16. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Manufacturing Obligations

**Total manufacturing commitments include obligations related to the global supply of ELEVIDYS, including inventories necessary to supply Roche for sales of ELEVIDYS in territories outside of the U.S. where Roche has received certain approvals for ELEVIDYS.

Litigation

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 accrual 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.

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 (including 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 appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”), which reversed the district court's decision on February 20, 2026, and remanded the case for further proceedings. On March 23, 2026, the Company filed a petition for rehearing en banc before the Federal Circuit, which the Federal Circuit denied on April 22, 2026. The Federal Circuit issued a mandate on April 29, 2026.

On June 20, 2023, Regenx and U-Penn commenced a second patent infringement lawsuit against Sarepta and its contract manufacturer, Catalent, asserting alleged patent 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. On February 21, 2024, Sarepta submitted a petition for inter partes review ("IPR") for filing with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The petition sought to invalidate the ’274 Patent. On March 20, 2024, the court in the patent infringement litigation ordered that the case be stayed pending final resolution of the IPR proceedings. On August 22, 2024, the PTAB instituted review of all challenged claims of the ’274 Patent on all asserted grounds. U-Penn subsequently disclaimed five of the six challenged claims, and on August 20, 2025, the PTAB entered a final written decision in the IPR proceedings finding that the sole remaining claim was not unpatentable. On October 3, 2025, the parties submitted a joint status report to the court in the patent infringement litigation, in which they agreed that the stay of the patent litigation should remain in place until Sarepta has exhausted its

right to review by the Federal Circuit. On October 20, 2025, Sarepta filed a notice of appeal of the PTAB's decision to the Federal Circuit, and the appeal is pending.

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 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. Those motions remain pending.

On July 26, 2024, Genzyme Corporation ("Genzyme") 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 treble damages, 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. Sarepta answered the First Amended Complaint on December 12, 2024. On May 27, 2025, the court subsequently granted Genzyme’s motion to amend the complaint to include new allegations of infringement related to five patents: United States Patent Nos. 12,031,894 (the “’894 Patent"), 12,013,326 (the “’326 Patent”), 11,698,377 (the “’377 Patent”), 12,123,880 (the “’880 Patent”), and 12,298,313 (the “’313 Patent”). The Court also entered an amended scheduling order, with trial scheduled for June 14, 2027. Sarepta answered the Second Amended Complaint on June 17, 2025. Sarepta submitted IPR petitions challenging the validity of the ’542 and ’721 Patents, for which the USPTO director discretionarily denied institution in November 2025. In November and December 2025, Sarepta submitted IPR petitions challenging the validity of the ’894 Patent, ’326 Patent, ’377 Patent, ’880 Patent, and ’313 Patent. The USPTO director instituted review of the ’894 Patent and denied institution of review of the ’326 Patent, ’377 Patent, ’880 Patent, and ’313 Patent. In June 2026, the USPTO director denied Genzyme's request for director review of the decision granting institution of review of the ’894 Patent, and oral argument in that proceeding is currently scheduled for February 4, 2027. Proceedings in the patent litigation remain ongoing.

On June 26, 2025, a putative securities class action complaint was filed against the Company, former Chief Executive Officer Douglas Ingram, former Chief Customer Officer Dallan Murray, and President of Research and Development and Technical Operations Louise Rodino-Klapac in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Securities Action”). The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 in connection with disclosures made regarding ELEVIDYS’s safety and efficacy and the Company’s financial statements and projections. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities between June 22, 2023 and June 24, 2025. The complaint seeks unspecified damages. On October 17, 2025, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On October 24, 2025, lead plaintiffs filed a motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which the court granted on November 6, 2025. On January 22, 2026, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint including a new plaintiff, removing Dallan Murray as a defendant, adding President and Chief Operating Officer Ian Estepan as a defendant, and expanding the class period to shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities between June 22, 2023 and November 3, 2025 (the “Amended Complaint”). The Amended Complaint further alleges additional theories of liability, including that Sarepta and the named defendants made false or misleading public statements related to (i) the safety profile of ELEVIDYS and LGMD therapies that utilize the AAVrh74 viral vector; (ii) the status of the development of LGMD therapies; and (iii) the status of the ESSENCE trial. On March 9, 2026, Sarepta and the named defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and oral argument was held on August 4, 2026.

On July 15, 2025, a shareholder derivative lawsuit concerning certain of the same disclosures underlying the first complaint in the Securities Action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming Company directors M. Kathleen Behrens, Richard J. Barry, Kathryn Boor, Michael Chambers, Deirdre Connelly, Stephen L. Mayo, Claude Nicaise, and Hans Wigzell, as well as Douglas Ingram, Dallan Murray, and Louise Rodino-Klapac (the “Individual Defendants”). Two substantially similar shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the same court against the same defendants on August 20, 2025 and September 10, 2025, respectively (collectively, the “S.D.N.Y. Derivative Actions”). The Company is named as a nominal defendant in all three lawsuits. The S.D.N.Y. Derivative Actions allege, among other claims, breaches of the Individual Defendants’ fiduciary duties in connection with certain of the same disclosures at issue in the Securities Action and violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the Company’s 2024 and 2025 annual proxy statements. The S.D.N.Y. Derivative Actions seek unspecified damages, including costs incurred in defending the Company against the Securities Action. Two of the S.D.N.Y. Derivative Actions also seek an order that the Company take all necessary action to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures. On October 10, 2025, the court consolidated the Derivative Actions and appointed co-lead counsel (the “S.D.N.Y. Consolidated Derivative Action”). On November 17, 2025, the court stayed the S.D.N.Y. Consolidated Derivative Action until the Securities Action is resolved.

On April 7, 2026, a separate shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the same Individual Defendants as in the S.D.N.Y. Consolidated Derivative Action. On July 23, 2026, a similar lawsuit was filed in the same court against nearly all of the Individual Defendants, except it did not name Dallan Murray and added Ian Estepan as a defendant. The Company is named as a nominal defendant in both lawsuits (the “D. Mass. Derivative Actions”). The D. Mass. Derivative Actions assert claims based upon substantially similar statements and theories as the underlying Securities Action, along with allegations concerning statements regarding Company performance and compensation from the Company's 2025 annual proxy statement; the Company's November 2024 repurchase of Company common stock; and certain director stock sales. The D. Mass. Derivative Actions allege, among other claims, breaches of the Individual Defendants’ fiduciary duties and violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. The D. Mass. Derivative Actions further seek, among other relief, unspecified damages and an order directing the Company to take all necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures. On June 22, 2026, the court stayed the first D. Mass. Derivative Action until the Securities Action is resolved and ordered that the terms of the stay shall apply to stockholder derivative actions later filed in that court.

During the three and six months ended June 30, 2026, the Company recorded a litigation contingency charge of $39.0 million related to the potential resolution of certain patent litigations. Following the parties' agreement in principle and based on management's assessment of the available information, the Company determined that a loss was probable and estimable as of June 30, 2026 and recognized its best estimate of the liability. The potential settlement remains outstanding subject to further negotiation and execution of definitive documentation as of the issuance of these unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements. Other than this patent litigation contingency charge, 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 remaining matters described above as of June 30, 2026.