Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 7. Commitments and Contingencies Bonds Payable We entered into direct financing transactions with the State of Rhode Island and received proceeds from the issuance of industrial revenue bonds totaling $5,000,000 to finance the construction pilot manufacturing facility in Rhode Island. The related lease agreements are structured such that lease payments fully fund all semiannual interest payments and annual principal payments through maturity in August 2014. Interest rate for the remaining bond series is 9.5%. The outstanding principal was approximately $18,000 at June 30, 2014 and $125,000 at December 31, 2013. The bonds contain certain restrictive covenants which limit, among other things, the payment of cash dividends and the sale of the related assets. Operating leases We lease various real properties under operating leases that generally require us to pay taxes, insurance, maintenance, and minimum lease payments. Some of our leases have options to renew. Operating Leases — California In December 2010, we entered into a commercial lease agreement with BMR-Gateway Boulevard LLC (BMR), as landlord, for office and research space at BMR’s Pacific Research Center in Newark, California. The initial term of the lease is approximately eleven and one-half years and includes escalating rent payments which we recognize as lease operating expense on a straight-line basis. We will pay approximately $17,869,000 in aggregate as rent over the term of the lease to BMR. Deferred rent for this facility was approximately $1,440,000 as of June 30, 2014, and approximately $1,434,000 as of December 31, 2013. In March 2013, we entered into a commercial lease agreement with Prologis, L.P. (Prologis), as landlord, for office and research space in Sunnyvale, California. The facility is for operations that support our clinical development activities. The initial term of the lease is ten years and includes escalating rent payments which we recognize as lease operating expense on a straight-line basis. We will pay approximately $3,497,000 in aggregate rent over the term of the lease. As part of the lease, Prologis provided us financial allowances to build initial tenant improvements, subject to customary terms and conditions relating to landlord-funded tenant improvements. The tenant improvements are recorded as leasehold improvement assets and amortized over the term of the lease. The financial allowances are treated as a lease incentive and recorded as deferred rent which is amortized as reductions to lease expense over the lease term. Deferred rent for this facility was approximately $392,000 as of June 30, 2014, and approximately $391,000 as of December 31, 2013. Operating Leases — United Kingdom In January 2011, we amended the existing lease agreements of our wholly-owned subsidiary, Stem Cell Sciences (U.K.) Ltd, effectively reducing our leased office and lab space. The lease by its terms was extended to September 30, 2013. In October 2013, we signed a new three-year lease agreement for the leased space and expect to pay rent of approximately GBP 53,000 per annum. StemCells, Inc. is the guarantor of Stem Cell Sciences (U.K.) Ltd.’s obligations under the existing lease. The lease includes an option for early termination of the lease agreement. With the exception of the operating leases discussed above, we have not entered into any significant off balance sheet financial arrangements and have not established any special purpose entities. We have not guaranteed any debts or commitments of other entities or entered into any options on non-financial assets. *Contingencies* In July 2006, we filed suit against Neuralstem, Inc. in the Federal District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging that Neuralstem’s activities violate claims in four of the patents we exclusively licensed from NeuroSpheres Holdings Ltd. and NeuroSpheres Ltd. (NeuroSpheres), specifically U.S. Patent No. 6,294,346 (claiming the use of human neural stem cells for drug screening), U.S. Patent No. 7,101,709 (claiming the use of human neural stem cells for screening biological agents), U.S. Patent No. 5,851,832 (claiming methods for proliferating human neural stem cells), and U.S. Patent No. 6,497,872 (claiming methods for transplanting human neural stem cells). In May 2008, we filed a second patent infringement suit against Neuralstem and its two founders, Karl Johe and Richard Garr. In this suit, which we filed in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California, we allege that Neuralstem’s activities infringe claims in two patents we exclusively license from NeuroSpheres, specifically U.S. Patent No. 7,361,505 (claiming composition of matter of human neural stem cells derived from any source material) and U.S. Patent No. 7,115,418 (claiming methods for proliferating human neural stem cells). In addition, we allege various state law causes of action against Neuralstem arising out of its repeated derogatory statements to the public about our patent portfolio. Also in May 2008, Neuralstem filed suit against us and NeuroSpheres in the Federal District Court for the District of Maryland seeking a declaratory judgment that the ‘505 and ‘418 patents are either invalid or are not infringed by Neuralstem and that Neuralstem has not violated California state law. In August 2008, the California court transferred our lawsuit against Neuralstem to Maryland for resolution on the merits. In July 2009, the Maryland District Court granted our motion to consolidate these two cases with the litigation we initiated against Neuralstem in 2006. Fact discovery has concluded in the cases and the first phase of trial is expected to commence in December 2014. In addition to the actions described above, in April 2008, we filed an opposition to Neuralstem’s European Patent No. 0 915 968 (methods of isolating, propagating and differentiating CNS stem cells), because the claimed invention is believed by us to be unpatentable over prior art, including the patents we acquired from NeuroSpheres. In December 2010, the European Patent Office ruled that all composition claims in Neuralstem’s ‘968 European patent were invalid and unpatentable over prior art including several of the NeuroSpheres patents. Neuralstem appealed this decision but recently withdrew its appeal with prejudice.

Note 7. Commitments and Contingencies

Bonds Payable

We entered into direct financing transactions with the State of Rhode Island and received proceeds from the issuance of industrial revenue bonds totaling $5,000,000 to finance the construction pilot manufacturing facility in Rhode Island. The related lease agreements are structured such that lease payments fully fund all semiannual interest payments and annual principal payments through maturity in August 2014. Interest rate for the remaining bond series is 9.5%. The outstanding principal was approximately $18,000 at June 30, 2014 and $125,000 at December 31, 2013. The bonds contain certain restrictive covenants which limit, among other things, the payment of cash dividends and the sale of the related assets.

Operating leases

We lease various real properties under operating leases that generally require us to pay taxes, insurance, maintenance, and minimum lease payments. Some of our leases have options to renew.

Operating Leases — California

In December 2010, we entered into a commercial lease agreement with BMR-Gateway Boulevard LLC (BMR), as landlord, for office and research space at BMR’s Pacific Research Center in Newark, California. The initial term of the lease is approximately eleven and one-half years and includes escalating rent payments which we recognize as lease operating expense on a straight-line basis. We will pay approximately $17,869,000 in aggregate as rent over the term of the lease to BMR. Deferred rent for this facility was approximately $1,440,000 as of June 30, 2014, and approximately $1,434,000 as of December 31, 2013.

In March 2013, we entered into a commercial lease agreement with Prologis, L.P. (Prologis), as landlord, for office and research space in Sunnyvale, California. The facility is for operations that support our clinical development activities. The initial term of the lease is ten years and includes escalating rent payments which we recognize as lease operating expense on a straight-line basis. We will pay approximately $3,497,000 in aggregate rent over the term of the lease. As part of the lease, Prologis provided us financial allowances to build initial tenant improvements, subject to customary terms and conditions relating to landlord-funded tenant improvements. The tenant improvements are recorded as leasehold improvement assets and amortized over the term of the lease. The financial allowances are treated as a lease incentive and recorded as deferred rent which is amortized as reductions to lease expense over the lease term. Deferred rent for this facility was approximately $392,000 as of June 30, 2014, and approximately $391,000 as of December 31, 2013.

Operating Leases — United Kingdom

In January 2011, we amended the existing lease agreements of our wholly-owned subsidiary, Stem Cell Sciences (U.K.) Ltd, effectively reducing our leased office and lab space. The lease by its terms was extended to September 30, 2013. In October 2013, we signed a new three-year lease agreement for the leased space and expect to pay rent of approximately GBP 53,000 per annum. StemCells, Inc. is the guarantor of Stem Cell Sciences (U.K.) Ltd.’s obligations under the existing lease. The lease includes an option for early termination of the lease agreement.

With the exception of the operating leases discussed above, we have not entered into any significant off balance sheet financial arrangements and have not established any special purpose entities. We have not guaranteed any debts or commitments of other entities or entered into any options on non-financial assets.

Contingencies

In July 2006, we filed suit against Neuralstem, Inc. in the Federal District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging that Neuralstem’s activities violate claims in four of the patents we exclusively licensed from NeuroSpheres Holdings Ltd. and NeuroSpheres Ltd. (NeuroSpheres), specifically U.S. Patent No. 6,294,346 (claiming the use of human neural stem cells for drug screening), U.S. Patent No. 7,101,709 (claiming the use of human neural stem cells for screening biological agents), U.S. Patent No. 5,851,832 (claiming methods for proliferating human neural stem cells), and U.S. Patent No. 6,497,872 (claiming methods for transplanting human neural stem cells). In May 2008, we filed a second patent infringement suit against Neuralstem and its two founders, Karl Johe and Richard Garr. In this suit, which we filed in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California, we allege that Neuralstem’s activities infringe claims in two patents we exclusively license from NeuroSpheres, specifically U.S. Patent No. 7,361,505 (claiming composition of matter of human neural stem cells derived from any source material) and U.S. Patent No. 7,115,418 (claiming methods for proliferating human neural stem cells). In addition, we allege various state law causes of action against Neuralstem arising out of its repeated derogatory statements to the public about our patent portfolio. Also in May 2008, Neuralstem filed suit against us and NeuroSpheres in the Federal District Court for the District of Maryland seeking a declaratory judgment that the ‘505 and ‘418 patents are either invalid or are not infringed by Neuralstem and that Neuralstem has not violated California state law. In August 2008, the California court transferred our lawsuit against Neuralstem to Maryland for resolution on the merits. In July 2009, the Maryland District Court granted our motion to consolidate these two cases with the litigation we initiated against Neuralstem in 2006. Fact discovery has concluded in the cases and the first phase of trial is expected to commence in December 2014.

In addition to the actions described above, in April 2008, we filed an opposition to Neuralstem’s European Patent No. 0 915 968 (methods of isolating, propagating and differentiating CNS stem cells), because the claimed invention is believed by us to be unpatentable over prior art, including the patents we acquired from NeuroSpheres. In December 2010, the European Patent Office ruled that all composition claims in Neuralstem’s ‘968 European patent were invalid and unpatentable over prior art including several of the NeuroSpheres patents. Neuralstem appealed this decision but recently withdrew its appeal with prejudice.