UNIVERSAL DISPLAY CORP \PA\ - Annual Report: 2017 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017

OR

For the transition period from ____________ to ___________

Commission File Number 1-12031

UNIVERSAL DISPLAY CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (609) 671-0980

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:  None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.   Yes  ☒   No  ☐

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.   Yes  ☐   No  ☒

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  ☒   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  ☒   No  ☐

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  ☒

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

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.   Yes  ☐  No  ☐

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

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant computed by reference to the closing sale price of the registrant’s common stock on the NASDAQ Global Market as of June 30, 2017, was $4,523,257,539.  Solely for purposes of this calculation, all executive officers and directors of the registrant and all beneficial owners of more than 10% of the registrant’s common stock (and their affiliates) were considered affiliates.

As of February 20, 2018, the registrant had outstanding 47,050,527 shares of common stock.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s Proxy Statement for the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, which is to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission no later than April 30, 2018, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this report.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT

CONCERNING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This report and the documents incorporated by reference in this report contain some “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Forward-looking statements concern possible or assumed future events, results and business outcomes. These statements often include words such as “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,” “estimate,” “seek,” “will,” “may,” “project” 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 under the circumstances.

As you read and consider this report, 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 under Item 1A (Risk Factors) below, including:

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 by any 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, correct, modify, or supplement 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.

1

PART I

Our Company

We are a leader in the research, development and commercialization of organic light emitting diode, or OLED, technologies and materials for use in display and solid-state lighting applications. OLEDs are thin, lightweight and power-efficient solid-state devices that emit light that can be manufactured on both flexible and rigid substrates, making them highly suitable for use in full-color displays and as lighting products. OLED displays are capturing a growing share of the flat panel display market, especially in the mobile phone, television, virtual reality and automotive markets. We believe that 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. We also believe 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. Our technology leadership and intellectual property position should enable us to share in the revenues from OLED displays and lighting products as they continue to be more broadly adopted.

Our primary business strategy is to (1) further develop and license our proprietary OLED technologies to manufacturers of products for display applications, such as mobile phones, wearable electronic devices, tablets, notebook computers and televisions, and specialty and general lighting products; and (2) develop new OLED materials and sell the materials to those product manufacturers. We have established a significant portfolio of proprietary OLED technologies and materials, primarily through our internal research and development efforts and acquisitions of patents and patent applications, as well as maintaining our relationships with world-class universities and other partners such as Princeton University (Princeton), the University of Southern California (USC), the University of Michigan (Michigan) and PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG Industries). We currently own, exclusively license or have the sole right to sublicense more than 4,500 patents issued and pending worldwide.

We sell our proprietary OLED materials to customers for evaluation and use in commercial OLED products. We also enter into agreements with manufacturers of OLED display and lighting products under which we grant them licenses to practice under our patents and to use our proprietary know-how. At the same time, we work with these and other companies who are evaluating our OLED technologies and materials for possible use in commercial OLED display and lighting products.

Market Overview

The Display Panel Market

Thin, energy efficient display panels that can be manufactured on glass or flexible substrates are essential for a wide variety of portable consumer electronics products, such as mobile phones, VR headsets, digital cameras, wearables, tablets and notebook computers. Due to their narrow profile and light weight, flat panel displays have also become the display of choice for larger product applications, such as computer monitors and televisions.

Liquid crystal displays, or LCDs, continue to dominate the flat panel display market. However, we believe that OLED displays are an attractive alternative to LCDs because they offer a number of potential advantages, including:

Based on these characteristics, product manufacturers have adopted small-area OLED displays for use in a wide variety of electronic devices, such as smartphones, wearables and tablets. Manufacturers are increasingly commercializing large area OLED displays for use in televisions. We believe that if these efforts are successful, they could result in sizeable markets for OLED displays.

In addition, due to the inherent transparency of organic materials and through the use of transparent electrode technology, OLEDs eventually may enable the production of transparent displays for use in products such as automotive windshields and windows with embedded displays. Organic materials also make technically possible the development of flexible displays for use in an entirely

2

new set of product applications. Such applications include display devices that can be conformed to certain shapes for wearable, industrial and ruggedized applications.

The Solid-State Lighting Market

Traditional incandescent light bulbs are inefficient because they convert only about 5% of the energy they consume into visible light, with the rest emerging as heat. Fluorescent lamps use excited gases, or plasmas, to achieve a higher energy conversion efficiency of about 20%. However, the color rendering index, or CRI, of most fluorescent lamps – in other words, the quality of their color compared to an ideal light source – is inferior to that of an incandescent bulb. Fluorescent lamps also pose environmental concerns because they typically contain mercury.

Solid-state lighting relies on the direct conversion of electricity to visible light using semiconductor materials. By avoiding the heat and plasma-producing processes of incandescent bulbs and fluorescent lamps, respectively, solid-state lighting products can have substantially higher energy conversion efficiencies.

There are currently two basic types of solid-state lighting devices: inorganic light emitting diodes, or LEDs, and OLEDs. Current LEDs are very small in size (about one square millimeter) and are extremely bright. Having been developed about 25 years before OLEDs, LEDs are already employed in a variety of lighting products, such as traffic lights, billboards, replacements for incandescent lighting, backlights for smartphones, computer monitors and televisions, and as border or accent lighting. However, the high operating temperatures and intense brightness of LEDs may make them less desirable for many general illumination and diffuse lighting applications.

OLEDs, on the other hand, are larger in size and can be viewed directly, without using diffusers that are required to temper the intense brightness of LEDs. OLEDs can be added to any suitable surface, including glass, plastic or metal foil, and could be cost-effective to manufacture in high volume. Given these characteristics, product manufacturers are working and have introduced limited product applications of OLEDs for diffuse specialty lighting applications and ultimately general illumination. If these efforts are successful, we believe that OLED lighting products could begin to be used for applications currently addressed by incandescent bulbs and fluorescent lamps, as well as for new applications that take advantage of the OLED form factor. In particular, the ability of OLED technology to produce uniform illumination over arbitrary shapes is making OLED lighting very attractive to the automobile industry.

Our Competitive Strengths

We believe our position as one of the leading technology developers in the OLED industry is the direct result of our technological innovation. We have built an extensive intellectual property portfolio around our OLED technologies and materials, and are working diligently to enable our manufacturing partners to adopt our OLED technologies and materials for expanding commercial usage. Our key competitive strengths include:

Technology Leadership

We are a recognized technology leader in the OLED industry. Along with our research partners, we have pioneered the development of our UniversalPHOLED® phosphorescent OLED technologies, which can be used to produce OLEDs that are up to four times more efficient than fluorescent OLEDs and significantly more efficient than current LCDs, which are illuminated using backlights. We believe that our phosphorescent OLED technologies and materials are well-suited for industry usage in the commercial production of OLED displays and lighting products. Through our relationships with companies such as PPG Industries and our academic partners, we have also developed other important OLED technologies, as well as novel OLED materials that we believe will facilitate the adoption of our various OLED technologies by product manufacturers.

Broad Portfolio of Intellectual Property

We believe that our extensive portfolio of patents, trade secrets and non-patented know-how provides us with a competitive advantage in the OLED industry. Through our internal development efforts, acquisitions, and our relationships with world-class partners such as Princeton, USC, Michigan and PPG Industries, we own, exclusively license or have the sole right to sublicense more than 4,500 patents issued and pending worldwide. In 2011, we purchased 74 issued U.S. patents from Motorola Solutions, Inc. (f/k/a Motorola, Inc.) (Motorola), together with foreign counterparts in various countries, which patents we had previously licensed from Motorola, and in 2012, we acquired the entire worldwide patent portfolio of more than 1,200 OLED patents and patent applications of Fujifilm Corporation (Fujifilm). In 2016, we acquired more than 500 issued and then pending patents in the area of phosphorescent materials and technologies from BASF SE (BASF). We also continue to accumulate valuable non-patented technical know-how relating to our OLED technologies and materials.

3

Leading Supplier of UniversalPHOLED® Emitter Materials

We are the leading supplier of phosphorescent emitter materials to OLED product manufacturers. The emitter material, which is designed to efficiently convert electrical energy to a desired wavelength of light, is the key component in an OLED device. We develop, supply, and offer for sale proprietary phosphorescent emitter materials. PPG Industries currently manufactures our materials for us, which we then qualify and resell to OLED product manufacturers. We record revenues based on our sales of these materials to OLED product manufacturers. Our sales allow us to maintain close technical and business relationships with the OLED product manufacturers purchasing our proprietary materials, which in turn further supports our technology licensing business.

Established Material Supply Relationships

We have established relationships with well-known manufacturers that are using, or are evaluating for use, our OLED materials in commercial products. In 2017, our customers for such materials included Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (SDC), LG Display Co., Ltd. (LG Display), AU Optronics Corporation (AU Optronics), BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. (BOE), Konica Minolta Holdings Inc. (Konica Minolta), Tianma Micro-electronics Co., Ltd. (Tianma), Tohoku Pioneer Corporation, Innolux Corporation (Innolux) (formerly Chimei Innolux Corporation), Kaneka Corporation (Kaneka), and EverDisplay Optronics (Shanghai) Limited, among others.

Licensing Our OLED Technologies and Patents

We license our proprietary OLED technologies and patents to product manufacturers on a non-exclusive basis. We do not directly manufacture or sell OLED display or lighting products. Instead, we enter into licensing arrangements with OLED product manufacturers who pay us license fees and/or royalties based on their sales of licensed products. We believe this business model allows us to concentrate on our core strengths of technology development and innovation, while at the same time providing significant operating leverage. We also believe that this approach may reduce potential competitive conflicts between our customers and us.

Licenses with Key Product Manufacturers

We have licensed our OLED technologies and patents to manufacturers for use in commercial products. In 2017, we had license agreements for the manufacture and sale of certain display products with SDC (as successor to Samsung Mobile Display Co. Ltd.), LG Display, BOE, and Tianma. We also have license agreements with Konica Minolta, Sumitomo Chemical Company, Ltd. (Sumitomo), Lumiotec, Inc. (Lumiotec), Pioneer Corporation (Pioneer), Kaneka and OLEDWorks L.L.C. (OLEDWorks) for the manufacture of OLED lighting products. Additionally, we have a license agreement with DuPont Displays for its manufacture of solution-processed OLED display products using proprietary OLED materials obtained through us.

Complementary UniversalPHOLED® Host Material Business

We develop, supply and offer for sale certain of our proprietary phosphorescent host materials to OLED product manufacturers. In one design, the emitter material is disbursed into a host material, with the resulting mixture consisting of predominantly host material. We believe that host material sales can be complementary to our phosphorescent emitter material sales business; however, our OLED product manufacturing customers are not required to purchase our host materials in order to utilize our phosphorescent emitter materials. In addition, the host material business is more competitive than the phosphorescent emitter material sales business. This means our long-term prospects for host material sales are uncertain.

Experienced Management and Scientific Advisory Team

Our management team has significant experience in developing business models focused on licensing disruptive technologies in high growth industries. In addition, our management team has assembled a Scientific Advisory Board that includes some of the leading researchers in the OLED industry, such as Professor Stephen R. Forrest of Michigan (formerly of Princeton) and Professor Mark E. Thompson of USC.

Our Business Strategy

Our current business strategy is to promote and continue to expand our portfolio of OLED technologies and materials for widespread use in OLED displays and lighting products. We generate revenues primarily by selling our proprietary OLED materials and licensing our OLED technologies to display and lighting product manufacturers. We are presently focused on the following steps to implement our business strategy:

4

Target Leading Product Manufacturers

We are targeting leading manufacturers of displays and lighting products as potential commercial licensees of our OLED technologies and purchasers of our OLED materials. We also supply our proprietary OLED materials to manufacturers of OLED displays and lighting products for evaluation and for use in product development and for pre-commercial activities, and we provide technical assistance and support to these manufacturers. We concentrate on working closely with OLED product manufacturers because we believe that the successful incorporation of our technologies and materials into commercial products is critical to their widespread adoption.

Enhance Our Existing Portfolio of PHOLED Technologies and Materials

We believe that a strong portfolio of proprietary OLED technologies and materials for both displays and lighting products is critical to our success. Consequently, we are continually seeking to expand this portfolio through our internal development efforts, our collaborative relationships with academic and other research partners, and other strategic opportunities. One of our primary goals is to develop new and improved phosphorescent OLED (PHOLED) technologies and materials with increased efficiencies, enhanced color gamut and extended lifetimes, which are compatible with different manufacturing methods, so that they can be used by various manufacturers in a broad array of OLED display and lighting products.

Develop Next-Generation Organic Technologies

We continue to conduct research and development activities relating to next-generation OLED technologies for both displays and lighting products. We also are funding research by our academic partners on the use of organic thin-film technology in other applications. Our focus on next-generation technologies is designed to enable us to maintain our position as a leading provider of OLED and other organic electronics technologies and materials as new markets emerge.

Business and Geographic Markets

We derive revenue from the following:

Most manufacturers of displays and lighting products who are or might potentially be interested in our OLED technologies and materials are currently located outside of the United States, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. To provide on-the-ground support to these manufacturers, we have established wholly-owned subsidiaries in Ireland, Korea, Japan, China and Hong Kong, as well as a representative office in Taiwan. Our subsidiary in Ireland is responsible for all material sales world-wide (excluding the United States) and for licensing and managing intellectual property and undertaking certain other business transactions in all non-U.S. territories.

We receive a majority of our revenues from customers that are domiciled outside of the United States, and our business is heavily dependent on our relationships with these customers. In particular, one of our key customers located in the Asia-Pacific region, SDC, accounted for 62% of our consolidated revenues for 2017. Substantially all revenue derived from our customers is denominated in U.S. dollars.

For more information on our revenues, costs and expenses associated with our business, as well as a breakdown of revenues from North America and foreign sources, please see our Consolidated Financial Statements and the notes thereto, as well as “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” included elsewhere in this report.

Our Technology and its Relation to OLED Technology and Structure

OLED devices are solid-state semiconductor devices made from thin films of organic material that emit light of various wavelengths when electricity is selectively applied to the emissive layer of the device. OLED devices are typically referred to as incorporating an “OLED stack.” OLED stacks vary in specific structure but those commonly used today may include a cathode, an electron injection layer, an electron transport layer, an emissive layer, a hole transport layer, a hole injection layer and an anode, all of which are placed on a substrate which may be made of a number of different materials, including glass, plastic and metal.

