Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc.: 10-K Risk Factor Changes

Market prices for securities of companies such as ours are highly volatile. From January 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023, our common stock traded between $282.21 and $413.00 per share. The market for our stock, like that of other companies in the biotechnology industry, has experienced significant price and volume fluctuations. The future market price of our securities could be significantly and adversely affected by factors such as: •the information contained in our quarterly earnings releases, including updates regarding our commercialized products or our product candidates, our net product revenues and operating expenses for completed periods and financial guidance regarding future periods; •announcements of FDA actions with respect to our therapies or those of our competitors, or regulatory filings for our therapies or those of our competitors, or announcements of interim or final results of clinical trials or nonclinical studies relating to our therapies or those of our competitors; •announcements we make or commentary by public equity analysts with respect to clinical development of the product candidates in our pain program; •developments in domestic and international governmental policy or regulation, for example, relating to drug pricing and tax reform; •technological innovations or the introduction of new drugs by our competitors; •government regulatory action; 57 57 57 •public concern as to the safety of drugs developed by us or our competitors; •developments in patent or other intellectual property rights or announcements relating to these matters; •information disclosed by third parties regarding our business or products; •developments relating specifically to other companies and market conditions for pharmaceutical and biotechnology stocks or stocks in general; •business development, capital structuring or financing activities; and •general worldwide or national economic, political and capital market conditions, including as a result of inflation and rapid fluctuations in interest rates. Following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, stockholder derivative lawsuits and securities class action litigation are common. Such litigation, if instituted against us or our officers and directors, could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources.

Market prices for securities of companies such as ours are highly volatile. From January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022, our common stock traded between $214.66 and $324.75 per share. The market for our stock, like that of other companies in the biotechnology industry, has experienced significant price and volume fluctuations. The future market price of our securities could be significantly and adversely affected by factors such as: •the information contained in our quarterly earnings releases, including updates regarding our commercialized products or our product candidates, our net product revenues and operating expenses for completed periods and financial guidance regarding future periods; •announcements of FDA actions with respect to our therapies or those of our competitors, or regulatory filings for our therapies or those of our competitors, or announcements of interim or final results of clinical trials or nonclinical studies relating to our therapies or those of our competitors; •developments in domestic and international governmental policy or regulation, for example, relating to drug pricing and tax reform; •technological innovations or the introduction of new drugs by our competitors; •government regulatory action; •public concern as to the safety of drugs developed by us or our competitors; •developments in patent or other intellectual property rights or announcements relating to these matters; •information disclosed by third parties regarding our business or products; 56 56 56 •developments relating specifically to other companies and market conditions for pharmaceutical and biotechnology stocks or stocks in general; •business development, capital structuring or financing activities; and •general worldwide or national economic, political and capital market conditions, including as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, inflation and rapid fluctuations in interest rates. Following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, stockholder derivative lawsuits and securities class action litigation are common. Such litigation, if instituted against us or our officers and directors, could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources.

We rely on a worldwide network of third-party manufacturers and our internal capabilities, including our own manufacturing facilities in Boston, to manufacture product candidates for clinical trials as well as our medicines for commercial use. While we have developed internal capabilities to supply product candidates for use in our clinical trials as well as our products for commercial sale, a majority of the manufacturing steps needed to produce our medicines, product candidates, and drug products are performed through a third-party manufacturing network. The manufacture of our products and product candidates can be complex, which may require lengthy technology transfers between us and the third parties on which we rely. We expect that we will continue to rely on third parties to meet our commercial supply needs and a significant portion of our clinical supply needs for the foreseeable future. We could be subject to significant supply interruptions as a result of disruptions to third party or our internal manufacturing capabilities. Our supply chain for sourcing raw materials and manufacturing drug product ready for distribution, including obtaining necessary supplies, is a multi-step international endeavor. Third-party contract manufacturers, including some in China, perform different parts of our manufacturing process. Contract manufacturers may supply us with raw materials, convert these raw materials into drug substance and/or convert the drug substance into final dosage form. Third parties are used for packaging, warehousing and distribution of products. The manufacturing and logistics for cell and genetic therapies are highly complex, short lead time operations that require partnership with an extensive network of third parties to deliver product. These manufacturing and logistics operations require significant investment by us to secure capacity at third parties with expertise to meet our requirements. Even with the relevant experience and expertise, manufacturers of cell and genetic therapy products often encounter difficulties in production, including difficulties with production costs and yields, quality control, and compliance with federal, state and 47 47 47 foreign regulations. There are many risks that could result in delays and additional costs, including the need to hire and train qualified employees and obtain access to necessary equipment and third-party technology. This capacity may be limited by the number of other clinical trials and commercial manufacturing ongoing for other companies seeking similar support. If third parties are unwilling or unable to meet our requirements, we could experience supply disruptions outside of our control. Additionally, manufacturing facilities, both foreign and domestic, are subject to inspections by the FDA and other U.S. and foreign government authorities. Although we actively engage with regulatory authorities, the timing of regulatory approvals for each of these facilities may be delayed for a variety of reasons. We may experience supply disruptions if regulatory agencies are unable to inspect the manufacturing facilities on which we rely. In addition, we and the third parties with whom we engage are required to maintain compliance with quality regulations globally. An inability to maintain compliance with such regulations, including cGMP requirements, could cause significant disruptions to our business and operations. Additionally, establishing, managing and expanding our global manufacturing and supply chain requires a significant financial commitment and the creation and maintenance of our numerous third-party contractual relationships. We may not be able to agree on contractual terms with third parties as needed for manufacturing of our products. Although we attempt to manage the business relationships with our partners, we could be subject to supply disruptions outside of our control. Supply disruptions may result from a number of factors, including shortages in product raw materials, labor or technical difficulties, regulatory inspections or restrictions, shipping or customs delays, general global supply chain disruptions, or any other performance failure by us or any third-party manufacturer on which we rely. Additionally, unfavorable geopolitical events or situations could affect our ability to interact with or conduct business with specific vendors within our global supply network, or could prevent or delay the transportation of supplies or products to their planned destination. Any such disruptions could disrupt sales of our products and/or the timing or advancement of our clinical trials. If we or our third-party manufacturers become unable or unwilling to continue manufacturing product and we are not able to promptly identify another manufacturer, we could experience a disruption in the commercial supply of our then-marketed medicines, which would have a significant effect on patients, our business, and our product revenues. Similarly, a disruption in the clinical supply of product candidates could delay the completion of clinical trials and affect timelines for regulatory filings. We have a limited number of critical steps in our manufacturing process that are single sourced, including for commercialized products. To ensure the stability of our supply chains, we continue to develop alternative suppliers for our manufacturing processes. However, there can be no assurance that we will be able to establish and maintain additional manufacturers or capacity for all of our product candidates and products on a timely basis or at all. In the course of providing its services, a contract manufacturer may develop process technology related to the manufacture of our products or product candidates that the manufacturer owns, either independently or jointly with us. This would increase our reliance on that manufacturer or require us to obtain a license from that manufacturer to have our products or product candidates manufactured by other suppliers utilizing the same process.

We rely on a worldwide network of third-party manufacturers and our internal capabilities, including our own manufacturing facilities in Boston, to manufacture product candidates for clinical trials as well as our medicines for commercial use. We could be subject to significant supply interruptions as a result of disruptions to third party or our internal manufacturing capabilities. Our supply chain for sourcing raw materials and manufacturing drug product ready for distribution, including obtaining necessary supplies, is a multi-step international endeavor. Third-party contract manufacturers, including some in China, perform different parts of our manufacturing process. Contract manufacturers may supply us with raw materials, convert these raw materials into drug substance and/or convert the drug substance into final dosage form. Third parties are used for packaging, warehousing and distribution of products. In cell and genetic therapies, third parties also will be used to both manufacture and deliver our therapies, which requires significant investment by us to secure capacity at third parties with expertise to meet our requirements. This capacity may be limited by the number of other clinical trials and commercial manufacturing ongoing for other companies seeking similar support. If third parties are unwilling or unable to meet our requirements, including as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic or because of their own supply or capacity issues, we could experience supply disruptions outside of our control. Additionally, manufacturing facilities, both foreign and domestic, are subject to inspections by the FDA and other U.S. and foreign government authorities. Although we actively engage with regulatory authorities, the timing of regulatory approvals for each of these facilities may be delayed for a variety of reasons, including as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, we and the third parties with whom we engage are required to maintain compliance with quality regulations globally. An inability to maintain compliance with such regulations, including cGMP requirements, could cause significant disruptions to our business and operations. Additionally, establishing, managing and expanding our global supply chain requires a significant financial commitment and the creation and maintenance of our numerous third-party contractual relationships. Although we attempt to manage the business relationships with companies in our supply chain, we could be subject to supply disruptions outside of our control. In addition, we may not be able to agree on contractual terms with third parties as needed for manufacturing of our products. Supply disruptions may result from a number of factors, including shortages in product raw materials, labor or technical difficulties, regulatory inspections or restrictions, shipping or customs delays, general global supply chain disruptions, or any other performance failure by us or any third-party manufacturer on which we rely. We may also experience supply disruptions if regulatory agencies are unable to inspect the manufacturing facilities on which we rely. Any such disruptions could disrupt sales of our products and/or the timing or advancement of our clinical trials. While we have developed internal capabilities to supply product candidates for use in our clinical trials as well as our medicines for commercial sale, a majority of the manufacturing steps needed to produce our medicines, product candidates, and drug products are performed through a third-party manufacturing network. We expect that we will continue to rely on third parties to meet our commercial supply needs and a significant portion of our clinical supply needs for the foreseeable future. If we or our third-party manufacturers become unable or unwilling to continue manufacturing product and we are not able to promptly identify another manufacturer, we could experience a disruption in the commercial supply of our then-marketed medicines, which would have a significant effect on patients, our business, and our product revenues. Similarly, a disruption in the clinical supply of product candidates could delay the completion of clinical trials and affect timelines for regulatory filings. We have a limited number of critical steps in our manufacturing process that are single sourced, including for commercialized products. To ensure the stability of our supply chains, we continue to develop alternatives for our manufacturing processes. However, there can be no assurance that we will be able to establish and maintain additional manufacturers or capacity for all of our product candidates and products on a timely basis or at all. In the course of providing its services, a contract manufacturer may develop process technology related to the 48 48 48 manufacture of our products or product candidates that the manufacturer owns, either independently or jointly with us. This would increase our reliance on that manufacturer or require us to obtain a license from that manufacturer to have our products or product candidates manufactured by other suppliers utilizing the same process.

•If we fail to scale our operations to accommodate growth, our business may suffer. •A variety of risks associated with operating in foreign countries could materially adversely affect our business. •If we fail to attract and retain skilled employees, our business could be materially harmed. •A breakdown or breach of our information technology systems could subject us to liability or interrupt the operation of our business.

•A variety of risks associated with operating in foreign countries could materially adversely affect our business. •If we fail to attract and retain skilled employees, our business could be materially harmed. •A breakdown or breach of our information technology systems could subject us to liability or interrupt the operation of our business.

