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

	As of June 30, 2021
	(in thousands)
2021 (July - December)	$	501,053
2022		275,297
2023		222,778
2024		114,465
2025		108,847
Thereafter		207,325
Total manufacturing commitments*	$	1,429,765

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 June 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, effects from the use of therapeutics utilizing its technology, or others.

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 December 16, 2020, Sarepta and RegenX both filed requests for oral argument. The Court has not scheduled a date for the hearing. We are unable to provide an estimate of possible loss or range of possible loss.

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 Company’s deadline for responding to NS’s motion for preliminary injunction is August 11, 2021 and for responding to NS’s complaint is September 3, 2021. We are unable to provide an estimate of possible loss or range of possible loss.