Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
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 of a 21,000 square-foot pilot manufacturing facility and a 3,000 square-foot cell processing facility in Lincoln, 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. In August 2014, we made the final principal and interest payment thereby extinguishing the debt. In March 2015, we sold the vacant 21,000 square-foot pilot manufacturing facility and the vacant 3,000 square-foot cell processing facility in Lincoln, Rhode Island to an unrelated third party net of expenses for approximately $149,000. 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 $1,409,000 as of June 30, 2015, and approximately $1,429,000 as of December 31, 2014. 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 has agreed to provide 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 $388,000 as of June 30, 2015, and approximately $391,000 as of December 31, 2014. 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, which we exercised in February 2015. In December 2014, we sold our SC Proven reagent and cell culture business and as part of the wind-down of our business operations in UK, sublet our leased space from January 2015 to our opted early termination date of October 2015. 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 infringe claims in four of our patents, 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 patent infringement suit against Neuralstem and its two founders, Karl Johe and Richard Garr, in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that Neuralstem’s activities infringe claims in two of our patents, 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). All six of these patents claim inventions arising out of research conducted by Samuel Weiss and Brent Reynolds while at the University of Calgary. In July 2009, the Maryland District Court consolidated these two cases and, in December 2014, it began the first phase of trial in order to address the sole question of whether we have legal standing to pursue our patent infringement claims against Neuralstem. Following this phase of the trial, in July 2015, the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice because it concluded a third person is both a co-owner and a co-inventor of the Weiss and Reynolds patents, so as a matter of law we lack standing to pursue patent infringement claims against Neuralstem using these six patents. Notably, four of the six litigated Reynolds and Weiss patents have already expired. The fifth expires in 2016 and the sixth expires in 2019. Moreover, our proprietary HuCNS-SC cells are protected by several other patent families, including U.S. Patents Nos. 5,968,829 and 7,153,686 and U.S. Patent Application No. 11/148,431, claiming highly purified populations of human neural stem cells, as well as by our proprietary expertise, none of which are affected by the trial court’s decision. Accordingly, we do not view the court’s decision as being material to our business.

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 of a 21,000 square-foot pilot manufacturing facility and a 3,000 square-foot cell processing facility in Lincoln, 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. In August 2014, we made the final principal and interest payment thereby extinguishing the debt. In March 2015, we sold the vacant 21,000 square-foot pilot manufacturing facility and the vacant 3,000 square-foot cell processing facility in Lincoln, Rhode Island to an unrelated third party net of expenses for approximately $149,000.

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 $1,409,000 as of June 30, 2015, and approximately $1,429,000 as of December 31, 2014.

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 has agreed to provide 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 $388,000 as of June 30, 2015, and approximately $391,000 as of December 31, 2014.

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, which we exercised in February 2015. In December 2014, we sold our SC Proven reagent and cell culture business and as part of the wind-down of our business operations in UK, sublet our leased space from January 2015 to our opted early termination date of October 2015.

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 infringe claims in four of our patents, 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 patent infringement suit against Neuralstem and its two founders, Karl Johe and Richard Garr, in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that Neuralstem’s activities infringe claims in two of our patents, 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). All six of these patents claim inventions arising out of research conducted by Samuel Weiss and Brent Reynolds while at the University of Calgary.

In July 2009, the Maryland District Court consolidated these two cases and, in December 2014, it began the first phase of trial in order to address the sole question of whether we have legal standing to pursue our patent infringement claims against Neuralstem. Following this phase of the trial, in July 2015, the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice because it concluded a third person is both a co-owner and a co-inventor of the Weiss and Reynolds patents, so as a matter of law we lack standing to pursue patent infringement claims against Neuralstem using these six patents.

Notably, four of the six litigated Reynolds and Weiss patents have already expired. The fifth expires in 2016 and the sixth expires in 2019. Moreover, our proprietary HuCNS-SC cells are protected by several other patent families, including U.S. Patents Nos. 5,968,829 and 7,153,686 and U.S. Patent Application No. 11/148,431, claiming highly purified populations of human neural stem cells, as well as by our proprietary expertise, none of which are affected by the trial court’s decision. Accordingly, we do not view the court’s decision as being material to our business.