Commitments and Contingencies
|6 Months Ended|
Jun. 30, 2015
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]||
Note 6. Commitments and Contingencies
We are parties to legal proceedings that we believe to be ordinary, routine litigation incidental to the business of present or former operations. It is management’s opinion, based on the advice of counsel, that the ultimate resolution of such litigation will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
On July 28, 2006, StemCells, Inc., filed suit against Neuralstem, Inc. in the U.S. District Court in Maryland, alleging that Neuralstem has been infringing, contributing to the infringement of, and or inducing the infringement of four patents allegedly owned by or exclusively licensed to StemCells. See Civil Action No. 06-1877. We answered the Complaint denying infringement, asserting that the patents are invalid, asserting that we have intervening rights based on amendments made to the patents during reexamination proceedings, and further asserting that some of the patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Neuralstem has also asserted counterclaims that StemCells has engaged in anticompetitive conduct in violation of antitrust laws.
On May 7, 2008, we filed suit against StemCells, Inc., StemCells California, Inc. (collectively "StemCells") and Neurospheres Holding Ltd. in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging that U.S. Patent No. 7,361,505 (the "'505 patent") is invalid, not infringed, and unenforceable. See Civil Action No. 08-1173. On May 13, we filed an Amended Complaint seeking declaratory judgment that U.S. Patent No. 7,155,418 (the "'418 patent") is invalid and not infringed and that certain statements made by our CEO are not trade libel or do not constitute unfair competition. On September 11, 2008, StemCells filed its answer asserting counterclaims of infringement for the '505 patent, the '418 patent, and state law claims for trade libel and unfair competition. This case was consolidated with the 2006 litigation.
On February 28, 2011, Neuralstem filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing and concurrently filed a Motion for Leave to Amend its Answer and Counterclaim to allege that StemCells is not the exclusive licensee of the patents-in-suit and also that Neuralstem has obtained a non-exclusive license to the patents-in-suit. In addition, before the Court decided Neuralstem’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing, StemCells filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue standing. Neuralstem responded to that motion and cross-moved for summary judgment on the issue of standing. The Court further issued its Markman Order on August 12, 2011. On August 26, 2011, StemCells moved for reconsideration of two terms construed in the Markman Order and that motion remains pending. On April 6, 2012, the Court granted Neuralstem's Motion for Leave to Amend to assert lack of standing and denied Neuralstem's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice. The Court also denied StemCells' Motion for Summary Judgment with prejudice. The Court stayed all other matters pending resolution of the question of standing.
On October 3, 2013, the Court ordered the parties to submit a joint status report regarding the status of the standing discovery. Following the submission the joint status report, the Court set a briefing schedule to resolve the standing issue. Before Neuralstem filed its opening brief on whether StemCells has standing, the case was reassigned to Judge Roger W. Titus from Judge Alexander Williams Jr.
Neuralstem filed its opening brief in support of the standing issue on December 19, 2013. StemCells responded on January 21, 2014. Finally, Neuralstem filed its reply brief on February 4, 2014. A summary judgment hearing on the issue of standing was held on July 29, 2014, at which time the Court determined that the issue of standing could not be decided on summary judgment and set the issue for a bench trial in December of 2014. A bench trial on the issue of standing was held on December 9, 11, and 12, 2014. The parties filed post-trial briefs on January 16, 2015. On July 22, 2015, the Court issued its ruling on the issue of standing finding that a third-party who was not named as an inventor was a co-owner and co-inventor of the patents-in-suit. Thus, the Court determined that StemCells lacked standing to pursue its patent infringement claims against Neuralstem and the case was dismissed with prejudice.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef