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


	As of June 30, 2022
	(in thousands)
2022 (July-December)	$	529,689
2023		321,520
2024		135,285
2025		98,798
2026		54,720
Thereafter		109,440
Total manufacturing commitments*	$	1,249,452

* Total manufacturing commitments includes the Catalent Inc. manufacturing and supply agreement, for which the Company has right of use assets and lease liabilities recorded on the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2022. For more information, please read Note 21, Commitments and Contingencies of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021.

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.

Under the development, commercial manufacturing, and supply agreement (as amended) with Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. (“Thermo”), the Company has committed to annual guaranteed purchases on a take-or-pay basis regardless of whether services or goods are ordered. During the three months ended June 30, 2022, the Company determined that it is probable that it will not satisfy the total guaranteed purchase requirements by December 31, 2022 based on work orders executed to date and the time remaining in the

fiscal year 2022 to complete development work. As such, the Company recognized a loss of approximately $53.0 million during the three months ended June 30, 2022, reflecting the estimated shortfall related to the annual guaranteed purchase requirement for the manufacturing and supply of gene therapy materials. The loss has been classified as research and development expense in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive loss.

For more information related to Thermo, please read Note 21, Commitments and Contingencies of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021.

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 or may include 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. 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 June 30, 2022.

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 the patented cultured host cell technology allegedly used 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 and willful infringement, an unspecified amount of damages that is 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 4, 2022, the Court denied Sarepta’s motion 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). Sarepta answered the Complaint on January 18, 2022, and a case schedule has been set with a trial commencing on January 29, 2024.

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 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 asserts 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 seeks 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 University of Western Australia (“UWA”) (U.S. Patent Nos. 9,994,851, 10,227,590, and 10,266,827, collectively the “UWA Patents”). NS is seeking 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 has 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 maintains 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 is also seeking a determination of invalidity of the NS Patents. Sarepta is seeking 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. On July 29, 2022, the Court ordered the parties to submit a further updated proposed scheduling order. Case scheduling in district court, including a trial date, will follow.