7. Commitments and Contingencies

Facility Leases

The Company is currently leasing its facility which has approximately 68,400 square feet of manufacturing, research laboratory and office space. The lease expires in August 2017. The Company has the option to renew the lease for three additional five-year periods beyond its expiration.

The lease related to the facility is treated as an operating lease. The minimum annual rent on the facility is subject to increases specified in the lease. The Company is also required to pay taxes, insurance and operating costs under the facility lease. The Company recognizes level monthly rent for its facility lease over the entire lease period. The monthly rent is calculated by adding the total rent payments over the entire lease period and then dividing the result by the total term of the lease. The $0.9 million difference between the base rent paid and the rent expensed through December 31, 2015 is recorded as deferred rent in the balance sheet. Rent expense for each of the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 was $2.8 million.

At December 31, 2015, future minimum rental payments due under the Company’s facilities lease were as follows (in thousands):

Year ending December 31,
2016	$	3,602
2017		2,433
2018		—
2019		—
2020		—
Thereafter		—
Total lease payments	$	6,035

Other Contingencies

In late October and early November 2013, following the Company’s announcement of the results of its Phase 3 trial of Allovectin^® and the subsequent decline of the price of the Company’s common stock, two putative securities class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. On February 26, 2014, the two cases were consolidated into one action and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed (“Consolidation Order”). On May 12, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a first amended consolidated complaint alleging that the defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our business prospects and the prospects for Allovectin^®, thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company’s common stock. On June 9, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and a motion to strike certain allegations in the amended complaint. On March 9, 2015, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and terminated as moot defendants’ motion to strike, or Order. The lead plaintiff was granted leave to amend his first amended complaint on or before March 25, 2015. The lead plaintiff chose not to amend his complaint and instead stipulated to an entry of judgment. On April 28, 2015, the Court entered final judgment dismissing the action, or Judgment. On May 28, 2015, the lead plaintiff appealed the Judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That same day, another group of the Company’s stockholders that had previously moved for appointment as lead plaintiff, or the Vical Investor Group, also appealed the Judgment, as well as the Consolidation Order, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On August 3, 2015, the Vical Investor Group voluntarily dismissed its appeal. On October 8, 2015, the lead plaintiff-appellant filed an opening brief in support of his appeal. Defendants filed an answering brief on December 9, 2015. On January 27, 2016, lead plaintiff-appellant filed a motion to dismiss his appeal with prejudice, which was joined by defendants. On February 1, 2016, the Ninth Circuit granted the joint motion and dismissed the appeal.

In the ordinary course of business, the Company may become a party to additional lawsuits involving various matters. The Company is unaware of any such lawsuits presently pending against it which, individually or in the aggregate, are deemed to be material to the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

The Company prosecutes its intellectual property vigorously to obtain the broadest valid scope for its patents. Due to uncertainty of the ultimate outcome of these matters, the impact on future operating results or the Company’s financial condition is not subject to reasonable estimates.