XML 21 R10.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

NOTE 4 – Commitments and Contingencies

WARF License Agreement

The Company has entered into an exclusive start-up company license agreement with the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (“WARF”) for WARF’s neural probe array and thin film micro electrode technology (the “WARF Agreement”). The Company entered into an Amended and Restated Exclusive Start-up Company License Agreement (the “WARF License”) with WARF on January 21, 2020, which amended and restated in full the prior license agreement between WARF and NeuroOne, LLC, a predecessor of the Company, dated October 1, 2014, as amended on February 22, 2017, March 30, 2019 and September 18, 2019.

The WARF License grants to the Company an exclusive license to make, use and sell, in the United States only, products that employ certain licensed patents for a neural probe array or thin-film micro electrode array and method. The Company has agreed to pay WARF a royalty equal to a single-digit percentage of its product sales pursuant to the WARF License, with a minimum annual royalty payment of $50,000 for 2020, $100,000 for 2021 and $150,000 for 2022 and each calendar year thereafter that the WARF License is in effect. The minimum annual royalty payment for calendar year 2020 in the amount of $50,000 was paid by the Company as of June 30, 2021 and was reflected as a component of cost of product revenue for the nine month period ended June 30, 2021. In addition, $50,000 of the minimum annual royalty payment for calendar year 2021 was accrued for as of June 30, 2021 and was reflected as a component of cost of product revenue. The cost of product revenue attributed to the WARF License amounted to $25,000 and $100,000 for the three and nine month periods ended June 30, 2021, respectively. If the Company or any of its sublicensees contest the validity of any licensed patent, the royalty rate will be doubled during the pendency of such contest and, if the contested patent is found to be valid and would be infringed by the Company if not for the WARF License, the royalty rate will be tripled for the remaining term of the WARF License.

WARF may terminate the WARF License if the Company defaults on the payments of amounts due to WARF or fails to timely submit development reports, or breaches any other covenant in the WARF License and fails to remedy such default in ninety (90) days or in the event of certain bankruptcy events involving the Company. WARF may also terminate the WARF License on ninety (90) days’ notice if the Company fails to have commercial sales of one or more FDA-approved products under the WARF License by June 30, 2021. The WARF License otherwise expires by its terms (i) on the date that no valid claims on the patents licensed thereunder remain or (ii) upon the cessation for more than four (4) calendar quarters of the payment, once begun, of earned royalties under certain sections of the WARF License. The Company expects the latest expiration of a licensed patent to occur in 2030. The first commercial sale occurred in December 2020, prior to the June 30, 2021 deadline.

Mayo Agreement

The Company has an exclusive license and development agreement with the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research (“Mayo”) related to certain intellectual property and development services for thin film micro electrode technology (“Mayo Agreement”). If the Company is successful in obtaining regulatory approval, the Company is to pay royalties to Mayo based on a percentage of net sales of products of the licensed technology through the term of the Mayo Agreement, set to expire May 25, 2037. As of June 30, 2021, $3,894 in royalty fees were incurred given the commencement of commercial sales and were reflected as a component of cost of product revenue in the amount of $1,203 and $3,894 during the three and nine month periods ended June 30, 2021, respectively.

Legal

PMT Litigation

From time to time, the Company is subject to litigation and claims arising in the ordinary course of business. In May 2017, NeuroOne received a letter from PMT Corporation (“PMT”), the former employer of Mark Christianson and Wade Fredrickson. PMT claimed that these officers had breached their restrictive covenant obligations with PMT by virtue of their work for NeuroOne and such officer’s prior work during employment with the prior employer, that these officers had breached their confidentiality and non-disclosure obligations to PMT and federal and state law by misappropriating confidential and trade secret information, and that the Company is responsible for tortious interference with contracts. The letter, which purported to attach a noncompete agreement signed by Mr. Fredrickson, demanded that Mr. Fredrickson (who resigned from the Company in June 2017), Mr. Christianson and NeuroOne cease and desist all competitive activities, that Mr. Fredrickson step down from his position and that Mr. Christianson and NeuroOne provide the former employer access to NeuroOne’s systems to demonstrate that it is not using trade secrets or proprietary information nor competing with the former employer.

On March 29, 2018, the Company was served with a complaint filed by PMT adding the Company, NeuroOne and Mr. Christianson to its existing lawsuit against Mr. Fredrickson in the Fourth Judicial District Court of the State of Minnesota. The complaint purported to attach Mr. Fredrickson’s noncompete agreement as Exhibit A. In the lawsuit, PMT claims that Mr. Fredrickson and Mr. Christianson breached their non-competition, non-solicitation and non-disclosure obligations, breached their fiduciary duty obligations, were unjustly enriched, engaged in unfair competition, engaged in a civil conspiracy, tortiously interfered with PMT’s contracts and prospective economic advantage, and breached a covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Against Mr. Fredrickson, PMT also alleges that he intentionally or negligently spoliated evidence, made negligent or fraudulent misrepresentations, misappropriated trade secrets in violation of Minnesota law, and committed the tort of conversion and statutory civil theft. Against the Company and NeuroOne, PMT alleges that the Company and NeuroOne were unjustly enriched and engaged in unfair competition. PMT asked the Court to impose a constructive trust over the shares held by Mr. Fredrickson and Mr. Christianson and to award compensatory damages, equitable relief, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest.