There is considerable uncertainty within our industry about the validity, scope, and enforceability of many issued patents in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world, and, to date, the law and practice remains in flux both in the agencies that grant 51 51 51 patents and in the courts. We cannot currently determine the ultimate scope and validity of patents which may be granted to third parties in the future or which patents might be asserted as being infringed by the manufacture, use and sale of our products. There has been, and we expect that there may continue to be, significant litigation in the pharmaceutical industry regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. Litigation, arbitrations, administrative proceedings, and other legal actions with private parties and governmental authorities concerning patents and other intellectual property rights may be protracted, expensive, and distracting to management. Competitors may sue us as a way of delaying the introduction of our products or to remove our products from the market. Any litigation, including litigation related to Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDA”), litigation related to 505(b)(2) applications, interference proceedings to determine priority of inventions, derivations proceedings, inter partes review, oppositions to patents in foreign countries, litigation against our collaborators or similar actions, may be costly and time consuming and could harm our business. We expect that litigation may be necessary in some instances to determine the validity and scope of certain of our proprietary rights. Litigation may be necessary in other instances to determine the validity, scope or non-infringement of certain patent rights claimed by third parties to be pertinent to the manufacture, use or sale of our products. Ultimately, the outcome of such litigation could adversely affect the validity and scope of our patent or other proprietary rights, hinder our ability to manufacture and market our products, or result in the assessment of significant monetary damages against us that may exceed amounts, if any, accrued in our consolidated financial statements. On July 24, 2020, we filed a lawsuit against Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (“Sun”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of our U.S. Patent No. 10,646,481 (“the ’481 patent”). The lawsuit follows our receipt of a Notice Letter on June 11, 2020, advising that Sun had submitted an ANDA to the FDA seeking approval to manufacture and market a generic version of the 150 mg tablet of KALYDECO in the U.S. The Notice Letter indicated that Sun submitted a “Paragraph IV” certification to the FDA in which Sun asserts that the ’481 patent is invalid or would not be infringed by Sun’s generic product. The ’481 patent, which expires on August 13, 2029, was issued on May 12, 2020, and listed in the Orange Book with respect to the KALYDECO tablet on June 1, 2020. By letter dated June 5, 2023, Sun notified us that it had amended its ANDA to include a Paragraph IV certification with respect to our U.S. Patent No. 11,564,916 (“the ’916 patent”), which issued on January 31, 2023, is related to the ’481 patent and was listed in the FDA’s Orange Book on February 28, 2023. On June 16, 2023, we filed a lawsuit against Sun in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the ’916 patent. In December 2023, we settled the case against Sun. The terms of the settlement are confidential. On July 13, 2021, we filed a lawsuit against Lupin Limited and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “Lupin”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the ’481 patent. The lawsuit follows our receipt of a Notice Letter on June 2, 2021, advising that Lupin had submitted an ANDA to the FDA seeking approval to manufacture and market a generic version of the 150 mg tablet of KALYDECO in the U.S. The Notice Letter indicated that Lupin submitted a “Paragraph IV” certification to the FDA in which Lupin asserts that the ’481 patent is invalid or would not be infringed by Lupin’s generic product. By letter dated April 25, 2023, Lupin notified us that it had amended its ANDA to include a Paragraph IV certification with respect to the ’916 patent. On May 26, 2023, we filed a lawsuit against Lupin in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the ’916 patent. In November 2023, we settled the case against Lupin. The terms of the settlement agreement are confidential. On June 2, 2022, we filed a lawsuit against Aurobindo Pharma Limited (“Aurobindo”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the ’481 patent. The lawsuit follows our receipt of a Notice Letter on April 21, 2022, advising that Aurobindo had submitted an ANDA to the FDA seeking approval to manufacture and market a generic version of the 150 mg tablet of KALYDECO in the U.S. The Notice Letter indicated that Aurobindo submitted a “Paragraph IV” certification to the FDA in which Aurobindo asserts that the ’481 patent is invalid or would not be infringed by Aurobindo’s generic product. By letter dated April 12, 2023, Aurobindo notified us that it had amended its ANDA to include a Paragraph IV certification with respect to the ’916 patent. On May 26, 2023, we filed a lawsuit against Aurobindo in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the ’916 patent. In November 2023, we settled the case against Aurobindo. The terms of the settlement agreement are confidential. On July 22, 2022, we filed a lawsuit against Lupin in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the ’481 patent and U.S. Patent Nos. 8,883,206 (“the ’206 patent”), 10,272,046 (“the ’046 patent”), and 11,147,770 (“the ’770 patent”). The lawsuit follows our receipt of a Notice Letter on June 9, 2022, advising that Lupin had submitted an ANDA to the FDA seeking approval to manufacture and market a generic version of KALYDECO granules in 52 52 52 the U.S. The Notice Letter indicated that Lupin submitted a “Paragraph IV” certification to the FDA in which Lupin asserts that the ’481 patent, the ’206 patent, and the ’046 patent are invalid or would not be infringed by Lupin’s generic product. By letter dated April 25, 2023, Lupin notified us that it had amended its ANDA to include a Paragraph IV certification with respect to the ’916 patent. On May 26, 2023, we filed a lawsuit against Lupin in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the ’916 patent. On October 11, 2023, U.S. Patent No. 11,752,106 (the “’106 patent”) was listed in the Orange Book as covering KALYDECO granules. We have not yet received notification that Lupin has submitted a “Paragraph IV” certification for the ’106 patent. Other than the ’770 patent, which was listed in the Orange Book on April 14, 2022, Lupin does not appear to challenge our other U.S. patents covering KALYDECO granules, the last of which expires on August 5, 2027. Therefore, regardless of the outcome of the litigation, Lupin cannot receive final approval of its ANDA before that date. A scheduling order has been entered by the court and trial is set for April 2025. We intend to vigorously enforce our intellectual property rights relating to KALYDECO granules and the ’481, ’206, ’046, ’770, ’916, and ’106 patents. CRISPR has licensed certain rights to a worldwide patent portfolio that covers various aspects of the CRISPR/Cas9 editing platform technology including, for example, compositions of matter and methods of use in targeting or cutting DNA from Dr. Emmanuelle Charpentier, one of the named inventors of this patent portfolio. The patent portfolio also has named inventors who assigned their rights to the CVC Group. For example, in connection with their collaboration, Novartis and Intellia Therapeutics, Inc. have reportedly obtained a license to this patent portfolio in certain fields. Both the CVC Group and Broad have obtained granted patents that purport to cover aspects of CRISPR/Cas9 editing platform technology. Patents and patent applications in this patent portfolio have been the subject of numerous contentious proceedings in the U.S., Europe, and other jurisdictions, including interference proceedings in the USPTO between the CVC Group and (separately) Broad, Sigma-Aldrich and ToolGen. On February 28, 2021, the USPTO issued a decision in Interference No. 106, 115, concluding that Broad invented certain applications of CRISPR/Cas9 technology in eukaryotic cells before the CVC Group. The CVC Group has appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. If the decision is upheld on appeal (including a potential subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court), Broad would maintain its granted patents directed to those applications CRISPR/Cas9 technology in eukaryotic cells, and the CVC Group’s pending patent applications directed to that subject matter would not proceed to grant. We can give no assurances to the ultimate outcome of these proceedings or the disputes between the CVC Group and Broad, Sigma-Aldrich and ToolGen. In December 2023, we entered into an agreement with Editas, providing us a non-exclusive sublicense to certain patents relating to CRISPR/Cas9 technology owned by Broad and Harvard, which are licensed to Editas. In addition to Broad, other third parties have filed patent applications claiming CRISPR/Cas9-related inventions and may allege that they invented one or more of the inventions claimed by the CVC Group. Thus, the USPTO may, in the future, declare an interference between certain CVC Group patent applications and one or more patent applications. Third parties could seek to assert their patents, if issued, against us based on our CRISPR/Cas9-based activities, including commercialization. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, could involve substantial litigation expense and could result in a substantial diversion of management and other employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties or redesign our infringing products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. In that event, we could be unable to further develop and commercialize CASGEVY or other products that we may develop using the CRISPR/Cas9 technology we license from CRISPR. To the extent that valid present or future third-party patents or other intellectual property rights cover our products, product candidates or technologies, we or our strategic collaborators may seek licenses or other agreements from the holders of such rights to avoid or settle legal claims. Such licenses may not be available on acceptable terms, which may hinder our ability to, or prevent us from being able to, manufacture and market our products. Payments under any licenses that we are able to obtain would reduce our profits derived from the covered products.

There is considerable uncertainty within our industry about the validity, scope, and enforceability of many issued patents in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world, and, to date, the law and practice remains in substantial flux both in the agencies that grant patents and in the courts. We cannot currently determine the ultimate scope and validity of patents which may be granted to third parties in the future or which patents might be asserted as being infringed by the manufacture, use and sale of our products. There has been, and we expect that there may continue to be, significant litigation in the pharmaceutical industry regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. Litigation, arbitrations, administrative proceedings, and other legal actions with private parties and governmental authorities concerning patents and other intellectual property rights may be protracted, expensive, and distracting to management. Competitors may sue us as a way of delaying the introduction of our products or to remove our products from the market. Any litigation, including litigation related to Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDA”), litigation related to 505(b)(2) applications, interference proceedings to determine priority of inventions, derivations proceedings, inter partes review, oppositions to patents in foreign countries, litigation against our collaborators or similar actions, may be costly and time consuming and could harm our business. We expect that litigation may be necessary in some instances to determine the validity and scope of certain of our proprietary rights. Litigation may be necessary in other instances to determine the validity, scope or non-infringement of certain patent rights claimed by third parties to be pertinent to the manufacture, use or sale of our products. Ultimately, the outcome of such litigation could adversely affect the validity and scope of our patent or other proprietary rights, hinder our ability to manufacture and market our products, or result in the assessment of significant monetary damages against us that may exceed amounts, if any, accrued in our consolidated financial statements. On July 24, 2020, we filed a lawsuit against Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (“Sun”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,646,481 (the “’481 patent”). The lawsuit follows our receipt of a Notice Letter on June 11, 2020, advising that Sun had submitted an ANDA to the FDA seeking approval to manufacture and market a generic version of the 150 mg tablet of KALYDECO® in the U.S. The Notice Letter indicated that Sun submitted a “Paragraph IV” certification to the FDA in which Sun asserts that the ’481 patent is invalid or would not be infringed by Sun’s generic product. The ’481 patent, which expires on August 13, 2029, was issued on May 12, 2020, and 50 50 50 listed in the Orange Book with respect to KALYDECO® tablets on June 1, 2020. Sun does not appear to challenge our other U.S. patents covering KALYDECO tablets, the latest of which expires on August 5, 2027. On July 13, 2021, we filed a lawsuit against Lupin Limited and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “Lupin”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the ’481 patent. The lawsuit follows our receipt of a Notice Letter on June 2, 2021 advising that Lupin had submitted an ANDA to the FDA seeking approval to manufacture and market a generic version of the 150 mg tablet of KALYDECO in the U.S. The Notice Letter indicated that Lupin submitted a “Paragraph IV” certification to the FDA in which Lupin asserts that the ’481 patent is invalid or would not be infringed by Lupin’s generic product. Lupin does not appear to challenge our other U.S. patents covering KALYDECO tablet. On June 2, 2022, we filed a lawsuit against Aurobindo Pharma Limited (“Aurobindo”), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the ’481 patent. The lawsuit follows our receipt of a Notice Letter on April 21, 2022, advising that Aurobindo had submitted an ANDA to the FDA seeking approval to manufacture and market a generic version of the 150 mg tablet of KALYDECO in the U.S. The Notice Letter indicated that Aurobindo submitted a “Paragraph IV” certification to the FDA in which Aurobindo asserts that the ’481 patent is invalid or would not be infringed by Aurobindo’s generic product. Aurobindo does not appear to challenge our other U.S. patents covering KALYDECO® tablet. The lawsuits against Sun, Lupin, and Aurobindo described above regarding the 150mg tablet of KALYDECO and the ’481 patent have been consolidated by the Delaware court. A scheduling order has been entered by the court and trial is set for February 2024. We intend to vigorously enforce our intellectual property rights relating to KALYDECO tablet and the ’481 patent. On July 22, 2022, we filed a lawsuit against Lupin in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging the infringement of the ‘481 patent and the U.S. Patent Nos. 8,883,206 (the “’206 patent”), 10,272,046 (the “’046 patent”), and 11,147,770 (the “’770 patent”). The lawsuit follows our receipt of a Notice Letter on June 9, 2022, advising that Lupin had submitted an ANDA to the FDA seeking approval to manufacture and market a generic version of KALYDECO® granules in the U.S. The Notice Letter indicated that Lupin submitted a “Paragraph IV” certification to the FDA in which Lupin asserts that the ’481 patent, the ’206 patent, and the ’046 patent are invalid or would not be infringed by Lupin’s generic product. Other than the ’770 patent, which was listed in the Orange Book on April 14, 2022, Lupin does not appear to challenge our other U.S. patents covering KALYDECO granules, the last of which expires on August 5, 2027. A scheduling order has been entered by the court and trial is set for September 2024. We intend to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights relating to KALYDECO granules and the ’481, ’206, ’046 and ’770 patents. CRISPR has licensed certain rights to a worldwide patent portfolio that covers various aspects of the CRISPR/Cas9 editing platform technology including, for example, compositions of matter and methods of use in targeting or cutting DNA from Dr. Emmanuelle Charpentier, one of the named inventors of this patent portfolio. The patent portfolio also has named inventors who assigned their rights to the CVC Group. For example, in connection with their collaboration, Novartis and Intellia Therapeutics, Inc. have reportedly obtained a license to this patent portfolio in certain fields. Both the CVC Group and the Broad Institute have obtained granted patents that purport to cover aspects of CRISPR/Cas9 editing platform technology. Patents and patent applications in this patent portfolio have been the subject of numerous contentious proceedings in the U.S., Europe, and other jurisdictions, including interference proceedings in the USPTO between the CVC Group and (separately) the Broad Institute, Sigma-Aldrich and ToolGen. On February 28, 2021, the USPTO issued a decision in Interference No. 106, 115, concluding that the Broad Institute invented certain applications of CRISPR/Cas9 technology in eukaryotic cells before the CVC Group. The CVC Group has appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. If the decision is upheld on appeal (including a potential subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court), the Broad Institute would maintain its granted patents directed to those applications CRISPR/Cas9 technology in eukaryotic cells, and the CVC Group’s pending patent applications directed to that subject matter would not proceed to grant. We can give no assurances to the ultimate outcome of these proceedings or the disputes between the CVC Group and the Broad Institute, Sigma-Aldrich and ToolGen. In addition to the Broad Institute, other third parties have filed patent applications claiming CRISPR/Cas9-related inventions and may allege that they invented one or more of the inventions claimed by the CVC Group. Thus, the USPTO may, in the future, declare an interference between certain CVC Group patent applications and one or more patent applications. The Broad Institute, as well as other third parties, could seek to assert its issued patents against us based on our CRISPR/Cas9-based activities, including commercialization. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, could involve substantial litigation expense and could result in a substantial diversion of management and other employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, obtain 51 51 51 one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties or redesign our infringing products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. In that event, we could be unable to further develop and commercialize exa-cel or other products that we may develop using the CRISPR/Cas9 technology we license from CRISPR. To the extent that valid present or future third-party patents or other intellectual property rights cover our products, product candidates or technologies, we or our strategic collaborators may seek licenses or other agreements from the holders of such rights to avoid or settle legal claims. Such licenses may not be available on acceptable terms, which may hinder our ability to, or prevent us from being able to, manufacture and market our products. Payments under any licenses that we are able to obtain would reduce our profits derived from the covered products.

•Our effective tax rate fluctuates, and changes in tax laws, regulations and treaties, unfavorable resolution to the tax positions we have taken or exposure to additional income tax liabilities could have a material impact on our future taxable income. 30 30 30

We own and/or control numerous issued patents and pending patent applications in the U.S., as well as counterparts in other countries. Our success will depend, in significant part, on our ability to obtain and defend U.S. and foreign patents covering our products, their uses and our processes, to preserve our trade secrets and to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. We cannot be certain that any patents will issue from our pending patent applications or, even if patents issue or have issued, that the issued claims will provide us with adequate protection against competitive products or otherwise be commercially valuable. U.S. and foreign patent applications typically are maintained in confidence for a period of time after they initially are filed with the applicable patent office. Consequently, we cannot be certain that we were the first to file patent applications on our products or product candidates or their use. If a third-party has an earlier filed patent application relating to our product or product candidates, their uses, or a similar invention, we may be unable to obtain an issued patent from our application. Due to evolving legal standards relating to the patentability, validity, and enforceability of patents covering pharmaceutical and biotechnological inventions and the scope of claims made under these patents, our ability to obtain, maintain and enforce patents is uncertain and involves complex legal and factual questions. The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity, or enforceability. Our patents may be challenged by third parties and certain of our patents have been challenged. This could result in the patent being deemed invalid, unenforceable or narrowed in scope, or the third party may circumvent any such issued patents, including through compulsory licensing mechanisms. Also, our pending patent applications may not issue, and we may not receive any additional patents. Our patents or patents we license might not contain claims that are sufficiently broad to prevent others from developing competing products. For instance, issued patents, or patents that may issue in the future, (i) relating to our small molecules may be limited to a particular molecule or molecules and may not cover similar molecules that have similar clinical properties, and (ii) relating to cell or genetic therapies may not cover similar technologies that would allow competitors to achieve similar results. Consequently, our competitors may independently develop competing products that do not infringe our patents or other intellectual property. The laws of many foreign jurisdictions do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as in the U.S. and many companies in our segment of the pharmaceutical industry have encountered significant difficulties in protecting and defending such rights in foreign jurisdictions. If we encounter such difficulties in protecting or are otherwise precluded from effectively protecting our intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions, including through compulsory licensing, our business could be substantially harmed. Because of the extensive time required for the discovery, development, testing and regulatory review of product candidates, it is possible that a patent may expire before a product candidate can be commercialized, or a patent may expire or remain in effect for only a short period following commercialization of such product candidate. This would result in a minimal or non-existent period of patent exclusivity. If our product candidates are not commercialized significantly ahead of the expiration date of any applicable patent, or if we have no patent protection on such product candidates, then, to the extent available we would rely on other forms of exclusivity, such as data exclusivity or orphan drug exclusivity.

We own and/or control numerous issued patents and pending patent applications in the U.S., as well as counterparts in other countries. Our success will depend, in significant part, on our ability to obtain and defend U.S. and foreign patents covering our products, their uses and our processes, to preserve our trade secrets and to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. We cannot be certain that any patents will issue from our pending patent applications or, even if patents issue or have issued, that the issued claims will provide us with adequate protection against competitive products or otherwise be commercially valuable. Due to evolving legal standards relating to the patentability, validity, and enforceability of patents covering pharmaceutical and biotechnological inventions and the scope of claims made under these patents, our ability to obtain, maintain and enforce patents is uncertain and involves complex legal and factual questions. Recent patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents in the U.S. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the “Leahy-Smith Act”), made a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law in 2011. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. For example, the first to file provisions limit the rights of an inventor who is the first to invent an invention but is not the first to file an application claiming that invention. U.S. and foreign patent applications typically are maintained in confidence for a period of time after they initially are filed with the applicable patent office. Consequently, we cannot be certain that we were the first to invent, or the first to file patent applications on, our products or product candidates or their use. If a third party also has filed a U.S. patent application relating to our products or product candidates, their uses, or a similar invention, we may have to participate in legal or administrative proceedings to determine priority of invention. For applications governed by the Leahy-Smith Act, if a third-party has an earlier filed U.S. patent application relating to our products or product candidates, their uses, or a similar invention, we may be unable to obtain an 49 49 49 issued patent from our application. The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity, or enforceability. Our patents may be challenged by third parties and certain of our patents have been challenged. This could result in the patent being deemed invalid, unenforceable or narrowed in scope, or the third party may circumvent any such issued patents. Also, our pending patent applications may not issue, and we may not receive any additional patents. Our patents or patents we license might not contain claims that are sufficiently broad to prevent others from developing competing products. For instance, issued patents, or patents that may issue in the future, (i) relating to our small molecules may be limited to a particular molecule or molecules and may not cover similar molecules that have similar clinical properties, and (ii) relating to cell or genetic therapies may not cover similar technologies that would allow competitors to achieve similar results. Consequently, our competitors may independently develop competing products that do not infringe our patents or other intellectual property. In addition, CRISPR only has co-exclusive rights to the patent rights that protect the core CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technology. The laws of many foreign jurisdictions do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as in the U.S. and many companies in our segment of the pharmaceutical industry have encountered significant difficulties in protecting and defending such rights in foreign jurisdictions. If we encounter such difficulties in protecting or are otherwise precluded from effectively protecting our intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions, our business could be substantially harmed. Because of the extensive time required for the discovery, development, testing and regulatory review of product candidates, it is possible that a patent may expire before a product candidate can be commercialized, or a patent may expire or remain in effect for only a short period following commercialization of such product candidate. This would result in a minimal or non-existent period of patent exclusivity. If our product candidates are not commercialized significantly ahead of the expiration date of any applicable patent, or if we have no patent protection on such product candidates, then, to the extent available we would rely on other forms of exclusivity, such as data exclusivity or orphan drug exclusivity.

Provisions of our articles of organization, by-laws and Massachusetts state laws may frustrate any attempt to remove or replace members of our current Board of Directors and may discourage certain types of business combinations involving us. Our by-laws allow the Board of Directors to adjourn any meetings of shareholders prior to the time the meeting has been convened. We may issue shares of any class or series of preferred stock in the future without shareholder approval and upon such terms as our Board of Directors may determine. The rights of the holders of common stock will be subject to, and may be adversely affected by, the rights of the holders of any class or series of preferred stock that may be issued in the future. Massachusetts state law also prohibits us from engaging in specified business combinations with an interested stockholder, subject to certain exceptions, unless the combination is approved or consummated in a prescribed manner, places restrictions on voting by any shareholder who acquires 20% or more of the aggregate shareholder voting power without approval by non-interested shareholders. As a result, shareholders or other parties may find it difficult to remove or replace our directors or to effectuate certain types of business combinations involving us.

Provisions of our articles of incorporation, by-laws and Massachusetts state laws may frustrate any attempt to remove or replace members of our current Board of Directors and may discourage certain types of business combinations involving Vertex. Our by-laws grant the directors a right to adjourn any meetings of shareholders prior to the time the meeting has been convened. We may issue shares of any class or series of preferred stock in the future without shareholder approval and upon such terms as our Board of Directors may determine. The rights of the holders of common stock will be subject to, and may be adversely affected by, the rights of the holders of any class or series of preferred stock that may be issued in the future. Massachusetts state law also prohibits us from engaging in specified business combinations with an interested stockholder unless the combination is approved or consummated in a prescribed manner, and prohibits voting by any shareholder who acquires 20% or more of the outstanding voting stock without shareholder approval. As a result, shareholders or other parties may find it difficult to remove or replace our directors or to effectuate certain types of business combinations involving Vertex.

