3.	Revenue Recognition

The Company’s revenue recognition policy is to recognize revenues from product sales and services in accordance with ASC 605, Revenue Recognition. These standards require that revenues are recognized when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, product delivery, including customer acceptance, has occurred or services have been rendered, the price is fixed or determinable and collectability is reasonably assured. Determination of whether these criteria have been met are based on management’s judgments primarily regarding the fixed nature of the fee charged for the product delivered and the collectability of those fees. The Company has a few longstanding customers who comprise the majority of revenue and have excellent payment histories and therefore the Company does not require collateral. The Company has had no significant write-offs of uncollectible invoices in the periods presented. When more than one element such as equipment, consumables, and services are contained in a single arrangement, the Company allocates revenue between the elements based on each element’s relative selling price, provided that each element meets the criteria for treatment as a separate unit of accounting. An item is considered a separate unit of accounting if it has value to the customer on a stand-alone basis. The selling price of the undelivered elements is determined by the price charged when the element is sold separately, or in cases when the item is not sold separately, by third-party evidence of selling price or management’s best estimate of selling price.

Product Sales

The Company’s product revenues are from the sale of bioprocessing products, equipment devices, and related consumables used with these equipment devices to customers in the life science and biopharmaceutical industries. On product sales to end customers, revenue is recognized, net of discounts, when both the title and risk of loss have transferred to the customer, as determined by the shipping terms provided there are no uncertainties regarding acceptance, and all obligations have been completed. Generally, our product arrangements for equipment sales are multiple element arrangements, and may include services, such as installation and training, and multiple products, such as consumables and spare parts. In accordance with ASC 605-25, based on terms and conditions of the product arrangements, the Company believes that these services and undelivered products can be accounted for separately from the delivered product element as the delivered products have value to our customers on a standalone basis. Accordingly, revenue for services not yet performed at the time of product shipment are deferred and recognized as such services are performed. The relative selling price of any undelivered products is also deferred at the time of shipment and recognized as revenue when these products are delivered. For product sales to distributors, the Company recognizes revenue for both equipment and consumables upon delivery to the distributor’s or end user’s location. In general, distributors are responsible for shipment to the end customer along with installation, training and acceptance of the equipment by the end customer. Shipments to distributors are not contingent upon resale of the product.

At the time of sale, the Company also evaluates the need to accrue for warranty and sales returns. The supply agreements the Company has with its customers and the related purchase orders identify the terms and conditions of each sale and the price of the goods ordered. Due to the nature of the sales arrangements, inventory produced for sale is tested for quality specifications prior to shipment. Since the product is manufactured to order and in compliance with required specifications prior to shipment, the likelihood of sales return, warranty or other issues is largely diminished. Furthermore, there is no customer right of return in our sales agreements. Sales returns and warranty issues are infrequent and have had nominal impact on the Company’s financial statements historically.

Sale of Intellectual Property to BioMarin

In January 2014, the Company entered into an asset purchase agreement (the “Asset Purchase Agreement”) with BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (“BioMarin”) to sell Repligen’s histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDACi) portfolio. Pursuant to the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement, the Company received $2 million from BioMarin as an upfront payment on January 30, 2014. The Company is entitled to receive up to $160 million in potential future milestone payments for the development, regulatory approval and commercial sale of portfolio compounds included in the agreement. These potential milestone payments are approximately 37% related to clinical development and 63% related to initial commercial sales in specific geographies. In addition, Repligen is eligible to receive royalties on sales of therapeutic products originating from the HDACi portfolio. The royalty rates are tiered and begin in the mid-single-digits for the first HDACi portfolio product and for the first non-HDACi portfolio product with lesser amounts for any backup products developed under the Asset Purchase Agreement. Repligen’s receipt of these royalties is subject to customary offsets and deductions. There are no refund provisions in this agreement. The Company recognized $2 million of revenue in the three months ended March 31, 2014 related to the transfer of the HDACi technology under the Asset Purchase Agreement. Any milestones earned upon specified clinical development or commercial sales events or future royalty payments, under the Asset Purchase Agreement will be recognized as revenue when they are earned.