5

Our technology and materials are most commonly utilized in the emissive layer; the materials in the emissive layer are the light-generating component of the OLED stack. Many of our key technologies relate primarily to phosphorescent emitter materials, which we believe are more energy efficient than fluorescent emitter materials that can also be used to generate light within the emissive layer of the OLED device. We began selling emitter materials commercially in 2003. A manufacturer will use a small amount of emitter material for each device through a process called “doping” into a host material. The emitter material(s) and the host material(s) together form an emissive layer system. Depending on the nature of the OLED device, the emissive materials and emissive layer system may be designed to emit different colors. We have commercially produced and sold phosphorescent emitter materials that produce red, yellow, green and light-blue light, which are combined in various ways for the display and lighting markets.

Our current materials business, conducted outside the United States by our Irish subsidiary, is focused primarily on the delivery of such emissive materials. We have also developed host materials for the emissive layer and began selling them commercially in 2011. In addition to our materials, which are protected by patents covering various molecular structures, we also have fundamental and important patents that cover various aspects of the OLED device, including the use of phosphorescent emission in an OLED device, flexible OLEDs, lighting, encapsulation, and methods of manufacturing OLEDs, including through the use of our proprietary materials in OLED devices. These patents are important to our licensing business because they enable us to provide our business partners important OLED related technologies.

Our Phosphorescent OLED Technologies

Phosphorescent OLEDs utilize specialized materials and device structures that allow OLEDs to emit light through a process known as phosphorescence. Traditional fluorescent OLEDs emit light through an inherently less efficient process. Theory and experiment show that phosphorescent OLEDs exhibit device efficiencies up to four times higher than those exhibited by fluorescent OLEDs. Phosphorescence substantially reduces the power requirements of an OLED and is useful in displays for hand-held devices, such as smartphones, where battery power is often a limiting factor.

Phosphorescence is also important for large-area displays such as televisions, where higher device efficiency and lower heat generation may enable longer product lifetimes and increased energy efficiency.

We have a strong intellectual property portfolio surrounding our existing PHOLED technologies and materials for both displays and lighting products which we market under the UniversalPHOLED® brand. We devote a substantial portion of our efforts to developing new and improved proprietary PHOLED materials and device architectures for red, green, yellow, blue and white OLED devices. In 2017, we continued our commercial supply relationships with companies such as SDC, LG Display and Tianma to use such materials to manufacture OLED displays. In addition, we continued to work closely with customers evaluating and qualifying our proprietary PHOLED materials for commercial usage in both displays and lighting products, and with other material suppliers to match our PHOLED emitters with their phosphorescent hosts and other OLED materials.

Our Additional Proprietary OLED Technologies

Our intellectual property, research, development and commercialization efforts also encompass a number of other OLED device and manufacturing technologies, including the following:

FOLED ™ Flexible OLEDs

We are working on a number of technologies required for the fabrication of OLEDs on flexible substrates. Most OLED and other flat panel displays are built on rigid substrates such as glass. In contrast, FOLEDs are OLEDs built on non-rigid substrates such as plastic or metal foil. This has the potential to enhance durability and enable conformation to certain shapes or repeated bending or flexing. Eventually, FOLEDs may be capable of being rolled into a cylinder, similar to a window shade. These features create the possibility of new display product applications that do not exist commercially today, such as a portable, roll-up Internet connectivity and communications device as well as enhance the usefulness of such devices in ruggedized, industrial and wearable computing systems. One of our customers, LG Display, recently demonstrated a 65-inch rollable display at the 2018 CES (Consumer Electronics Show) in Las Vegas. Manufacturers also may be able to produce FOLEDs using more efficient continuous, or roll-to-roll, processing methods. We currently are conducting research and development on FOLED technologies internally.

Thin-Film Encapsulation

We have developed proprietary, patented encapsulation technology for the packaging of flexible OLEDs and other thin-film devices, as well as for use as a barrier film for plastic substrates. Addressing a major roadblock to the successful commercialization of flexible OLEDs, our hybrid, multi-layer approach provides barrier performance useful for OLEDs using a potentially cost-effective process. In addition to accelerating the commercial viability of flexible OLEDs, our thin-film encapsulation technology has the potential to provide benefits for a variety of other flexible thin-film devices, including photovoltaics and thin-film batteries.

6

UniversalP² OLED® Printable Phosphorescent OLEDs

The standard approach for manufacturing a small molecule OLED, including a PHOLED, is based on a vacuum thermal evaporation, or VTE, process. With a VTE process, the thin layers of organic material in an OLED are deposited in a high-vacuum environment. An alternate approach for manufacturing a small molecule OLED involves solution processing of the various organic materials in an OLED using techniques such as spin coating or inkjet printing onto the substrate. Solution-processing methods, and inkjet printing in particular, have the potential to be scalable to large area displays. 

OVJP® Organic Vapor Jet Printing

OLEDs could be manufactured using other processes as well, including OVJP. As a direct printing technique, OVJP technology has the potential to offer high deposition rates for large area OLEDs. In addition, OVJP technology reduces OLED material waste associated with use of a shadow mask (i.e., the waste of material that deposits on the shadow mask itself when fabricating an OLED). By comparison to inkjet printing, an OVJP process does not use liquid solvents and therefore the OLED materials utilized are not limited by their viscosity or solvent solubility. OVJP also avoids generation of solvent wastes and eliminates the additional step of removing residual solvent from the OLED device. We have installed a prototype OVJP tool at our Ewing, New Jersey facility, and we continue to collaborate on OVJP technology development with Professor Forrest of Michigan.

OVPD®   Organic Vapor Phase Deposition

Another approach for manufacturing a small molecule OLED is based on OVPD. The OVPD process utilizes a carrier gas, such as nitrogen, in a hot walled reactor in a low pressure environment to deposit the layers of organic material in an OLED. The OVPD process may offer advantages over the VTE process or solution processing methods through more efficient materials utilization and enhanced deposition control. We have licensed Aixtron AG, a leading manufacturer of metal-organic chemical vapor deposition equipment, to develop and qualify equipment for the fabrication of OLED displays utilizing the OVPD process.

TOLED Transparent OLEDs

We have developed a technology for the fabrication of OLEDs that have transparent cathodes. Conventional OLEDs use a reflective metal cathode and a transparent anode. In contrast, TOLEDs use a transparent cathode and either a transparent, reflective or opaque metal anode. TOLEDs utilizing transparent cathodes and reflective metal anodes are known as “top-emission” OLEDs. In a “top-emission” AMOLED, light is emitted without having to travel through much of the device electronics where a significant portion of the usable light is lost. This results in OLED displays having image qualities and lifetimes superior to those of conventional AMOLEDs. TOLEDs utilizing transparent cathodes and transparent anodes may also be useful in novel flat panel display applications requiring semi-transparency or transparency, such as graphical displays in automotive windshields and signage.

Our Strategic Relationships with Product Manufacturers

We have established early-stage evaluation programs, development and pre-commercial programs, and commercial arrangements with a substantial number of manufacturers or potential manufacturers of OLED display and lighting products. Many of these relationships are directed towards tailoring our proprietary OLED technologies and materials for use by individual manufacturers. Our ultimate objective is to license our OLED technologies and sell our OLED materials to these manufacturers for their commercial production of OLED products.

Relationships with OLED Display Manufacturers

We license our OLED technologies and patents to display manufacturers for use in commercial products, and supply our proprietary OLED materials to these manufacturers for both commercial use and evaluative purposes.  We have been collaborating with some of these display manufacturers for many years.

We have been working with SDC and providing our PHOLED materials to SDC for evaluation since 2001. Under the terms of a 2011 patent license agreement, we licensed our patents and technologies to SDC for its manufacture and sale of AMOLED display products.  Under the terms of a 2011 supplemental purchase agreement, we supplied our proprietary PHOLED materials to SDC for its use in manufacturing licensed products. We also continue to supply SDC with our proprietary UniversalPHOLED materials for use in its development efforts under a 2001 joint development agreement.

The 2011 license and purchase agreements with SDC expired on December 31, 2017, and on February 13, 2018, we entered into a new patent license agreement and supplemental purchase agreement, with an effective date of January 1, 2018. These 2018 agreements extend for a five-year term and provide SDC with an option to extend the agreements for two additional years. Under the 2018 license agreement, SDC has a non-exclusive license to make and sell certain OLED displays under our patent portfolio, and pays us license fees. The 2018 supplemental purchase agreement provides for certain minimum annual purchase obligations of

7

phosphorescent emitter material from us for use in the manufacture of licensed products. SDC is currently the largest manufacturer of AMOLED displays for handset and other personal electronic devices.

We have been working with LG Display or its affiliates for over 15 years. Under the terms of an OLED commercial supply agreement which was effective as of January 1, 2015, we continued to supply our proprietary PHOLED materials for use in licensed AMOLED display products. Under a concurrent 2015 OLED patent license agreement, LG Display has a non-exclusive, royalty bearing portfolio license to make and sell OLED displays under the Company's patent portfolio. The license agreement calls for license fees, prepaid royalties and running royalties on licensed products. The agreements provide for certain other minimum obligations relating to the volume of materials sales anticipated over the life of the agreements as well as minimum royalty revenue to be generated under the patent license agreement. Revenue under these agreements is predominantly tied to LG Display’s sales of OLED licensed products.

In 2017, we entered into long-term, multi-year agreements with BOE, granting BOE non-exclusive license rights to manufacture and sell licensed OLED display products using phosphorescent emitter materials purchased from us. These agreements superseded our 2016 commercial supply agreement with BOE.

In 2017, we continued to supply our proprietary OLED materials to Tianma for use in its commercial AMOLED display products and for evaluation purposes, under a 2016 material supply agreement. We also continued to license certain of our OLED patents and technologies to Tianma under a 2016 OLED patent license agreement.

We have been collaborating with AU Optronics since 2001, and we continue to provide our proprietary PHOLED materials to AU Optronics under a 2016 commercial supply agreement through which AU Optronics also has certain license rights.

We also continue to support numerous display manufacturers in their evaluation of our technologies and proprietary OLED materials, through evaluation arrangements in which we provide our proprietary OLED materials to such manufacturers for limited scale commercial production, evaluation and for purposes of development, manufacturing qualification and product testing. Many of these strategic relationships have been in place for longer than a decade, and we continue to establish new relationships.  

In 2017, we announced that we entered into new OLED evaluation agreements with EverDisplay Optronics (Shanghai) Limited and Shenzhen Royole Display Technologies Co. Ltd. We also expanded the terms of our existing evaluation agreement relationships with Japan Display Inc. and with Sharp Corporation.

Relationships with OLED Lighting Manufacturers

We license our OLED technologies and patents to lighting manufacturers for use in commercial products, and supply our proprietary OLED materials to these manufacturers for both commercial use and evaluative purposes.  Many of these strategic relationships have also been in place for longer than a decade.  

Since 2004, we have been supporting Konica Minolta in its efforts to develop OLED lighting products. We continue to license our patents and technology to Konica Minolta under a 2008 OLED technology license agreement for its manufacture and sale of OLED lighting products that utilize our phosphorescent and other OLED technologies. We also continue to provide Konica Minolta with our proprietary PHOLED materials for its manufacture of commercial OLED lighting products under a 2011 commercial material supply agreement, and for evaluation purposes under a 2012 evaluation agreement.

We also continue to license our OLED patents to Sumitomo under a 2015 OLED patent portfolio license agreement in which we granted Sumitomo a non-exclusive, world-wide, royalty bearing license to make and sell OLED lighting panels using a solution-based manufacturing process. Under the license agreement, Sumitomo may also purchase certain of our phosphorescent materials.

We continue to supply LG Display with materials in connection with the OLED lighting business it acquired from LG Chem, Ltd. (LG Chem) in 2015-2016.  This lighting business continues to generate commercial chemical sales and license fee revenues under a limited-term commercial sales agreement we signed with LG Chem prior to its acquisition.

We continue to license our OLED patents, and to provide our OLED materials, to OLEDWorks for use in OLED lighting products under patent license and commercial supply agreements signed in 2015. We have also extended the rights under these agreements to OLEDWorks GmbH, the German company and facility that OLEDWorks acquired in 2015 from Philips Technologie GmbH.

We continue to license our technologies and patents to Kaneka for the manufacture and sale of OLED lighting products, under the terms of a 2013 license agreement, and we continue to supply our materials to Kaneka under a 2014 commercial material supply agreement. We also have license agreements for the manufacture and sale of OLED lighting products with Lumiotec and Pioneer, among others.

8

Similar to our arrangements with display manufacturers, we continue to support numerous lighting manufacturers in their evaluation of our technologies and proprietary OLED materials, typically through evaluation agreements under which we provide our proprietary OLED materials to such manufacturers for evaluation and potential commercial application.

Relationships with Manufacturers for Other Commercial Products

In addition to our relationships with lighting and display manufacturers, we have agreements and arrangements with manufacturers or potential manufacturers to use our proprietary OLED technologies and materials in other commercial products, such as in automotive interiors and exteriors.

Our OLED Materials Manufacturing Business

We supply our proprietary UniversalPHOLED® materials to display manufacturers, lighting manufacturers and others. We qualify our materials in OLED devices before shipment in order to ensure that they meet required specifications. We believe that our inventory-carrying practices, along with the terms under which we sell our OLED materials (including payment terms), are typical for the markets in which we operate. In 2015, our OLED materials business received recertification in accordance with ISO 9001:2008 Quality Management Systems and the certification was transitioned to ISO 9001:2015 Quality Management Systems during 2017.

PPG Industries

We have maintained a close working relationship with PPG Industries since 2000. In 2011, we entered into an agreement with PPG Industries, the term of which continues through December 31, 2018 and shall be automatically renewed for additional one year terms, unless terminated by us with prior notice of one year or terminated by PPG Industries with prior notice of two years. Under that agreement, PPG Industries is responsible, under our direction, for manufacturing scale-up of our proprietary OLED materials, and for supplying us with those materials. We use these materials for our own research and development as well as for resale to our customers, both for their evaluation and for use in commercial OLED products. Through our collaboration with PPG Industries, key raw materials are sourced from multiple suppliers to ensure that we are able to meet the needs of our customers on a timely basis. The raw materials we require for our emitter and host materials are available from multiple sources and historically, we have not had any issues with obtaining access to adequate amounts of any key raw materials.

We invested a total of $15.4 million during 2016 and 2017 in PPG Industries’ Barberton, Ohio manufacturing facility, to approximately double commercial production capacity for our UniversalPHOLED® phosphorescent emitter products. The expansion project was nearing completion in 2017 and should be operational during 2018.