Sales of our products depend in part upon the availability of reimbursement from third-party payors. Third-party payors include government health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid in the U.S. and the national health care systems in ex-U.S. markets, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. The trend in the health care industry is cost containment, and efforts of third-party payors to contain or reduce health care costs may adversely affect our ability to establish or maintain appropriate prices for our products or any drugs that we may develop and commercialize. In the U.S., there have been, and we expect that there will continue to be, a number of federal and state proposals to implement governmental controls that are similar to those that currently exist in Europe. For example, the ACA required manufacturers of Medicare Part D brand name drugs to provide discounts on those drugs to Medicare Part D beneficiaries during the coverage gap; increased the rebates paid by pharmaceutical companies to state Medicaid programs on drugs covered by Medicaid; and imposed an annual fee, which increases annually, on sales by branded pharmaceutical manufacturers. Additionally, private payors, including health maintenance organizations and pharmacy benefit managers in the U.S., are adopting more aggressive utilization management techniques and are increasingly applying restrictive plan designs that can impact patients and manufacturers, and they continue to push for significant discounts and rebates from manufacturers. Additionally, on August 16, 2022, the IRA was enacted. Among other things, the IRA establishes a Drug Price Negotiation Program, under which the government may negotiate maximum fair prices for certain drugs covered by Medicare that do not have generic or biosimilar competition. The first set of maximum fair prices will be effective in 2026. Certain products are excluded from the negotiation program including drugs that have a single orphan drug designation and that are not approved for any other orphan or non-orphan diseases or conditions. We cannot predict with certainty whether there will be future legislative changes to the scope of these exclusions. The law also requires manufacturers to pay a rebate to Medicare if the price of a Medicare drug (under both Part B and Part D) increases faster than the rate of inflation. The law also redesigns the Part D benefit. The current Coverage Gap Discount Program, which requires manufacturers to provide a 70% discount on brand drugs and biologics during the coverage gap phase, will be eliminated after the 2024 plan year. Starting in 2025, manufacturers of brand drugs and biologics will be required to provide a 10% discount during the initial 36 36 36 phase and a 20% discount during the catastrophic phase of the Part D benefit. The IRA continues a trend in the U.S. toward reducing drug prices and limiting spending by the federal health care programs on drugs. We cannot predict how CMS will interpret the IRA or how the provisions of the law will affect our business once fully implemented, but it is possible that these changes or other legislative updates will have an adverse impact on our revenue. The IRA also requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”) to issue program guidance on numerous areas associated with implementation of the law’s requirements, including for drug price negotiation and inflation rebates. We cannot know what form this program guidance would take or how it would affect our business. It is possible the U.S. Congress or administration may take further actions to address health care costs and access to medicine, and specifically address coverage and reimbursement of cell and gene therapies. For example, in October 2022, President Biden issued an Executive Order directing the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (“CMMI”), to consider new healthcare payment and delivery models that would lower drug costs and promote access to innovative drug therapies for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. In February 2023, the Secretary submitted a report to the White House describing three models that the Secretary selected for testing. Among the selected models is a Cell & Gene Therapy Access Model, under which CMS would structure and coordinate multi-state Medicaid outcomes-based agreements between participating states and manufacturers. The report also directs CMS to consider potential Medicare fee-for-service options to support cell and gene therapy access and affordability. In October 2023, CMMI further announced that it will move the start-date for the Cell & Gene Therapy Access Model from 2026 to 2025. On January 30, 2024,CMMI released additional information about the Cell & Gene Therapy Access Model, including the initial focus on cell and gene therapies for sickle cell disease. CMS intends to negotiate outcomes-based agreements with manufacturers between May 2024 and November 2024. In addition to the supplemental rebate negotiated under the outcomes-based agreement, participating manufacturers would be required to cover certain fertility preservation services and supports for ancillary services (e.g., travel, case management, behavioral health services). CMS is requesting that states submit an optional, non-binding letter of intent by April 2024. States may begin participating in the Cell & Gene Therapy Access Model on a rolling-basis, between January 2025 and January 2026. Third-party payors throughout the world also have been attempting to control drug spending in light of the global economic pressures. In reimbursement negotiations, many payors are requesting price discounts and caps on total expenditures and limiting both the types and variety of drugs that they will cover if they are not able to secure them. Some payors restrict reimbursement to certain patient groups or by indication. As part of these negotiations, many ex-U.S. government payors also are requiring companies to establish product cost-effectiveness as a condition of reimbursement. These cost-effectiveness reviews may overlook many of the benefits provided by innovative medicines, and for the most part, have not taken into account the specific circumstances of products that treat rare diseases. This has led to conclusions that certain medicines, including our products in certain jurisdictions, are not cost-effective. As a result, certain countries have declined to reimburse, or delayed their reimbursement of, some of our products. Although not mandated in the U.S., various organizations have started advocating for cost-effectiveness analyses in the U.S. as well as value-based contracting in which the amount of reimbursement for a product is based on patient outcomes and other clinical or economic metrics related to the performance of such product. If U.S. payors were to adopt such assessments and make negative coverage determinations or utilize value-based contracts that result in penalties to, or lower rates of, reimbursement, it could adversely affect our product revenues. Our business would be materially adversely affected if we are not able to obtain or maintain coverage and reimbursement of our products from third-party payors on a broad, timely, or satisfactory basis, or if such coverage is subject to overly broad or restrictive utilization management controls. The increasing availability and use of innovative specialty pharmaceuticals for rare diseases, combined with their higher cost as compared to other types of pharmaceutical products, is generating significant third-party payor interest in developing cost-containment strategies targeted to this sector. Government regulations in both U.S. and ex-U.S. markets could further limit the prices that can be charged for our products and may limit our commercial opportunity. The increasing use of cost-effectiveness assessments in markets around the world and the financial challenges faced by many governments may lead to significant adverse effects on our business.