Activities under this agreement were evaluated in accordance with ASC 605-25 to determine if they represented a multiple element revenue arrangement. We identified the following deliverables in the BioMarin agreement:

•

The assignment by Repligen to BioMarin of the Repligen Technology (“Repligen Know-How” and “Repligen Patents”) and the Scripps Agreement (the “Transferred Assets”);

•

The transfer of certain notebooks, data, documents, biological materials (if any) and other such documents in our possession that might be useful to further development of the program (the “Technology Transfer”).

Two criteria must be met in order for a deliverable to be considered a separate unit of accounting. The first criterion requires that the delivered item or items have value to the customer on a stand-alone basis. The second criterion, which relates to evaluating a general right of return, is not applicable because such a provision does not exist in the Asset Purchase Agreement. The deliverables outlined above were deemed to have stand-alone value and to meet the criteria to be accounted for as separate units of accounting. Factors considered in this determination included, among other things, BioMarin’s right under the agreement to assign the Transferred Assets, whether any other vendors sell the items separately and if BioMarin could use the delivered item for its intended purpose without the receipt of the remaining deliverables. If multiple deliverables included in an arrangement are separable into different units of accounting, the multiple-element arrangements guidance addresses how to allocate the arrangement consideration to those units of accounting. The amount of allocable arrangement consideration is limited to amounts that are fixed or determinable. Arrangement consideration is allocated at the inception of the arrangement to the identified units of accounting based on their relative selling price.

We identified the arrangement consideration to allocate among the units of accounting as the $2.0 million non-refundable up-front payment and the $126,375 payment to be received upon completion of the Technology Transfer. We excluded the potential milestone payments provided for in the Asset Purchase Agreement from the arrangement consideration as they were not considered fixed or determinable at the time the Asset Purchase Agreement was signed. Because we had not sold these items on a standalone basis previously, we had no vendor-specific objective evidence of selling price. Furthermore, we did not have detailed third-party evidence of selling price, and as a result we used our best estimate of selling price for each item. In determining these prices, we considered what we would be willing to sell the items for on a standalone basis, what the market would bear for such items and what another party might charge for these items.

The up-front arrangement consideration allocated to the Transferred Assets was recognized upon execution of the Asset Purchase Agreement as the risks and rewards associated with the Transferred Assets transferred at that time. We used a discounted cash flow analysis to determine the value of the Transferred Assets. Key assumptions in the analysis included: the estimated market size for a compound targeted at Friedreich’s ataxia, the estimated remaining costs of development and time to commercialization, and the probability of successfully developing and commercializing the program. Based on this analysis, we allocated $2,115,000 to the value of the Transferred Assets. However, as the recognized revenue is limited to the non-contingent consideration received, we recognized $2,000,000, the amount of the up-front payment, as revenue in the three months ended March 31, 2014.

The estimated selling price of the Technology Transfer items was approximately $300,000 resulting in consideration allocation of approximately $11,000. However, as this item was not delivered prior to March 31, 2014, we did not recognize any revenue related to the Technology Transfer in the three months ended March 31, 2014. We expect the Technology Transfer to be delivered by September 30, 2014.

We believe that a change in the key assumptions used to determine best estimate of selling price for each of the deliverables would not have a significant effect on the allocation of arrangement consideration.

In addition to the $2 million up-front payment, we are also eligible to receive up to $160 million in potential milestone payments from BioMarin comprised of:

•

Up to $60 million related to the achievement of specified clinical and regulatory milestone events; and

•

Up to $100 million related to the achievement of specified commercial sales events, specifically the first commercial sale in specific territories.

We evaluated the potential milestones in accordance with ASC 605-28, which allows an entity to make an accounting policy election to recognize a payment that is contingent upon the achievement of a substantive milestone in its entirety in the period in which the milestone is achieved. This evaluation included an assessment of the risks that must be overcome to achieve the respective milestone as well as whether the achievement of the milestone was due in part to our initial clinical work, the level of effort and investment required to achieve the respective milestone and whether the milestone consideration is reasonable relative to all deliverables and payment terms in the arrangement. There is considerable judgment involved in determining whether a milestone satisfies all of the criteria required to conclude that a milestone is substantive. Milestones that are not considered substantive are recognized as earned if there are no remaining performance obligations or over the remaining period of performance, assuming all other revenue recognition criteria are met.

