17. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Manufacturing Obligations

*Total manufacturing commitments include the Catalent, Inc. (“Catalent”) manufacturing and supply agreement, for which the Company has ROU assets and lease liabilities recorded on the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2025. For more information, please read Note 22, Commitments and Contingencies to the financial statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024.

**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.

Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.

The Company entered into a development, commercial manufacturing, and supply agreement as related to the Company's adherent manufacturing process for its gene therapy programs in June 2018 and, subsequently, entered into the first, second, third and fourth amendments in May 2019, July 2020, October 2021 and March 2023, respectively, with Brammer Bio MA, LLC (“Brammer”), an affiliate of Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. (“Thermo”) (collectively, the “Thermo Agreement”).

On July 18, 2024, the Company issued a termination notice to Thermo to terminate the Thermo Agreement. The termination was effective as of August 21, 2024.

On December 20, 2024, Brammer filed an arbitration demand against the Company relating to the Company’s termination of the Thermo Agreement. Brammer alleged claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and a violation of MGL c. 93A, and sought relief including damages, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On January 24, 2025, Sarepta filed its answer and asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment and breach of contract, seeking relief including damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.

On July 12, 2025, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Brammer to resolve the outstanding claims related to the termination of the Thermo Agreement (the “Brammer Settlement”). Under the Brammer Settlement, the Company agreed to pay Brammer an aggregate amount of $13.0 million. Upon payment, both parties are required to take all necessary action to dismiss any arbitration. The Brammer Settlement is recorded in the Company's unaudited condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive income (loss) within research and development expense for the three and six months ended June 30, 2025.

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 reserve 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. 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, 2025.

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 (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 have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

On June 20, 2023, Regenx and U-Penn commenced a second patent infringement lawsuit against Sarepta and its contract manufacturer, Catalent, asserting patent alleged 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 for filing with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The petition seeks 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 Inter Partes Review proceedings. On August 22, 2024, the PTAB instituted inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’274 Patent on all asserted grounds. Oral argument in the PTAB proceedings was held on May 28, 2025, and the PTAB’s final written decision is expected in August 2025.

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 petitions for Inter Partes Review (“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 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 increased damages up to three times the amount found or assessed, 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. In its First Amended Complaint, Genzyme no longer alleges willfulness or indirect infringement before the filing of the complaint. 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.

On December 20, 2024, Brammer filed an arbitration demand against the Company relating to the Company’s termination of the Thermo Agreement. Brammer alleged claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and a violation of MGL c. 93A, and seeks relief including damages, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On January 24, 2025, Sarepta filed its answer and asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment and breach of contract, seeking relief including damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On July 12, 2025, the parties entered into the Brammer Settlement, pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay Brammer an aggregate amount of $13.0 million. Upon payment, both parties are required to take all necessary action to dismiss any arbitration.

On June 26, 2025, a putative securities class action complaint was filed against the Company, 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 seeks 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 July 15, 2025, a shareholder derivative lawsuit concerning substantially the same disclosures underlying the Securities Action (the “Derivative 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”). The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The Derivative Action alleges, among other claims, breaches of the Individual Defendants’ fiduciary duties in connection with substantially similar 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 Derivative Action seeks unspecified damages, including costs incurred in defending the Company against the Securities Action. The Derivative Action also seeks an order that the Company take all necessary action to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures.