NOTE 11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

(a) Lease Obligations

The Company leases approximately 158,000 square feet of office space, including approximately 143,000 square feet of office space at its corporate headquarters, pursuant to operating lease agreements expiring at various dates through December 2019. The Company has the option to extend the lease term of its corporate headquarters, which expires in June 2019, for an additional five years.

Future operating lease obligations as of June 30, 2016 are as follows:


Years Ending December 31,	Operating Leases
Remainder of 2016	$	4,707
2017		9,542
2018		9,743
2019		5,065
2020		—
2021 and thereafter		—

Total minimum lease payments	$	29,057

The Company is considered the “accounting owner” for a build-to-suit property and has recorded a build-to-suit lease obligation on its unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets. Additional information regarding the build-to-suit lease obligation is included in Note 8, “Build-To-Suit Lease Obligation.”

Expected future lease payments under the build-to-suit lease as of June 30, 2016 are as follows:


Years Ending December 31,	Expected Cash Payments Under Build- To-Suit Lease Obligation
Remainder of 2016	$	1,100
2017		2,244
2018		2,311
2019		2,380
2020		2,452
2021 and thereafter		9,627

Total minimum lease payments	$	20,114

(b) License Agreement with UCLA

Under an August 2005 license agreement with UCLA, the Company’s subsidiary Medivation Prostate Therapeutics, Inc., or MPT, holds an exclusive worldwide license under several UCLA patents and patent applications covering XTANDI and related compounds. Under the Astellas Collaboration Agreement, the Company granted Astellas a sublicense under the patent rights licensed to it by UCLA.

The Company is required to pay UCLA (a) an annual maintenance fee, (b) $2.8 million in aggregate milestone payments upon achievement of certain development and regulatory milestone events with respect to XTANDI (all of which has been paid as of March 31, 2016), (c) ten percent of all Sublicensing Income, as defined in the agreement, which the Company earns under the Astellas Collaboration Agreement, and (d) a four percent royalty on global net sales of XTANDI, as defined. Under the terms of the Astellas Collaboration Agreement, the Company shares this royalty obligation equally with Astellas with respect to sales in the United States, and Astellas is responsible for this entire royalty obligation with respect to sales outside of the United States. The Company is currently involved in litigation with UCLA, which is discussed in the section titled “Litigation” below.

UCLA may terminate the agreement if the Company does not meet a general obligation to diligently proceed with the development, manufacturing and sale of licensed products, or if it commits any other uncured material breach of the agreement. The Company may terminate the agreement at any time upon advance written notice to UCLA. If neither party terminates the agreement early, the agreement will continue in force until the expiration of the last-to-expire patent on a country-by-country basis.

(c) Clinical Manufacturing Agreements

Manufacturing Services and Supply Agreement

Contemporaneous with the execution of the License Agreement with CureTech, the Company entered into a Manufacturing Services and Supply Agreement, or MSA, with CureTech pursuant to which CureTech will provide clinical trial supply of MDV9300 over a three-year period. In accordance with the terms of the MSA, as amended, the Company paid CureTech upfront and setup fees of $3.0 million during the fourth quarter of 2014, $0.2 million during the second quarter of 2015 and $0.1 million during the third quarter of 2015. The Company is required to pay CureTech a one-time milestone payment of $5.0 million upon the completion of the Manufacturing Technology Transfer, as defined. This potential milestone payment is included in the Company’s contingent consideration liability related to CureTech in connection with the acquisition of MDV9300, as described in Note 5, “Fair Value Disclosures.” In accordance with the terms of the MSA, as amended, the Company is also responsible for providing funding totaling up to $18.3 million for clinical trial materials of MDV9300 over the three-year term of the MSA as well as for certain developmental and analytical services, of which $12.0 million has been paid through June 30, 2016.