We believe that the $60 million of specified clinical and regulatory milestone payments are substantive. Therefore, any such milestones achieved will be recognized as revenue when earned.

Any milestones achieved upon specified commercial sales events or future royalty payments are considered contingent revenue under the Asset Purchase Agreement, and will be recognized as revenue when they are earned as there are no undelivered elements remaining and no continuing performance obligations under the arrangement.

Pfizer License Agreement

In December 2012, the Company entered into an exclusive worldwide licensing agreement (the “License Agreement”) with Pfizer Inc. (“Pfizer”) to advance the spinal muscular atrophy program, or SMA program. Pursuant to the terms of the License Agreement, the Company received $5 million from Pfizer as an upfront payment on January 22, 2013 and a $1 million milestone payment on September 4, 2013. The Company is entitled to receive up to $64 million in potential future payments, a portion of which may be owed to third parties. These potential payments are approximately equally divided between milestones related to clinical development and initial commercial sales in specific geographies. In addition, the Company is entitled to receive royalties on any future sales of RG3039 or any SMA compounds developed under the License Agreement. The royalty rates are tiered and begin in the high single-digits for RG3039 or lesser amounts for any backup compounds developed under the License Agreement. Repligen’s receipt of these royalties is subject to an obligation under an existing in-license agreement and other customary offsets and deductions. There are no refund provisions in this agreement. The Company recognized $4,876,000 of revenue related to the value of the license in the year ended December 31, 2012. The Company recognized $0 and $69,000 of revenue in the three months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively, related to the delivery of clinical and transition services under the License Agreement. For the six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013, the Company recognized $0 and $124,000, respectively, of revenue. Any milestones earned upon specified commercial sales events or future royalty payments, under the License Agreement will be recognized as revenue when they are earned.

Orencia Royalty

In April 2008, the Company settled its outstanding litigation with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (“Bristol”) and began recognizing royalty revenue in fiscal year 2009 for Bristol’s net sales in the United States of Orencia^® which is used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. The royalty agreement with Bristol provided that the Company would receive such royalty payments on sales of Orencia^® by Bristol through December 31, 2013. These royalty payments have ceased. Pursuant to the settlement with Bristol (“Bristol Settlement”), the Company recognized royalty revenue of approximately $0 and $4,285,000 for the three months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively. For the six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013, the Company recognized Bristol royalty revenue of approximately $0 and $8,131,000, respectively. Revenue earned from Bristol royalties was recorded in the periods when it was earned based on royalty reports sent by Bristol to the Company. The Company has no continuing obligations to Bristol as a result of this settlement.

Pursuant to the Bristol Settlement, Repligen remitted to the University of Michigan 15% of all royalty revenue received from Bristol. Royalty expense for the three months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 was approximately $0 and $643,000, respectively. For the six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013, the Company incurred royalty expense of approximately $0 and $1,220,000, respectively. This operating expense has been included in the Company’s statements of comprehensive income under the line item “Cost of royalty revenue.”

Research and Development Agreements

For the three months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013, the Company recognized approximately $0 and $142,000 of revenue, respectively, from sponsored research and development projects under an agreement with the National Institutes of Health / Scripps Research Institute. For the six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013, the Company recognized approximately $0 and $762,000 of revenue, respectively, from sponsored research and development projects under an agreement with the National Institutes of Health / Scripps Research Institute.

Research revenue is recognized when the expense has been incurred and services have been performed. Determination of which incurred costs qualify for reimbursement under the terms of the Company’s contractual agreements and the timing of when such costs were incurred involves the judgment of management. The Company’s calculations are based on the agreed-upon terms as stated in the arrangements. However, should any estimated calculations change or be challenged by other parties to the agreements, research revenue may be adjusted in subsequent periods. The calculations have not historically changed or been challenged, and the Company does not anticipate any significant subsequent change in its revenue related to sponsored research and development projects.