1 5 . COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES: Commitments Under the 2006 Research Agreement with USC, the Company is obligated to make certain payments to USC based on work performed by USC under that agreement, and by Michigan under its subcontractor agreement with USC. See Note 9 for further explanation. Under the terms of the 1997 Amended License Agreement, the Company is required to make minimum royalty payments to Princeton. See Note 9 for further explanation. The Company has agreements with six executive officers and one employee which provide for certain cash and other benefits upon termination of employment in connection with a change in control of the Company. If the executives employment is terminated in connection with the change in control, the executive is entitled to a lump-sum cash payment equal to two times the sum of the average annual base salary and bonus of the officer and immediate vesting of all stock options and other equity awards that may be outstanding at the date of the change in control, among other items. In order to manage manufacturing lead times and help ensure adequate material supply, the Company entered into the New OLED Materials Agreement (see Note 10) that allows PPG Industries to procure and produce inventory based upon criteria as defined by the Company. These purchase commitments consist of firm, noncancelable and unconditional commitments. In certain instances, this agreement allows the Company the option to reschedule and adjust the Companys requirements based on its business needs prior to firm orders being placed. As of June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, the Company had purchase commitments for inventory of $14.3 million and $15.9 million, respectively. 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. The Company believes that opposition proceedings are frequently commenced in the ordinary course of business by third parties who may believe that one or more claims in a patent do not comply with the technical or legal requirements of the specific jurisdiction in which the patent was issued. The Company views these proceedings as reflective of its goal of obtaining the broadest legally permissible patent coverage permitted in each jurisdiction. Once a proceeding is initiated, as a general matter, the issued patent continues to be presumed valid until the jurisdictions applicable administrative body issues a final non-appealable decision. Depending on the jurisdiction, the outcome of these proceedings could include affirmation, denial or modification of some or all of the originally issued claims. The Company believes that as OLED technology becomes more established and its patent portfolio increases in size, so will the number of these proceedings. Below are summaries of certain active proceedings that have been commenced against issued patents that are either exclusively licensed to the Company or which are now assigned to the Company. The Company does not believe that the confirmation, loss or modification of the Companys rights in any individual claim or set of claims that are the subject of the following legal proceedings would have a material impact on the Companys materials sales or licensing business or on the Companys consolidated financial statements, including its consolidated statements of income, as a whole. However, as noted within the descriptions, some of the following proceedings involve issued patents that relate to the Companys fundamental phosphorescent OLED technologies and the Company intends to vigorously defend against claims that, in the Companys opinion, seek to restrict or reduce the scope of the originally issued claim, which may require the expenditure of significant amounts of the Companys resources. In certain circumstances, when permitted, the Company may also utilize the proceedings to request modification of the claims to better distinguish the patented invention from any newly identified prior art and/or improve the claim scope of the patent relative to commercially important categories of the invention. The entry marked with an "*" relates to the Companys UniversalPHOLED phosphorescent OLED technology, some of which may be commercialized by the Company. Opposition to European Patent No. 1390962 On November 16, 2011, Osram AG and BASF SE each filed a Notice of Opposition to European Patent No. 1390962 (EP '962 patent), which relates to the Companys white phosphorescent OLED technology. The EP '962 patent, which was issued on February 16, 2011, is a European counterpart patent to U.S. patents 7,009,338 and 7,285,907. They are exclusively licensed to the Company by Princeton, and the Company is required to pay all legal costs and fees associated with this proceeding. The EPO combined the oppositions into a single opposition proceeding, and a hearing on this matter was held in December 2015, wherein the EPO Opposition Division revoked the patent claims for alleged insufficiencies under EPC Article 83. The Company believes the EPO's decision relating to the original claims is erroneous, and has appealed the decision. Subsequent to the filing of the appeal, BASF withdrew its opposition to the patent. The patent, as originally granted, is deemed valid during the pendency of the appeals process. At this time, based on its current knowledge, the Company believes that the patent being challenged should be declared valid, and that all or a significant portion of the Company's claims should be upheld. However, the Company cannot make any assurances of this result. Opposition to European Patent No. 1933395* On February 24 and 27, 2012, Sumitomo, Merck Patent GmbH and BASF SE filed oppositions to the Company's European Patent No. 1933395 (the EP '395 patent). The EP 395 patent is a counterpart to the EP 637 patent, and, in part, to 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 the Company by Princeton, and the Company is 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. On February 26, 2014, the Company appealed the ruling to reinstate a broader set of claims. In the appeal proceedings of March 12, 2019, the appeal board remitted the case to the EPO Opposition Division with the order to maintain the patent claims as submitted via the Main Request during the appeal proceedings. The Opposition Division confirmed maintenance of the patent with claims as submitted via the Main Request during the appeal proceedings. These claims are now final, and the proceedings have been concluded. In addition to the above proceedings and now concluded proceedings which have been referenced in prior filings, from time to time, the Company may have other proceedings that are pending which relate to patents the Company acquired as part of the Fujifilm patent or BASF OLED patent acquisitions or which relate to technologies that are not currently widely utilized in the marketplace.