Sales of our products depend in part upon the availability of reimbursement from third-party payors. Third-party payors include government health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid in the U.S. and the national health care systems in ex-U.S. markets, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. The trend in the health care industry is cost containment, and efforts of third-party payors to contain or reduce health care costs may adversely affect our ability to establish or maintain appropriate prices for our products or any drugs that we may develop and commercialize. In the U.S., there have been, and we expect that there will continue to be, a number of federal and state proposals to implement governmental controls that are similar to those that currently exist in Europe. For example, the ACA required 35 35 35 manufacturers of Medicare Part D brand name drugs to provide discounts on those drugs to Medicare Part D beneficiaries during the coverage gap; increased the rebates paid by pharmaceutical companies to state Medicaid programs on drugs covered by Medicaid; and imposed an annual fee, which increases annually, on sales by branded pharmaceutical manufacturers. Additionally, private payors, including health maintenance organizations and pharmacy benefit managers in the U.S., are adopting more aggressive utilization management techniques and are increasingly applying restrictive plan designs that can impact patients and manufacturers, and they continue to push for significant discounts and rebates from manufacturers. Additionally, on August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act was enacted. The law establishes a Drug Price Negotiation Program, under which the government may negotiate maximum fair prices for certain drugs covered by Medicare that do not have generic or biosimilar competition. The first set of maximum fair prices will be effective in 2026. Certain products are excluded from the negotiation program including drugs that have a single orphan drug designation and that are not approved for any other orphan or non-orphan diseases or conditions. We cannot predict with certainty whether there will be future legislative changes to the scope of these exclusions. The law also requires manufacturers to pay a rebate to Medicare if the price of a Medicare drug (under both Part B and Part D) increases faster than the rate of inflation. The law also redesigns the Part D benefit. The current Coverage Gap Discount Program, which requires manufacturers to provide a 70% discount on brand drugs and biologics during the coverage gap phase, will be eliminated after the 2024 plan year. Starting in 2025, manufacturers of brand drugs and biologics will be required to provide a 10% discount during the initial phase and a 20% discount during the catastrophic phase of the Part D benefit. The Inflation Reduction Act continues a trend in the United States toward reducing drug prices and limiting spending by the federal health care programs on drugs. We cannot predict how CMS will interpret the Inflation Reduction Act or how the provisions of the law will affect our business once fully implemented, but it is possible that these changes or other legislative updates will have an adverse impact on our revenue. The Inflation Reduction Act also requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue program guidance on numerous areas associated with implementation of the law’s requirements, including for drug price negotiation and inflation rebates. We cannot know what form this program guidance would take or how it would affect our business. It is possible the U.S. Congress or administration may take further actions to control prescription drug pricing. For example, in October 2022, President Biden issued an Executive Order, directing the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (“CMMI”), to consider new healthcare payment and delivery models that would lower drug costs and promote access to innovative drug therapies for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. The Executive Order requires CMMI to submit a report to the White House on potential models. Third-party payors throughout the world also have been attempting to control drug spending in light of the global economic pressures, including due to COVID-19. In reimbursement negotiations, many payors are requesting price discounts and caps on total expenditures and limiting both the types and variety of drugs that they will cover if they are not able to secure them. Some payors restrict reimbursement to certain patient groups or by indication. As part of these negotiations, many ex-U.S. government payors also are requiring companies to establish product cost-effectiveness as a condition of reimbursement. These cost-effectiveness reviews may overlook many of the benefits provided by innovative medicines, and for the most part, have not taken into account the specific circumstances of products that treat rare diseases. This has led to conclusions that certain medicines, including our products in certain jurisdictions, are not cost-effective. As a result, certain countries have declined to reimburse, or delayed their reimbursement of, some of our products. Although not mandated in the U.S., various organizations have started advocating for cost-effectiveness analyses in the U.S. as well as value-based contracting in which the amount of reimbursement for a product is based on patient outcomes and other clinical or economic metrics related to the performance of such product. If U.S. payors were to adopt such assessments and make negative coverage determinations or utilize value-based contracts that result in penalties to, or lower rates of, reimbursement, it could adversely affect our product revenues. Our business would be materially adversely affected if we are not able to obtain or maintain coverage and reimbursement of our products from third-party payors on a broad, timely, or satisfactory basis, or if such coverage is subject to overly broad or restrictive utilization management controls. The increasing availability and use of innovative specialty pharmaceuticals for rare diseases, combined with their higher cost as compared to other types of pharmaceutical products, is generating significant third-party payor interest in developing cost-containment strategies targeted to this sector. Government regulations in both U.S. and ex-U.S. markets could further limit the prices that can be charged for our products and may limit our commercial opportunity. The increasing use of cost-effectiveness assessments in markets around the world and the financial challenges faced by many governments may lead to significant adverse effects on our business. 36 36 36

•Our product candidates remain subject to clinical testing and regulatory approval, and our future success is dependent on our ability to successfully develop additional product candidates for both CF and non-CF indications. •If we are unable to obtain or are delayed in obtaining regulatory approval, we may incur additional costs, experience delays in commercialization, or be unable to commercialize our product candidates. •If clinical trials are prolonged or delayed, our development timelines for the affected development program could be extended, our costs to develop the product candidate could increase and the competitive position of the product candidate could be adversely affected. 31 31 31 •Difficulty in enrolling patients could delay or prevent clinical trials of our product candidates, and ultimately delay or prevent regulatory approval. •Enrollment for clinical trials for our cell and gene therapies may face additional and unique challenges and adverse developments associated with these clinical trials could result in action by regulatory bodies, including revised requirements for approval.

•Our product candidates remain subject to clinical testing and regulatory approval, and our future success is dependent on our ability to successfully develop additional product candidates for both CF and non-CF indications. •If we are unable to obtain or are delayed in obtaining regulatory approval, we may incur additional costs, experience delays in commercialization, or be unable to commercialize our product candidates. •If clinical trials are prolonged or delayed, our development timelines for the affected development program could be extended, our costs to develop the product candidate could increase and the competitive position of the product candidate could be adversely affected. •Difficulty in enrolling patients could delay or prevent clinical trials of our product candidates, and ultimately delay or prevent regulatory approval. 29 29 29

Social media is being used by third parties to communicate about our products and product candidates and the diseases our therapies are designed to treat. We believe that members of the communities supporting serious diseases may be more active on social media as compared to other patient populations due to the demographics of those patient populations. Social media practices in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are evolving, which creates uncertainty and risk of noncompliance with regulations applicable to our business. For example, patients may use social media platforms to comment on the effectiveness of, or adverse experiences with, a product or a product candidate, which could result in reporting obligations. In addition, our employees may engage on social media in ways that may not comply with legal or regulatory requirements, which may give rise to liability, lead to the loss of trade secrets and other intellectual property, or result in public disclosure of protected personal information. There is a risk of inappropriate disclosure of sensitive information or negative or inaccurate posts or comments about us on any social networking website. Negative sentiment about us or our business shared over social media, or misinformation disseminated from fraudulent accounts impersonating our employees or our business, or otherwise, could harm our business and reputation, whether or not it is based in fact. Certain data protection regulations, such as the GDPR, apply to personal data contained on social media. If any of these events were to occur or we otherwise fail to comply with applicable regulations, we could incur liability, face regulatory actions or incur harm to our business, including damage to our reputation. Similar risks relating to inappropriate disclosure of sensitive information or inaccurate information appearing in the public domain may also apply from our employees engaging with and use of new artificial intelligence tools, such as ChatGPT.

Social media is being used by third parties to communicate about our products and product candidates and the diseases our therapies are designed to treat. We believe that members of the CF community may be more active on social media as compared to other patient populations due to the demographics of this patient population. Social media practices in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are evolving, which creates uncertainty and risk of noncompliance with regulations applicable to our business. For example, patients may use social media platforms to comment on the effectiveness of, or adverse experiences with, a product or a product candidate, which could result in reporting obligations. In addition, our employees may engage on social media in ways that may not comply with legal or regulatory requirements, which may give rise to liability, lead to the loss of trade secrets and other intellectual property, or result in public disclosure of protected personal information. There is a risk of inappropriate disclosure of sensitive information or negative or inaccurate posts or comments about us on any social networking website. Certain data protection regulations, such as the GDPR, apply to personal data contained on social media. If any of these events were to occur or we otherwise fail to comply with applicable regulations, we could incur liability, face regulatory actions or incur harm to our business, including damage to our reputation.

