We are involved in various lawsuits, claims, inquiries and other regulatory and compliance matters, most of which are routine to the nature of our business. When it is probable that a loss will be incurred and where a range of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the best estimate within the range is accrued. When the best estimate within the range cannot be determined, the low end of the range is accrued. The ultimate resolution of these claims could affect future results of operations should our exposure be materially different from our estimates or should we incur liabilities that were not previously accrued. Potential insurance reimbursements are not offset against potential liabilities.

We are currently party to a litigation in which ADASA Inc. (“Adasa”), an unrelated third party, alleged that certain of our RFID products within our Solutions Group reportable segment infringed its patent. The case was filed on October 24, 2017 in the United States District Court in the District of Oregon (Eugene Division) and is captioned ADASA Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corporation. We recorded a contingent liability in the amount of $26.6 million related to this matter in the second quarter of 2021 based on a jury verdict issued on May 14, 2021.

During the fourth quarter of 2021, the first instance judgment associated with the jury verdict was issued. This resulted in additional potential liability for the RFID tags sold during the period from the jury verdict to the issuance of the first instance judgment, a higher royalty imposed by the judge applicable to tags sold after the judgment and a royalty on additional late-disclosed tags, as well as sanctions, prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. In addition, Adasa was awarded an ongoing royalty on in-scope tags sold after October 14, 2021. On October 22, 2021, we appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC").

During the fourth quarter of 2022, the CAFC issued its opinion, reversing the grant of summary judgment of validity as to anticipation and obviousness, vacating the sanctions ruling, and remanding the case for retrial with respect to validity for anticipation and obviousness over the prior art. The CAFC affirmed subject-matter eligibility and damages if liability is determined on retrial. On remand, the trial court was required to reconsider the amount of sanctions consistent with the CAFC's instruction to limit sanctions to the late-disclosed tags. With continued evaluation of the matter and our defenses, as well as consultation with our outside counsel, we believed that Adasa’s patent was invalid and that the sanctions sought by Adasa were unreasonable. In addition, we believed that there were appealable grounds in the CAFC’s decision; as a result, we sought U.S. Supreme Court review on February 27, 2023.

After the U.S. Supreme Court denied our writ of certiorari petition on May 30, 2023, the trial court’s retrial began on July 10, 2023. On July 18, 2023, the jury in the retrial issued a verdict that Adasa’s patent is valid. Although the court had not issued its judgment, including its decision on sanctions, we increased our contingent liability to reflect our best estimate of

the anticipated judgment to $80.4 million as of July 1, 2023, with an expectation to continue adjusting our accrual quarterly, as appropriate. As of December 30, 2023 our contingent liability was $82.9 million. We have grounds to appeal and plan to appeal any judgment based on the jury verdict; therefore, we classified the total contingent liability as non-current due to the time expected for this matter to be fully resolved.

A hearing took place on October 24, 2023 before the district court on the pending sanctions decision and certain post-trial motions. We determined that no additional adjustment to our accrual was required as a result of the hearing.

On January 23, 2024, the district court issued two orders relating to Adasa’s original and supplemental bill of taxable costs, which did not have an impact on the liability we recorded as of December 30, 2023. On January 25, 2024, the district court issued a revised sanction order lowering the sanction against us from approximately $20 million to approximately $5.2 million, based on a royalty of $0.0025/late-reported tag, which was consistent with the amount we had accrued. In February 2024, the district court issued decisions denying our motion for judgment as a matter of law and our motion for a new trial. We plan to appeal these recent decisions.

Because of the uncertainties associated with claims resolution and litigation, future expenses to resolve legal proceedings could be higher than the liabilities we have accrued; however, we are unable to reasonably estimate a range of potential expenses. If information were to become available that allowed us to reasonably estimate a range of potential expenses determined to be probable in an amount higher or lower than what we have accrued, we would adjust our accrued liabilities accordingly. Additional lawsuits, claims, inquiries, and other regulatory and compliance matters could arise in the future. The range of expenses for resolving any future matters would be assessed as they arise; until then, a range of potential expenses for their resolution cannot be determined. Based upon current information, we believe that the impact of the resolution of legal proceedings would not be, individually or in the aggregate, material to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Environmental expenditures are generally expensed. When it is probable that a loss will be incurred and where a range of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the best estimate within the range is accrued. When the best estimate within the range cannot be determined, the low end of the range is accrued. The ultimate resolution of these matters could affect future results of operations should our exposure be materially different from our estimates or should we incur liabilities that were not previously accrued. Potential insurance reimbursements are not offset against potential liabilities. We review our estimates of the costs of complying with environmental laws related to remediation and cleanup of various sites, including sites in which governmental agencies have designated us as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”). However, environmental expenditures for newly acquired assets and those that extend or improve the economic useful life of existing assets are capitalized and amortized over the shorter of the estimated useful life of the acquired asset or the remaining life of the existing asset.

As of December 30, 2023, we have been designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and/or other responsible state agencies as a PRP at eleven waste disposal or waste recycling sites that are the subject of separate investigations or proceedings concerning alleged soil and/or groundwater contamination. No settlement of our liability related to any of these sites has been agreed upon. We are participating with other PRPs at these sites and anticipate that our share of remediation costs will be determined pursuant to agreements that we negotiate with the EPA or other governmental authorities.

These estimates could change as a result of changes in planned remedial actions, remediation technologies, site conditions, the estimated time to complete remediation, environmental laws and regulations, and other factors. Because of the uncertainties associated with environmental assessment and remediation activities, our future expenses to remediate these sites could be higher than the liabilities we have accrued; however, we are unable to reasonably estimate a range of potential expenses determined to be probable. If information were to become available that allowed us to reasonably estimate a range of potential expenses in an amount higher or lower than what we have accrued, we would adjust our environmental liabilities accordingly. In addition, we may be identified as a PRP at additional sites in the future. The range of expenses for remediation of any future-identified sites would be addressed as they arise; until then, a range of expenses for their remediation cannot be determined.