Collaborations with Other OLED Material Manufacturers

We continued our non-exclusive collaborative relationships with other manufacturers of OLED materials during 2017. Most of these relationships are focused on matching our proprietary PHOLED emitters with the host and other OLED materials of these companies. We believe that collaborative relationships such as these are important for ensuring success of the OLED industry and broader adoption of our PHOLED and other OLED technologies.

Research and Development

Our research and development activities are focused on the advancement of our OLED technologies and materials for displays, lighting and other applications. We conduct this research and development both internally and through various relationships with our commercial business partners and academic institutions. In the years 2017, 2016 and 2015, we incurred expenses of $49.1 million, $42.7 million and $44.6 million, respectively, on both internal and third-party sponsored research and development activities with respect to our various OLED technologies and materials.

Internal Development Efforts

We conduct a substantial portion of our OLED development activities at our state-of-the-art development and testing facility in Ewing, New Jersey. At this expanded facility, which now exceeds 50,000 square feet, we perform technology development, including device and process optimization, prototype fabrication, manufacturing scale-up studies, process and product testing, characterization and reliability studies, and technology transfer with our business partners.

Our Ewing facility houses multiple OLED deposition systems, including a full-color flexible OLED system and an OVJP organic vapor jet printing system. In addition, the facility contains equipment for substrate patterning, organic material deposition, display packaging, module assembly and extensive testing in Class 100 and 100,000 clean rooms and opto-electronic test

9

laboratories. Our facility also includes state-of-the-art synthetic and analytical chemistry laboratories in which we conduct OLED materials research and make small quantities of new materials that we then test in OLED devices.

In 2016, we acquired Adesis, Inc. (Adesis) with operations in New Castle, Delaware. Adesis is a contract research organization (CRO) that provides support services to the OLED, pharma, biotech, catalysis and other industries. Adesis operates in a facility of over 25,000 square feet, and as of December 31, 2017, employed a team of 50 chemists. Prior to our acquisition, we utilized more than 50% of Adesis’ technology service and production output. Although we expect to continue to utilize the majority of its technology research capacity for the benefit of our OLED technology development, Adesis is expected to continue operating as a CRO in the above mentioned industries.

As of December 31, 2017, we employed a team of 128 research scientists, engineers and laboratory technicians in our Ewing, New Jersey and New Castle, Delaware facilities. This team includes chemists, physicists, engineers and technicians with physics, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering and organic/inorganic chemistry backgrounds, and highly-trained theoreticians and experimentalists.

University Sponsored Research

We have long-standing relationships with Princeton University and USC, dating back to 1994, for the conduct of research relating to our OLED and other organic thin-film technologies and materials for applications such as displays and lighting. This research had been performed at Princeton under the direction of Professor Forrest and at USC under the direction of Professor Thompson. In 2006, Professor Forrest transferred to the University of Michigan, where we continue to fund his research.

We funded research at Princeton under a research agreement executed in 1997 (the 1997 Research Agreement). The 1997 Research Agreement was allowed to expire in 2007, after Professor Forrest transferred to Michigan. We have exclusive license rights to all OLED and other thin-film organic electronic patents (other than for organic photovoltaic solar cells) arising out of research conducted under that agreement.

In connection with Professor Forrest’s transfer to Michigan, in 2006 we entered into a new sponsored research agreement with USC under which we are funding organic electronics research being conducted by Drs. Forrest and Thompson (the 2006 Research Agreement). Work by Professor Forrest is being funded through a subcontract between USC and Michigan. As with the 1997 Research Agreement, we have exclusive license rights to all OLED and thin-film organic electronic patents (other than for organic photovoltaic solar cells) arising out of this research.

Effective May 1, 2017, we amended the 2006 Research Agreement once again to extend the term of the agreement for an additional three years. As of December 31, 2017, in connection with this amendment, we are obligated to reimburse the universities up to $6.6 million for work to be performed during the remaining extended term, which expires April 30, 2020.

In 2005, we entered into a separate sponsored research agreement with Princeton to fund research under the direction of Professor Sigurd Wagner on thin-film encapsulation and fabrication of OLED devices. This research was completed as of December 31, 2013. Like our other relationships with Princeton, we have exclusive license rights to all patents arising out of the research.

We entered into a contract research agreement with the Chitose Institute of Science and Technology of Japan (CIST) in 2004. Under that agreement, we funded a research program headed by Professor Chihaya Adachi relating to high-efficiency OLED materials and devices. We were granted exclusive rights to all intellectual property developed under this program. Our relationship with CIST ended in 2006 when Professor Adachi transferred to Kyushu University. However, we have continued our relationship with Professor Adachi under a separate consulting arrangement.

In 2006 and 2007, we entered into one-year research agreements with Kyung Hee University to sponsor research programs on flexible, amorphous silicon thin-film transistor (TFT) backplane technology. The programs were directed by Professor Jin Jang. In 2008 and 2009, we entered into contract research agreements with Silicon Display Technology, Ltd. (SDT), a company founded by Professor Jang, and in 2013, we entered into another one-year agreement with SDT. We continue to maintain a good working relationship with Professor Jang.

Aixtron

In 2000, we entered into a development and license agreement with Aixtron AG of Aachen, Germany to develop and commercialize equipment used in the manufacture of OLEDs using the OVPD process. Under this agreement, we granted Aixtron an exclusive license to produce and sell its equipment for the manufacture of OLEDs and other devices using our proprietary OVPD process. Aixtron is required to pay us royalties on its sales of this equipment. Purchasers of the equipment also must obtain rights to

10

use our proprietary OVPD process to manufacture OLEDs and other devices using the equipment, which they may do through us or Aixtron. If these rights are granted through Aixtron, Aixtron is required to make additional payments to us under our agreement.

Aixtron has reported to us the delivery of nine OVPD systems since 2002. These include two second-generation systems, one of which was sold to the Fraunhofer Institute for Photonic Microsystems in Dresden, Germany in 2007, and the other of which was sold to RiTdisplay Corporation of Taiwan in 2003. We record royalty income from Aixtron’s sales of these various systems in the quarters in which Aixtron notifies us of the sale and the related royalties are due.

U.S. Government-Funded Research

We have entered into several U.S. government contracts and subcontracts to fund a portion of our efforts to develop next-generation OLED technologies. On contracts for which we were the prime contractor, we subcontract portions of the work to various entities and institutions. All of our government contracts and subcontracts are subject to termination at the election of the contracting governmental agency.

Our government-funded programs are concentrated primarily in the area of solid-state lighting. In the past, we have received support for our work on flexible OLED technology through various U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) agencies, including the Army Research Laboratory (ARL), the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), the Army Communications-Electronics Research Development and Engineering Center (CERDEC) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) supports our work on white OLEDs for lighting, including through its Solid State Lighting (SSL) initiative. Several of our key U.S. government program initiatives in 2017 were as follows:

Technology Development for OLED Lighting

During 2017, we continued working to develop technical approaches for using our proprietary PHOLED and other OLED technologies for high-efficiency white lighting applications. In 2017, we received funding from the DOE to work with Arizona State University and the University of Michigan.

OLED Association

We are a charter member of the OLED Association (OLED-A). OLED-A is a trade association whose mission involves serving as an OLED information resource, driving OLED technology development, and promoting interest in OLED products. We are one of 17 members of OLED-A, and we actively participate on its marketing and technology committees. Mike Hack, our Vice President of Business Development, serves as a member of the Board of Directors of OLED-A.

Next Generation Lighting Industry Alliance

We joined the Next Generation Lighting Industry Alliance (NGLIA) in 2009. NGLIA was formed in 2003 to foster industry-government partnership to accelerate the technical foundation, and ultimate commercialization, of solid state lighting systems. NGLIA was designated in 2005 as the “industry partner” by DOE for its SSL program. The SSL program is being undertaken to research, develop and conduct demonstration activities on advanced solid state white lighting technologies based on LEDs and OLEDs. We are one of 9 members of NGLIA. Mike Hack is currently Vice-Chairman of NGLIA.

OLED Lighting Coalition

We are a founding member of the OLED Lighting Coalition, a subgroup of OLED-A and NGLIA. The OLED Lighting Coalition is a group of U.S. companies and advocates of OLED technology joined together to promote the OLED lighting industry to the government, public and the lighting community. Dr. Hack serves as a member of the Board of Directors of the OLED Lighting Coalition.

Intellectual Property

Along with our personnel, our primary and most fundamental assets are patents and other intellectual property. This includes numerous U.S. and foreign patents and patent applications that we own, exclusively license or have the sole right to sublicense. It also includes a substantial body of non-patented technical know-how that we have accumulated over time.

11

Our Patents

Our research and development activities, conducted both internally and through collaborative programs with our partners, have resulted in the filing of a substantial number of patent applications relating to our OLED technologies and materials. As of December 31, 2017, we owned, through assignment to us alone or jointly with others, 366 pending U.S. applications (active U.S. cases and international applications designated in the U.S.) and 833 U.S. patents, together with counterparts filed in various foreign countries. These owned patents will start expiring in the U.S. in 2020.

Patents We License from Princeton, USC and Michigan

We exclusively license many of our patent rights, including certain of our key PHOLED technology patents, under the 1997 Amended License Agreement. In 2006, based on Professor Forrest’s transfer to Michigan that year, Michigan was added as a party to this agreement. As of December 31, 2017, the patent rights we license from these universities included 220 issued U.S. patents, 53 pending U.S. patent applications, together with counterparts filed in various foreign countries. The earliest of these patents expired in the U.S. in 2014, while one of our PHOLED technology patents licensed from these universities expired in 2017.

Under the 1997 Amended License Agreement, Princeton, USC and Michigan granted us worldwide, exclusive license rights to specified patents and patent applications relating to OLED technologies and materials (including our PHOLED technology and materials). Our license rights also extend to any patent rights arising out of the research conducted by Princeton, USC or Michigan under our various research agreements with these entities. We are free to sublicense to third parties all or any portion of our patent rights under the 1997 Amended License Agreement. The term of the 1997 Amended License Agreement continues for the lifetime of the licensed patents, though it is subject to termination for an uncured material breach or default by us, or if we become bankrupt or insolvent.

Princeton is primarily responsible for the filing, prosecution and maintenance of all patent rights licensed to us under the 1997 Amended License Agreement pursuant to an inter-institutional agreement between Princeton, USC and Michigan. However, we manage this process and have the right to instruct patent counsel on specific matters to be covered in any patent applications filed by Princeton. We are required to bear all costs associated with the filing, prosecution and maintenance of these patent rights.

We are required under the 1997 Amended License Agreement to pay Princeton royalties for licensed products sold by us or our sublicensees. These royalties amount to 3% of the net sales price for licensed products sold by us and 3% of the revenues we receive for licensed products sold by our sublicensees. These royalty rates are subject to renegotiation for products not reasonably conceivable as arising out of the research agreements if Princeton reasonably determines that the royalty rates payable with respect to these products are not fair and competitive. Princeton shares portions of these royalties with USC and Michigan under their inter-institutional agreement.

We have a minimum royalty obligation of $100,000 per year during the term of the 1997 Amended License Agreement. We owed royalties under the 1997 Amended License Agreement with Princeton of $9.7 million for 2017. We also are 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 we invest a minimum of $800,000 per year in research, development, commercialization or patenting efforts respecting the patent rights licensed to us under the 1997 Amended License Agreement.

Patents We Acquired from Motorola

In 2000, we entered into a license agreement with Motorola whereby Motorola granted us 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 expire in the U.S. through 2018.

In 2011, we purchased these patents from Motorola, including all existing and future claims and causes of action for any infringement of the patents. This effectively terminated our license agreement with Motorola, including any obligation to make royalty payments to Motorola. In consideration for Motorola assigning and transferring the patents to us, we made a one-time cash payment to Motorola of $440,000, and we granted Motorola a royalty-free, non-exclusive and non-sublicensable license under the patents for use by Motorola and its affiliates in their respective businesses.

Patents We Acquired from Fujifilm Corporation

In 2012, we entered into a Patent Sale Agreement (the Fujifilm Agreement) with Fujifilm. Under the Fujifilm Agreement, Fujifilm sold more than 1,200 OLED-related patents and patent applications for a total cost of $109.5 million. The Fujifilm Agreement contains customary representations and warranties and covenants, including respective covenants not to sue by both parties thereto. The Fujifilm Agreement permitted us to assign all of our rights and obligations under the Fujifilm Agreement to our affiliates, and we

12

assigned, prior to the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Fujifilm Agreement, our rights and obligations to UDC Ireland Limited (UDC Ireland), a wholly-owned subsidiary formed under the laws of the Republic of Ireland. The transactions contemplated by the Fujifilm Agreement were consummated on July 26, 2012.

Patents We Acquired from BASF

In 2016, our Irish subsidiary UDC Ireland entered into an IP Transfer Agreement (the BASF Agreement) with BASF. Under the BASF Agreement, BASF sold us more than 500 OLED-related patents and patent applications for a total cost of $96.0 million. The transactions contemplated by the BASF Agreement were consummated on June 28, 2016.

Intellectual Property Developed under Our Government Contracts

We and our subcontractors have developed, and may continue to develop, patentable OLED technology inventions under our various U.S. government contracts and subcontracts. Under these arrangements, we or our subcontractors generally can elect to take title to any patents on these inventions, and to control the manner in which these patents are licensed to third parties. However, the U.S. government reserves rights to these inventions and associated technical data that could restrict our ability to market them to the government for military and other applications, or to third parties for commercial applications. In addition, if the U.S. government determines that we or our subcontractors have not taken effective steps to achieve practical application of these inventions in any field of use in a reasonable time, the government may require that we or our subcontractors license these inventions to third parties in that field of use.

Non-patented Technical Know-How

We have accumulated, and continue to accumulate, a substantial amount of non-patented technical know-how relating to OLED technologies and materials. Where practicable, we share portions of this information with display manufacturers and other business partners on a confidential basis. We also employ various methods to protect this information from unauthorized use or disclosure, although no such methods can afford complete protection. Moreover, because we derive some of this information and know-how from academic institutions such as Princeton, USC and Michigan, there is an increased potential for public disclosure. We also cannot prevent the actual independent development of the same or similar information and know-how by third parties.

Competition

The industry in which we operate is highly competitive. We compete against alternative display technologies, in particular LCDs, as well as other OLED technologies. We also compete in the lighting market against incumbent technologies, such as incandescent bulbs, fluorescent lamps, and inorganic LEDs, and against emerging technologies, such as other OLED technologies.

Display Panel Industry Competitors

Numerous domestic and foreign companies have developed or are developing and improving LCD and other display technologies that compete with our OLED display technologies. We believe that OLED display technologies can compete with LCDs and other display technologies for many product applications on the basis of lower power consumption, better contrast ratios, faster video rates, form factor and lower manufacturing cost. However, other companies may succeed in continuing to improve these competing display technologies, or in developing new display technologies, that are superior to OLED display technologies in various respects. We cannot predict the timing or extent to which such improvements or developments may occur.

Lighting Industry Competitors

Although there has been a movement to phase out traditional incandescent bulbs throughout many countries, traditional incandescent bulbs and fluorescent lamps remain well-entrenched products in the lighting industry. In addition, compact fluorescent lamps and solid-state LEDs have been introduced into the market and would compete with OLED lighting products. Having attributes different from fluorescent lamps and LEDs, OLEDs may compete directly with these products for certain lighting applications. However, manufacturers of LEDs and compact fluorescent lamps may succeed in more broadly adapting their products to various lighting applications, or others may develop competing solid-state lighting technologies that are superior to OLEDs. Again, we cannot predict whether or when this might occur.

OLED Technology and Materials Competitors

Eastman Kodak Company (Kodak) developed and patented the original fluorescent OLED technology in 1987. Cambridge Display Technology, Ltd. (CDT), which was acquired by Sumitomo Chemical Company in 2007, developed and patented polymer

13

OLED technology in 1989. Display and lighting manufacturers, including customers of ours, are engaged in their own OLED research, development and commercialization activities, and have developed and may continue to develop proprietary OLED technologies that are necessary or useful for commercial OLED devices. In addition, other material manufacturers, such as Sumitomo, Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd. (Idemitsu Kosan), Merck KGaA, Cynora Gmbh and Kyulux Inc., are selling or sampling competing OLED materials to customers, including companies to which we sell our proprietary PHOLED materials.

Our licensing business is based on our control of a broad portfolio of OLED-related device patents and technology. We believe this portfolio includes fundamental patents in the field of phosphorescent OLED materials and devices, as well as certain additional complementary OLED technologies. As discussed above, alternative technologies, such as fluorescent OLED emitter materials, exist and could be competitive to our phosphorescent OLED material solutions. However, fluorescent materials have characteristics that we believe many market participants consider less desirable than those of phosphorescent materials. Suppliers of fluorescent emitter materials include Doosan Electronics, Dow Chemical (previously Gracel Display), Idemitsu Kosan and SFC Co. Ltd. Fluorescent materials may also be viewed as complementary in that they can be used in the same OLED stack as phosphorescent materials, especially for use as emitters for generating deep blue pixels in display modules until such time as the OLED industry improves the properties of currently available deep blue phosphorescent materials.

The competitive landscape with respect to our host materials business is characterized by a larger number of established chemical material suppliers who have long-term relationships with many of our existing customers and licensees. We have elected to partner with certain of these companies to manufacture and deliver host solutions to our customers, as well as selling our host materials directly to device manufacturers. We believe our competitive advantage stems, in part, from our deep knowledge of our phosphorescent emitter materials, which are complementary with the host solutions. We believe that our understanding of the phosphorescent emitter materials enables us to create host material solutions that are especially well suited for use with a certain class of emitter materials that are implemented commercially today. However, we note that many of our technology partners have their own host solutions and the competitive landscape includes many well-established companies such as Doosan Electronics, Dow Chemical, Duksan, Idemitsu Kosan, Merck KGaA, NSCC and Samsung SDI Co. Ltd. and which have significant resources and may aggressively pursue such business in the future.

Our existing business relationships with SDC and other product manufacturers suggest that our OLED technologies and materials, particularly our PHOLED technologies and materials, may achieve a significant level of market penetration in the display and lighting industries. However, others, such as those working to develop thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) and micro-LED alternative technologies, may succeed in developing new OLED technologies, materials and alternative solutions that may supplement or be utilized in place of ours. We cannot be sure of the extent to which product manufacturers will adopt and continue to utilize our OLED technologies and materials for the production of commercial displays and lighting products.

Our Contract Research Organization Business:  Adesis, Inc.

Adesis, which we acquired in July 2016, is a contract research organization (CRO) headquartered in New Castle, Delaware that provides support services to the OLED, pharma, biotech, catalysis and other industries. As of December 31, 2017, Adesis employed a team of 50 chemists. Prior to our acquisition in 2016, we utilized more than 50% of Adesis’ technology service and production output. We continue to utilize a significant portion of its technology research capacity for the benefit of our OLED technology development, and Adesis uses the remaining capacity to operate as a CRO in the above-mentioned industries.

In May 2017, Adesis purchased its New Castle, Delaware building, to expand its custom organic synthesis, research and development, and specialty manufacturing capabilities. The New Castle facility is a 47,500-square-foot building in the Southgate Industrial Center, of which Adesis had previously leased about 25,100 square feet. We believe the purchase of the building will allow Adesis to continue to expand its CRO offerings and allow us to enhance our chemistry expertise and capabilities.

In December 2017, Adesis signed an agreement with Delaware Innovation Space, Inc. for approximately 7,000 square feet of laboratory space at the Experimental Station in Wilmington, Delaware, in which Adesis is opening a new suite of laboratories to expand its organic chemistry team and research and development programs. The new space, which includes additional ancillary work and meeting space, is expected to support Adesis’ ongoing operations.

Employees

As of December 31, 2017, we had 222 active full-time employees and two part-time employees, none of whom are unionized. We believe that relations with our employees are good.

14

Our Company History

Our corporation was organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1985. Our business was commenced in 1994 by a company then known as Universal Display Corporation, which had been incorporated under the laws of the State of New Jersey. In 1995, a wholly-owned subsidiary of ours merged into this New Jersey corporation. The surviving corporation in this merger became a wholly-owned subsidiary of ours and changed its name to UDC, Inc. Simultaneously with the consummation of this merger, we changed our name to Universal Display Corporation. UDC, Inc. functions as an operating subsidiary of ours and has certain overlapping officers and directors. We have also formed or acquired other wholly-owned subsidiaries, including Universal Display Corporation Hong Kong, Limited (2008), Universal Display Corporation Korea, Y.H. (2010), Universal Display Corporation Japan GK (2011), UDC Ireland Limited (2012), Universal Display Corporation China, Ltd. (2016) and Adesis, Inc. (2016), and we established a representative office in Taiwan (2011).

Our Compliance with Environmental Protection Laws

We are not aware of any material effects that compliance with Federal, State or local environmental protection laws or regulations will have on our business. We have not incurred substantial costs to comply with any environmental protection laws or regulations, and we do not anticipate having to do so in the foreseeable future.

Our Internet Site

Our Internet address is www.oled.com. We make available through our Internet website, free of charge, our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as soon as reasonably practicable after we file such material with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC). In addition, we have made available on our Internet website under the heading “Corporate Governance” the charter for the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors, the charter for the Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors, the charter for the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee of our Board of Directors, our Code of Ethics & Business Conduct for Employees, our Code of Conduct for Directors, and our Corporate Governance Guidelines. We intend to make available on our website any future amendments or waivers to our Code of Ethics & Business Conduct for Employees and our Code of Conduct for Directors. The information on our Internet site is not part of this report.

You should carefully consider the following risks and uncertainties when reading this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The following factors, as well as other factors affecting our operating results and financial condition, could cause our actual future results and financial condition to differ materially from those projected.

If we cannot obtain and maintain appropriate patent and other intellectual property protection for our OLED technologies and materials, our business will suffer.

The value of our OLED technologies and materials is dependent on our ability to secure and maintain appropriate patent and other intellectual property rights protection. Although we own or license many patents respecting our OLED technologies and materials that have already been issued, there can be no assurance that additional patents applied for will be obtained, or that any of these patents, once issued, will afford commercially significant protection for our OLED technologies and materials, or will be found valid if challenged. Also, there is no assurance that we will be successful in defending the validity of our current or future patents in pending and future patent oppositions, invalidation trials, interferences, reexaminations, reissues, or other administrative or court proceedings. Moreover, we have not obtained patent protection for some of our OLED technologies and materials in all foreign countries in which OLED products or materials might be manufactured or sold.

We believe that the strength of our current intellectual property position results primarily from the essential nature of our fundamental patents covering phosphorescent OLED devices and certain materials utilized in these devices. Certain of our existing fundamental phosphorescent OLED patents expired in the United States in 2017 or will expire in the United States in 2019, and in other countries of the world in 2018 and 2020. While we hold a wide range of additional patents and patent applications whose expiration dates extend (and in the case of patent applications, will extend) beyond 2020, many of which are also of importance in the OLED industry, none are of an equally essential nature as our fundamental patents, and therefore our competitive position may be less certain as these patents expire.

We may become engaged in litigation to protect or enforce our patent and other intellectual property rights, or in International Trade Commission proceedings to abate the importation of goods that would compete unfairly with those of our licensees. In addition, we are participating in or have participated in, and in the future will likely have to participate in, interference, reissue, or reexamination proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and opposition, nullity or other proceedings before foreign

15

patent offices, with respect to some of our patents or patent applications. All of these actions place our patents and other intellectual property rights at risk and may result in substantial costs to us as well as a diversion of management attention from our business and operations. Moreover, if successful, these actions could result in the loss of patent or other intellectual property rights protection for the key OLED technologies and materials on which our business depends.

We rely, in part, on several non-patented proprietary technologies to operate our business. Others may independently develop the same or similar technologies or otherwise obtain access to our unpatented technologies. Furthermore, these parties may obtain patent protection for such technology, inhibiting or preventing us from practicing the technology. To protect our trade secrets, know-how and other non-patented proprietary information, we require employees, consultants, financial advisors and strategic partners to enter into confidentiality agreements. These agreements may not ultimately provide meaningful protection for our trade secrets, know-how or other non-patented proprietary information. In particular, we may not be able to fully or adequately protect our proprietary information as we conduct discussions with potential strategic partners. Additionally, although we take many measures to prevent theft and misuse of our proprietary information, we may face attempts by others to gain unauthorized access through the Internet to our information technology systems or to our intellectual property, which might be the result of industrial or other espionage or actions by hackers seeking to harm our company or its products. If we are unable to protect the proprietary nature of our technologies, it will harm our business.

We or our customers may incur substantial costs or lose important rights as a result of litigation or other proceedings relating to our patent and other intellectual property rights or with respect to our OLED materials business.

There are a number of other companies and organizations that have been issued patents and are filing patent applications relating to OLED technologies and materials, including, without limitation, Kodak (substantially all of whose OLED assets were sold to a group of LG companies in 2009), CDT (acquired by Sumitomo in 2007), Canon, Inc., Semiconductor Energy Laboratories Co., Idemitsu Kosan and Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation. In addition, some of our customers such as SDC and LG Display have been issued patents and are filing patent applications relating to OLED technologies and materials. As a result, there may be issued patents or pending patent applications of third parties that would be infringed by the use of our OLED technologies or materials, thus subjecting our customers to possible suits for patent infringement in the future. Such lawsuits could result in our customers being liable for damages or require our customers to obtain additional licenses that could increase the cost of their products. This, in turn, could have an adverse effect on our customers’ sales and thus our royalties or material sales revenues, or cause our customers to seek to renegotiate our royalty rates or pricing. In addition, we have agreed to indemnify customers purchasing our OLED materials for commercial usage against certain claims of patent infringement by third parties, as a result of which we may incur substantial legal costs in connection with defending these customers from such claims.

Our licensees may also seek to avoid paying future royalties by attempting to have our patents declared invalid and unenforceable by a court. Our licensees may be more likely to file such declaratory actions in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (2007), in which the Court found that a licensee need not refuse to pay royalties and commit material breach of the license agreement before bringing an action to declare a licensed U. S. patent invalid and unenforceable.

In addition, we may be required, from time-to-time, to assert our intellectual property rights by instituting legal proceedings against others. We cannot be assured that we will be successful in enforcing our patents in any lawsuits we may commence. Defendants in any litigation we may commence to enforce our patents may attempt to establish that our patents are invalid or are unenforceable. Thus, any patent litigation we commence could lead to a determination that one or more of our patents are invalid or unenforceable. If a third party succeeds in invalidating one or more of our patents, that party and others could compete more effectively against us. Our ability to derive licensing revenues from products or technologies covered by these patents would also be adversely affected.

Whether our customers are defending the assertion of third-party intellectual property rights against their businesses arising as a result of the use of our technology, or we are asserting our own intellectual property rights against others, such litigation can be complex, costly, protracted and highly disruptive to our or our customers’ business operations by diverting the attention and energies of management and key technical personnel. As a result, the pendency or adverse outcome of any intellectual property litigation to which we or our customers are subject could disrupt business operations, require the incurrence of substantial costs and subject us or our customers to significant liabilities, each of which could severely harm our business. Costs associated with these actions are likely to increase as AMOLED products using our PHOLED and other OLED technologies and materials continue to enter the consumer marketplace.

Plaintiffs in intellectual property cases often seek injunctive relief in addition to money damages. Any intellectual property litigation commenced against our customers may force them to take actions that could be harmful to their businesses and thus to revenues, including the halting of sales of products that incorporate or otherwise use our technology or materials.

16

Furthermore, the measure of damages in intellectual property litigation can be complex, and is often subjective or uncertain. If our customers were to be found liable for infringement of proprietary rights of a third party, the amount of damages they might have to pay could be substantial and is difficult to predict. Decreased sales of our customers’ products incorporating our technology or materials would have an adverse effect on our royalty revenues under existing licenses and material sales under our existing sales agreements. Were this to occur, it would likely harm our ability to (i) obtain new licensees which would have an adverse effect on the terms of the royalty arrangements we could enter into with any new licensees, and (ii) sell our UniversalPHOLED® materials to existing and new customers. Moreover, to the extent any third party claims are directed specifically to materials supplied by us to our customers, we may be required to incur significant costs associated with the defense of such claims and potential damages associated with such claims that may be awarded against our customers.

As is commonplace in technology companies, we employ individuals who were previously employed at other technology companies. To the extent our employees are involved in research areas that are similar to those areas in which they were involved at their former employers, we may be subject to claims that such employees or we have, inadvertently or otherwise, used or disclosed the alleged trade secrets or other proprietary information of the former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against such claims. The costs associated with these actions or the loss of rights critical to our or our customers’ businesses could negatively impact our revenues or cause our business to fail.

