Note 10 Commitments and Contingencies

We currently lease three facilities located in the United States. Our executive offices and primary research facilities are located at 20271 Goldenrod Lane, Germantown, Maryland. We lease these facilities consisting of approximately 2,700 square feet. This lease provides for monthly lease payments of approximately $9,000 per month with the term expiring on December 31, 2015.

In 2011, we entered into a lease, consisting of approximately 3,000 square feet of additional research space in San Diego, California. This lease provides for current monthly payments of approximately $7,200 and expires on August 31, 2015.

In 2014, we entered into a lease for additional research space in San Diego, California. This lease provides for monthly payments of approximately $3,000 per month plus certain additional monthly fees to be determined based on usage. This lease expires on August 31, 2015

We also lease a research facility in People’s Republic of China. This lease expired on September 30, 2014 and is currently month-to-month with lease payments of approximately, $2,000 per month.

Future minimum payments under all leases at December 31, 2013 are as follows:

Year	Amount
2015	$	190,324
2016		-
2017		-
2018		-
2019		-
2020 and thereafter		-
Total minimum payments	$	190,324

The Company recognized approximately $257,000, $277,000 and $240,000, in rent expense for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

The Company is currently obligated under two written employment agreements with our Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) and Chief Scientific Officer (“CSO”). Both agreements terminate on October 31, 2017. Pursuant to the CEOs agreement, he receives a salary of $407,000 per annum and in the event of termination prior to the completion of the agreement the Company would pay the CEO the greater of his remaining compensation due under the agreement or one million dollars ($1,000,000). Pursuant to the CSO’s agreement, he receives $750,000 per annum and in the event of termination prior to the completion of the agreement the Company would pay the CSO the greater of the remaining compensation due under the agreement or one million dollars ($1,000,000). In addition, pursuant to both the agreements any and all stock options, warrants, restricted stock or restricted stock units granted would accelerate and vest immediately in the event the agreements are terminated early.

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, 2008 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 discussed below and it is not known when, nor on what basis, this matter will be concluded.

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 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 (an order ruling on the scope and meaning of disputed patent claim language regarding the patents at issue) 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. The case was then reassigned to Judge Roger W. Titus.

Judge Titus held a bench trial on the issue of standing and inventorship on December 9, 11, and 12, 2014. The parties filed their post-trial briefs on January 16, 2015. Judge Titus is expected to issue an order that will either resolve the case in its entirety or will allow the case to move forward to expert discovery.