,338

 
581,114

Accumulated deficit
 
(98,762
)
 
(88,305
)
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
 
(3,958
)
 
(4,382
)
Treasury stock, at cost (1,357,863 shares at June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014)
 
(40,158
)
 
(40,158
)
Total shareholders’ equity
 
440,937

 
448,742

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
 
$
525,171

 
$
489,847


The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

1

Table of Contents

UNIVERSAL DISPLAY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(UNAUDITED)
(in thousands, except share and per share data)
 
 
Three Months Ended June 30,
 
Six Months Ended June 30,
 
 
2015
 
2014
 
2015
 
2014
REVENUE:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Material sales
 
$
24,324

 
$
35,926

 
$
51,142

 
$
71,252

Royalty and license fees
 
33,733

 
28,064

 
38,108

 
29,843

Technology development and support revenue
 
35

 
137

 
65

 
870

Total revenue
 
58,092

 
64,127

 
89,315

 
101,965

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OPERATING EXPENSES:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cost of material sales
 
39,086

 
11,951

 
47,667

 
21,848

Research and development
 
10,647

 
10,544

 
20,566

 
20,700

Selling, general and administrative
 
6,705

 
6,545

 
12,905

 
12,975

Patent costs and amortization of acquired technology
 
4,462

 
4,748

 
8,429

 
8,721

Royalty and license expense
 
1,673

 
1,501

 
2,458

 
2,257

Total operating expenses
 
62,573

 
35,289

 
92,025

 
66,501

Operating (loss) income
 
(4,481
)
 
28,838

 
(2,710
)
 
35,464

INTEREST INCOME
 
188

 
193

 
361

 
411

INTEREST EXPENSE
 
(12
)
 
(21
)
 
(24
)
 
(37
)
(LOSS) INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES
 
(4,305
)
 
29,010

 
(2,373
)
 
35,838

INCOME TAX EXPENSE
 
(7,466
)
 
(8,588
)
 
(8,084
)
 
(11,395
)
NET (LOSS) INCOME
 
$
(11,771
)
 
$
20,422

 
$
(10,457
)
 
$
24,443

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NET (LOSS) INCOME PER COMMON SHARE:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BASIC
 
$
(0.25
)
 
$
0.44

 
$
(0.23
)
 
$
0.53

DILUTED
 
$
(0.25
)
 
$
0.44

 
$
(0.23
)
 
$
0.52

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES USED IN COMPUTING NET (LOSS) INCOME PER COMMON SHARE:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BASIC
 
46,388,218

 
46,266,142

 
45,840,599

 
46,222,146

DILUTED
 
46,388,218

 
46,614,726

 
45,840,599

 
46,632,982

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.


2

Table of Contents

UNIVERSAL DISPLAY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE (LOSS) INCOME
(UNAUDITED)
(in thousands)
 
 
Three Months Ended June 30,
 
Six Months Ended June 30,
 
 
2015
 
2014
 
2015
 
2014
NET (LOSS) INCOME
 
$
(11,771
)
 
$
20,422

 
$
(10,457
)
 
$
24,443

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME, NET OF TAX:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities, net of tax of $11, $6, $4 and $21, respectively
 
19

 
25

 
4

 
37

Employee benefit plan:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Amortization of prior service cost and actuarial loss for retirement plan included in net periodic pension costs, net of tax of $157, $52, $258 and $108, respectively
 
279

 
142

 
420

 
184

Net change for employee benefit plan
 
279

 
142

 
420

 
184

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TOTAL OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
 
298

 
167

 
424

 
221

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPREHENSIVE (LOSS) INCOME
 
$
(11,473
)
 
$
20,589

 
$
(10,033
)
 
$
24,664

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

3

Table of Contents

UNIVERSAL DISPLAY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
(UNAUDITED)
(in thousands, except for share data)
 
 
Series A
Nonconvertible
 
Common Stock
 
Additional
 
Accumulated
Deficit
 
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Loss
 
Treasury Stock
 
Total
Shareholders’
Equity
 
 
Preferred Stock
 
 
Paid-in
 
 
 
 
 
 
Shares
 
Amount
 
Shares
 
Amount
 
Capital
 
 
 
Shares
 
Amount
 
BALANCE, DECEMBER 31, 2014
 
200,000

 
$
2

 
47,061,826

 
$
471

 
$
581,114

 
$
(88,305
)
 
$
(4,382
)
 
1,357,863

 
$
(40,158
)
 
$
448,742

Net loss
 

 

 

 

 

 
(10,457
)
 

 

 

 
(10,457
)
Other comprehensive income
 

 

 

 

 

 


 
424

 

 

 
424

Exercise of common stock options
 

 

 
191,640

 
2

 
1,370

 

 

 

 

 
1,372

Issuance of common stock to employees
 

 

 
292,575

 
3

 
4,956

 

 

 

 

 
4,959

Shares withheld for employee taxes
 
 
 
 
 
(123,492
)
 
(1
)
 
(5,279
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(5,280
)
Issuance of common stock to Board of Directors and Scientific Advisory Board
 

 

 
29,351

 

 
959

 

 

 

 

 
959

Issuance of common stock to employees under an ESPP
 

 

 
5,819

 

 
218

 

 

 

 

 
218

BALANCE, JUNE 30, 2015
 
200,000

 
$
2

 
47,457,719

 
$
475

 
$
583,338

 
$
(98,762
)
 
$
(3,958
)
 
1,357,863

 
$
(40,158
)
 
$
440,937

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.


4

Table of Contents

UNIVERSAL DISPLAY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(UNAUDITED)
(in thousands)
 
 
Six Months Ended June 30,
 
 
2015
 
2014
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
 
 
 
 
Net (loss) income
 
$
(10,457
)
 
$
24,443

Adjustments to reconcile net (loss) income to net cash provided by operating activities:
 
 
 
 
Amortization of deferred revenue
 
(4,893
)
 
(1,669
)
Depreciation
 
1,439

 
937

Amortization of intangibles
 
5,500

 
5,498

Inventory write-down
 
33,000

 

Amortization of premium and discount on investments, net
 
(285
)
 
(269
)
Stock-based compensation to employees
 
4,039

 
3,526

Stock-based compensation to Board of Directors and Scientific Advisory Board
 
659

 
463

Deferred income tax benefit
 
3,984

 
6,833

Retirement plan benefit expense
 
1,512

 
838

Decrease (increase) in assets:
 
 
 
 
Accounts receivable
 
4,697

 
(4,843
)
Inventory
 
(12,860
)
 
(10,069
)
Other current assets
 
(417
)
 
(6,451
)
Other assets
 
80

 
(252
)
Increase (decrease) in liabilities:
 
 
 
 
Accounts payable and accrued expenses
 
826

 
1,914

Other current liabilities
 
(58
)
 
417

Deferred revenue
 
48,412

 
3,692

Net cash provided by operating activities
 
75,178

 
25,008

CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES:
 
 
 
 
Purchases of property and equipment
 
(3,146
)
 
(2,951
)
Purchases of investments
 
(267,520
)
 
(183,688
)
Proceeds from sale of investments
 
263,058

 
175,603

Net cash used in investing activities
 
(7,608
)
 
(11,036
)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
 
 
 
 
Proceeds from issuance of common stock under ESPP
 
171

 
162

Repurchase of common stock
 

 
(7,000
)
Proceeds from the exercise of common stock options
 
1,372

 
664

Payment of withholding taxes related to stock-based compensation to employees
 
(5,280
)
 
(2,830
)
Net cash used in financing activities
 
(3,737
)
 
(9,004
)
INCREASE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
 
63,833

 
4,968

CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, BEGINNING OF PERIOD
 
45,418

 
70,586

CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, END OF PERIOD
 
$
109,251

 
$
75,554

The following non-cash activities occurred:
 
 
 
 
Unrealized loss on available-for-sale securities
 
$
8

 
$
58

Common stock issued to Board of Directors and Scientific Advisory Board that was earned and accrued for in a previous period
 
300

 
323

Common stock issued to employees that was earned and accrued for in a previous period
 
967

 
746

Net change in accounts payable and accrued expenses related to purchases of property and equipment
 
(725
)
 
64

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

5

Table of Contents

UNIVERSAL DISPLAY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(UNAUDITED)
1.
BUSINESS:
Universal Display Corporation (the Company) is a leader in the research, development and commercialization of organic light emitting diode (OLED) technologies and materials. OLEDs are thin, lightweight and power-efficient solid-state devices that emit light, making them highly suitable for use in full-color displays and as lighting products. OLED displays are capturing a growing share of the display market. The Company believes this is because OLEDs offer potential advantages over competing display technologies with respect to power efficiency, contrast ratio, viewing angle, video response time, form factor and manufacturing cost. The Company also believes that OLED lighting products have the potential to replace many existing light sources in the future because of their high power efficiency, excellent color rendering index, low operating temperature and novel form factor. The Company's technology leadership and intellectual property position should enable it to share in the revenues from OLED displays and lighting products as they enter mainstream consumer and other markets.
The Company's primary business strategy is to (1) further develop and license its proprietary OLED technologies to manufacturers of products for display applications, such as cell phones, portable media devices, wearables, tablets, laptop computers and televisions, and specialty and general lighting products; and (2) develop new OLED materials and sell existing and any new materials to those product manufacturers. The Company has established a significant portfolio of proprietary OLED technologies and materials, primarily through internal research and development efforts and acquisitions of patents and patent applications, as well as maintaining its relationships with world-class partners such as Princeton University (Princeton), the University of Southern California (USC), the University of Michigan (Michigan) and PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG Industries). The Company currently owns, exclusively licenses or has the sole right to sublicense more than 3,500 patents issued and pending worldwide.
The Company sells its proprietary OLED materials to customers for evaluation and use in commercial OLED products. The Company also enters into agreements with manufacturers of OLED display and lighting products under which it grants them licenses to practice under its patents and to use the Company's proprietary know-how. At the same time, the Company works with these and other companies who are evaluating the Company's OLED technologies and materials for possible use in commercial OLED display and lighting products.
2.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES:
Interim Financial Information
In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements contain all adjustments (consisting of only normal recurring adjustments) necessary to present fairly the Company’s financial position as of June 30, 2015 and results of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, and cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014. While management believes that the disclosures presented are adequate to make the information not misleading, these unaudited consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto in the Company’s latest year-end financial statements, which are included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014. The results of the Company’s operations for any interim period are not necessarily indicative of the results of operations for any other interim period or for the full year.
Principles of Consolidation
The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Universal Display Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiaries, UDC, Inc., UDC Ireland Limited, Universal Display Corporation Hong Kong, Ltd., Universal Display Corporation Korea, Y.H., and Universal Display Corporation Japan, G.K. All intercompany transactions and accounts have been eliminated.
Management’s Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. The estimates made are principally in the areas of revenue recognition for license agreements, the useful life of acquired technology, the use and recoverability of inventories, income taxes including realization of deferred tax assets, stock-based compensation and retirement benefit plan liabilities. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

6

Table of Contents

Inventories
Inventories consist of raw materials, work-in-process and finished goods, including inventory consigned to customers, and are stated at the lower of cost, determined on a first-in, first-out basis, or market. Inventory valuation and firm committed purchase order assessments are performed on a quarterly basis and those items that are identified to be obsolete or in excess of forecasted usage are written down to their estimated realizable value. Estimates of realizable value are based upon management’s analyses and assumptions, including, but not limited to, forecasted sales levels by product, expected product lifecycle, product development plans and future demand requirements. A 12-month rolling forecast based on factors, including, but not limited to, production cycles, anticipated product orders, marketing forecasts, backlog, and shipment activities is used in the inventory analysis. If market conditions are less favorable than forecasts or actual demand from customers is lower than estimates, additional inventory write-downs may be required. If demand is higher than expected, inventories that had previously been written down may be sold.
Certain of the Company’s customers have assumed the responsibility for maintaining the Company's inventory at their location based on the customers' demand forecast. Notwithstanding the fact that the Company builds and ships the inventory, the customer does not purchase the consigned inventory until the inventory is drawn or pulled by the customer to be used in the manufacture of the customer’s product. Though the consigned inventory may be at the customer’s physical location, it remains inventory owned by the Company until the inventory is drawn or pulled, which is the time at which the sale takes place.
Fair Value of Financial Instruments
The carrying values of accounts receivable, other current assets, and accounts payable approximate fair value in the accompanying financial statements due to the short-term nature of those instruments. The Company’s other financial instruments, which include cash equivalents and investments, are carried at fair value as noted above.
Revenue Recognition and Deferred Revenue
Material sales relate to the Company’s sale of its OLED materials for incorporation into its customers’ commercial OLED products or for their OLED development and evaluation activities. Material sales are recognized at the time of shipment or at time of delivery, and passage of title, depending upon the contractual agreement between the parties.
The Company receives non-refundable license and royalty payments under certain commercial, development and technology evaluation agreements. These payments may include royalty and license fees made pursuant to license agreements and certain commercial supply agreements. Amounts received are deferred and classified as either current or non-current deferred revenue based upon current contractual remaining terms; however, based upon on-going relationships with customers, as well as future agreement extensions and other factors, amounts classified as current as of June 30, 2015 may not be recognized as revenue over the next twelve months. The Company evaluates these agreements quarterly, and if it is determined that there is no appreciable likelihood of executing a commercial license agreement with the customer or if a customer terminates the relationship prior to the expiration of its term, the previous deferred amount will be recognized as revenue in the corresponding period. For arrangements with extended payment terms where the fee is not fixed and determinable, the Company recognizes revenue when the payment is due and payable. Royalty revenue and license fees included as part of commercial supply agreements are recognized when earned and the amount is fixed and determinable.
Currently, the Company's most significant commercial license agreement, which runs through the end of 2017, is with Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (SDC) and covers the manufacture and sale of specified OLED display products. Under this agreement, the Company is being paid a license fee, payable in semi-annual installments over the agreement term of 6.4 years. The installments, which are due in the second and fourth quarter of each year, increase on an annual basis over the term of the agreement. The agreement conveys to SDC the non-exclusive right to use certain of the Company's intellectual property assets for a limited period of time that is less than the estimated life of the assets. Ratable recognition of revenue is impacted by the agreement's extended increasing payment terms in light of the Company's limited history with similar agreements. As a result, revenue is recognized at the lesser of the proportional performance approach (ratable) and the amount of due and payable fees from SDC. Given the increasing contractual payment schedule, license fees under the agreement are recognized as revenue when they become due and payable, which is currently scheduled to be in the second and fourth quarter of each year.
In the first quarter of 2015, the Company entered into an OLED patent license agreement and an OLED commercial material supply agreement with LG Display Co., Ltd. (LG Display). The agreements have a term that is set to expire at the end of 2022. The patent license agreement provides LG Display a non-exclusive, royalty bearing portfolio license to make and sell OLED displays under the Company's patent portfolio. The patent license calls for license fees, prepaid royalties and running royalties on licensed products. The agreements include customary provisions relating to warranties, indemnities, confidentiality, assignability and business terms. The agreements provide for certain other minimum obligations relating to the volume of material sales anticipated over the term of the agreements, if certain conditions are met, as well as minimum royalty revenue to be generated under the patent license agreement. The Company expects to generate revenue under these agreements that are predominantly tied

7

Table of Contents

to LG Display sales of OLED licensed products. The OLED commercial supply agreement provides for the sale of material for use by LG Display, which may include phosphorescent emitter and host materials.
The Company records taxes billed to customers and remitted to various governmental entities on a gross basis in both revenues and cost of material sales in the consolidated statements of operations. The amounts of these pass through taxes reflected in revenues and cost of material sales were $240,000 and $850,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2015, respectively, and $3.0 million and $3.2 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2014, respectively.
Cost of Material Sales
Cost of material sales consists of labor and material costs associated with the production of materials processed at the Company's manufacturing partners and at the Company's internal manufacturing processing facility. Cost of material sales also includes depreciation of manufacturing equipment, as well as manufacturing overhead costs and inventory adjustments for excess and obsolete inventory.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued a new revenue recognition standard entitled “Revenue from Contracts with Customers.” The objective of the standard is to establish the principles that an entity shall apply to report useful information to users of financial statements about the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows from a contract with a customer. The standard is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017. Earlier application as of the original date is optional; however, the Company will adopt the standard beginning January 1, 2018. The standard allows for either “full retrospective” adoption, meaning the standard is applied to all periods presented, or “modified retrospective” adoption, meaning the standard is applied only to the most current period presented in the financial statements. The Company is currently assessing which method it will choose for adoption, and is evaluating the impact of the adoption of this new accounting standard on its consolidated results of operations and financial position.
3.
CASH, CASH EQUIVALENTS AND INVESTMENTS:
The Company considers all highly liquid debt instruments purchased with an original maturity of three months or less to be cash equivalents. The Company classifies its remaining investments as available-for-sale. These securities are carried at fair market value, with unrealized gains and losses reported in shareholders’ equity. Gains or losses on securities sold are based on the specific identification method. Investments as of June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 consisted of the following (in thousands):
 
 
Amortized
 
Unrealized
 
Aggregate Fair
Investment Classification
 
Cost
 
Gains
 
(Losses)
 
Market Value
June 30, 2015
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Certificates of deposit
 
$
11,535

 
$
14

 
$
(5
)
 
$
11,544

Corporate bonds
 
233,923

 
7

 
(56
)
 
233,874

U.S. Government bonds
 
5,460

 

 
(4
)
 
5,456

 
 
$
250,918

 
$
21

 
$
(65
)
 
$
250,874

December 31, 2014
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Certificates of deposit
 
$
11,373

 
$
4

 
$
(13
)
 
$
11,364

Corporate bonds
 
228,799

 
14

 
(41
)
 
228,772

U.S. Government bonds
 
5,999

 

 

 
5,999

 
 
$
246,171

 
$
18

 
$
(54
)
 
$
246,135

4.
INVENTORIES:
Inventories consisted of the following (in thousands):
 
 
June 30,
2015
 
December 31,
2014
Raw materials
 
$
7,053

 
$
7,696

Work-in-process
 
1,888

 
4,419

Finished goods
 
8,028

 
24,994

Inventories
 
$
16,969

 
$
37,109


8

Table of Contents

Inventories included $1.0 million of inventory consigned to customers at both June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2015, and 2014, the Company recorded inventory write-downs of $33.0 million and none, respectively. The write-down for the 2015 period consisted of $22.9 million of work-in-process and $10.1 million of finished goods inventory. During the three months ended June 30, 2015, the Company experienced a faster-than-anticipated decline in host material sales and based on the most recent sales forecast, the Company anticipates significantly lower sales of existing host material. Sales forecasts tend to be volatile, but because of the deterioration in both actual and forecasted sales demand, a write-down in net realizable value primarily to host inventory was required.

5.
FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS:
The following table provides the assets and liabilities carried at fair value measured on a recurring basis as of June 30, 2015 (in thousands):
 
 
 
 
Fair Value Measurements, Using
 
 
Total carrying value as of June 30, 2015
 
Quoted prices in active markets (Level 1)
 
Significant other observable inputs
(Level 2)
 
Significant unobservable inputs
(Level 3)
Cash equivalents
 
$
39,086

 
$
39,086

 
$

 
$

Short-term investments
 
246,986

 
246,986

 

 

Long-term investments
 
3,888

 
3,888

 

 

The following table provides the assets and liabilities carried at fair value measured on a recurring basis as of December 31, 2014 (in thousands):
 
 
 
 
Fair Value Measurements, Using
 
 
Total carrying value as of December 31, 2014
 
Quoted prices in active markets  (Level 1)
 
Significant other observable inputs
(Level 2)
 
Significant unobservable inputs
(Level 3)
Cash equivalents
 
$
970

 
$
970

 
$

 
$

Short-term investments
 
243,088

 
243,088

 

 

Long-term investments
 
3,047

 
3,047

 

 

Level 1 inputs are quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. Level 2 inputs are quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets or inputs that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly through market corroboration, for substantially the full term of the financial instrument. Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs based on management’s own assumptions used to measure assets and liabilities at fair value. A financial asset's or liability’s classification is determined based on the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement.
Changes in fair value of the investments are recorded as unrealized gains and losses in other comprehensive income. If a decline in fair value of an investment below its carrying value is deemed to be other than temporary, the carrying value of the Company’s investment will be written down by the amount of the other-than-temporary impairment with a resulting charge to net (loss) income. There were no other-than-temporary impairments of investments as of June 30, 2015 or December 31, 2014.
6.
RESEARCH AND LICENSE AGREEMENTS WITH PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN:
The Company funded OLED technology research at Princeton and, on a subcontractor basis, at USC for 10 years under a Research Agreement executed with Princeton in August 1997 (the 1997 Research Agreement). The principal investigator conducting work under the 1997 Research Agreement transferred to Michigan in January 2006. Following this transfer, the 1997 Research Agreement was allowed to expire on July 31, 2007.