Recent court decisions in various patent cases may make it more difficult for us to obtain future patents, enforce our patents against third parties or obtain favorable judgments in cases where the patents are enforced.

Recent case law may make it more difficult for patent holders to secure future patents and/or enforce existing patents. For example, in KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex, Inc. (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court mandated a more expansive and flexible approach to determine whether a patent is obvious and invalid. As a result of the less rigid approach to assessing obviousness, defending the validity of or obtaining patents may be more difficult.

Recent court decisions may also impact the enforcement of our patents. For example, we may not be able to enjoin certain third party uses of products or methods covered by our patents following the initial authorized sale, even where those uses are expressly proscribed in an agreement with the buyer. Also, we may face increased difficulty enjoining infringement of our patents. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that an injunction should not automatically issue based on a finding of patent infringement, but should be determined based on a test balancing considerations of the patentee’s interest, the infringer’s interest, and the public’s interest. Obtaining enhanced damages for willful infringement of our patents may also be more difficult even in those cases where we successfully prove a third party has infringed our patents, as a recent case set a more stringent standard for proving willful infringement.

Therefore, as a result of such rulings, it may be more difficult for us to defend our currently issued patents, obtain additional patents in the future or achieve the desired competitive effect even when our patents are enforced. If we are unable to so defend our currently issued patents, or to obtain new patents for any reason, our business would suffer.

If we cannot form and maintain lasting business relationships with OLED product manufacturers, our business strategy will fail.

Our business strategy ultimately depends upon our development and maintenance of commercial licensing and material supply relationships with high-volume manufacturers of OLED products. We have entered into only a limited number of such relationships from which most of our material sales and licensing revenue are generated. Our other relationships with product manufacturers currently are limited to technology development and the evaluation of our OLED technologies and materials for possible use in commercial products. Some or all of these relationships may not succeed or, even if they are successful, may not result in the product manufacturers entering into commercial licensing and material supply relationships with us.

Many of our agreements with product manufacturers last for only limited periods of time, such that our relationships with these manufacturers will expire unless they are renewed. These product manufacturers may not agree to renew their relationships with us on a continuing basis or may agree to do so on terms that are less favorable to us. In addition, we regularly continue working with product manufacturers after our existing agreements with them have expired while we are attempting to negotiate contract extensions or new agreements with them. Should our relationships with the various product manufacturers not continue or be renewed on less favorable terms, or if we are not able to identify other product manufacturers and enter into contracts with them, our business may materially suffer.

Our ability to enter into additional commercial licensing and material supply relationships, or to maintain our existing relationships, may depend on our ability to make certain financial or other commitments. We might not be able, for financial or other reasons, to enter into or continue these relationships on commercially acceptable terms, or at all. Failure to do so may cause our business strategy to fail.

17

If we fail to make advances in our OLED research and development activities, we might not succeed in commercializing our OLED technologies and materials.

Further advances in our OLED technologies and materials depend, in part, on the success of the research and development work we conduct, both alone and with our research partners. We cannot be certain that this work will yield additional advances in the research and development of these technologies and materials.

Our research and development efforts remain subject to all of the risks associated with the development of new products based on emerging and innovative technologies, including, without limitation, unanticipated technical or other problems and the possible insufficiency of funds for completing development of these products. Technical problems may result in delays and cause us to incur additional expenses that would increase our losses. If we cannot complete research and development of our OLED technologies and materials successfully, or if we experience delays in completing research and development of our OLED technologies and materials for use in potential commercial applications, particularly after incurring significant expenditures, our business may fail.

Conflicts or other problems may arise with our customers or joint development partners, resulting in renegotiation, breach or termination of, or litigation related to, our agreements with them. This would adversely affect our revenues.

Conflicts or other problems could arise between us and our customers or joint development partners, some of which we have made strategic investments in, as to royalty rates, milestone payments or other commercial terms. Similarly, we may disagree with our customers or joint development partners as to which party owns or has the right to commercialize intellectual property that is developed during the course of the relationship or as to other non-commercial terms. If such a conflict were to arise, a customer or joint development partner might attempt to compel renegotiation of certain terms of their agreement or terminate their agreement entirely, and we might lose the royalty revenues, material sales revenues and other benefits of the agreement. Either we or the customer or joint development partner might initiate litigation to determine commercial obligations, establish intellectual property rights or resolve other disputes under the agreement. Such litigation could be costly to us and require substantial attention of management. If we were unsuccessful in such litigation, we could lose the commercial benefits of the agreement, be liable for financial damages and suffer losses of intellectual property or other rights that are the subject of dispute.

If our OLED technologies and materials are not feasible for broad-based product applications, we may not be able to continue to generate revenues sufficient to support ongoing operations.

Our main business strategy is to license our OLED technologies and sell our OLED materials to manufacturers for incorporation into the display and lighting products that they sell. Consequently, our success depends on the ability and willingness of these manufacturers to develop, manufacture and sell commercial products integrating our technologies and materials.

Before product manufacturers will agree to expand the use of our OLED technologies and materials for wider scale commercial production, they will likely require us to demonstrate to their satisfaction that our OLED technologies and materials are feasible for broad-based product applications beyond current commercial application, such as smartphones, wearables and television displays. This, in turn, may require additional advances in our technologies and materials, as well as those of others, for applications in a number of areas, including, without limitation, advances with respect to the development of:

We cannot be certain that these advances will occur, and hence our OLED technologies and materials may not be feasible for additional broad-based product applications and expansion.

Even if our OLED technologies are technically feasible, they may not be adopted by product manufacturers.

The potential size, timing and viability of market opportunities targeted by us are uncertain at this time. Market acceptance of our OLED technologies beyond current product offerings will depend, in part, upon these technologies providing benefits comparable or superior to current display and lighting technologies at an advantageous cost to manufacturers, and the adoption of products incorporating these technologies by consumers. Many current and potential customers for our OLED technologies utilize and have invested significant resources in competing technologies, and may, therefore, be reluctant to redesign their products or manufacturing processes to incorporate our OLED technologies.

18

During the entire product development process for a new product, we face the risk that our technology will fail to meet the manufacturer’s technical, performance or cost requirements or will be replaced by a competing product or alternative technology. Even if we offer technologies that are satisfactory to a product manufacturer, the manufacturer may choose to delay or terminate its product development efforts for reasons unrelated to our technologies. In addition, our agreements with our customers do not require them to purchase our host materials in order to utilize our phosphorescent emitter materials, and those customers may elect not to purchase our host materials.

Mass production of new mass market OLED products will require the availability of suitable manufacturing equipment, components and materials, many of which are available only from a limited number of suppliers. In addition, there may be a number of other technologies that manufacturers need to utilize in conjunction with our OLED technologies in order to bring these new OLED products to the market. Thus, even if our OLED technologies are a viable alternative to competing approaches, if product manufacturers are unable to obtain access to this equipment and these components, materials and other technologies, they may not utilize our OLED technologies.

There are numerous potential alternatives to OLEDs, which may limit our ability to commercialize our OLED technologies and materials.

The flat panel display market is currently, and will likely continue to be for some time, dominated by displays based on LCD technology. Numerous companies are making substantial investments in, and conducting research to improve characteristics of, LCDs; additionally, other competing flat panel display technologies have been, or are being, developed. A similar situation exists in the solid-state lighting market, which is currently dominated by LED products. Advances in any of these various technologies may overcome their current limitations and permit them to become the leading technologies in their field, either of which could limit the potential market for products utilizing our OLED technologies and materials. This, in turn, would cause product manufacturers to avoid entering into commercial relationships with us, or to terminate or not renew their existing relationships with us.

Other OLED technologies may be more successful or cost-effective than ours, which may limit the commercial adoption of our OLED technologies and materials.

Our competitors have developed and continue to develop OLED technologies that differ from or compete with our OLED technologies. In particular, competing fluorescent and thermally activated delayed fluorescence OLED technology may become a viable alternative to our phosphorescent OLED technology. Moreover, our competitors may succeed in developing new OLED technologies that may become more cost-effective or have fewer limitations than our OLED technologies. If our OLED technologies, and particularly our phosphorescent OLED technology, are unable to capture a substantial portion of the OLED product market, our business strategy may fail.

The consumer electronics industry experiences significant downturns from time to time, any of which may adversely affect the demand for and pricing of our OLED technologies and materials.

Our success depends upon the ability and continuing willingness of our customers to manufacture and sell products utilizing our technologies and materials, specifically our phosphorescent emitters and host materials, and the widespread acceptance of our customers’ products in the consumer marketplace. Any slowdown in the demand for our customers’ products or a decrease in our customers’ use of or demand for our materials would adversely affect our material sales and royalty revenues and thus our business. Our customers’ decrease in the use of or demand for our materials may depend on several factors, including pricing, availability, continued technical improvements and competitive product offerings. The markets for flat panel displays and lighting products are highly competitive. Success in the market for end-user products that may integrate our OLED technologies and materials also depends on factors beyond the control of our customers and us, including the cyclical and seasonal nature of the end-user markets that our customers serve, as well as industry and general economic conditions.

The markets that we hope to penetrate have experienced significant periodic downturns, often in connection with, or in anticipation of, declines in general economic conditions. These downturns have been characterized by lower product demand, production overcapacity and erosion of average selling prices. Our business strategy is dependent on manufacturers building and selling products that incorporate our OLED technologies and materials. Industry-wide fluctuations and downturns in the demand for displays and solid-state lighting products could cause significant harm to our business.

Our customers may develop new or more efficient manufacturing processes, which may adversely affect demand for our OLED materials.

OLED device manufacturing is in its early stages. By developing enhanced material processing methods and more efficient manufacturing techniques, our customers who purchase our phosphorescent emitter and host materials could become more efficient in the utilization of our materials, which could limit or reduce the amount of materials they purchase from us. Thus, demand for our

19

materials may not expand in proportion to the number of OLED related products manufactured by our customers, and may result in reduced demand for our materials and technology relative to our customers' manufacture and sale of products made with such materials.

Any downturn in U.S. or global economic conditions may have a significant adverse effect on our business.

There have been significant and sustained economic downturns in the U.S. and globally in the past. These downturns have placed pressure on consumer demand, and the resulting impact on consumer spending has had a material adverse effect on the demand for consumer electronic products. Similar downturns in the future may have a significant adverse effect on one or more of our licensees as an enterprise, which could result in those licensees reducing their efforts to commercialize products that incorporate our OLED technologies and materials. Consumer demand and the condition of the display and lighting industries may also be impacted by other external factors such as war, terrorism, geopolitical uncertainties and other business interruptions. The impact of these external factors is difficult to predict, and one or more of these factors could adversely impact the demand for our licensees’ products, and thus our business.

Many of our competitors have greater resources, which may make it difficult for us to compete successfully against them.

The flat panel display and solid-state lighting industries are characterized by intense competition. Many of our competitors have better name recognition and greater financial, technical, marketing, personnel and research capabilities than we do. Because of these differences, we may never be able to compete successfully in these markets or maintain any competitive advantages we are able to achieve over time.

If we cannot keep our key employees or hire other talented persons as we grow, our business might not succeed.

Our performance is substantially dependent on the continued services of our executive officers and other key technical and managerial personnel, and on our ability to offer competitive salaries and benefits to these and our other employees. We do not have employment agreements with any of our executive officers or other key technical or managerial personnel. Additionally, competition for highly skilled technical and managerial personnel is intense. We might not be able to attract, hire, train, retain and motivate the highly skilled employees we need to be successful. If we fail to attract and retain the necessary technical and managerial personnel, our business will suffer and might fail.

We rely solely on PPG Industries to manufacture the OLED materials we use and sell to product manufacturers.

Our business prospects depend significantly on our ability to obtain proprietary OLED materials for our own use and for sale to product manufacturers. Our agreement with PPG Industries provides us with a source for these materials for development, evaluation and commercial purposes. Our agreement with PPG Industries currently runs through the end of 2018 and shall be automatically renewed for additional one year terms, unless terminated by us with prior notice of one year or terminated by PPG with prior notice of two years. Our inability to continue obtaining these OLED materials from PPG Industries or another source at cost-competitive prices and to continue obtaining these OLED materials in sufficient quantities to meet our product manufacturers' current and future demands and timetables would have a material adverse effect on our revenues and cost of goods sold relating to sales of these materials to OLED product manufacturers, as well as on our ability to perform future development work.

We strive to maintain sufficient levels of inventory to accommodate our manufacturing customers. Inventory management relating to our material sales is complex, and excess inventory may harm our business and cause it to suffer.

Inventory management remains an area of focus as we balance the need to maintain strategic inventory levels of our OLED materials to ensure competitive lead times against the risk of inventory obsolescence because of rapidly changing technology and customer requirements. As a just-in-time supplier to our customers, we carry sufficient inventory to accommodate their capacity requirements, sometimes without firm purchase commitments. Our dependence on third-party manufacturers to provide our materials to us exposes us to longer lead times than if we were a direct manufacturer, increasing our risk of inventory obsolescence comparatively. Our customers may increase orders during periods of product shortages, cancel orders if their inventory is too high, or delay orders in anticipation of new products. They also may adjust their orders in response to the supply and demand of their products by end-users, or the supply and demand of our products and the products of our competitors that are available to them.

Inventory management risks are heightened when our largest customers launch new products and retire existing products. At such times, these customers tend to change product designs and may introduce some of our new materials into new designs. The production of these materials requires us to purchase essential raw material and commence manufacturing well in advance of receiving firm customer orders for such materials. Accordingly, we are subject to the risk of unanticipated changes in our customers’ manufacturing plans and designs. Unanticipated product cessation and product introduction delays or cancellation may cause us to order or produce excess or insufficient inventory. Excess inventory of our OLED materials is subject to the risk of inventory

20

obsolescence. In the event that a substantial portion of our inventory becomes obsolete, it could have a material adverse effect on earnings due to the resulting costs associated with the inventory impairment charges and inventory write downs.

We are the sole source supplier for certain critical components used in OLED technologies, which subjects customers to risk if we are unable to meet the demand for such components.

Our customers depend on us as the sole source for certain critical components used in manufacturing OLED products, which makes them susceptible to supply shortages if we are unable to meet their demand for such components. A potential customer could be hesitant to adopt OLED technology given the risks inherent in depending on a sole source for critical components and the inability to establish alternate supply relationships. If we are unable to supply the components needed by our existing customers in a timely manner, or if potential customers do not utilize OLED technology because of concerns about our ability to meet supply demands, our business may materially suffer.

