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


	As of September 30, 2021
	(in thousands)
2021 (October - December)	$	378,723
2022		325,106
2023		232,934
2024		213,008
2025		108,090
Thereafter		262,612
Total manufacturing commitments*	$	1,520,473

* Total manufacturing commitments include both the Catalent and Thermo manufacturing and supply agreements. Related to the leases at Catalent and Thermo, the Company has ROU assets and lease liabilities recorded on the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets as of September 30, 2021. For more information, please read Note 19, Leases of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020.

Additionally, should the Company obtain regulatory approval for any drug product candidate produced as a part of the Company’s manufacturing obligations above, additional minimum batch requirements with the respective manufacturing parties would be required.

In the normal course of business, the Company may from time to time be named as a party to various legal claims, actions and complaints, including matters involving securities, employment, intellectual property, arising from the use of therapeutics utilizing its technology, or others. We record a loss contingency reserve for a legal proceeding when we consider the potential loss probable and we can reasonably estimate the amount of the loss or determine a probable range of loss. We provide disclosure when we consider a loss reasonably possible or when we determine that a loss in excess of a reserve is reasonably possible. We provide an estimate of such reasonably possible losses or an aggregate range of such reasonably possible losses, unless we believe that such an estimate cannot be made.

On September 15, 2020, REGENXBIO INC. (“RegenX”) and the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit against the Company and Sarepta Therapeutics Three, LLC (together, “Sarepta”), 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 cultured host cell technology to make adeno-associated virus (“AAV”) gene therapy products, including SRP-9001. 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 upon the ‘617 Patent asserted by RegenX. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, a judgment of infringement, an unspecified amount of damages that is no less than a reasonable royalty, a judgment of willful infringement, attorneys’ fees and costs, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. On November 4, 2020, Sarepta moved to dismiss the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) based on the Safe Harbor provision of non-infringement contained in 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). On October 5, 2021, the Court scheduled a hearing on Sarepta’s motion to dismiss for December 2, 2021.

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 asserts a claim for breach of contract arising from Sarepta filing seven petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR Petitions”) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the USPTO (PTAB Case Nos. IPR2021-01134, IPR2021-01135, IPR2021-01136, IPR2021-01137, IPR2021-01138, IPR2021-01139, IPR2021-01140) in which Sarepta is seeking 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 asserts claims for patent infringement of each of the NS Patents arising from Sarepta’s alleged activities concerning, including the sale of, its exon 53 skipping product, VYONDYS 53 (golodirsen). NS further seeks a determination of non-infringement by NS arising from NS’s alleged activities concerning, 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). NS filed a motion for preliminary injunction solely seeking Sarepta’s withdrawal of the IPR Petitions. The district court denied the motion for preliminary injunction on September 24, 2021, and NS appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On September 10, 2021, NS filed an amended complaint, which Sarepta moved to dismiss on September 24, 2021.