The following table summarizes the aggregate non-cancelable contractual obligations arising from the Company’s manufacturing obligations:


	As of March 31, 2025
	(in thousands)
2025 (April-December)	$	846,649
2026		168,167
2027		79,856
2028		72,395
Total manufacturing commitments*	$	1,167,067

* Total manufacturing commitments include the Catalent, Inc. (“Catalent”) manufacturing and supply agreement, for which the Company has ROU assets and lease liabilities recorded on the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2025. For more information, please read Note 22, Commitments and Contingencies to the financial statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024.

In the normal course of business, the Company from time to time is named as a party to various legal claims, actions and complaints, which have included and may include matters involving securities, employment, intellectual property, arising from the use of therapeutics utilizing its technology, or others. The Company records a loss contingency reserve for a legal proceeding when it considers the potential loss probable and it can reasonably estimate the amount of the loss or determine a probable range of loss. The Company provides disclosure when it considers a loss reasonably possible or when it determines that a loss in excess of a reserve is reasonably possible. The Company provides an estimate of such reasonably possible losses or an aggregate range of such reasonably possible losses, unless the Company believes that such an estimate cannot be made. The Company has not recorded any material accruals for loss contingencies, and in management's opinion, no material range of loss is estimable for the matters described below as of March 31, 2025.

On September 15, 2020, REGENXBIO INC. (“Regenx”) and the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania (“U-Penn”) filed a lawsuit against the Company and Sarepta Therapeutics Three, LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The plaintiffs assert patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,526,617 (“the ’617 Patent”) under 35 U.S.C.§§ 271(a)-(c) based on Sarepta’s alleged direct or indirect manufacture and use of the patented cultured host cell technology allegedly used to make AAV gene therapy products, including SRP-9001 (approved June 22, 2023 in the U.S. as ELEVIDYS®). Specifically, the Complaint essentially includes the allegation that Sarepta’s use, and the use by its contract manufacturers on its behalf, of a host cell containing a recombinant acid molecule that encodes a capsid protein having at least 95% amino acid identity to AAVrh10 infringes the ’617 Patent asserted by Regenx. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, a judgment of infringement and willful infringement, damages that are no less than a reasonable royalty (treble damages), attorneys’ fees and costs, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. On January 5, 2024, the Court granted Sarepta’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the asserted claims of Regenx’s ’617 Patent are invalid because they cover patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. On January 12, 2024, the Court entered judgment and closed the case. Plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

On June 20, 2023, Regenx and U-Penn commenced a second patent infringement lawsuit against Sarepta and its contract manufacturer, Catalent asserting patent alleged infringement of U. S. Patent No. 11,680,274 (“the ’274 Patent”). In the second lawsuit, Regenx and U-Penn allege that Sarepta and Catalent’s manufacture, use and commercial launch of ELEVIDYS® (formerly/also known as SRP-9001) infringe the ’274 Patent. Sarepta answered the complaint on August 10, 2023, and a case schedule has been set with a trial commencing on November 17, 2025. On February 21, 2024, Sarepta submitted a petition for Inter Partes Review for filing

with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The petition seeks to invalidate the ’274 Patent. On August 22, 2024, the PTAB instituted inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’274 Patent on all asserted grounds.