9

Table of Contents

As a result of the transfer, the Company entered into a new Sponsored Research Agreement with USC to sponsor OLED technology research at USC and, on a subcontractor basis, Michigan. This new Sponsored Research Agreement (as amended, the 2006 Research Agreement) was effective as of May 1, 2006 and had an original term of three years. On May 1, 2009, the Company amended the 2006 Research Agreement to extend the term of the agreement for an additional four years. The 2006 Research Agreement superseded the 1997 Research Agreement with respect to all work being performed at USC and Michigan. Payments under the 2006 Research Agreement were made to USC on a quarterly basis as actual expenses were incurred. The Company incurred a total of $5.0 million in research and development expense for work performed under the 2006 Research Agreement during the extended term, which ended on April 30, 2013.
Effective June 1, 2013, the Company amended the 2006 Research Agreement again to extend the term of the agreement for an additional four years. As of June 30, 2015, the Company was obligated to pay USC up to $4.2 million for work to be actually performed during the remaining extended term, which expires April 30, 2017. From June 1, 2013 through June 30, 2015, the Company incurred $2.4 million in research and development expense for work performed under the 2006 Research Agreement.
On October 9, 1997, the Company, Princeton and USC entered into an Amended License Agreement (as amended, the 1997 Amended License Agreement) under which Princeton and USC granted the Company worldwide, exclusive license rights, with rights to sublicense, to make, have made, use, lease and/or sell products and to practice processes based on patent applications and issued patents arising out of work performed by Princeton and USC under the 1997 Research Agreement. Under this 1997 Amended License Agreement, the Company is required to pay Princeton royalties for licensed products sold by the Company or its sublicensees. For licensed products sold by the Company, the Company is required to pay Princeton 3% of the net sales price of these products. For licensed products sold by the Company’s sublicensees, the Company is required to pay Princeton 3% of the revenues received by the Company from these sublicensees. These royalty rates are subject to renegotiation for products not reasonably conceivable as arising out of the 1997 Research Agreement if Princeton reasonably determines that the royalty rates payable with respect to these products are not fair and competitive.
The Company is obligated, under the 1997 Amended License Agreement, to pay to Princeton minimum annual royalties. The minimum royalty payment is $100,000 per year. The Company recorded royalty expense in connection with this agreement of $1.7 million and $1.5 million for the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively, and $2.4 million and $2.2 million for the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
The Company also is required, under the 1997 Amended License Agreement, to use commercially reasonable efforts to bring the licensed OLED technology to market. However, this requirement is deemed satisfied if the Company invests a minimum of $800,000 per year in research, development, commercialization or patenting efforts respecting the patent rights licensed to the Company.
In connection with entering into the 2006 Research Agreement, the Company amended the 1997 Amended License Agreement to include Michigan as a party to that agreement effective as of January 1, 2006. Under this amendment, Princeton, USC and Michigan have granted the Company a worldwide exclusive license, with rights to sublicense, to make, have made, use, lease and/or sell products and to practice processes based on patent applications and issued patents arising out of work performed under the 2006 Research Agreement. The financial terms of the 1997 Amended License Agreement were not impacted by this amendment.
7.
ACQUIRED TECHNOLOGY:
Acquired technology consists of acquired license rights for patents and know-how obtained from PD-LD, Inc., Motorola and Fujifilm. These intangible assets consist of the following (in thousands):
 
 
June 30, 2015
 
 
PD-LD, Inc.
 
$
1,481

Motorola
 
15,909

Fujifilm
 
109,462

 
 
126,852

Less: Accumulated amortization
 
(49,338
)
Acquired technology, net
 
$
77,514

Amortization expense for all intangible assets was $2.7 million for both the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, and $5.5 million for both the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014. Amortization expense is included in the patent costs and amortization of acquired technology expense line item on the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

10

Table of Contents

Motorola Patent Acquisition
In 2000, the Company entered into a royalty-bearing license agreement with Motorola whereby Motorola granted the Company perpetual license rights to what are now 74 issued U.S. patents relating to Motorola’s OLED technologies, together with foreign counterparts in various countries. These patents will all expire in the U.S. by 2018.
On March 9, 2011, the Company purchased these patents from Motorola, including all existing and future claims and causes of action for any infringement of the patents, pursuant to a Patent Purchase Agreement. The Patent Purchase Agreement effectively terminated the Company’s license agreement with Motorola, including any obligation to make royalty payments to Motorola. The technology acquired from Motorola is being amortized over a period of 7.5 years.
Fujifilm Patent Acquisition
On July 23, 2012, the Company entered into a Patent Sale Agreement (the Agreement) with Fujifilm and prior to closing the transaction, assigned its rights and obligations under the Agreement to UDC Ireland Limited (UDC Ireland), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company formed under the laws of the Republic of Ireland. Under the Agreement, Fujifilm sold more than 1,200 OLED-related patents and patent applications in exchange for a cash payment of $105.0 million, plus costs incurred in connection with the purchase. The transactions contemplated by the Agreement were consummated on July 26, 2012. The Company recorded the $105.0 million plus $4.5 million of costs as acquired technology, which is being amortized over a period of 10 years.
8.
EQUITY AND CASH COMPENSATION UNDER THE PPG AGREEMENTS:
On September 22, 2011, the Company entered into an Amended and Restated OLED Materials Supply and Service Agreement with PPG Industries effective as of October 1, 2011 (the New OLED Materials Agreement), which replaced the original OLED Materials Agreement with PPG Industries. The term of the New OLED Materials Agreement runs through December 31, 2015 and shall be automatically renewed for additional one year terms, unless terminated by the Company by providing prior notice of one year or terminated by PPG by providing prior notice of two years. The New OLED Materials Agreement contains provisions that are substantially similar to those of the original OLED Materials Agreement. Under the New OLED Materials Agreement, PPG Industries continues to assist the Company in developing its proprietary OLED materials and supplying the Company with those materials for evaluation purposes and for resale to its customers.
Under the New OLED Materials Agreement, the Company compensates PPG Industries on a cost-plus basis for the services provided during each calendar quarter. The Company is required to pay for some of these services in all cash. Up to 50% of the remaining services are payable, at the Company’s sole discretion, in cash or shares of the Company’s common stock, with the balance payable in cash. The actual number of shares of common stock issuable to PPG Industries is determined based on the average closing price for the Company’s common stock during a specified number of days prior to the end of each calendar half-year period ending on March 31 and September 30. If, however, this average closing price is less than $20.00, the Company is required to compensate PPG Industries in cash. No shares were issued for services to PPG for the three or six months ended June 30, 2015 or 2014, respectively.
The Company is also to reimburse PPG Industries for raw materials used for research and development. The Company records the purchases of these raw materials as a current asset until such materials are used for research and development efforts.
The Company recorded research and development expense of $1.5 million and $3.7 million for the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively, and $3.0 million and $7.2 million for the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively, in relation to the cash portion of the reimbursement of expenses and work performed by PPG Industries, excluding amounts paid for commercial chemicals.
9.
SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY:
Stock Repurchase Program
On June 2, 2014, the Company's Board of Directors approved a stock repurchase program authorizing the Company to purchase shares of its common stock up to a total purchase price of $50.0 million over the subsequent 12 months. Since approval of the program and through June 30, 2015, the Company purchased 956,362 shares at a cost of approximately $29.5 million. The repurchase program ended during the second quarter of 2015.

11

Table of Contents

Scientific Advisory Board, Board of Directors and Employee Awards
During the first quarter of 2015 and 2014, the Company granted a total of 35,205 and 31,301 shares, respectively, of fully vested common stock to employees, members of the Board of Directors and non-employee members of the Scientific Advisory Board for services performed in 2014 and 2013, respectively. The fair value of the shares issued was $967,000 and $1,046,000, respectively, for employees and $300,000 and $300,000, respectively, for members of the Board of Directors and non-employee members of the Scientific Advisory Board, which amounts were accrued at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. In connection with the issuance of these grants, 9,565 and 8,071 shares, with fair values of $346,000 and $271,000, were withheld in satisfaction of employee tax withholding obligations in 2015 and 2014, respectively.
10.
ACCUMULATED OTHER COMPREHENSIVE LOSS:
Amounts related to the changes in accumulated other comprehensive loss were as follows (in thousands):
 
 
Unrealized gain (loss) on marketable securities
 
Net unrealized loss on retirement plan (2)
 
Total
 
Affected line items in the consolidated statements of operations
Balance December 31, 2014, net of tax
 
$
(28
)
 
$
(4,354
)
 
$
(4,382
)
 
 
Other comprehensive income before reclassification
 
4

 

 
4

 
 
Reclassification to net income (1)
 

 
420

 
420

 
Selling, general and administrative and research and development
Change during period
 
4

 
420

 
424

 
 
Balance June 30, 2015, net of tax
 
$
(24
)
 
$
(3,934
)
 
$
(3,958
)
 
 
 
 
Unrealized gain (loss) on marketable securities
 
Net unrealized loss on retirement plan (2)
 
Total
 
Affected line items in the consolidated statements of operations
Balance December 31, 2013, net of tax
 
$
(24
)
 
$
(4,344
)
 
$
(4,368
)
 
 
Other comprehensive loss before reclassification
 
37

 

 
37

 
 
Reclassification to net loss (1)
 

 
184

 
184

 
Selling, general and administrative and research and development
Change during period
 
37

 
184

 
221

 
 
Balance June 30, 2014, net of tax
 
$
13

 
$
(4,160
)
 
$
(4,147
)
 
 
_______________________________________________
(1) The Company reclassified amortization of prior service cost and actuarial loss for its retirement plan from accumulated other comprehensive loss to net (loss) income of $420,000 and $184,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
(2) Refer to Note 12: Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan.
11.
STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION:
The Company recognizes in the statements of operations the grant-date fair value of equity based awards, such as shares issued under employee stock purchase plans, restricted stock awards, restricted stock units and performance unit awards issued to employees and directors.
The grant-date fair value of stock awards is based on the closing price of the stock on the date of grant. The fair value of share-based awards is recognized as compensation expense on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period, net of forfeitures. The Company issues new shares upon the respective grant, exercise or vesting of share-based payment awards, as applicable.
Performance unit awards are subject to either a performance-based or market-based vesting requirement. For performance-based vesting, the grant-date fair value of the award, based on fair value of the Company's common stock, is recognized over the service period based on an assessment of the likelihood that the applicable performance goals will be achieved, and compensation expense is periodically adjusted based on actual and expected performance. Compensation expense for performance unit awards with market-based vesting is calculated based on the estimated fair value as of the grant date utilizing a Monte Carlo simulation model and is recognized over the service period on a straight-line basis.

12

Table of Contents

Equity Compensation Plan
In 1995, the Board of Directors of the Company adopted a stock option plan, which was amended and restated in 2003 and is now called the Equity Compensation Plan. The Equity Compensation Plan provides for the granting of incentive and nonqualified stock options, shares of common stock, stock appreciation rights and performance units to employees, directors and consultants of the Company. Stock options are exercisable over periods determined by the Compensation Committee, but for no longer than 10 years from the grant date. Through June 30, 2015, the Company’s shareholders have approved increases in the number of shares reserved for issuance under the Equity Compensation Plan to 10,500,000, and have extended the term of the plan through 2024. At June 30, 2015, there were 3,075,004 shares that remained available to be granted under the Equity Compensation Plan.
Stock Awards
Restricted Stock Awards and Units
The Company has issued restricted stock awards and units to employees and non-employee members of the Scientific Advisory Board with vesting terms of one to six years. The fair value is equal to the market price of the Company’s common stock on the date of grant for awards granted to employees and equal to the market price at the end of the reporting period for unvested non-employee awards or upon the date of vesting for vested non-employee awards. Expense for restricted stock awards and units is amortized ratably over the vesting period for the awards issued to employees and using a graded vesting method for the awards issued to non-employee members of the Scientific Advisory Board.
During the six months ended June 30, 2015, the Company granted 554,244 shares of restricted stock awards and restricted stock units to employees and non-employee members of the Scientific Advisory Board, which had a total fair value of $25.2 million on the respective dates of grant, and will vest over three to five years from the date of grant, provided that the grantee is still an employee of the Company on the applicable vesting date.
For the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, the Company recorded, as compensation charges related to all restricted stock awards and units, selling, general and administrative expense of $1,586,000 and $914,000, respectively, and research and development expense of $495,000 and $409,000, respectively. For the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, the Company recorded, as compensation charges related to all restricted stock awards and units, selling, general and administrative expense of $2.5 million and $1.8 million, respectively, and research and development expense of $892,000 and $783,000, respectively.
In connection with the vesting of restricted stock awards and units during the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, 97,856 and 75,314 shares, with aggregate fair values of $4.2 million and $2.6 million, respectively, were withheld in satisfaction of tax withholding obligations.
For the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, the Company recorded as compensation charges related to all restricted stock units to non-employee members of the Scientific Advisory Board, research and development expense of $85,000 and $57,000, respectively. For the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, the Company recorded as compensation charges related to all restricted stock units to non-employee members of the Scientific Advisory Board, research and development expense of $274,000 and $100,000, respectively.
Board of Directors Compensation
The Company has granted restricted stock units to non-employee members of the Board of Directors with quarterly vesting over a period of approximately one year. The fair value is equal to the market price of the Company's common stock on the date of grant. The restricted stock units are issued and expense is recognized ratably over the vesting period. For the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, the Company recorded compensation charges for services performed, related to all restricted stock units granted to non-employee members of the Board of Directors, selling, general and administrative expense of $208,000 and $202,000, respectively. For the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, the Company recorded compensation charges for services performed, related to all restricted stock units granted to non-employee members of the Board of Directors, selling, general and administrative expense of $385,000 and $363,000, respectively. In connection with the vesting of the restricted stock, the Company issued 14,167 and 11,250 shares, during the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively, to non-employee members of the Board of Directors.
Performance Unit Awards
During the six months ended June 30, 2015, the Company granted 32,632 performance units, of which 16,315 are subject to a performance-based vesting requirement and 16,317 are subject to a market-based vesting requirement and will vest over the terms described below. Total fair value of the performance unit awards granted was $1.5 million on the date of grant.
Each performance unit award is subject to both a performance-vesting requirement (either performance-based or market-based) and a service-vesting requirement.

13

Table of Contents

The performance-based vesting requirement is tied to the Company's cumulative revenue growth compared to the cumulative revenue growth of companies comprising the Nasdaq Electronics Components Index, as measured over a specific performance period. The market-based vesting requirement is tied to the Company's total shareholder return relative to the total shareholder return of companies comprising the Nasdaq Electronics Components Index, as measured over a specific performance period.
The maximum number of performance units that may vest based on performance is two times the shares granted. Further, if the Company's total shareholder return is negative, the performance units may not vest at all.
For the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, the Company recorded general and administrative expense of $175,000 and $198,000, respectively, and research and development expense of $45,000 and $60,000, respectively, related to performance units. For the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, the Company recorded general and administrative expense of $504,000 and $685,000, respectively, and research and development expense of $142,000 and $207,000, respectively, related to performance units.
In connection with the vesting of performance units during the six months ended June 30, 2015, 16,071 shares with an aggregate fair value of $752,000, were withheld in satisfaction of tax withholding obligations.
Employee Stock Purchase Plan
On April 7, 2009, the Board of Directors of the Company adopted an Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP). The ESPP was approved by the Company’s shareholders and became effective on June 25, 2009. The Company has reserved 1,000,000 shares of common stock for issuance under the ESPP. Unless sooner terminated by the Board of Directors, the ESPP will expire when all reserved shares have been issued.
Eligible employees may elect to contribute to the ESPP through payroll deductions during consecutive three-month purchase periods. Each employee who elects to participate will be deemed to have been granted an option to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock on the first day of the purchase period. Unless the employee opts out during the purchase period, the option will automatically be exercised on the last day of the period, which is the purchase date, based on the employee’s accumulated contributions to the ESPP. The purchase price will equal 85% of the lesser of the price per share of common stock on the first day of the period or the last day of the period.
Employees may allocate up to 10% of their base compensation to purchase shares of common stock under the ESPP; however, each employee may purchase no more than 12,500 shares on a given purchase date, and no employee may purchase more than $25,000 of common stock under the ESPP during a given calendar year.
During the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, the Company issued 5,819 and 5,951 shares, respectively, of its common stock under the ESPP, resulting in proceeds of $171,000 and $162,000, respectively.
For the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, the Company recorded charges of $10,000 and $9,000, respectively, to selling, general and administrative expense and $13,000 and $11,000, respectively, to research and development expense, related to the ESPP equal to the amount of the discount and the value of the look-back feature.
For the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, the Company recorded charges of $21,000 and $23,000, respectively, to selling, general and administrative expense and $26,000 and $25,000, respectively, to research and development expense, related to the ESPP equal to the amount of the discount and the value of the look-back feature.
12.
SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN:
On March 18, 2010, the Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors of the Company approved and adopted the Universal Display Corporation Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (SERP), effective as of April 1, 2010. On March 3, 2015, the Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors amended the SERP to include salary and bonus as part of the plan. Prior to this amendment, the SERP benefit did not take into account any bonuses. This change will increase the liability related to the SERP. See the Company's Form 8-K filed on March 9, 2015 for more information regarding the amendments to the SERP. The purpose of the SERP, which is unfunded, is to provide certain of the Company’s executive officers with supplemental pension benefits following a cessation of their employment. As of June 30, 2015 there were six participants in the SERP.
The Company records amounts relating to the SERP based on calculations that incorporate various actuarial and other assumptions, including discount rates, rate of compensation increases, retirement dates and life expectancies. The net periodic costs are recognized as employees render the services necessary to earn the SERP benefits.

14

Table of Contents

The components of net periodic pension cost were as follows (in thousands):
 
 
Three Months Ended June 30,
 
Six Months Ended June 30,
 
 
2015
 
2014
 
2015
 
2014
Service cost
 
$
319

 
$
167

 
$
548

 
$
334

Interest cost
 
166

 
106

 
286

 
212

Amortization of prior service cost
 
436

 
146

 
678

 
292

Total net periodic benefit cost
 
$
921

 
$
419

 
$
1,512

 
$
838

13.
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 6 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 6 for further explanation.
The Company has agreements with seven executive officers which provide for certain cash and other benefits upon termination of employment of the officer in connection with a change in control of the Company. Each 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 8) that will allow PPG Industries 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 June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the Company had purchase commitments for inventory of $12.1 million and $9.1 million, respectively.
Patent Related Challenges and Oppositions
Each major jurisdiction that issues patents provides 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 are summaries of certain active proceedings that have been commenced against issued patents that are either exclusively licensed to the Company or which are now assigned 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 proceedings 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 operations, as a whole. However, as noted within the descriptions, some of the following proceedings involve issued patents that relate 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 the proceedings 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. The entries marked with an "*" relate to the Company's UniversalPHOLED phosphorescent OLED technology, some of which may be commercialized by the Company.

15

Table of Contents

Opposition to European Patent No. 1394870*
On April 20, 2010, Merck Patent GmbH; BASF Schweitz AG of Basel, Switzerland; Osram GmbH of Munich, Germany; Siemens Aktiengesellschaft of Munich, Germany; and Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., of Eindhoven, The Netherlands filed Notices of Opposition to European Patent No. 1394870 (the EP '870 patent). The EP '870 patent, which was issued on July 22, 2009, is a European counterpart patent, in part, to U.S. patents 6,303,238; 6,579,632; 6,872,477; 7,279,235; 7,279,237; 7,488,542; 7,563,519; and 7,901,795; and to pending U.S. patent application 13/035,051, filed on February 25, 2011 (hereinafter the “U.S. '238 Patent Family”). 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.
An Oral Hearing was held before an EPO panel of first instance in Munich, Germany, on April 8-9, 2014. The panel rejected the original claims and amended the claims to comply with EPO requirements by more narrowly defining the scope of the claims. The ‘870 patent, in its amended form, was held by the panel to comply with the EPO requirements.
The Company believes the EPO’s decision relating to the broad original claims is erroneous and has appealed the ruling to reinstate a broader set of claims. This patent, as originally granted by the EPO, is deemed valid during the pendency of the appeals process.
At this time, based on the Company's current knowledge, the Company believes there is a substantial likelihood that the patent being challenged will be declared valid and that all or a significant portion of the Company's claims will be upheld. However, the Company cannot make any assurances of this result.
Invalidation Trial in Japan for Japan Patent No. 4511024*
On June 16, 2011, the Company learned that a Request for an Invalidation Trial was filed in Japan for its Japanese Patent No. JP-4511024 (the JP '024 patent), which issued on May 14, 2010. The Request was filed by SEL. The JP '024 patent is a counterpart patent, in part, to the U.S. '238 Patent Family, which relate to the EP '870 patent, which is subject to one of the above-noted European oppositions and which relates to the Company's UniversalPHOLED phosphorescent OLED technology. 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.
On May 10, 2012, the Company learned that the JPO issued a decision upholding the validity of certain claimed inventions in the JP '024 Patent but invalidating the broadest claims in the patent. The Company appealed the JPO’s decision to the Japanese IP High Court. On October 31, 2013, the Japanese IP High Court ruled that the prior art references relied on by the JPO did not support the JPO’s findings, reversed the JPO’s decision with respect to the previously invalidated broad claims in the JP ‘024 patent and remanded the matter back to the JPO for further consideration consistent with its decision. The JPO subsequently issued a decision upholding the validity of certain claimed inventions in the JP '024 Patent but invalidating the broadest claims in the patent. The Company appealed the decision to reinstate a broader set of claims, and a hearing on this matter has been scheduled for the third quarter of 2015. This patent, as originally granted by the JPO, is deemed valid during the pendency of the appeals process.
At this time, based on its current knowledge, the Company believes that the patent being challenged should be declared valid and that all or a significant portion of the Company's claims should be upheld. However, the Company cannot make any assurances of this result.
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 (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 EPO combined the oppositions into a single opposition proceeding and a hearing on this matter has been scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2015.
At this time, based on its current knowledge, the Company believes there is a substantial likelihood that the patent being challenged will be declared valid, and that all or a significant portion of the Company's claims will be upheld. However, the Company cannot make any assurances of this result.
Opposition to European Patent No. 1933395*
On February 24 and 27, 2012, Sumitomo, Merck Patent GmbH and BASF SE filed oppositions to the Company's European Patent No. 1933395 (the EP '395 patent). The EP '395 patent is a counterpart patent to the above-noted JP '168 patent, and, in part, to the U.S. '828 Patent Family. This patent is exclusively licensed to the Company by Princeton, and the Company is required to pay all legal costs and fees associated with this proceeding.

