If someone makes a tweak or breakthrough in OLED technology, it is likely that whoever manufactures or sells a product of such a breakthrough would owe royalties both to UDC and the new innovator.
If someone develops a completely different technology that is not covered by UDC patents, a product will likely not come to market for some years. I suspect we are good until at least 2022. It ain't gonna be quantum dots.
I believe that UDC is among those looking for follow-on display technologies.
UDC will not be a supplier to Apple. UDC will be a supplier to Samsung, LG, Japan Display and Foxconn, and those companies will be suppliers to Apple.
Apple has never announced that they are using OLED displays in the Watch, though, of course, they are. Thy simply identify it as a flexible Retina display. That is what they will do when OLEDs come to phones, tablets and laptops. They will not sell against their remaining LCD products by touting the superiority of OLED technology, something they have denied was the case in the past. Investors will have to look at the features offered by the displays and read tear-down reports by reviewers to know for sure what kind of displays they are looking at.
I think it is fair to say that Apple 2017 is priced in FOR NOW, given the facts that Apple OLED displays are many months away, that the date of adoption is not known, and that there will be some doubting the transition until the last moment. When it becomes clear that new Apple products, in fact, do incorporate OLED tech in 2017 or 2018, you can anticipate another leg up, augmented by ever increasing sales of OLED televisions, phones and tablets by other companies.
As I understand it -- correct me if I am wrong -- there are several separate revenue streams here for UDC:
1. Licensing the technology that leads to the manufacture and sales of machines which are used to deposit hosts and emitters on screens.
2. Sales of the materials to be deposited.
3. Licensing fees or royalties from companies like LG and Samsung that use the machines or some other method to deposit materials. Those fees may be flat, at least temporarily, as in the case of Samsung, or related to volume, as is the case now, I believe, with LG and will likely be the case with Samsung and others after 2017.
It's all good. If Samsung, LG and others can find a less expensive way to make OLED screens while still using UDC technology and, at least in part, materials, then that is just more money for UDC and for us.
How long do these cases at the Supreme Court level take to be ruled on? If the court rules before a new Justice is sworn in, a 4-4 tie will allow the appeals verdict to stand. I am assuming, of course, that the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case.
While there are oral arguments before the Supreme Court, I think that the briefs generally are where the case is. Maybe that will spare ParkerVision from being victimized by incompetent oral presentations.