We have entered into various inventory and property, plant and equipment related purchase agreements with suppliers. Certain of these agreements have provisions for a binding forecast (inventory) or non-cancellable purchase orders (inventory and PP&E).


(In thousands)	Three Months Ended March 31,
	2026		2025
Balance at beginning of period	$	11	$	35
Additions (reductions) to costs and expenses	—		—
Settlements (in cash or in kind)	—		—
Foreign currency translation gain (loss)	—		—
Balance at end of period	$	11	$	35

In 2024, we downsized our factory in Mexico due to decreased demand in the U.S. market and our Vietnam facility's ability to supply our North American customers. and in 2025, we ultimately ceased production activities and wound down the factory in Mexico. We have recognized a cumulative total of $4.2 million in factory restructuring charges in connection with the wind down of our Mexico manufacturing facility, and we do not expect to incur additional factory restructuring charges in connection with this shutdown.

Restructuring liabilities are included in accrued compensation, accounts payable and other accrued liabilities on our consolidated balance sheets. Ending balances for these restructuring liabilities were $0.2 million at March 31, 2026 and $0.4 million at December 31, 2025, respectively.

UEI and Roku Inc. ("Roku") and certain of its customers have been in litigation in various forums since 2018—i.e., two actions in the Central District of California ("CDCA") beginning in 2018 and 2020 including related cases against certain of Roku's customers (collectively, the "CDCA cases"), the International Trade Commission ("ITC"), the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") (ex parte reexams) and the Patent and Trademark Appeals Board ("PTAB"). The CDCA cases were all stayed on various grounds. The 2018 case was stayed in November 2019 pending resolution of Roku-initiated PTO and PTAB matters, all of which have since been resolved.

The 2020 case was also immediately stayed due to UEI's related ITC action against Roku, in which UEI ultimately prevailed when in July 2021, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") issued an initial determination finding Roku in violation of Section 337. The Commission issued a final determination in November 2021, affirming the ALJ’s finding. The Commission then issued a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order against Roku, which went into effect following the expiration of the Presidential Review Period in January 2022. The Federal Circuit affirmed in January 2024. Following UEI's win and affirmance by the Federal Circuit, Roku sought rehearing en banc and sought cert from the Supreme Court on a domestic industry question. In January 2025, the Supreme Court denied cert.

While this ITC matter has been finally resolved and Roku has no more ability to appeal, we agreed to continue the stay of the CDCA cases pending the outcome of one final PTAB action involving one of our patents. UEI and Roku participated in a hearing in July 2025 regarding the consolidation of the 2018 and 2020 cases, the stay of the cases, and amending the claims that UEI would be allowed to move forward with a consolidated case by the court if unstayed. On July 29, 2025 the Judge issued an order lifting the stay, consolidating the cases and allowing UEI to move forward on 25 claims in the case. On September 4, 2025, the Court set various dates and deadlines for the case, including a trial date of March 16, 2027. On December 15, 2025, UEI filed a second amended complaint in the consolidated case.

Roku also filed its own retaliatory ITC action against UEI and certain of our customers on two patents it purchased for this purpose. Roku’s action failed when in June 2022, the ALJ found one of Roku’s patents to be invalid as indefinite. Thereafter, in June 2022, the ALJ issued its initial determination ("ID") fully exonerating us and our customers, finding Roku’s second patent

invalid and that Roku failed to establish the requisite domestic industry and thus no violation of the Tariff Act. Roku and UEI filed petitions to appeal certain portions of the ID. In October 2022, the full ITC issued its final determination affirming the ID, ruling there was no violation of the Tariff Act and terminating the investigation. In December 2022, Roku filed an appeal. Further, in October 2023, the PTAB issued its Final Written Decision invalidating all of Roku's infringement claims. Roku also filed an appeal of this decision. On June 17, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB decision that invalidated the Roku patent and also remanded the case to the PTAB with respect to one remaining claim. On January 21, 2026, the PTAB issued a ruling invalidating the remaining claim, and thus all claims of both asserted patents have been invalidated. As a companion to its ITC request, on April 8, 2021, Roku also filed a lawsuit against us in Federal CDCA alleging that we are infringing the same two patents they alleged were infringed in the ITC investigation explained above. On February 27, 2026, Roku voluntarily dismissed this District Court case.

On March 18, 2026, we filed a complaint in the Court of International Trade (the "CIT") against the United States of America, U.S. Customs & Border Protection and Rodney S. Scott, U.S. Customs & Border Protection Commissioner, challenging both the substantive and procedural processes related to instituting tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) and seeking declaratory and permanent injunctive relief related to refunding of all IEEPA duties paid by UEI.

There are no other material pending legal proceedings to which we or any of our subsidiaries is a party or of which our respective property is the subject. However, as is typical in our industry and to the nature and kind of business in which we are engaged, from time to time, various claims, charges and litigation are asserted or commenced by third parties against us or by us against third parties arising from or related to product liability, infringement of patent or other intellectual property rights, breach of warranty, contractual relations, or employee relations. The amounts claimed may be substantial, but may not bear any reasonable relationship to the merits of the claims or the extent of any real risk of court awards assessed against us or in our favor. However, no assurances can be made as to the outcome of any of these matters, nor can we estimate the range of potential losses to us. In our opinion, final judgments, if any, which might be rendered against us in potential or pending litigation would not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Moreover, we believe that our products do not infringe any third parties' patents or other intellectual property rights.