We may require additional funding in the future in order to continue our business.

Our capital requirements have been and will continue to be significant. We may require additional funding in the future for the research, development and commercialization of our OLED technologies and materials, to obtain and maintain patents and other intellectual property rights in these technologies and materials, and for working capital and other purposes, the timing and amount of which are difficult to ascertain. Our cash on hand may not be sufficient to meet all of our future needs. When we need additional funds, such funds may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. If we cannot obtain more money when needed, our business might fail. Additionally, if we attempt to raise money in an offering of shares of our common stock, preferred stock, warrants or depositary shares, or if we engage in acquisitions involving the issuance of such securities, the issuance of these shares will dilute our then-existing shareholders.

Because the vast majority of OLED product manufacturers are located in the Asia-Pacific region, we are subject to international operational, financial, legal and political risks which may negatively impact our operations.

Many of our customers and prospective customers have a majority of their operations in countries other than the United States, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. We also have offices in various countries located outside of the United States. Risks associated with our doing business outside of the United States include, without limitation:

Any of these factors could impair our ability to license our OLED technologies and sell our OLED materials, thereby harming our business. Compliance with changing laws and regulations may involve significant costs or require changes in business practice that could result in reduced profitability.

We rely on information technology systems to operate various elements of our business and a cyber-attack or other breach of our systems, or those of third parties on whom we may rely, could subject us to liability or interrupt the operation of our business.

We are dependent on information technology systems to operate various elements of our business. A breakdown, invasion, corruption, destruction or interruption of critical information technology systems by employees, others with authorized access to our systems or unauthorized persons could negatively impact operations. In the ordinary course of business, we collect, store and transmit important data and it is critical that we do so in a secure manner to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of such information. Additionally, we outsource certain elements of our information technology systems to third parties. As a result of this outsourcing, our third party vendors may or could have access to our confidential information making such systems vulnerable. Data breaches of our information technology systems, or those of our third party vendors, may pose a risk that sensitive data may be exposed to unauthorized persons or to the public. While we believe that we have taken appropriate security measures to protect our data and information technology systems, and have been informed by our third party vendors that they have as well, there can be no assurance

21

that our efforts will prevent breakdowns or breaches in our systems, or those of our third party vendors, that could adversely affect our business.

The U.S. government has rights to intellectual property derived from our government-funded work that might prevent us from realizing the full benefits of our intellectual property portfolio.

The U.S. government, through various government agencies, has provided and continues to provide funding to us, Princeton, USC and Michigan for work related to certain aspects of our OLED technologies. Because we have been provided with this funding, the government has rights to any intellectual property derived from this work that could restrict our ability to market OLED products to the government for military and other applications, or to license this intellectual property to third parties for commercial applications. Moreover, if the government determines that we have not taken effective steps to achieve practical application of this intellectual property in any field of use in a reasonable time, the government could require us to license this intellectual property to other parties in that field of use. Any of these occurrences would limit our ability to obtain maximum value from our intellectual property portfolio.

The market price of our common stock may be highly volatile.

The market price of our common stock may be highly volatile, as has been the case with our common stock in the past as well as the securities of many companies, particularly other emerging-growth companies in the technology industry. We have included in the section of this report entitled “Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities,” a table indicating the high and low closing prices of our common stock as reported on the NASDAQ Global Market for the past two years. Factors such as the following may have a significant impact on the market price of our common stock in the future:

Our operating results may have significant period-to-period fluctuations, which would make it difficult to predict our future performance.

Due to the current stage of commercialization of our OLED technologies and materials, the limited number of commercially successful consumer products utilizing our OLED technologies that customers have introduced in the marketplace, the relatively short product lifetimes of these consumer products, and the significant development and manufacturing objectives that we and our customers must achieve for the widespread inclusion of our OLED technologies in consumer products such as tablets, television displays and lighting products, our quarterly operating results are difficult to predict and may vary significantly from quarter to quarter.

We believe that period-to-period comparisons of our operating results are not a reliable indicator of our future performance at this time. Among other factors affecting our period-to-period results, our license and technology development fees often consist of large one-time, annual or semi-annual payments, which may result in significant fluctuations in our revenues. In addition, our reliance on a small number of licensees with large volumes of consumer product sales makes our quarterly operating results subject to our licensee's specific plans and the success of their specific product offerings.

With respect to material sales, our sales are primarily dependent on purchases made by a small number of customers. In addition to the other factors described above relating to our customers’ sales opportunities, our quarter-to-quarter sales may be materially impacted by our customers’ inventory management plans, which may vary substantially based on financial management considerations, changes in their product mix plans, modified material processing techniques and manufacturing line modifications.

If, in some future period, our operating results or business outlook fall below the expectations of securities analysts or investors, our stock price would be likely to decline and investors in our common stock may not be able to resell their shares at or above their purchase price. Broad market, industry and global economic factors may also materially reduce the market price of our common stock, regardless of our operating performance.

22

The issuance of additional shares of our common stock could drive down the price of our stock.

The price of our common stock could decrease if:

We can issue shares of preferred stock that may adversely affect the rights of shareholders of our common stock.

Our Articles of Incorporation authorize us to issue up to 5,000,000 shares of preferred stock with designations, rights and preferences determined from time-to-time by our Board of Directors. Accordingly, our Board of Directors is empowered, without shareholder approval, to issue preferred stock with dividend, liquidation, conversion, voting or other rights superior to those of shareholders of our common stock. For example, an issuance of shares of preferred stock could:

As of February 22, 2018, we have issued and outstanding 200,000 shares of Series A Nonconvertible Preferred Stock, all of which are held by an entity controlled by members of the family of Sherwin I. Seligsohn, our Founder and Chairman of the Board of Directors. Our Board of Directors has authorized and issued other shares of preferred stock in the past, none of which are currently outstanding, and may do so again at any time in the future.

Any decisions to reduce or discontinue paying cash dividends to our shareholders could cause the market price for our common stock to decline.

In 2017, our Board of Directors declared quarterly cash dividends on our common stock, and we intend to pay regular quarterly dividends in the future.  However, payment of future cash dividends will be at the discretion of our Board of Directors and will depend upon our results of operations, earnings, capital requirements, contractual restrictions and other factors deemed relevant by our Board of Directors.  As such, we may modify, suspend or cancel our cash dividend policy in any manner and at any time. Any reduction or discontinuance by us of the payment of quarterly cash dividends could cause the market price of our common stock to decline. Moreover, in the event our payment of quarterly cash dividends are reduced or discontinued, our failure or inability to resume paying cash dividends at historical levels could cause the market price of our common stock to decline. There is no guarantee that our common stock will appreciate in value or even maintain the price at which current shareholders purchased their shares.

Our executive officers and directors own a significant percentage of our common stock and could exert significant influence over matters requiring shareholder approval, including takeover attempts.

Our executive officers and directors and their respective affiliates and the adult children of Sherwin Seligsohn, beneficially own, as of February 22, 2018, approximately 10.2% of the outstanding shares of our common stock. Accordingly, these individuals may, as a practical matter, be able to exert significant influence over matters requiring approval by our shareholders, including the election of directors and the approval of mergers or other business combinations. This concentration also could have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control of us.

Natural disasters or other unforeseen catastrophic events could unfavorably affect our business.

Natural disasters, such as hurricanes, tsunamis, or earthquakes, particularly in Asia-Pacific region, where many of our customers are located, or the occurrence of other unforeseen catastrophic events, such a fire or flood, could unfavorably affect our business and financial performance. Such events could unfavorably affect our licensees in many ways, such as causing physical damage to one or more of their properties, the temporary or permanent closure of one or more plants, the disruption or cessation of manufacturing of product lines, and the temporary or long-term disruption in the supply or demand for their products. A resulting by-product of such natural disasters or other unforeseen catastrophic events could be a temporary or long-term disruption in the supply of or demand for our products.

23

Our effective tax rate may increase or decrease.

We are subject to income taxes in the U.S. and numerous foreign jurisdictions. Significant judgment is required in determining our worldwide provision for income taxes. In the ordinary course of our business, there are many transactions and calculations where the ultimate tax determination is uncertain. We are subject to audit by tax authorities where we do business. Although we believe that our tax estimates and tax positions are reasonable, they could be materially affected by many factors including the final outcome of tax audits and related litigation, the introduction of new tax accounting standards, legislation, regulations, and related interpretations, our global mix of earnings and the realizability of deferred tax assets. An increase or decrease in our effective tax rate could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, at any time, U.S. federal tax laws or the administrative interpretations of those laws may be changed. In December 2017, the legislation commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which made widespread changes to the Internal Revenue Code, was signed into law. While we believe that this law generally will have a favorable effect on U.S. corporations and their shareholders, uncertainty remains regarding the full effect that this law will have on us, particularly given the global nature of our operations, or the impact on our customers, vendors, shareholders and other stakeholders. We also cannot predict whether, when or to what extent other new U.S. federal tax laws, regulations, interpretations or rulings will be issued. As a result, changes in U.S. federal tax laws could negatively impact our operating results, financial condition and business operations, and adversely impact our shareholders.

Occasionally, changes in state and local tax laws or regulations are enacted that may result in an increase in our tax liability. Shortfalls in tax revenues for states and municipalities in recent years may lead to an increase in the frequency and size of such changes. If such changes occur, we may be required to pay additional taxes on our assets or income.

None.

Our corporate offices and research and development laboratories are located at 375 Phillips Boulevard in Ewing, New Jersey. In 2004, we acquired the building and property at which this facility is located. During 2005, we conducted a two-stage expansion of our laboratory and office space in the building, as well as a recent expansion in 2013 and 2015. We currently occupy the entire newly expanded facility. In 2017, we acquired the building and property at which the Adesis facility is located at 27 McCullough Drive in New Castle, Delaware.

Patent Related Challenges and Oppositions

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

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.

24

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 income, 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. After the completion of the hearing, 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 the 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. Subsequent to the filing of the appeal, BASF withdrew its opposition to the patent. A hearing on the merits of the appeal has now been scheduled for the first quarter of 2018. 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 that the patent being challenged should be declared valid and that at least some of our claims will be upheld. However, we 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 (the EP '962 patent), which relates to our 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 us by Princeton, and we are 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 was held in December 2015, wherein the EPO Opposition Division revoked the patent claims for alleged insufficiencies under EPC Article 83.  We believe the EPO's decision relating to the original claims is erroneous, and we have appealed the decision. Subsequent to the filing of the appeal, BASF withdrew its opposition to the patent. 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 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. 1933395*

On February 24 and 27, 2012, Sumitomo, Merck Patent GmbH and BASF SE filed oppositions to our European Patent No. 1933395 (the EP '395 patent). The EP ‘395 patent is a counterpart patent to the EP ‘637 patent, and, in part, to the U.S. Patents 7,001,536; 6,902,830; and 6,830,828 and to JP patents 4358168 and 4357781. This patent is exclusively licensed to us by Princeton, and we are required to pay all legal costs and fees associated with this proceeding.

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.

25

On February 26, 2014, we 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. In January 2015, Sumitomo withdrew its opposition of the '395 patent, and the EPO accepted the withdrawal notice. The appeal proceedings were held in the second quarter of 2016. As a result of the proceedings, the board concluded the oral proceedings and proposed to reinstate a broader set of claims pending the resolution of a remaining question of the applicable law, a question that the board has deferred to the Enlarged Board of Appeals for review. In December 2017, the Enlarged Board of Appeals issued a written opinion in which they have generally followed our reasoning regarding the question of law. The written opinion should be used as guidance by the EPO opposition panel when the oral proceedings are rescheduled. The originally-granted claims remain in force during the pendency of this process.

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

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT

The following table sets forth certain information with respect to our executive officers as of February 22, 2018:

Our Board of Directors has appointed these executive officers to hold office until their successors are duly appointed.

Sherwin I. Seligsohn is our Founder and has been the Chairman of our Board of Directors since June 1995. He also served as our Chief Executive Officer from June 1995 through December 2007, and as our President from June 1995 through May 1996. Mr. Seligsohn serves as the sole Director, President and Secretary of American Biomimetics Corporation, International Multi-Media Corporation, and Wireless Unified Network Systems Corporation. He was also previously the Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer of NanoFlex Power Corporation (formally known as Global Photonic Energy Corporation) (NanoFlex) since its inception until April 2012, when he resigned from his positions at NanoFlex. Since that time, the only relationship Mr. Seligsohn has had with NanoFlex is as a shareholder and option holder. From June 1990 to October 1991, Mr. Seligsohn was Chairman Emeritus of InterDigital Communications, Inc. (InterDigital), formerly International Mobile Machines Corporation. He founded InterDigital and from August 1972 to June 1990 served as its Chairman of the Board of Directors. Mr. Seligsohn is a member of the Industrial Advisory Board of the Princeton Institute for the Science and Technology of Materials (PRISM) at Princeton.

Steven V. Abramson is our President and Chief Executive Officer, and has been a member of our Board of Directors since May 1996. Mr. Abramson served as our President and Chief Operating Officer from May 1996 through December 2007. From March 1992 to May 1996, Mr. Abramson was Vice President, General Counsel, Secretary and Treasurer of Roy F. Weston, Inc., a worldwide environmental consulting and engineering firm. From December 1982 to December 1991, Mr. Abramson held various positions at InterDigital, including General Counsel, Executive Vice President and General Manager of the Technology Licensing Division. 

Sidney D. Rosenblatt is an Executive Vice President and has been our Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary since June 1995. He also has been a member of our Board of Directors since May 1996. Mr. Rosenblatt was the owner of S. Zitner Company from August 1990 through August 2010 and served as its President from August 1990 through December 1998. From May 1982 to August 1990, Mr. Rosenblatt served as the Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of InterDigital. Mr. Rosenblatt is on the Board of Managers of the Overbrook School for the Blind. He is also a member of the Board of the Careers in Culinary Arts Program.

Julia J. Brown, Ph.D. is a Senior Vice President and has been our Chief Technical Officer since June 2002. She joined us in June 1998 as our Vice President of Technology Development. From November 1991 to June 1998, Dr. Brown was a Research Department Manager at Hughes Research Laboratories where she directed the pilot line production of high-speed Indium Phosphide-based integrated circuits for insertion into advanced airborne radar and satellite communication systems. Dr. Brown received an M.S. and Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering/Electrophysics at USC under the advisement of Professor Stephen R. Forrest. Dr. Brown has

26

served as an Associate Editor of the Journal of Electronic Materials and as an elected member of the Electron Device Society Technical Board. She co-founded an international engineering mentoring program sponsored by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and is a Fellow of the IEEE. Dr. Brown has served on numerous technical conference committees and is presently a member of the Society of Information Display.

Janice M. DuFour (formally Janice K. Mahon) has been our Vice President of Technology Commercialization since January 1997, and became the General Manager of our PHOLED Material Sales Business in January 2007. From 1992 to 1996, Ms. DuFour was Vice President of SAGE Electrochromics, Inc., a thin-film electrochromic technology company, where she oversaw a variety of business development, marketing and finance and administrative activities. From 1984 to 1989, Ms. DuFour was a Vice President and General Manager for Chronar Corporation, a leading developer and manufacturer of amorphous silicon photovoltaic (PV) panels. Prior to that, Ms. DuFour worked as Senior Engineer for the Industrial Chemicals Division of FMC Corporation. Ms. DuFour received her B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1979, and an M.B.A. from Harvard University in 1984. Ms. DuFour was a member of the Technical Council of the FlexTech Alliance from 1997 through 2010, and a member of its Governing Board from 2008 through 2010. Ms. DuFour was a member of the Board of Directors and Marketing Committee Chairperson of the OLED Association from 2009-2014.

Mauro Premutico has been our Vice President of Legal and General Manager of Patents and Licensing since April 2012. Prior to joining us, Mr. Premutico was the Managing Vice President and Chief Patent Counsel for The Walt Disney Company from 2009 to 2012, and Vice President of Intellectual Property and Associate General Counsel for Lenovo Group Ltd. from 2005 to 2009. Mr. Premutico was also Special Counsel at the international law firm of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton from 2002 until 2005 where he served as the co-head of the New York's office Intellectual Property and Technology Law practice. Mr. Premutico received his law degree from Boston University School of Law and a BSEE from Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Not applicable.

27

PART II

Our Common Stock

Our common stock is quoted on the NASDAQ Global Market under the symbol “OLED.” The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high and low closing prices of our common stock as reported on the NASDAQ Global Market.

As of February 22, 2018, there were approximately 288 holders of record of our common stock.

During 2017, we declared and paid for the first time cash dividends on our common stock. See Note 21 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. While we intend to pay regular quarterly dividends in the future, payment of future cash dividends will be at the discretion of our Board of Directors and will depend upon our results of operations, earnings, capital requirements, contractual restrictions and other factors deemed relevant by our Board of Directors.  As such, we may modify, suspend or cancel our cash dividend policy in any manner and at any time.

Share Repurchases

In June 2014, we announced that the Board of Directors had approved a program to repurchase up to $50 million of the outstanding shares of our common stock from time to time over the next twelve months (the Repurchase Program). During the period, we repurchased 956,362 shares of common stock at a cost of $29.5 million. The repurchase program ended during the second quarter of 2015.

During the quarter ended December 31, 2017, we acquired 751 shares of common stock through transactions related to the vesting of restricted share awards previously granted to employees of ours. Upon vesting, the employees turned in shares of common stock in amounts sufficient to pay the minimum statutory tax withholding at rates required by the relevant tax authorities.

The following table provides information relating to the shares we acquired during the fourth quarter of 2017 (dollar amounts in thousands, other than per share amounts):

28

Performance Graph

The performance graph below compares the change in the cumulative shareholder return of our common stock from December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2017, with the percentage change in the cumulative total return over the same period on (i) the Russell 2000 Index, and (ii) the Nasdaq Electronics Components Index. This performance graph assumes an initial investment of $100 on December 31, 2012 in each of our common stock, the Russell 2000 Index and the Nasdaq Electronics Components Index.

Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans

The information required by this item with respect to our equity compensation plans will be set forth in our Proxy Statement, and is incorporated herein by reference.

29

The following selected consolidated financial data has been derived from, and should be read in conjunction with, our Consolidated Financial Statements and the notes thereto, and with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” included elsewhere in this report.

30

The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with the section entitled “Selected Financial Data” in this report and our Consolidated Financial Statements and related notes to this report. This discussion and analysis contains forward-looking statements based on our current expectations, assumptions, estimates and projections. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those indicated in these forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors, as more fully discussed in Item 1A of this report, entitled “Risk Factors.”

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 mobile phones, televisions, tablets, wearables, portable media devices, notebook computers, personal computers, and automotive applications, as well as specialty and general lighting products. 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:

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 title passes, which is typically at the time of shipment or at the time of delivery, 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 or 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.

In 2017, our most significant commercial license agreement was a 2011 license agreement with SDC covering the manufacture and sale of specified OLED display products. The 2011 agreement expired at the end of 2017 and has been extended with a new five year license agreement with a two-year extension option. Under the 2011 agreement, we were being paid a license fee, payable in semi-annual installments over the agreement term of 6.4 years. The installments, which were due in the second and fourth quarter of each year, increased on an annual basis over the term of the 2011 agreement. The 2011 agreement conveyed to SDC the non-exclusive right to use certain of our intellectual property assets for a limited period of time that were less than the estimated life of the assets. Ratable recognition of revenue was impacted by the agreement's extended increasing payment terms in light of our limited history with similar agreements. As a result, revenue was 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 2011 agreement were recognized as revenue when they became due and payable in the second and fourth quarter of each year.

At the same time we entered into the 2011 patent license agreement with SDC, we also entered into a supplemental material purchase agreement with SDC which also expired in 2017 and was also extended with a new five year supply agreement with a two year extension option. Under the 2011 supplemental material purchase agreement, SDC agreed to purchase from us a minimum dollar amount of phosphorescent emitter materials for use in the manufacture of licensed products. This minimum purchase commitment was subject to SDC’s requirements for phosphorescent emitter materials and our ability to meet these requirements over the term of the supplemental agreement.

In 2015, we entered into an OLED patent license agreement and an OLED commercial supply agreement with LG Display Co., Ltd. (LG Display), which were effective as of January 1, 2015 and superseded the existing 2007 commercial supply agreement between the parties. The new agreements have a term that is set to expire by 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 materials sales anticipated over the life of the agreements as well as

31

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 sales of materials for use by LG Display, which may include phosphorescent emitters and host materials.

In 2017, we entered into long-term, multi-year agreements with BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. (BOE). Under these agreements, we have granted BOE non-exclusive license rights under various patents owned or controlled by us to manufacture and sell OLED display products. We have also agreed to supply phosphorescent OLED materials to BOE.

In 2016, we entered into OLED patent license and material purchase agreements having five year durations with Tianma Micro-electronics Co. Ltd. (Tianma). Under the license agreement, we have granted Tianma non-exclusive license rights under various patents owned or controlled by us to manufacture and sell OLED display products. The license agreement calls for license fees and running royalties on licensed products. Additionally, we expect to supply phosphorescent OLED materials to Tianma for use in its licensed products.

In 2016, we acquired Adesis, Inc. (Adesis) with operations in New Castle, Delaware. Adesis is a contract research organization (CRO) that provides support services to the OLED, pharma, biotech, catalysis and other industries. As of December 31, 2017, Adesis employed a team of 50 chemists. Prior to our acquisition in 2016, we utilized more than 50% of Adesis’ technology service and production output. We continue to utilize a significant portion of its technology research capacity for the benefit of our OLED technology development, and Adesis uses the remaining capacity to operate as a CRO in the above-mentioned industries providing contract research services to those third party customers. Contract research services is revenue earned by performing organic and organometallic synthetics research, development and commercialization on a contractual basis for our customers.

We also generate technology development and support revenue earned from government contracts, development and technology evaluation agreements and commercialization assistance fees, which include 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 as services are performed, proportionally as research and development costs are incurred, or as defined milestones are achieved.

We anticipate fluctuations in our annual and quarterly results of operations due to uncertainty regarding, among other factors:

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, inventories, the valuation and recoverability of acquired technology, and income taxes, as described below, are our “critical accounting policies” as contemplated by the SEC. These policies, which have been reviewed with our Audit Committee, are discussed in greater detail below.

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 title passes, which is typically at the time of shipment or at the time of delivery, depending upon the contractual agreement between the parties.

We receive license and royalty payments under certain commercial, development and technology evaluation agreements with our customers, some of which payments are nonrefundable. These payments may include royalty and license fees made pursuant to license agreements and certain material 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 may not be recognized as revenue over the next

32

twelve months. 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 fee revenue included as part of commercial supply agreements are recognized when earned and the amount is fixed and determinable. If we used different estimates for the useful life of the licensed technology, or if fees are fixed and determinable, reported revenue during the relevant period would differ.

Contract research services revenue is revenue earned by performing organic and organometallic synthetics research, development and commercialization on a contractual basis. These services range from intermediates for structure-activity relationship studies, reference agents and building blocks for combinatorial synthesis, re-synthesis of key intermediates, specialty organic chemistry needs, and selective toll manufacturing. These services are provided to third-party pharmaceutical and life sciences firms and other technology firms at fixed costs or on an annual contract basis. Revenue is recognized as services are performed with billing schedules and payment terms negotiated on a contract-by-contract basis. Payments received in excess of revenue recognized are recorded as deferred revenue. In other cases, services may be provided and revenue is recognized before the client is invoiced. In these cases, revenue recognized will exceed amounts billed and the difference, representing amounts which are currently unbillable to the customer pursuant to contractual terms, is recorded as an unbilled receivable.

Technology development and support revenue is revenue earned from technology evaluation and development agreements, commercialization assistance fees, and government contracts which includes reimbursements by the U.S. government for all or a portion of the research and development expenses we incur on those contracts. Revenue is recognized proportionally as research and development expenses are incurred or as defined milestones are achieved. In order to ascertain the revenue associated with these contracts for a period, we estimate the proportion of related research and development expenses incurred and whether defined milestones have been achieved. Different estimates would result in different revenues for the period.

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 income. The amounts of these pass through taxes reflected in revenues and cost of material sales were $409,000, $171,000, and $1.3 million in the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

Inventories

Inventories consist of raw materials, work-in-process and finished goods, including inventory consigned to our 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, our production cycles, anticipated product orders, marketing forecasts, backlog, and shipment activities is used in the analysis. If market conditions are less favorable than our forecasts or actual demand from our customers is lower than our estimates, we may require additional inventory write-downs. 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 our 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.

Accounting for Income Taxes

We are subject to income taxes in both the U.S. and foreign jurisdictions. Significant judgments and estimates are required in evaluating our tax positions for future realization and determining our provision for income taxes. Our income tax expense, deferred tax assets and liabilities, and reserves for unrecognized tax benefits reflect management's best assessment of estimated future taxes to be paid.

Our income tax expense during the year ended December 31, 2017 primarily related to federal taxes on our U.S. income, foreign withholding taxes, and a one-time charge due to the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in December 2017. The foreign taxes were primarily related to foreign taxes withheld on royalty and license fees paid to the U.S. operating entity. SDC has been required to withhold tax upon payment of royalty and license fees to the U.S. operating entity at a rate of 16.5%. In assessing the realizability of deferred tax assets, we consider whether it is more likely than not that some portion or all of our deferred tax assets will not be realized. The ultimate realization of deferred tax assets is dependent on our 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 our assessment we consider the scheduled reversal of deferred tax assets and liabilities, projected future taxable income, and tax planning strategies. After the

33

revaluation of the net deferred assets from 35% to 21% as required by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act the net deferred tax assets totaled $27.0 million, representing 3.5% of total assets, as of December 31, 2017.

During the year ended December 31, 2017, based on previous earnings history, a current evaluation of expected future taxable income and other evidence, we determined to retain the valuation allowance that relates to New Jersey research and development credits. The valuation allowance that related to UDC Ireland was almost completely utilized to offset income of this subsidiary during the year; the remainder has been released. Actual results could differ from our assessments if adequate taxable income is generated in future periods. To the extent we establish a new valuation allowance or change a previously established valuation allowance in a future period, income tax expense will be impacted.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Year Ended December 31, 2017 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2016

We had operating income of $146.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, as compared to operating income of $68.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. The increase in operating income was primarily due to the following:

We had net income of $103.9 million or $2.19 per basic and $2.18 per diluted share for the year ended December 31, 2017, as compared to net income of $48.1 million or $1.02 per basic and diluted share for the year ended December 31, 2016. The increase in net income was due to an increase in operating income of $77.8 million, partially offset by an increase in income tax expense of $25.1 million.

Revenue

The following table details our revenues for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 (amounts in thousands):

Total revenue for the year ended December 31, 2017 increased by $136.7 million as compared to the year ended December 31, 2016. The increase in revenue was the result of an increase in material sales, royalty and license fees, and contract research services for the reasons noted below.

Material sales

Material sales included sales of both phosphorescent emitter and host materials comprised of the following for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 (amounts in thousands):

Phosphorescent emitter sales for the year ended December 31, 2017 increased by $100.8 million as compared to the year ended December 31, 2016 due to an increase in sales volume resulting from higher demand for both red and green phosphorescent emitters.

34

Host material sales for the year ended December 31, 2017 increased by $163,000 as compared to the year ended December 31, 2016 and primarily consisted of developmental host materials. Based on our current sales forecast, we anticipate that sales of existing host material will continue to be minimal. 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 years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 (amounts in thousands):

Royalty and license fees for the year ended December 31, 2017 increased by $30.4 million as compared to the year ended December 31, 2016. The increase was primarily related to the receipt and recognition of $90.0 million of royalty and license fee payments under our patent license agreement with SDC as compared to $75.0 million in the prior period, as well as to higher licensed sales and royalties from our customers.

Contract research services

Contract research services revenue were as follows for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 (amounts in thousands):

Contract research services include revenue earned by our subsidiary, Adesis, which performs organic and organometallic synthetics research, development and commercialization on a contractual basis for our customers. Contract research services also include technology development and support revenue earned on government contracts, development and technology evaluation agreements and commercialization assistance fees, which includes reimbursements by the U.S. government for all or a portion of the research and development expenses we incur related to our government contracts.

Contract research services revenue for the year ended December 31, 2017 increased by $5.4 million as compared to the year ended December 31, 2016. The increase in contract research services revenue was related to contract research sales associated with Adesis, which was acquired on July 11, 2016 and as such included less than six months of sales activity in the prior year.

Cost of material sales

Cost of material sales were as follows for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 (amounts in thousands):

Cost of material sales for the year ended December 31, 2017 increased by $24.7 million as compared to the year ended December 31, 2016 and was primarily due to an increase in the level of material sales. As a result, gross margin on material sales for the year ended December 31, 2017 increased by $76.3 million as compared to the year ended December 31, 2016 with gross margin as a percentage of material sales remaining consistent at 75% during both years.