On April 18, 2018, Mr. Christianson, the Company and NeuroOne, Inc. filed a motion for dismissal, which was heard by the Court on October 11, 2018. The motion for dismissal stated that: the contract claims against Mr. Christianson fail because his agreement was not supported by consideration; the Minnesota Uniform Trade Secrets Act preempts plaintiff’s claims for unfair competition, civil conspiracy and unjust enrichment; plaintiff fails to state a claim regarding alleged breach of the duties of loyalty and good faith/fair dealing; plaintiff cannot legally obtain a constructive trust; plaintiff has insufficiently pled its tortious interference claims; and Plaintiff has not stated a claim for unfair competition. On January 7, 2019, the judge granted the motion for dismissal with respect to PMT’s claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and denied the motion for dismissal with respect to the other claims presented.

In April 2019, PMT served the Company, NeuroOne, Inc and Christianson with a proposed Second Amended Complaint, which included new claims against the Company and NeuroOne, Inc for tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with prospective business advantage and punitive damages against the Company, NeuroOne Inc. and Christianson. On June 28, 2019, the Company presented evidence indicating that PMT had participated in a fraud on the Court and sought an Order that PMT had waived the attorney client privilege.

On July 16, 2019, the defendants served PMT with a joint notice of motion for sanctions seeking a variety of sanctions for litigation misconduct including, but not limited to, dismissal of the case and an award of attorneys’ fees. The Company, NeuroOne Inc and Mr. Christianson further intend to move for summary judgment on all remaining claims asserted against them as well as for leave to assert counterclaims against PMT for abuse of process.

On August 30, 2019, the Hennepin County District Court heard dispositive motions in this case. The district court judge indicated some claims would likely be tried to a jury and encouraged the parties to settle.

On September 12, 2019, the district court heard NeuroOne’s motion for sanctions against PMT. The district court held the sanctions hearing on December 17, 2019 and December 18, 2019 and indicated that a ruling would be made in approximately 90 days.

On April 29, 2020, the district court granted the Company’s motion for sanctions. Additionally, the district court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment in part with respect to the counts for Christianson’s breach of non-confidentiality agreement, and denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment on all other counts.

On August 24, 2020, defendants moved the Court to amend their counterclaims for abuse of process against PMT to add a claim for punitive damages with respect to its conduct pertaining to the Fredrickson noncompete. On October 12, 2020 the Court awarded NeuroOne $185,000 in Rule 11 sanctions and Fredrickson $145,000 in Rule 11 sanctions with respect to PMT’s misconduct relating to the Fredrickson noncompete. PMT and its former litigation counsel, Barnes &Thornburg, were jointly and severally liable for these awards, which were paid on December 11, 2020 and have been recognized in other income in the condensed statement of operations. The Court granted NeuroOne’s motion to amend to permit its assertion of the right to assert a punitive damages claim against PMT associated with fighting the allegations relating to the Fredrickson noncompete.

On May 27, 2021 PMT moved for summary judgment on defendants’ claims for abuse of process and punitive damages, and on August 5, 2021, the district court granted PMT’s motion to dismiss the abuse of process and punitive damage claims asserted by the defendants.

Trial has been set for December 2021, but this may be delayed or impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Company intends to continue to defend itself vigorously and to continue to aggressively prosecute its affirmative counterclaim against PMT. The outcome of any claim against the Company by PMT was not estimable as of the issuance of these financial statements.

Facility Leases

Headquarters Lease

On October 7, 2019, the Company entered into a non-cancellable lease agreement (the “Lease”) with Biynah Cleveland, LLC, BIP Cleveland, LLC, and Edenvale Investors (together, the “Landlord”) pursuant to which the Company has agreed to lease office space located at 7599 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the “Premises”). The Company took possession of the Premises on November 1, 2019, with the term of the Lease ending 65 months after such date, unless terminated earlier (the “Term”). The initial base rent for the Premises is $6,410 per month for the first 17 months, increasing to $7,076 per month by the end of the Term. In addition, as long as the Company is not in default under the Lease, the Company shall be entitled to an abatement of its base rent for the first 5 months. In addition, the Company will pay its pro rata share of the Landlord’s annual operating expenses associated with the premises, calculated as set forth in the Lease of which the Company is entitled to an abatement of these operating expense for the first 3 months.

During the three and nine months ended June 30, 2021, rent expense associated with the facility leases amounted to $31,485 and $92,746, respectively. During the three and nine months ended June 30, 2020, rent expense associated with the facility leases amounted to $25,861 and $73,727, respectively.

Supplemental cash flow information related to the operating lease was as follows:

		For the nine months ended June 30,
		2021				2020
Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of lease liability:
Operating cash flows from operating leases		$	58,173			$	19,231
Right-of-use assets obtained in exchange for lease obligations:
Operating leases		$	—			$	335,119

Supplemental balance sheet information related to the operating lease was as follows:

		As of June 30, 2021				As of September 30, 2020
Right-of-use assets		$	241,156			$	282,211
Lease liability		$	269,412			$	312,176
Weighted average remaining lease term (years)			3.75				4.5
Weighted average discount rate			7.0	%			7.0	%

Maturity of the lease liability was as follows:

		As of June 30, 2021
2021 (period from July 1, 2021 to September 30, 2021)		$	19,712
2022			79,832
2023			81,827
2024			83,873
2025			42,454
Total lease payments			307,698
Less imputed interest			(38,286	)
Total			269,412
Short-term portion			(62,446	)
Long-term portion		$	206,966

San Jose Lease:

On December 30, 2020, the Company entered into a non-cancellable lease agreement for short term office space in San Jose, California (the “San Jose Lease”) for a three month initial term. After March 31, 2021, the San Jose Lease is cancellable upon a 30-day notice to the landlord. The Company took possession of the office space on January 1, 2021. The base rent under the San Jose Lease is $504 per month.