UNIVERSAL DISPLAY CORP \PA\ Commitments Disclosure

Commitments

Under the current research agreement with USC, the Company is obligated to make certain payments to USC based on work performed by it under that agreement, and by the University of Michigan (Michigan) under a subcontractor agreement that Michigan has with USC.

Under the terms of the current license agreement among the Company, Princeton and USC, the Company makes royalty payments to Princeton. See Note 11 for further explanation.

The Company has agreements with five executive officers and nine senior level employees which provide for certain cash and other benefits upon termination of employment of the officer or employee in connection with a change in control of the Company. If a covered person’s employment is terminated in connection with the change in control, the person is entitled to a lump-sum cash payment equal to two times (in the case of the executive officers) or either one or two times (in the case of the senior level employees) the sum of the average annual base salary and bonus of the person 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 13) that allows PPG to procure and produce inventory based upon criteria as defined by the Company. These purchase commitments consist of firm, noncancelable and unconditional commitments. In certain instances, this agreement allows the Company the option to reschedule and adjust the Company’s requirements based on its business needs prior to firm orders being placed. As of December 31, 2025, 2024 and 2023, the Company had purchase commitments for inventory of $40.7 million, $46.5 million and $29.8 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 jurisdiction’s applicable administrative body issues a final non-appealable decision. Depending on the jurisdiction, the outcome of these proceedings could include affirmation, denial or modification of some or all of the originally issued claims. The Company believes that as OLED technology becomes more established and its patent portfolio increases in size, so will the number of these proceedings.