Development and Manufacturing Services Agreement

During the fourth quarter of 2014, the Company entered into a Development and Manufacturing Services Agreement with a third-party clinical manufacturing organization. The term of the agreement is for the longer of (i) a period of five years or (ii) through the completion of the Services, as defined. Under the current statement of work under this agreement, as amended, the Company intends to transfer the current manufacturing process of MDV9300 from CureTech to this third party, further scale up and production of Phase 3 clinical trial material of MDV9300 from this entity’s manufacturing facility. The estimated total consideration payable under the current statement of work, as amended, is approximately $15.2 million, of which approximately $7.6 million has been paid through June 30, 2016.

(d) Litigation

The Company is party to legal proceedings, investigations, and claims in the ordinary course of its business, including the matters described below. The Company records accruals for outstanding legal matters when it believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of such liability can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in significant legal matters that could affect the amount of any accrual and developments that would make a loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable. To the extent new information is obtained and the Company’s views on the probable outcomes of claims, suits, assessments, investigations or legal proceedings change, changes in the Company’s accrued liabilities would be recorded in the period in which such determination is made. In addition, in accordance with the relevant authoritative guidance, for matters for which the likelihood of material loss is at least reasonably possible, the Company provides disclosure of the possible loss or range of loss; however, if a reasonable estimate cannot be made, the Company will provide disclosure to that effect. Gain contingencies, if any, are recorded when they are realized.

In May 2011, the Company filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court against the Regents of the University of California, or the Regents, and one of its professors, alleging breach of contract and fraud claims, among others. The Company’s allegations in this lawsuit include that it has exclusive commercial rights to apalutamide, an investigational drug originally known as ARN-509 (previously also referred to as JNJ-56021927, or JNJ-927), which is currently being developed by Aragon Pharmaceuticals, or Aragon. In August 2013, Johnson & Johnson and Aragon completed a transaction in which Johnson & Johnson acquired all apalutamide assets owned by Aragon. The Company sought remedies including a declaration that it is the proper licensee of apalutamide, contractual remedies conferring to it exclusive patent license rights regarding apalutamide, and other equitable and monetary relief. On August 7, 2012, the Regents filed a cross-complaint against the Company seeking declaratory relief that the Regents are entitled to ten percent of any sales milestone payments under the Astellas Collaboration Agreement.

On December 20, 2012, and January 25, 2013, the Court granted summary judgment motions filed by defendants Regents and Aragon, resulting in dismissal of all claims against Regents and Aragon, but denied such motions filed by the remaining Regents professor. On April 15, 2013, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal seeking appeal of the judgment in favor of Aragon, which is now wholly-owned by Johnson & Johnson. The bench trial of the Regent’s cross-complaint against the Company was conducted in July 2013, and on January 15, 2014, the Court entered a judgment in the cross-complaint in favor of Regents. The Company appealed this judgment on February 13, 2014 along with the December 2012 summary judgment order in favor of Regents. The jury trial of the Company’s breach of contract and fraud claims against the remaining Regents professor was conducted in October and November 2013. On November 15, 2013, the jury rendered a verdict in the case, finding in favor of the Company on one of the breach of contract claims, and in favor of the Regents professor on the fraud claims. The Company appealed the resulting judgment on the fraud claims. All appeals from this matter were consolidated, oral arguments were heard on February 23, 2016, and the matter was submitted. A decision of the appellate court is required to be rendered within 90 days of when the matter is submitted. On March 8, 2016, the Court’s submission was vacated, on its own order, stating that “further consideration of the merits of the issues raised on appeal is required.” The Court has set tentative trial dates for the first half of 2017.

On April 11, 2014, the Regents filed a complaint against the Company in which the Regents allege that the “Operating Profits” the Company has received (and will continue to receive) from Astellas, as a result of the Astellas Collaboration Agreement, constitute Sublicensing Income under the license agreement between the Company and the Regents and that the Company and its subsidiary, MPT, have failed to pay the Regents ten percent of such Operating Profits. The Company denies the Regents’ allegations and is vigorously defending the litigation. The Company is currently awaiting a trial date to be set by the Courts.

While the Company believes it has meritorious positions with respect to the claims above and intends to advance its positions in these lawsuits vigorously, including on appeal, the process of resolving matters through litigation or other means is inherently uncertain, and it is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution of any such proceeding. The actual costs of defending the Company’s position may be significant, and the Company may not prevail.