16

Table of Contents

At an Oral Hearing on October 14, 2013, the EPO panel issued a decision that affirmed the basic invention and broad patent coverage in the EP '395 patent, but narrowed the scope of the original claims.
On February 26, 2014, the Company appealed the ruling to reinstate a broader set of claims. The patent, as originally granted by the EPO, is deemed to be valid during the pendency of the appeals process. Two of the three opponents also filed their own appeals of the ruling. Sumitomo did not file an appeal within the allotted time, and is therefore no longer a party to the proceedings. Subsequently, in January 2015, Sumitomo withdrew its opposition of the '395 patent, and the EPO accepted the withdrawal notice. The EPO also issued a notice that the appeal proceedings will proceed with the two remaining opponents.
In addition to the above proceedings 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 acquisition or which to relate to technologies that are not currently widely utilized in the marketplace.
14.
CONCENTRATION OF RISK:
Included in technology development and support revenue in the accompanying statement of operations is $31,000 and $48,000 for the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively, and $43,000 and $117,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively, of revenue which was derived from contracts with United States government agencies. Revenues derived from contracts with United States government agencies represented less than 1% of the consolidated revenue for all periods presented.
Revenues and accounts receivable from the Company's largest non-government customers were as follows (in thousands):
 
 
% of Revenues for the three months ended June 30,
 
% of Revenues for the six months ended June 30,
 
Accounts Receivable as of
Customer
 
2015
 
2014
 
2015
 
2014
 
June 30, 2015
A
 
74%
 
62%
 
63%
 
52%
 
$
7,770

B
 
18%
 
14%
 
21%
 
18%
 
$
6,905

C
 
3%
 
16%
 
8%
 
22%
 
$
923

Revenues from outside of North America represented approximately 99% of the consolidated revenue for both the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, and approximately 99% of the consolidated revenue for both the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014. Revenues by geographic area are as follows (in thousands):
 
 
Three Months Ended June 30,
 
Six Months Ended June 30,
Country
 
2015
 
2014
 
2015
 
2014
South Korea
 
53,842

 
49,262

 
76,064

 
72,218

Japan
 
2,866

 
10,903

 
10,626

 
24,961

Other non-U.S. locations
 
867

 
3,798

 
1,883

 
4,456

Total non-U.S. locations
 
$
57,575

 
$
63,963

 
$
88,573

 
$
101,635

United States
 
517

 
164

 
742

 
330

Total revenue
 
$
58,092

 
$
64,127

 
$
89,315

 
$
101,965

The Company attributes revenue to different geographic areas on the basis of the location of the customer.
Long-lived assets (net), by geographic area are as follows (in thousands):
 
 
June 30, 2015
 
December 31, 2014
United States
 
$
20,788

 
$
19,763

Other
 
117

 
159

Total long-lived assets
 
$
20,905

 
$
19,922

Substantially all chemical materials were purchased from one supplier. See Note 8.

17

Table of Contents

15.
INCOME TAXES:
The Company is subject to income taxes in both United States and foreign jurisdictions. The effective income tax rate was (173.4)% and (340.7)%, respectively, for the three and six months ended June 30, 2015. The Company's effective tax rate rose significantly as the inventory write-down primarily relates to UDC Ireland Limited, which expects to incur a loss for the full year 2015 and such loss has not been tax benefited as UDC Ireland Limited has a history of losses resulting in a full valuation allowance. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2015, income tax expense of $7.5 million and $8.1 million, respectively, was recorded primarily related to foreign tax withheld on royalty and license fees paid to the Company and federal income taxes.
The effective income tax rate was 29.6% and 31.8%, respectively, for the three and six months ended June 30, 2014. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2014, an income tax expense of $8.6 million and $11.4 million, respectively, was recorded primarily related to foreign tax withheld on royalty and license fees paid to the Company and federal income taxes.
In assessing the realizability of deferred tax assets, management considers whether it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized. The ultimate realization of deferred tax assets is dependent on the Company's ability to generate future taxable income to obtain benefit from the reversal of temporary differences, net operating loss carryforwards and tax credits. As part of its assessment management considers the scheduled reversal of deferred tax liabilities, projected future taxable income, and tax planning strategies. At this time there is no evidence to release the valuation allowances that relate to UDC Ireland, foreign tax credits and New Jersey research and development credits.
16.
NET (LOSS) INCOME PER COMMON SHARE:
Basic net (loss) income per common share is computed by dividing net (loss) income by the weighted-average number of shares of common stock outstanding for the period excluding unvested restricted stock awards, restricted stock units and performance units. Diluted net (loss) income per common share reflects the potential dilution from the exercise or conversion of securities into common stock, the effect of unvested restricted stock awards, restricted stock units and performance units, and the impact of shares to be issued under the ESPP.
The following table is a reconciliation of net (loss) income and the shares used in calculating basic and diluted net (loss) income per common share for the three and six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014 (in thousands, except share and per share data):
 
 
Three Months Ended June 30,
 
Six Months ended June 30,
 
 
2015
 
2014
 
2015
 
2014
Numerator:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net (loss) income
 
$
(11,771
)
 
$
20,422

 
$
(10,457
)
 
$
24,443

Denominator:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Weighted average common shares outstanding – Basic
 
46,388,218

 
46,266,142

 
45,840,599

 
46,222,146

Effect of dilutive shares:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Common stock equivalents arising from stock options and ESPP
 

 
249,618

 

 
262,434

Restricted stock awards and units and performance units
 

 
98,966

 

 
148,402

Weighted average common shares outstanding – Diluted
 
46,388,218

 
46,614,726

 
45,840,599

 
46,632,982

Net (loss) income per common share:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basic
 
$
(0.25
)
 
$
0.44

 
$
(0.23
)
 
$
0.53

Diluted
 
$
(0.25
)
 
$
0.44

 
$
(0.23
)
 
$
0.52

For the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, the combined effects of unvested restricted stock awards, restricted stock units, performance unit awards and stock options of 947,442 and 232,245, respectively, were excluded from the calculation of diluted EPS as their impact would have been antidilutive. For the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, the combined effects of unvested restricted stock awards, restricted stock units, performance units and stock options of 947,442 and 286,225, respectively, and the impact of shares to be issued under the ESPP, which was minor, were excluded from the calculation of diluted EPS as their impact would have been antidilutive.


18

Table of Contents

ITEM 2.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and related notes above.
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT
CONCERNING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This discussion and analysis contains some “forward-looking statements.” Forward-looking statements concern possible or assumed future results of operations, including descriptions of our business strategies and customer relationships. These statements often include words such as “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,” “estimate,” “seek,” “will,” “may” or similar expressions. These statements are based on assumptions that we have made in light of our experience in the industry, as well as our perceptions of historical trends, current conditions, expected future developments and other factors we believe are appropriate in these circumstances.
As you read and consider this discussion and analysis, you should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements. You should understand that these statements involve substantial risk and uncertainty and are not guarantees of future performance or results. They depend on many factors that are discussed further in the section entitled (Risk Factors) in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014, as supplemented by disclosures, if any, in Item 1A of Part II below. Changes or developments in any of these areas could affect our financial results or results of operations and could cause actual results to differ materially from those contemplated in the forward-looking statements.
All forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this report or the documents incorporated by reference, as the case may be. We do not undertake any duty to update any of these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this report or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
OVERVIEW
We are a leader in the research, development and commercialization of organic light emitting diode, or OLED, technologies and materials for use in displays for smartphones, wearables, tablets and televisions, as well as solid-state lighting applications. Since 1994, we have been exclusively engaged, and expect to continue to be primarily engaged, in funding and performing research and development activities relating to OLED technologies and materials, and commercializing these technologies and materials. We derive our revenue from the following:
sales of OLED materials for evaluation, development and commercial manufacturing;
intellectual property and technology licensing; and
technology development and support, including government contract work and support provided to third parties for commercialization of their OLED products.
Material sales relate to our sale of OLED materials for incorporation into our customers’ commercial OLED products or for their OLED development and evaluation activities. Material sales are recognized at the time of shipment or at time of delivery, and passage of title, depending upon the contractual agreement between the parties.
We receive license and royalty payments under certain commercial, development and technology evaluation agreements, some of which are non-refundable advances. These payments may include royalty and license fees made pursuant to license agreements and also license fees included as part of certain commercial supply agreements. For arrangements with extended payment terms where the fee is not fixed and determinable, we recognize revenue when the payment is due and payable. Royalty revenue and license fees included as part of commercial supply agreements are recognized when earned and the amount is fixed and determinable.
Currently, our most significant commercial license agreement, which runs through the end of 2017, is with SDC and covers the manufacture and sale of specified OLED display products. Under this agreement, we are being paid a license fee, payable in semi-annual installments over the agreement term of 6.4 years. The installments, which are due in the second and fourth quarter of each year, increase on an annual basis over the term of the agreement. The agreement conveys to SDC the non-exclusive right to use certain of our intellectual property assets for a limited period of time that is less than the estimated life of the assets. Ratable recognition of revenue is impacted by the agreement's extended increasing payment terms in light of our limited history with similar agreements. As a result, revenue is recognized at the lesser of the proportional performance approach (ratable) and the amount of due and payable fees from SDC. Given the increasing contractual payment schedule, license fees under the agreement are recognized as revenue when they become due and payable, which is currently scheduled to be in the second and fourth quarter of each year.

19

Table of Contents

At the same time we entered into the current patent license agreement with SDC, we also entered into a new supplemental material purchase agreement with SDC. Under the current supplemental material purchase agreement, SDC agrees to purchase from us a minimum dollar amount of phosphorescent emitter materials for use in the manufacture of licensed products. This minimum purchase commitment is subject to SDC’s requirements for phosphorescent emitter materials and our ability to meet these requirements over the term of the supplemental agreement. The minimum purchase amounts increase on an annual basis over the term of the supplemental agreement. These amounts were determined through negotiation based on a number of factors, including, without limitation, estimates of SDC’s OLED business growth as a percentage of published OLED market forecasts and SDC’s projected minimum usage of red and green phosphorescent emitter materials over the term of the agreement.
In the first quarter of 2015, we entered into an OLED patent license agreement and an OLED commercial material supply agreement with LG Display Co., Ltd. (LG Display). The agreements have a term that is set to expire at the end of 2022. The patent license agreement provides LG Display a non-exclusive, royalty bearing portfolio license to make and sell OLED displays under the Company's patent portfolio. The patent license calls for license fees, prepaid royalties and running royalties on licensed products. The agreements include customary provisions relating to warranties, indemnities, confidentiality, assignability and business terms. The agreements provide for certain other minimum obligations relating to the volume of material sales anticipated over the term of the agreements, if certain conditions are met, as well as minimum royalty revenue to be generated under the patent license agreement. The Company expects to generate revenue under these agreements that are predominantly tied to LG Display's sales of OLED licensed products. The OLED commercial supply agreement provides for the sale of material for use by LG Display, which may include phosphorescent emitter and host materials.
Technology development and support revenue is revenue earned from government contracts, development and technology evaluation agreements and commercialization assistance fees, which includes reimbursements by government entities for all or a portion of the research and development costs we incur in relation to our government contracts. Revenues are recognized proportionally as research and development costs are incurred, or as defined milestones are achieved.
While we have made significant progress over the past few years developing and commercializing our family of OLED technologies (including our PHOLED, TOLED, FOLED technologies) and materials, and have generated net income over the past three years, we incurred significant losses prior to this period resulting in an accumulated deficit of $98.8 million as of June 30, 2015.
We anticipate fluctuations in our annual and quarterly results of operations due to uncertainty regarding, among other factors:
the timing, cost and volume of sales of our OLED materials;
the timing of our receipt of license fees and royalties, as well as fees for future technology development and evaluation;
the timing and magnitude of expenditures we may incur in connection with our ongoing research and development and patent-related activities; and
the timing and financial consequences of our formation of new business relationships and alliances.
Inventory write-down
During the three months ended June 30, 2015, the Company experienced a faster-than-anticipated decline in host material sales, which we believe was a result of our customer's selling new products that did not include our host materials. Based on current sales forecast, we anticipate significantly lower sales of our existing host material. As such, a write-down in net realizable value of our inventory was required.

20

Table of Contents

The following unaudited selected financial data table details our reconciliation of non-GAAP measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures:
(unaudited, in thousands, except share and per share data)
 
Three Months Ended June 30,
 
Six Months Ended June 30,
 
 
2015
 
2014
 
2015
 
2014
GAAP Results:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cost of material sales
 
$
39,086

 
$
11,951

 
$
47,667

 
$
21,848

Operating expenses
 
62,573

 
35,289

 
92,025

 
66,501

Operating (loss) income
 
(4,481
)
 
28,838

 
(2,710
)
 
35,464

(Loss) income before income taxes
 
(4,305
)
 
29,010

 
2,373

 
35,838

Net (loss) income
 
(11,771
)
 
20,422

 
(10,457
)
 
24,443

Net (loss) income per common share, basic
 
$
(0.25
)
 
$
0.44

 
$
(0.23
)
 
$
0.53

Net (loss) income per common share, diluted
 
$
(0.25
)
 
$
0.44

 
$
(0.23
)
 
$
0.52

Non-GAAP Reconciling Items:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Inventory write-down
 
$
33,000

 
$

 
$
33,000

 
$

Tax impact of inventory write-down
 
(1,860
)
 

 
(1,860
)
 

Non-GAAP Measures
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cost of material sales
 
$
6,086

 
$
11,951

 
$
14,667

 
$
21,848

Operating expenses
 
29,573

 
35,289

 
59,025

 
66,501

Operating income
 
28,519

 
28,838

 
30,290

 
35,464

Income before income taxes
 
28,695

 
29,010

 
30,627

 
35,838

Net income*
 
19,369

 
20,422

 
20,683

 
24,443

Net income per common share, basic**
 
$
0.42

 
$
0.44

 
$
0.45

 
$
0.53

Net income per common share, diluted***
 
$
0.41

 
$
0.44

 
$
0.45

 
$
0.52

* Non-GAAP net income assumes an effective tax rate of 32.5% based on excluding the impact of the inventory write down.
** The non-GAAP net income per common share, basic is derived from dividing non-GAAP net income by the number of weighted average shares used in computing basic net income per common share.
*** The non-GAAP net income per common share, diluted is derived from dividing non-GAAP net income by non-GAAP weighted average shares of 46,691,525 and 46,421,612 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2015, respectively.

Non-GAAP Measures
To supplement our selected financial data presented in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), we use certain non-GAAP measures. These non-GAAP measures include non-GAAP net income, non-GAAP net income per common share, basic and non-GAAP net income per common share, diluted, as well as non-GAAP cost of material sales, non-GAAP operating expenses, non-GAAP operating income and non-GAAP income before income taxes. Reconciliation to the nearest GAAP measures of all non-GAAP measures included in the presentation can be found within the tables detailing the reconciliation of non-GAAP measures to GAAP measures above.
We have provided these non-GAAP measures to enhance investors' overall understanding of our current financial performance, and as a means to evaluate period-to-period comparisons. We believe that these non-GAAP measures provide meaningful supplemental information regarding our financial performance by excluding the effect of the write-down of primarily existing host materials that were not included in our customer's new products. We believe that the non-GAAP measures that exclude the impact of the inventory write down, when viewed with GAAP results, enhance the comparability of results against prior periods and allow for greater transparency of financial results. The presentation of non-GAAP measures is not intended to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for, or superior to, the financial information prepared and presented in accordance with GAAP.


21

Table of Contents

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Three Months Ended June 30, 2015 Compared to Three Months Ended June 30, 2014
We had an operating loss of $4.5 million for the three months ended June 30, 2015, compared to operating income of $28.8 million for the three months ended June 30, 2014. The decrease in operating income was primarily due to the following:
an increase in operating expenses of $27.3 million, which includes a $27.1 million increase in the cost of material sales due to a $33.0 million write-down of inventory; and
a decrease in revenue of $6.0 million, which reflects a decrease in material sales, partially offset by an increase in royalty and license fees.
We had a net loss of $11.8 million (or $0.25 per basic and diluted share) for the three months ended June 30, 2015, compared to net income of $20.4 million (or $0.44 per basic and diluted share) for the three months ended June 30, 2014. The decrease in net income was primarily due to a decrease in operating income of $33.3 million, which in turn was mainly due to the $33.0 million write-down of inventory.
Absent the inventory write-down and the associated $1.9 million reduction of income tax expense, we had non-GAAP net income of $19.4 million (or $0.42 per non-GAAP basic and $0.41 per non-GAAP diluted share) for the three months ended June 30, 2015.
Revenue
The following table details our revenues for the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014 (in thousands):
 
 
Three Months Ended June 30,
 
 (Decrease) Increase
 
 
2015
 
2014
 
$
 
%
REVENUE:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Material sales
 
$
24,324

 
$
35,926

 
$
(11,602
)
 
(32
)%
Royalty and license fees
 
33,733

 
28,064

 
5,669

 
20
 %
Technology development and support revenue
 
35

 
137

 
(102
)
 
(74
)%
Total revenue
 
$
58,092

 
$
64,127

 
$
(6,035
)
 
(9
)%
Total revenue for the three months ended June 30, 2015 decreased by $6.0 million compared to the three months ended June 30, 2014. The decline in revenue was primarily the result of a decrease in commercial material sales, described in more detail below, partially offset by an increase in royalty and license fee revenue.
Material sales
The following table details our revenues derived from material sales for the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014 (in thousands):
 
 
Three Months Ended June 30,
 
(Decrease)
 
 
2015
 
2014
 
$
 
%
Material Sales:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Commercial material sales
 
$
21,788

 
$
32,579

 
$
(10,791
)
 
(33
)%
Developmental material sales
 
2,536

 
3,347

 
(811
)
 
(24
)%
Total material sales
 
$
24,324

 
$
35,926

 
$
(11,602
)
 
(32
)%
Commercial material sales for the three months ended June 30, 2015 decreased by $10.8 million compared to the three months ended June 30, 2014, primarily due to lower host material sales of $11.7 million, which is further explained below.
Developmental material sales for the three months ended June 30, 2015 decreased by $0.8 million compared to the three months ended June 30, 2014. The decrease in our development material sales was primarily due to a decrease in the number of grams sold.

22

Table of Contents

Material sales included sales of both phosphorescent emitter and host materials which were comprised of the following for the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014 (in thousands):
 
 
Three Months Ended June 30,
 
Increase (Decrease)
 
 
2015
 
2014
 
$
 
%
Material Sales:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Phosphorescent emitter sales
 
$
22,152

 
$
22,026

 
$
126

 
1
 %
Host material sales
 
2,172

 
13,900

 
(11,728
)
 
(84
)%
Total material sales
 
$
24,324

 
$
35,926

 
$
(11,602
)
 
(32
)%
Phosphorescent emitter sales for the three months ended June 30, 2015 increased by $0.1 million compared to the three months ended June 30, 2014.
Host material sales for the three months ended June 30, 2015 decreased by $11.7 million compared to the three months ended June 30, 2014. The decline in our host material sales was primarily due to a decrease in the number of grams sold due to what we believe was a result of our customer's selling new products that did not include our host materials as well as a reduction in the average price per gram sold. Based on current sales forecast, we anticipate that sales of existing host material will continue to be significantly reduced. Sales forecasts tend to be volatile, but because of the deterioration in both actual and forecasted sales demand, the results of our quarterly excess and obsolete analysis required that a write-down in net realizable value of $33.0 million primarily to our existing host material inventory be recorded. Our customers are not required to purchase our host materials in order to utilize our phosphorescent emitter materials, and the host material sales business continues to be more competitive than the phosphorescent emitter material sales business. 
Royalty and license fees
Royalty and license fees were as follows for the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014 (in thousands):
 
 
Three Months Ended June 30,
 
Increase
 
 
2015
 
2014
 
$
 
%
Royalty and license fees
 
$
33,733

 
$
28,064

 
$
5,669

 
20
%
Royalty and license fees for the three months ended June 30, 2015 increased by $5.7 million compared to the three months ended June 30, 2014. The increase was mainly related to the receipt and recognition of $30.0 million of royalty and license fee payments under our patent and license agreement with SDC, compared to $25.0 million in the prior period.
Technology development and support revenue
Technology development and support revenue were as follows for the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014 (in thousands):
 
 
Three Months Ended June 30,
 
(Decrease)
 
 
2015
 
2014
 
$
 
%
Technology development and support revenue
 
$
35

 
$
137

 
$
(102
)
 
(74
)%
Technology development and support revenue is revenue earned from U.S. government contracts and development and technology evaluation agreements and commercialization assistance fees.
Technology development and support revenue for the three months ended June 30, 2015 decreased by $0.1 million compared to the three months ended June 30, 2014. The decrease was primarily related to the smaller number of government contracts.

