Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies	3. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES *Operating Lease* We lease office and laboratory space located at 300 Third Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts for our corporate headquarters under a non-cancelable real property lease agreement by and between us and ARE-MA Region No. 28, LLC, or the Landlord, dated as of September 26, 2003, as amended by a First Amendment to Lease dated March 16, 2006, a Second Amendment to Lease dated June 26, 2009, a Third Amendment to Lease dated May 11, 2010 and a Fourth Amendment to Lease dated November 4, 2011, referred to collectively as the Lease. Pursuant to the Lease, we lease a total of approximately 129,000 square feet of office and laboratory space. The term of the Lease was set to expire in September 2016. In March 2014, we and the Landlord entered into a Fifth Amendment to Lease, pursuant to which we exercised our option to extend the Lease for an additional five years, through September 30, 2021. Under the Fifth Amendment to Lease, we have the option to extend the Lease, as amended, for one additional five-year term. As a result of the Fifth Amendment to Lease, our operating lease obligations through 2021 increased by $37.8 million. *Litigation* University of Utah Litigation On March 22, 2011, The University of Utah, or Utah, filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against us, Max Planck Gesellschaft Zur Foerderung Der Wissenschaften e.V. and Max Planck Innovation GmbH, together, Max Planck, the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, or Whitehead, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or MIT, and the University of Massachusetts, or UMass, claiming a professor at Utah is the sole inventor or, in the alternative, a joint inventor, of the Tuschl patents. Utah did not serve the original complaint on us or the other defendants. On July 6, 2011, Utah filed an amended complaint alleging substantially the same claims against us, Max Planck, Whitehead, MIT and UMass. The amended complaint was served on us on July 14, 2011. Utah is seeking changes to the inventorship of the Tuschl patents, unspecified damages and other relief. On October 31, 2011, we, Max Planck, Whitehead, MIT and UMass filed a motion to dismiss. Also on October 31, 2011, UMass filed a motion to dismiss on separate grounds, which we, Max Planck, Whitehead and MIT have joined. On December 31, 2011, Utah filed a second amended complaint dropping UMass as a defendant and adding as defendants several UMass officials. In June 2012, the Court denied both motions to dismiss. We, Max Planck, Whitehead, MIT and UMass filed an appeal of the Court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and a motion requesting that the Court stay the case pending the outcome of the appeal. In July 2012, the Court stayed discovery in the case pending the outcome of the defendants’ appeal. Oral arguments in the appeal were heard in early March 2013 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or CAFC. In August 2013, the CAFC affirmed the lower Court’s ruling, in a split decision. We believe the majority made an error in law when affirming the lower Court’s decision, and in September 2013, we filed a petition with the CAFC for rehearing or rehearing en banc. In October 2013, the CAFC invited Utah to file an answer to the petition. In November 2013, the CAFC denied our petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc and remanded the case back to the lower Court. In February 2014, we filed a petition for writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court and a motion to stay the lower Court proceedings pending a decision from the Supreme Court on our petition. We are awaiting the Courts’ decisions. Although we believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainty and a court could ultimately rule against us. In addition, the defense of litigation and related matters are costly and may divert the attention of our management and other resources that would otherwise be engaged in other activities. We have not recorded an estimate of the possible loss associated with this legal proceeding due to the uncertainties related to both the likelihood and the amount of any possible loss or range of loss. Our accounting policy for accrual of legal costs is to recognize such expenses as incurred.

3. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Operating Lease

We lease office and laboratory space located at 300 Third Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts for our corporate headquarters under a non-cancelable real property lease agreement by and between us and ARE-MA Region No. 28, LLC, or the Landlord, dated as of September 26, 2003, as amended by a First Amendment to Lease dated March 16, 2006, a Second Amendment to Lease dated June 26, 2009, a Third Amendment to Lease dated May 11, 2010 and a Fourth Amendment to Lease dated November 4, 2011, referred to collectively as the Lease. Pursuant to the Lease, we lease a total of approximately 129,000 square feet of office and laboratory space. The term of the Lease was set to expire in September 2016.

In March 2014, we and the Landlord entered into a Fifth Amendment to Lease, pursuant to which we exercised our option to extend the Lease for an additional five years, through September 30, 2021. Under the Fifth Amendment to Lease, we have the option to extend the Lease, as amended, for one additional five-year term. As a result of the Fifth Amendment to Lease, our operating lease obligations through 2021 increased by $37.8 million.

Litigation

University of Utah Litigation

On March 22, 2011, The University of Utah, or Utah, filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against us, Max Planck Gesellschaft Zur Foerderung Der Wissenschaften e.V. and Max Planck Innovation GmbH, together, Max Planck, the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, or Whitehead, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or MIT, and the University of Massachusetts, or UMass, claiming a professor at Utah is the sole inventor or, in the alternative, a joint inventor, of the Tuschl patents. Utah did not serve the original complaint on us or the other defendants. On July 6, 2011, Utah filed an amended complaint alleging substantially the same claims against us, Max Planck, Whitehead, MIT and UMass. The amended complaint was served on us on July 14, 2011. Utah is seeking changes to the inventorship of the Tuschl patents, unspecified damages and other relief. On October 31, 2011, we, Max Planck, Whitehead, MIT and UMass filed a motion to dismiss. Also on October 31, 2011, UMass filed a motion to dismiss on separate grounds, which we, Max Planck, Whitehead and MIT have joined. On December 31, 2011, Utah filed a second amended complaint dropping UMass as a defendant and adding as defendants several UMass officials. In June 2012, the Court denied both motions to dismiss. We, Max Planck, Whitehead, MIT and UMass filed an appeal of the Court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and a motion requesting that the Court stay the case pending the outcome of the appeal. In July 2012, the Court stayed discovery in the case pending the outcome of the defendants’ appeal. Oral arguments in the appeal were heard in early March 2013 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or CAFC. In August 2013, the CAFC affirmed the lower Court’s ruling, in a split decision. We believe the majority made an error in law when affirming the lower Court’s decision, and in September 2013, we filed a petition with the CAFC for rehearing or rehearing en banc. In October 2013, the CAFC invited Utah to file an answer to the petition. In November 2013, the CAFC denied our petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc and remanded the case back to the lower Court. In February 2014, we filed a petition for writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court and a motion to stay the lower Court proceedings pending a decision from the Supreme Court on our petition. We are awaiting the Courts’ decisions.

Although we believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainty and a court could ultimately rule against us. In addition, the defense of litigation and related matters are costly and may divert the attention of our management and other resources that would otherwise be engaged in other activities. We have not recorded an estimate of the possible loss associated with this legal proceeding due to the uncertainties related to both the likelihood and the amount of any possible loss or range of loss.

Our accounting policy for accrual of legal costs is to recognize such expenses as incurred.