On July 13, 2021, Nippon Shinyaku Co., Ltd. (“Nippon Shinyaku” or “NS”) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. NS asserted a claim for breach of contract arising from Sarepta filing seven petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR Petitions”) with the PTAB at the USPTO in which Sarepta sought to invalidate certain NS patents concerning exon 53 skipping technology (U.S. Patent Nos. 9,708,361, 10,385,092, 10,407,461, 10,487,106, 10,647,741, 10,662,217, and 10,683,322, respectively, and collectively the “NS Patents”). In addition, NS asserted claims for patent infringement and willful infringement of each of the NS Patents allegedly arising from Sarepta’s activities, including the sale of, its exon 53 skipping product, VYONDYS 53 (golodirsen). NS further sought a determination of non-infringement by NS alleged to arise from NS’s activities, including the sale of, its exon 53 skipping product, Viltepso (viltolarsen) and invalidity of certain patents licensed to the Company from UWA (U.S. Patent Nos. 9,994,851, 10,227,590, and 10,266,827, collectively the “UWA Patents”). In its complaint, NS sought legal fees and costs, an unspecified amount of monetary relief (treble damages) attributed to Sarepta’s alleged infringement, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. In January 2022, the PTAB granted institution of all claims of all NS Patents in response to Sarepta’s IPR Petitions and determined that Sarepta demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that the NS Patents are unpatentable. NS filed a motion for preliminary injunction solely seeking Sarepta’s withdrawal of the IPR Petitions, which was ultimately granted after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded to the district court on February 8, 2022. Sarepta subsequently withdrew the IPRs, which were terminated on June 14, 2022. On December 27, 2021, the district court partially granted and denied the motion to dismiss by Sarepta and ordered NS to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), which it did on January 14, 2022. In the SAC, NS maintained all claims of the original complaint of July 13, 2021, except a determination of non-infringement of the UWA Patents. On January 28, 2022, Sarepta filed its answer to the SAC, with defenses and counterclaims against NS and NS Pharma Inc. that include infringement of the UWA Patents allegedly arising from their activities concerning, including the sale of, its exon 53 skipping product, Viltepso (viltolarsen) and breach of contract. Sarepta also sought a determination of invalidity of the NS Patents. In its counterclaim complaint, Sarepta sought an award of relief in its defenses to NS’ allegations, a judgment of breach of contract, a determination of invalidity of the NS Patents, a judgment of infringement and willful infringement of the UWA Patents, legal fees and costs, an unspecified amount of monetary relief (treble damages) attributable to NS’ alleged infringement, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. UWA has since been joined as a Plaintiff in Sarepta’s counterclaims against NS. On August 14, 2023, the Court granted cross motions to amend the pleadings, allowing Sarepta to add a counterclaim against NS for inequitable conduct, and NS to add counterclaims against Sarepta for inequitable conduct and Walker Process fraud. The parties have since stipulated to the dismissal of NS’s claim of infringement of its ’361 Patent and certain claims of the ’322 Patent, and NS’s breach of contract claim. The Court bifurcated the Walker Process fraud claim on April 18, 2024, and granted Sarepta's motion for summary judgment of infringement of the ’851 Patent and NS’s motion for partial summary judgment of infringement of certain NS patents on May 1, 2024. After a jury trial in December 2024, the jury found that NS’s ’092 Patent is invalid as obvious and Sarepta’s and UWA’s ’851 Patent is not invalid. The jury did not find that NS’s infringement was willful. The jury awarded Sarepta approximately $115.2 million in damages for NS’s infringement relating to its sales of Viltepso in the United States, and the parties stipulated to approximately $0.8 million in reasonable royalty damages for NS's sales of Viltepso outside of the United States, both through December 15, 2024. Judgment was entered on January 7, 2025. On February 14, 2025, Sarepta filed a motion seeking supplemental damages and NS filed post-trial motions challenging the jury's verdict, as well as briefing relating to its inequitable conduct claim, which was tried to the court in December 2024.

On July 26, 2024, Genzyme Corporation filed a lawsuit against Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. and Sarepta Therapeutics Three, LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint asserts infringement of United States Patent Nos. 9,051,542 (the “’542 Patent”) and 7,704,721 (the “’721 Patent”) arising from Sarepta’s alleged manufacture and sale of ELEVIDYS® (delandistrogene moxeparvovec-rokl). In its complaint, Genzyme seeks, inter alia, damages for the alleged infringement, including increased damages up to three times the amount found or assessed, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest and costs. Following a partial motion to dismiss by Sarepta, Genzyme filed its First Amended Complaint on November 21, 2024. In its First Amended Complaint, Genzyme no longer alleges willfulness or indirect infringement before the filing of the complaint. Sarepta answered the First Amended Complaint on December 12, 2024. The Court entered a scheduling order, with a trial scheduled for January 25, 2027.

On December 20, 2024, Brammer Bio MA, LLC filed an arbitration demand against Sarepta relating to Sarepta’s termination of the Thermo Agreement. Brammer Bio MA, LLC alleges claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and a violation of MGL c. 93A, and seeks relief including damages, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On January 24, 2025, Sarepta filed its answer and asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment and breach of contract, seeking relief including damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.