35

Research and development

Research and development expenses increased to $49.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, as compared to $42.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. The increase in research and development expenses was primarily due to higher third-party contract research services activities as well as higher employee-related costs.

Selling, general and administrative

Selling, general and administrative expenses increased to $46.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, as compared to $32.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. The increase in selling, general and administrative expenses was primarily due to incremental costs associated with the addition of Adesis activity, as well as higher employee-related costs and other operating expenses.

Amortization of acquired technology and other intangible assets

Amortization of acquired technology and other intangible assets increased to $22.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, as compared to $16.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. The increase was due to higher amortization expense of $5.5 million associated with the acquisitions of the BASF patent portfolio and intangible assets associated with the Adesis acquisition. See Note 8 in Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion.

Patent costs

Patent costs increased to $7.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, as compared to $6.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2016.

Royalty and license expense

Royalty and license expense increased to $9.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, as compared to $5.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. The increase was due to increased royalties incurred under our amended license agreement with Princeton, USC, and Michigan, resulting from an increase in royalty and license fees and qualifying material sales. See Note 10 in Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion.

Interest income, net and other expense, net

Interest income, net, was $3.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, as compared to $2.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. The increase was primarily due to higher interest rates on cash equivalents and investment balances. Other expense, net primarily consisted of net exchange gains and losses on foreign currency transactions. We recorded other expense of $4,000 for the year ended December 31, 2017, as compared to other expense of $1.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. Other expense for the year ended December 31, 2016 primarily consisted of exchange losses on foreign currency associated with the BASF OLED patent acquisition.

Income tax expense

We are subject to income taxes in both the United States and foreign jurisdictions. The effective income tax rate was 30.5% and 29.9%, for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and the Company recorded income tax expense of $45.7 million and $20.5 million, respectively. The effective income tax rate for the year ended December 31, 2017 reflected a benefit from the utilization of a valuation allowance at UDC Ireland.

The enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) in December 2017 resulted in a one-time charge of $11.5 million in the fourth quarter.  The charge includes two elements, a tax on accumulated overseas profits and the revaluation of deferred tax assets and liabilities.  Without the TCJA, for the year ended December 31, 2017, the effective income tax rate and income tax expense would have been 22.8% and $34.2 million.

On January 1, 2017, we adopted ASU No. 2016-09, Improvements to Employee Share-Based Accounting, which includes provisions intended to simplify various aspects related to how share-based payments are accounted for and presented in the financial statements. Under the previous guidance, tax effects of deductions for employee share awards in excess of compensation cost ("windfalls") were recorded in equity in the period in which the deductions actually reduced income taxes payable and any unrecognized tax benefits were tracked separately off the balance sheet. Under the new guidance, excess tax benefits and deficiencies are recorded in the income statement in the period in which stock awards vest or are settled, and any excess tax benefits not previously recognized because the related tax deduction had not reduced current taxes payable are recorded through a cumulative-effect adjustment to retained earnings at the beginning of the period of adoption.

36

Without the adoption of ASU No. 2016-09 and the enactment of TCJA, for the year ended December 31, 2017, the effective income tax rate and income tax expense would have been 24.8% and $37.2 million.

The foreign taxes are primarily related to foreign taxes withheld on royalty and license fees paid to the U.S. operating entity. SDC has been required to withhold tax upon payment of royalty and license fees to the U.S. operating entity at a rate of 16.5%. During the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, we paid South Korean withholding taxes of $14.9 million and $12.4 million, respectively.

Year Ended December 31, 2016 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2015

We had operating income of $68.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, as compared to operating income of $32.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2015. The increase in operating income was primarily due to the following:

We had net income of $48.1 million or $1.02 per basic and diluted share for the year ended December 31, 2016, as compared to net income of $14.7 million or $0.31 per basic and diluted share for the year ended December 31, 2015. The increase in net income was due to an increase in operating income of $36.1 million, partially offset by an increase in income tax expense of $2.1 million.

For the year ended December 31, 2015, absent the inventory write-down and the associated $2.8 million reduction of income tax expense, we had adjusted net income of $44.8 million (or $0.96 per share, basic and $0.94 per share, diluted).

Revenue

The following table details our revenues for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 (amounts in thousands):

Total revenue for the year ended December 31, 2016 increased by $7.8 million as compared to the year ended December 31, 2015. The increase in revenue was the result of an increase in royalty and license fees and contract research services offset by a decrease in material sales.

Material sales

 Material sales included sales of both phosphorescent emitter and host materials comprised of the following for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 (amounts in thousands):

37

Phosphorescent emitter sales for the year ended December 31, 2016 decreased by $2.7 million as compared to the year ended December 31, 2015 due primarily to a decrease in average selling price per gram sold as customers purchased materials with lower selling prices per gram in 2016 compared to the prior year.

Host material sales for the year ended December 31, 2016 decreased by $11.1 million as compared to the year ended December 31, 2015. 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 customers continuing to sell new products that do not include our host materials. Based on our current sales forecast, we anticipate that sales of existing host material will continue to be minimal. 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 years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 (amounts in thousands):

Royalty and license fees for the year ended December 31, 2016 increased by $18.4 million as compared to the year ended December 31, 2015. The increase was primarily related to the receipt and recognition of $75.0 million of royalty and license fee payments under our 2011 patent license agreement with SDC as compared to $60.0 million in the prior period.

Contract research services

Contract research services revenue were as follows for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 (amounts in thousands):

Contract research services include revenue earned by our subsidiary, Adesis, which performs organic and organometallic synthetics research, development and commercialization on a contractual basis for our customers. Contract research services also include technology development and support revenue earned on government contracts, development and technology evaluation agreements and commercialization assistance fees, which includes reimbursements by the U.S. government for all or a portion of the research and development expenses we incur related to our government contracts.

Contract research services revenue for the year ended December 31, 2016 increased by $3.3 million as compared to the year ended December 31, 2015. The increase in contract research services revenue was solely related to contract research sales associated with Adesis, which was acquired on July 11, 2016. See Note 3 to the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion.

Cost of material sales

Cost of material sales were as follows for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 (amounts in thousands):

Cost of material sales for the year ended December 31, 2016 decreased by $38.5 million as compared to the year ended December 31, 2015 and was primarily due to an inventory write-down of $33.0 million, as well as a decrease in the level of material sales. Adjusted cost of material sales, eliminating the impact of the inventory write-down, would have been $30.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2015, and the gross margin as percentage of material sales would have been 73% for the year ended December 31, 2015. Absent the inventory write-down, the increase in gross margin as a percentage of material sales was due to the decrease in host material sales, which have less favorable margins than our phosphorescent emitter materials.

38

Research and development

Research and development expenses decreased to $42.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, as compared to $44.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2015. The decrease in research and development expenses was due to a decrease in consulting and laboratory related costs from lower outsourced research and development efforts; partially offset by an increase in salaries and benefits, and other operating expenses.

Selling, general and administrative

Selling, general and administrative expenses increased to $32.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, as compared to $29.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2015. The increase in selling, general and administrative expenses was primarily due to incremental costs associated with the addition of Adesis activity.

Amortization of acquired technology and other intangible assets

Amortization of acquired technology and other intangible assets increased to $16.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, as compared to $11.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2015. The increase was due to higher amortization expense of $5.5 million associated with the acquisitions of the BASF patent portfolio and intangible assets associated with the Adesis acquisition. See Note 8 in Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion.

Patent costs

Patent costs increased to $6.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, as compared to $5.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2015. The increase in patent costs was primarily due to increased activities associated with the acquisition of the BASF patents.

Royalty and license expense

Royalty and license expense increased to $5.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, as compared to $5.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2015. The increase was due to increased royalties incurred under our amended license agreement with Princeton, USC, and Michigan, resulting from an increase in royalty and license fees; partially offset by a decrease in qualifying material sales. See Note 10 in Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion.

Interest income, net and other expense, net

Interest income, net, was $2.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, as compared to $800,000 for the year ended December 31, 2015. The increase was primarily due to higher interest rates on cash equivalents and investment balances. Other expense, net primarily consisted of net exchange gains and losses on foreign currency transactions. We recorded other expense of $1.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, as compared to none for the year ended December 31, 2015. The increase in other expense was due to exchange losses on foreign currency associated with the BASF OLED patent acquisition.

Income taxes

We are subject to income taxes in both the United States and foreign jurisdictions. The effective income tax rate was 29.9% and 55.6%, for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, and the Company recorded income tax expense of $20.5 million and $18.4 million, respectively.

The foreign taxes are primarily related to foreign taxes withheld on royalty and license fees paid to the U.S. operating entity. SDC has been required to withhold tax upon payment of royalty and license fees to the U.S. operating entity at a rate of 16.5%. During the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, we paid South Korean withholding taxes of $12.4 million and $9.9 million, respectively.

39

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Our principal sources of liquidity are our cash and cash equivalents and our investments. As of December 31, 2017, we had cash and cash equivalents of $132.8 million, short-term investments of $287.5 million and long-term investments of $14.8 million, for a total of $435.1 million. This compares to cash and cash equivalents of $139.4 million, short-term investments of $188.6 million and long-term investments of $15.0 million, for a total of $343.0 million, as of December 31, 2016. 

Cash provided by operating activities was $133.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, as compared to cash provided by operating activities of $80.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. The increase in cash provided by operating activities of $53.1 million was due to an increase in net income of $55.8 million and an increase in non-cash adjustments to net income of $29.7 million, partially offset by an increase in cash used in operating assets and liabilities of $32.4 million primarily due to an increase in accounts receivable and inventory. The increase in accounts receivable and inventory was primarily due to higher revenue and increased production activity to meet higher material sales demand.

Cash used in investing activities was $125.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, as compared to cash used in investing activities of $38.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. The increase in cash used in investing activities of $87.1 million was primarily due to the timing of maturities and purchases of investments resulting in net purchases of $95.8 million for the year ended December, 2017, as compared to net sales of $98.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, as well as an increase in purchases of property, plant and equipment of $22.5 million, partially offset by purchases in the year ended December 31, 2016 that included the addition of intangible assets associated with the BASF OLED patent acquisition of $96.0 million and the acquisition of Adesis of $33.4 million. The increase in property, plant and equipment included the purchase of a previously leased manufacturing facility in Delaware by Adesis, as well as expansion of our OLED manufacturing capacity managed by our subcontractor, PPG, in Ohio.

Cash used in financing activities was $14.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, as compared to $14,000 for the year ended December 31, 2016. The increase in cash used in financing activities of $14.3 million was due primarily to a cash payment of dividends in the current year of $5.7 million as well as an increase in the payment of withholding taxes related to stock-based compensation to employees of $4.6 million.

Working capital was $455.4 million as of December 31, 2017, as compared to $345.2 million as of December 31, 2016. The increase in working capital was primarily due to an increase in short-term investments, accounts receivable, and inventory, partially offset by an increase in accrued expenses and accounts payable.

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.

Contractual Obligations

As of December 31, 2017, we had the following contractual commitments:

40

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

As of December 31, 2017 , 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.

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

Recently issued accounting pronouncements are addressed in Note 2 in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

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.

Our Consolidated Financial Statements and the related notes to those statements are attached to this report beginning on page F-1.

None.

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 December 31, 2017. 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.

Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

The report of management on our internal control over financial reporting and the associated attestation report of our independent registered public accounting firm are set forth in Item 8 of this report.

41

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting during the quarter ended December 31, 2017 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

None.

42

PART III

Information with respect to this item is set forth in our definitive Proxy Statement for the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, which is to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission no later than April 30, 2018 (our “Proxy Statement”), and which is incorporated herein by reference. Information regarding our executive officers is included at the end of Part I of this report.

Information with respect to this item will be set forth in our Proxy Statement, and is incorporated herein by reference.

Information with respect to this item will be set forth in our Proxy Statement, and is incorporated herein by reference.

Information with respect to this item will be set forth in our Proxy Statement, and is incorporated herein by reference.

Information with respect to this item will be set forth in our Proxy Statement, and is incorporated herein by reference.

43

PART IV

(a) The following documents are filed as part of this report:

(1) Financial Statements:

(2) Financial Statement Schedules:

None.

(3) Exhibits:

The following is a list of the exhibits filed as part of this report. Where so indicated by footnote, exhibits that were previously filed are incorporated by reference. For exhibits incorporated by reference, the location of the exhibit in the previous filing is indicated parenthetically, together with a reference to the filing indicated by footnote.

44

45

Explanation of footnotes to listing of exhibits:

46

Note: Any of the exhibits listed in the foregoing index not included with this report may be obtained, without charge, by writing to Mr. Sidney D. Rosenblatt, Corporate Secretary, Universal Display Corporation, 375 Phillips Boulevard, Ewing, New Jersey 08618.

(b) The exhibits required to be filed by us with this report are listed above.

(c) The consolidated financial statement schedules required to be filed by us with this report are listed above.

None.

47

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

48

UNIVERSAL DISPLAY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES   

INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS  

F-1

MANAGEMENT’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING  

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting for the Company. Internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of consolidated financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Our system of internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the Company; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the Company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the Company; and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of the Company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

Management performed an assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017 based upon criteria in Internal Control — Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Based on this assessment, management determined that the Company’s internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2017, based on the criteria in Internal Control-Integrated Framework (2013) issued by COSO.

The effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, has been attested to by KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in its report which appears on the following page.

February 22, 2018

F-2

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders

Universal Display Corporation:

Opinion on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

We have audited Universal Display Corporation and subsidiaries’ (the Company) internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. In our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB), the consolidated balance sheets of the Company as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2017, and the related notes (collectively, the consolidated financial statements), and our report dated February 22, 2018 expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.

Basis for Opinion

The Company's management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting, and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audit also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Definition and Limitations of Internal Control over Financial Reporting  

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

February 22, 2018

F-3

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders

Universal Display Corporation:

Opinion on the Consolidated Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Universal Display Corporation and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2017, and the related notes (collectively, the consolidated financial statements). In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2017, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB), the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, and our report dated February 22, 2018 expressed an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

Change in Accounting Principle

As discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company has elected to change its method of accounting for share-based payment transactions in 2017 due to the adoption of amendments to the FASB Accounting Standards Codification resulting from Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2016-09, Compensation – Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting, effective January 1, 2017.

Basis for Opinion

These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

/s/   KPMG LLP

We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2002.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

February 22, 2018

F-4

UNIVERSAL DISPLAY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(in thousands, except share and per share data)