Company: SRPT
Filing Date: 2025-02-28
Form Type: 10-K
Source: 0000950170-25-029973
Chunk: 487

Company: Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-02-28
Form: 10-K
Item: Item 9A
Chunk 487
---
ents”). 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