Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies

The Company leases office and laboratory facilities and certain equipment under certain noncancelable operating leases that expire from time to time through 2015. A summary of future minimum rental payments required under operating leases that have initial or remaining terms in excess of one year as of September 30, 2011 are as follows (in thousands):

Lease Commitments:

Years ended	Operating Leases
2011	$	383.8
2012		1259.1
2013		898.3
2014		629.5
2015		587.0
Thereafter		857.2
Total minimum lease payments	$	4,614.9

Expense incurred under operating leases was approximately $535,300 and $1,672,600 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively, and $522,800 and $1,139,400 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively.

Contingencies:

Under license agreements with third parties the Company is typically required to pay maintenance fees, make milestone payments and/or pay other fees and expenses and pay royalties upon commercialization of products. The Company also sponsors research at various academic institutions, which research agreements generally provide us with an option to license new technology discovered during the course of the sponsored research.

In connection with the issuance to investors and service providers of many of the shares of the Company’s common stock and warrants to purchase common stock previously disclosed and described herein, the Company granted the holders registration rights providing for the registration of such shares of common stock and shares of common stock underlying warrants on a registration statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) so as to permit the resale of those shares. Certain of the registration rights agreements provided for penalties for failure to file or failure to obtain an effective registration statement. With respect to satisfying its obligations to the holders of these registration rights, the Company has been in various situations. The Company had previously filed a registration statement as required for some of the holders, and in May 2011 filed a registration statement for all of the holders (except for holders whose shares of Common Stock were currently salable under Rule 144 of the Securities Act or who waived certain rights); such registration statement was declared effective by the SEC on September 30, 2011. The Company has certain obligations to maintain the effectiveness of this registration statement. Certain holders who had outstanding registration rights had previously waived their registration rights or were subject to lock-up agreements. No holder has yet asserted any claim against the Company with respect to a failure to satisfy any registration obligations. Were someone to assert a claim against the Company for breach of registration obligations, the Company believes it has several defenses that would result in relieving it from some or any liability, although no assurances can be given. The Company also notes that damage claims may be limited, as (i) most shares of Common Stock as to which registration rights attached are either now registered or currently salable under Rule 144 of the Securities Act or are otherwise currently subject to other restrictions on sale and (ii) the shares of Common Stock underlying warrants with registration rights are now registered, and during much of the relevant periods the warrants with registration rights generally have been out of the money, were subject to lock-up agreements and/or the underlying shares of Common Stock were otherwise subject to restrictions on resale. Accordingly, were holders to assert claims against the Company based on breach of the Company’s obligation to register, the Company believes that the Company’s maximum exposure would not be material.

Xiangbei Welman Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v Suzhou Erye Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Hunan Weichu Pharmacy Co., Ltd. involves a patent infringement dispute with respect to a particular antibiotics complex manufactured by Erye (the “Product”). The Changsha Intermediate People’s Court in Hunan Province, PRC in the foregoing case rendered a judgment on May 13, 2010 against Erye as follows: (i) awarding plaintiff Xiangbei Welman damages and costs of approximately 5 million RMB (approximately $778,500) against Erye which was fully accrued for at September 30, 2011; and (ii) enjoining Erye from manufacturing, marketing and selling the Product. On March 21, 2011, Changsha Intermediate Court issued a civil decision suspending the execution of the Preliminary Injunction. Therefore, Erye is currently free to produce, sell or offer to sell the product. Following the filing of the patent infringement dispute, in 2009 Xiangbei Welman brought a copyright infringement lawsuit against Erye claiming the package inserts with respect to the Product infringed upon their copyright and Erye was enjoined from copying and using the package inserts on the Product and selling the Product with the package inserts and Xiangbei Welman was awarded 50,000 RMB, or approximately $7,800. In July 2011, a new copyright infringement lawsuit was brought by Xiangbei Welman against Erye claiming that Erye was not complying with the earlier judgment enjoining them from copying and using the package inserts for the Product. The Changsha Intermediate Court was applied to for property preservation and it issued a civil decision freezing Erye’s bank deposits of up to 50 million RMB, or approximately $7.8 million, or sealing up or detaining Erye’s other properties of equal value. Currently this case is pending. As of September 30, 2011, approximately 13,744,700 RMB (approximately $2,140,000) of cash had been frozen in six bank accounts, and is classified in Other Assets. Erye is working with their counsel to respond. Erye has contended that jurisdiction is not proper. A similar action was recently instituted by Welman against Erye in the Guangzhou Intermediate Court to (i) enjoin Erye from copying and using the package inserts from the Product and selling the drugs with the aforesaid package inserts and; (ii) award Welman economic losses of approximately 2,000,000 RMB (approximately $312,400) against Erye and the case is being reviewed by the Court. Welman made an application for preliminary injunction to prohibit Erye from copying and using the package inserts from the Product and selling the drugs with the aforesaid package inserts and Welman's application was denied by the Court on September 6, 2011. Welman subsequently obtained a preliminary injunction from a lower court Guangzhou Haizhu District People’s Court in Guangzhou Province, PRC (the “Haizhu District Court”) on September 14, 2011. But on October 28, 2011, upon the appeal by Erye, the Haizhu District Court issued a decision withdrawing the preliminary injunction. The Company cannot reasonably assess the possibility of additional exposure above the amounts previously accrued as of September 30, 2011.

Chinese regulatory approvals – The Company has determined that it did not obtain all Chinese regulatory approvals (and associated registrations) required to reflect the legal title of its interest in Erye as being held by the proper entity within our group which is its current beneficial owner as that term is used under U.S. law. The Company believes it has now determined what governmental approvals (and associated registrations) will need to be issued by the Suzhou Municipal Bureau of Foreign Investment and Commerce and the Suzhou Administration for Industry and Commerce to remediate these deficiencies and the Company has had counsel in China prepare these filings. The Company’s management believes these regulatory deficiencies can be remediated within a reasonable period of time and should not delay a possible divestiture of the Company’s interests in Erye that is currently under evaluation. However, the Company requires the cooperation of the officers of Erye, as to which no assurance can be given, and we could be compelled to seek to replace those officers or to commence legal action to obtain the required consents or otherwise move forward with requisite filings. In addition, even if the filings are made, no assurance can be given that any unremediated regulatory deficiencies would not have an adverse effect on the operating results and liquidity of Erye and the Company and will not impede or delay efforts to divest the Company’s interest in Erye. In addition, the remediation process is expected to trigger certain tax liabilities and penalties, however the ultimate liability will be based on future discussions with the relevant Chinese authorities. The Company cannot reasonably assess the exposure as of September 30, 2011.

Amorcyte line of credit – On May 19, 2006, PCT entered into a line of credit agreement with Amorcyte Inc. (“Amorcyte”), an entity which was spun out of PCT in 2006, whereby PCT agreed to loan Amorcyte up to $500,000 at an annual interest rate of 5%. The line of credit agreement was a condition to Amorcyte closing a Series A Preferred Stock Financing completed during 2006. The Company has not loaned any amount to Amorcyte under this agreement through September 30, 2011. The line of credit agreement expires on the earlier of (i) the date on which the Company declares the outstanding principal and accrued interest due and payable based on an event of default as defined within the agreement, or (ii) the date of closing of the first debt or equity financing of Amorcyte following the initial borrowing of the principal. These events have not occurred to date. On October 17, 2011, the Company acquired Amorcyte pursuant to the Amorcyte Agreement and Plan of Merger, and this line of credit was cancelled. (See Note 14).