23

Table of Contents

Cost of material sales
Cost of commercial material sales were as follows for the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014 (in thousands):
 
 
Three Months Ended June 30,
 
 
2015
 
2014
Commercial material sales
 
$
21,788

 
$
32,579

Cost of commercial material sales
 
38,565

 
11,951

% of commercial material sales
 
177
%
 
37
%
Cost of commercial material sales for the three months ended June 30, 2015 increased by $26.6 million compared to the three months ended June 30, 2014. The increase in the cost of our commercial material sales was due to an inventory write-down of $33.0 million, offset to some extent by a decrease in commercial material sales. During the three months ended June 30, 2015, the Company experienced a faster-than-anticipated decline in host material sales and based on current sales forecast, we anticipate significantly lower sales of our existing host material. As such, a write-down in net realizable value of our inventory was required. Without the write-down and commensurate with the decline in material sales revenue, the cost of commercial material sales would have been $6.1 million and the cost of commercial material sales as a percent of commercial material sales would have been 28% for the three months ended June 30, 2015 compared to 37% in the three months ended June 30, 2014. The increase in commercial material sales margin absent the write-down was due to the decrease in host sales, which have less favorable margins than our emitter materials. Depending on the amounts, timing and stage of materials being classified as commercial, we expect cost of materials sales to fluctuate from quarter to quarter.
Cost of commercial material sales includes the cost of producing materials that have been classified as commercial, shipping costs for such materials, and inventory write-downs, but excludes the cost of producing certain materials which has already been included in research and development expense.
Research and development
We incurred research and development expenses of $10.6 million for the three months ended June 30, 2015, essentially unchanged as compared to $10.5 million for the three months ended June 30, 2014
Selling, general and administrative
Selling, general and administrative expenses were $6.7 million for the three months ended June 30, 2015, essentially unchanged as compared to $6.5 million for the three months ended June 30, 2014.
Patent costs and amortization of acquired technology
Patent costs and amortization of acquired technology decreased to $4.5 million for the three months ended June 30, 2015, compared to $4.7 million for the three months ended June 30, 2014. The decrease relates to the timing of expenses related to prosecution, maintenance and opposition of patents.
Royalty and license expense
Royalty and license expense increased to $1.7 million for the three months ended June 30, 2015, compared to $1.5 million for the three months ended June 30, 2014. The increase was mainly due to increased royalties incurred under our amended license agreement with Princeton, USC, and Michigan, resulting from higher royalty and license fees. See Note 6 in Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion.
Income taxes
Income tax expense of $7.5 million and $8.6 million for the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively, was recorded primarily related to foreign taxes on royalty and license fees paid to the Company and federal income taxes. The effective income tax rate was (173.4)% and 29.6% for the three months ended June 30, 2015, and 2014 respectively. The Company's effective tax rate rose significantly as the inventory write-down primarily relates to UDC Ireland Limited, which expects to incur a loss for the full year 2015 and such loss has not been tax benefited as UDC Ireland Limited has a history of losses resulting in a full valuation allowance. For the three months ended June 30, 2015, absent the inventory write-down, income tax expense would have been $9.4 million and the effective income tax rate would have been 32.5%.

24

Table of Contents

Six Months Ended June 30, 2015 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2014
We had an operating loss of $2.7 million for the six months ended June 30, 2015, compared to operating income of $35.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2014. The decrease in operating income was primarily due to the following:
an increase in operating expenses of $25.5 million, which primarily includes a $25.8 million increase in the cost of material sales due to a $33.0 million write-down of inventory; and
an decrease in revenue of $12.7 million, which reflects a decrease in material sales, partially offset by an increase royalty and license fees.
We had a net loss of $10.5 million (or $0.23 per basic and diluted share) for the six months ended June 30, 2015, compared to net income of $24.4 million (or $0.53 per basic and $0.52 per diluted share) for the six months ended June 30, 2014. The decrease in net income was primarily due to:
the decrease in operating income of $38.2 million, primarily from the $33.0 million write-down of inventory; offset by
a decrease in income tax expense of $3.3 million.
Absent the inventory write-down and the associated $1.9 million reduction of income tax expense, we had non-GAAP net income of $20.7 million (or $0.45 per non-GAAP basic and diluted share) for the six months ended June 30, 2015.
Revenue
The following table details our revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014 (in thousands):
 
 
Six Months ended June 30,
 
(Decrease) Increase
 
 
2015
 
2014
 
$
 
%
REVENUE:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Material sales
 
$
51,142

 
$
71,252

 
$
(20,110
)
 
(28
)%
Royalty and license fees
 
38,108

 
29,843

 
8,265

 
28
 %
Technology development and support revenue
 
65

 
870

 
(805
)
 
(93
)%
Total revenue
 
$
89,315

 
$
101,965

 
$
(12,650
)
 
(12
)%
Total revenue for the six months ended June 30, 2015 decreased by $12.7 million compared to the six months ended June 30, 2014. The decrease in revenue was primarily the result of decreased commercial material sales, partially offset by an increase in royalty and license fee revenue.
Material sales
The following table details our revenues derived from material sales for the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014 (in thousands):
 
 
Six Months ended June 30,
 
(Decrease)
 
 
2015
 
2014
 
$
 
%
Material Sales:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Commercial material sales
 
$
47,418

 
$
66,076

 
$
(18,658
)
 
(28
)%
Developmental material sales
 
3,724

 
5,176

 
(1,452
)
 
(28
)%
Total material sales
 
$
51,142

 
$
71,252

 
$
(20,110
)
 
(28
)%
Commercial material sales for the six months ended June 30, 2015 decreased by $18.7 million compared to the six months ended June 30, 2014, primarily due to lower host sales of $19.1 million, which is further explained below.
Developmental material sales for the six months ended June 30, 2015 decreased by $1.5 million compared to the six months ended June 30, 2014. The decrease in our development material sales was primarily due a decrease in the number of grams sold.

25

Table of Contents

Material sales included sales of both phosphorescent emitter and host materials which were comprised of the following for the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014 (in thousands):
 
 
Six Months ended June 30,
 
(Decrease)
 
 
2015
 
2014
 
$
 
%
Material Sales:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Phosphorescent emitter sales
 
$
43,547

 
$
44,594

 
$
(1,047
)
 
(2
)%
Host material sales
 
7,595

 
26,658

 
(19,063
)
 
(72
)%
Total material sales
 
$
51,142

 
$
71,252

 
$
(20,110
)
 
(28
)%
Phosphorescent emitter sales for the six months ended June 30, 2015 decreased by $1.0 million compared to the six months ended June 30, 2014.
Host material sales for the six months ended June 30, 2015 decreased by $19.1 million compared to the six months ended June 30, 2014. The decline in our host material sales was primarily due to a decrease in the number of grams sold due to what we believe was a result of our customer's selling new products that did not include our host materials as well as a reduction in the average price per gram sold. Based on current sales forecast, we anticipate that sales of existing host material will continue to be significantly reduced. Sales forecasts tend to be volatile, but because of the deterioration in both actual and forecasted sales demand, the results of our quarterly excess and obsolete analysis required that a write-down in net realizable value of $33.0 million primarily to our existing host material inventory be recorded. Our customers are not required to purchase our host materials in order to utilize our phosphorescent emitter materials, and the host material sales business continues to be more competitive than the phosphorescent emitter material sales business. 
Royalty and license fees
Royalty and license fees were as follows for the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014 (in thousands):
 
 
Six Months ended June 30,
 
Increase
 
 
2015
 
2014
 
$
 
%
Royalty and license fees
 
$
38,108

 
$
29,843

 
$
8,265

 
28
%
Royalty and license fees for the six months ended June 30, 2015 increased by $8.3 million compared to the six months ended June 30, 2014. The increase was mainly related to the receipt and recognition of $30.0 million of royalty and license fee payments under our patent and license agreement with SDC, compared to $25.0 million in the prior period.
Technology development and support revenue
Technology development and support revenue were as follows for the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014 (in thousands):
 
 
Six Months ended June 30,
 
(Decrease)
 
 
2015
 
2014
 
$
 
%
Technology development and support revenue
 
$
65

 
$
870

 
$
(805
)
 
(93
)%
Technology development and support revenue is revenue earned from U.S. government contracts and development and technology evaluation agreements and commercialization assistance fees.
Technology development and support revenue for the six months ended June 30, 2015 decreased by $0.8 million compared to the six months ended June 30, 2014. The decrease was primarily related to the smaller number of government contracts.

26

Table of Contents

Cost of material sales
Cost of commercial material sales were as follows for the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014 (in thousands):
 
 
Six Months ended June 30,
 
 
2015
 
2014
Commercial material sales
 
$
47,418

 
$
66,076

Cost of commercial material sales
 
47,086

 
21,848

% of commercial material sales
 
99
%
 
33
%
Cost of commercial material sales for the six months ended June 30, 2015 increased by $25.2 million compared to the six months ended June 30, 2014. The increase in the cost of our commercial material sales was primarily due to an inventory write-down of $33.0 million, offset to some extent by a decrease in commercial material sales. During the three months ended June 30, 2015, the Company experienced a faster-than-anticipated decline in host material sales and based on current sales forecast, we anticipate significantly lower sales of our existing host material. As such, a write-down in net realizable value of our inventory was required. Without the write-down and commensurate with the decline in material sales revenue, the cost of commercial material sales would have been $14.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2015, and the cost of commercial material sales as a percent of commercial material sales would have been 30% for the six months ended June 30, 2015 compared to 33% in the six months ended June 30, 2014. The increase in commercial material sales margin absent the write-down was due to the decrease in host sales, which have less favorable margins than our emitter materials. Depending on the amounts, timing and stage of materials being classified as commercial, we expect cost of materials sales to fluctuate from quarter to quarter.
Cost of commercial material sales includes the cost of producing materials that have been classified as commercial and shipping costs for such materials, but excludes the cost of producing certain materials which has already been included in research and development expense. Commercial materials are materials that have been validated by us for use in commercial OLED products.
Research and development
We incurred research and development expenses of $20.6 million for the six months ended June 30, 2015, essentially unchanged as compared to $20.7 million for the six months ended June 30, 2014
Selling, general and administrative
Selling, general and administrative expenses were $12.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2015, essentially unchanged as compared to $13.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2014.
Patent costs and amortization of acquired technology
Patent costs and amortization of acquired technology decreased to $8.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2015, compared to $8.7 million for the six months ended June 30, 2014. The decrease relates to a decrease in patent costs mainly due to lower legal expenses.
Royalty and license expense
Royalty and license expense increased to $2.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2015, compared to $2.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2014. The increase was mainly due to increased royalties incurred under our amended license agreement with Princeton, USC, and Michigan, resulting from higher qualifying material sales and increased royalty and license fees. See Note 6 in Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion.
Income taxes
Income tax expense of $8.1 million and $11.4 million was recorded for the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively, primarily related to foreign taxes withheld on royalty and license fees paid to the Company and federal income taxes. The effective income tax rate was (340.7)% and 31.8% for the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The Company's effective tax rate rose significantly as the inventory write-down primarily relates to UDC Ireland Limited, which expects to incur a loss for the full year 2015 and such loss has not been tax benefited as UDC Ireland Limited has a history of losses resulting in a full valuation allowance. For the six months ended June 30, 2015, absent the inventory write-down, income tax expense would have been $10.0 million and the effective income tax rate would have been 32.5%.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Our principle sources of liquidity are our cash and cash equivalents and our short-term investments. As of June 30, 2015, we had cash and cash equivalents of $109.3 million and short-term investments of $247.0 million, for a total of $356.3 million. This compares to cash and cash equivalents of $45.4 million and short-term investments of $243.1 million, for a total of $288.5 million, as of December 31, 2014. The increase in cash and cash equivalents of $63.8 million was primarily due to cash provided by operating activities related to proceeds received from deferred revenue arrangements offset by cash used in investing and financing activities.

27

Table of Contents

Cash provided by operating activities was $75.2 million for the six months ended June 30, 2015, compared to $25.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2014. The increase in cash provided by operating activities was primarily due to the following changes from the comparable prior period:
the receipt of $45.0 million from customers for prepaid royalty and license fees recognized as deferred revenue; and
the impact of the timing of accounts receivable collections of $9.5 million; primarily offset by
the impact of the timing of net inventory purchases of $2.8 million.
Cash used in investing activities was $7.6 million for the six months ended June 30, 2015, compared to $11.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2014. The decrease in cash used in investing activities was mainly due to the timing of maturities and purchases of investments resulting in net purchases of $4.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2015, compared to net purchases of $8.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2014.
Cash used in financing activities was $3.7 million for the six months ended June 30, 2015, compared to $9.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2014.  The decrease in cash used in financing activities was primarily due to the fact that there were no repurchases of common stock during the six months ended June 30, 2015 compared to $7.0 million of repurchases of common stock in the six months ended June 30, 2014. This was offset by an increase in the payment of withholding taxes related to employee stock-based compensation of $2.5 million in the six months ended June 30, 2015 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2014.
Working capital was $365.1 million as of June 30, 2015, compared to $343.7 million as of December 31, 2014. The increase in working capital was primarily due to the increase in cash and cash equivalents, an increase in short-term investments, offset by an increase in deferred revenue, a decrease in accounts receivable and a decrease in inventory.
We anticipate, based on our internal forecasts and assumptions relating to our operations (including, among others, assumptions regarding our working capital requirements, the progress of our research and development efforts, the availability of sources of funding for our research and development work, and the timing and costs associated with the preparation, filing, prosecution, maintenance, defense and enforcement of our patents and patent applications), that we have sufficient cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments to meet our obligations for at least the next twelve months.
We believe that potential additional financing sources for us include long-term and short-term borrowings, public and private sales of our equity and debt securities and the receipt of cash upon the exercise of outstanding stock options. It should be noted, however, that additional funding may be required in the future for research, development and commercialization of our OLED technologies and materials, to obtain, maintain and enforce patents respecting these technologies and materials, and for working capital and other purposes, the timing and amount of which are difficult to ascertain. There can be no assurance that additional funds will be available to us when needed, on commercially reasonable terms or at all, particularly in the current economic environment.
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
The discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based on our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect our reported assets and liabilities, revenues and expenses, and other financial information. Actual results may differ significantly from our estimates under other assumptions and conditions.
We believe that our accounting policies related to revenue recognition and deferred revenue, the valuation of certain investments, the valuation and recoverability of acquired technology and inventories, stock-based compensation, income taxes and our Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan, are our “critical accounting policies” as contemplated by the SEC.
Refer to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014, for additional discussion of our critical accounting policies.
Contractual Obligations
Refer to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 for a discussion of our contractual obligations.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
As of June 30, 2015, we had no off-balance sheet arrangements in the nature of guarantee contracts, retained or contingent interests in assets transferred to unconsolidated entities (or similar arrangements serving as credit, liquidity or market risk support to unconsolidated entities for any such assets), or obligations (including contingent obligations) arising out of variable interests in unconsolidated entities providing financing, liquidity, market risk or credit risk support to us, or that engage in leasing, hedging or research and development services with us.
ITEM 3.
QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
We do not utilize financial instruments for trading purposes and hold no derivative financial instruments, other financial instruments or derivative commodity instruments that could expose us to significant market risk other than our investments disclosed in “Fair Value Measurements” in Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included herein. We generally invest in investment grade financial instruments to reduce our exposure related to investments. Our primary market risk exposure with regard to such financial instruments is to changes in interest rates, which would impact interest income earned on investments. However, based upon the conservative nature of our investment portfolio and current experience, we do not believe a decrease in investment yields would have a material negative effect on our interest income.
Substantially all our revenue is derived from outside of North America. All revenue is primarily denominated in U.S. dollars and therefore we bear no significant foreign exchange risk.
ITEM 4.
CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
Our management, with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of June 30, 2015. Based on that evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report, are effective to provide reasonable assurance that the information required to be disclosed by us in reports filed or submitted under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, is (i) recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms, and (ii) accumulated and communicated to our management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding disclosure. However, a controls system, no matter how well designed and operated, cannot provide absolute assurance that the objectives of the controls system are met, and no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within a company have been detected.
Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting
There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting during the quarter ended June 30, 2015 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
PART II – OTHER INFORMATION

28

Table of Contents

ITEM 1.
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Patent Related Challenges and Oppositions
Each major jurisdiction that issues patents provides third parties and applicants an opportunity to seek a further review of an issued patent. The specific process for requesting and considering such reviews are specific to the jurisdiction that issued the patent in question, and generally do not include claims for monetary damages or 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.
We believe 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. We view these proceedings as reflective of our 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. We believe that as OLED technology becomes more established and as our patent portfolio increases in size, so will the number of these proceedings.
Below are summaries of certain active proceedings that have been commenced against issued patents that are either exclusively licensed to us or which are now assigned to us. We do not believe that the confirmation, loss or modification of our rights in any individual claim or set of claims that are the subject of the following legal proceedings would have a material impact on our materials sales or licensing business or on our consolidated financial statements, including our consolidated statements of operations, as a whole. However, as noted within the descriptions, some of the following proceedings involve issued patents that relate to our fundamental phosphorescent OLED technologies and we intend to vigorously defend against claims that, in our opinion, seek to restrict or reduce the scope of the originally issued claim, which may require the expenditure of significant amounts of our resources. In certain circumstances, when permitted, we may also utilize the proceedings 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. The entries marked with an "*" relate to our UniversalPHOLED phosphorescent OLED technology, some of which may be commercialized by us.
Opposition to European Patent No. 1394870*
On April 20, 2010, Merck Patent GmbH; BASF Schweitz AG of Basel, Switzerland; Osram GmbH of Munich, Germany; Siemens Aktiengesellschaft of Munich, Germany; and Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., of Eindhoven, The Netherlands filed Notices of Opposition to European Patent No. 1394870 (the EP '870 patent). The EP '870 patent, which was issued on July 22, 2009, is a European counterpart patent, in part, to U.S. patents 6,303,238; 6,579,632; 6,872,477; 7,279,235; 7,279,237; 7,488,542; 7,563,519; and 7,901,795; and to pending U.S. patent application 13/035,051, filed on February 25, 2011 (hereinafter the “U.S. '238 Patent Family”). They are exclusively licensed to us by Princeton, and we are required to pay all legal costs and fees associated with this proceeding.
An Oral Hearing was held before an EPO panel of first instance in Munich, Germany, on April 8-9, 2014. The panel decided that the broad claims originally issued did not satisfy EPO requirements and amended the claims to more narrowly define the scope of the claims. The '870 patent, in its amended form, was held by the panel to comply with EPO requirements.
We believe the EPO's decision relating to the broad original claims is erroneous and have appealed the ruling to reinstate a broader set of claims. This patent, as originally granted by the EPO, is deemed valid during the pendency of the appeals process.
At this time, based on our current knowledge, we believe there is a substantial likelihood that the patent being challenged will be declared valid and that all or a significant portion of our claims will be upheld. However, we cannot make any assurances of this result.
Invalidation Trial in Japan for Japan Patent No. 4511024*
On June 16, 2011, we learned that a Request for an Invalidation Trial was filed in Japan for our Japanese Patent No. JP-4511024 (the JP '024 patent), which issued on May 14, 2010. The Request was filed by SEL. The JP '024 patent is a counterpart patent, in part, to the U.S. '238 Patent Family, which relate to the EP '870 patent, which is subject to one of the above-noted European oppositions and which relates to our UniversalPHOLED phosphorescent OLED technology. They are exclusively licensed to us by Princeton, and we are required to pay all legal costs and fees associated with this proceeding.

29

Table of Contents

On May 10, 2012, we learned that the JPO issued a decision upholding the validity of certain claimed inventions in the JP '024 Patent but invalidating the broadest claims in the patent. We appealed the JPO’s decision to the Japanese IP High Court. On October 31, 2013, the Japanese IP High Court ruled that the prior art references relied on by the JPO did not support the JPO’s findings, reversed the JPO’s decision with respect to the previously invalidated broad claims in the JP ‘024 patent and remanded the matter back to the JPO for further consideration consistent with its decision. The JPO subsequently issued a decision upholding the validity of certain claimed inventions in the JP '024 Patent but invalidating the broadest claims in the patent. We appealed the decision to reinstate a broader set of claims and a hearing on this matter has been scheduled for the third quarter of 2015. This patent, as originally granted by the JPO, is deemed valid during the pendency of the appeals process.
At this time, based on our current knowledge, we believe that the patent being challenged should be declared valid and that all or a significant portion of our claims should be upheld. However, we cannot make any assurances of this result.
Opposition to European Patent No. 1390962