•If regulatory authorities interpret any of our conduct, including our marketing practices, as being in violation of applicable health care laws, including fraud and abuse laws, laws prohibiting off-label promotion, disclosure laws or other similar laws, we may be subject to civil or criminal penalties. •If we fail to comply with our reporting and payment obligations under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program or other governmental pricing programs in the U.S., we could be subject to additional reimbursement requirements, penalties, sanctions, and fines that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. •If our processes and systems are not compliant with regulatory requirements, we could be subject to restrictions on marketing our products or could be delayed in submitting regulatory filings seeking approvals for our product candidates. •The regulatory approval process for our cell and genetic therapies involves additional consultations with regulatory agencies, costs, and potentially longer timelines as compared to those for small molecules.

•If regulatory authorities interpret any of our conduct, including our marketing practices, as being in violation of applicable health care laws, including fraud and abuse laws, laws prohibiting off-label promotion, disclosure laws or other similar laws, we may be subject to civil or criminal penalties. •If we fail to comply with our reporting and payment obligations under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program or other governmental pricing programs in the U.S., we could be subject to additional reimbursement requirements, penalties, sanctions and fines that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. •If our processes and systems are not compliant with regulatory requirements, we could be subject to restrictions on marketing our products or could be delayed in submitting regulatory filings seeking approvals for our product candidates. •We are subject to various and evolving laws and regulations governing the privacy and security of personal data, and our failure to comply could adversely affect our business, result in fines and/or criminal penalties, and damage our reputation.

There also has been an increase in state legislation and regulations related to drug pricing and drug pricing transparency. In the U.S., various states, including Nevada, Maryland, Louisiana, New York, California, Washington, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Utah, Minnesota, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, Maine, Texas, North Dakota, West Virginia, Florida, and New Jersey have passed legislation requiring companies to disclose extensive 37 37 37 information relating to drug prices, drug price increases, and spending on research, development, and marketing, among other things. Although it is not always clear what states will do with the collected information, some laws were designed to obtain additional product discounts. Additionally, certain states have enacted laws establishing PDABs. Some state PDABs either have the authority or have defined a pathway where they may be granted the authority to establish upper payment limits for prescription drugs, including Colorado, Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota. Under the Washington law, the PDAB cannot select for an affordability review drugs that are solely for the treatment of an orphan-designated disease or condition. In August 2023, the Colorado PDAB selected five drugs for an affordability review, including TRIKAFTA; in December, it found TRIKAFTA to be not unaffordable, and thus not eligible for an upper payment limit. We cannot, however, predict whether future reviews by the Colorado PDAB, or any other PDAB, will come to the same conclusion about TRIKAFTA or any of our other therapies, or the amount of any potential upper payment limit. We may continue to see more state action requiring additional disclosures or other actions. Additional state actions, including the importation of drugs from other countries, also may affect the availability and accessibility of our medicines. For example, on January 5, 2024, the FDA authorized Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration’s drug importation program under section 804 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which eventually would allow Florida to import certain prescription drugs from Canada. The importation of drugs from Canada or other countries that potentially could compete with our medicines could create increased pressure on our revenue and profitability. In addition, we could see increased federal activity related to drug pricing and transparency requiring disclosures or other actions instead of, or in addition to, state requirements. Similar initiatives also are occurring in, or being considered by, some of our ex-U.S. markets, including Italy and Brazil. Complying with these laws can be expensive and requires significant personnel and operational resources. Furthermore, any additional required discounts would adversely affect the pricing of, and revenues from, our products. Finally, while we seek to comply with all statutory and regulatory requirements, we face increased enforcement activity by the U.S. federal government, state governments, and private payors against pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for pricing and reimbursement-related issues as well as inquiries from the U.S. Congress. Other federal activities seeking to specifically address drug pricing and reimbursement include: •rulemaking related to importation of prescription drugs from Canada, as well as guidance related to importation of prescription drugs from other foreign countries; •attempts to establish reference pricing for certain physician-administered drugs; •executive orders relating to drug pricing that are intended to broadly impact the pharmaceutical industry; •changes to the federal anti-kickback statute safe harbors that eliminate anti-kickback statute discount safe harbor protection for certain manufacturer rebate arrangements; and •legislation relating to drug pricing, including enhanced transparency measures into drug pricing. We expect government scrutiny over drug pricing, reimbursement, and distribution to continue. Potential future government regulation of drug prices or reimbursement creates uncertainties about our portfolio and could have a material adverse effect on our operations. Moreover, antitrust and/or competition laws are increasingly being used to scrutinize pricing on high-value medicines. Defending against an antitrust or competition claim can be expensive and requires significant personnel and operational resources, may ultimately lead to a reduction in the prices of our products, and can ultimately result a material adverse effect on profitability and our business overall. Additionally, governmental efforts to pursue compulsory licensing, including the Biden Administration’s proposed framework to pursue so-called “march in” rights, could affect our pricing strategy and result in an adverse impact on our revenue.

There also has been an increase in state legislation and regulations related to drug pricing and drug pricing transparency. In the U.S., various states, including Nevada, Maryland, Louisiana, New York, California, Washington, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Utah, Minnesota, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, Maine, Texas, North Dakota, and West Virginia, have passed legislation requiring companies to disclose extensive information relating to drug prices, drug price increases, and spending on research, development, and marketing, among other things. Although it is not always clear what states will do with the collected information, some laws were designed to obtain additional product discounts. Additionally, certain states have enacted laws establishing Prescription Drug Affordability Boards (“PDABs”). Some state PDABs either have the authority or have defined a pathway where they may be granted the authority, to establish upper payment limits for prescription drugs—although to date, none of the states have exercised this authority. We may continue to see more state action requiring additional disclosures or other actions. In addition, we could see increased federal activity related to drug pricing and transparency requiring disclosures or other actions instead of, or in addition to, state requirements. Similar initiatives also are occurring in, or being considered by, some of our ex-U.S. markets, including Italy and Brazil. Complying with these laws can be expensive and requires significant personnel and operational resources. Furthermore, any additional required discounts would adversely affect the pricing of, and revenues from, our products. Finally, while we seek to comply with all statutory and regulatory requirements, we face increased enforcement activity by the U.S. federal government, state governments, and private payors against pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for pricing and reimbursement-related issues as well as inquiries from the U.S. Congress. Other federal activities seeking to specifically address drug pricing and reimbursement include: •rulemaking related to importation of prescription drugs from Canada, as well as guidance related to importation of prescription drugs from other foreign countries; •attempts to establish reference pricing for certain physician-administered drugs; •executive orders relating to drug pricing that are intended to broadly impact the pharmaceutical industry; •changes to the federal anti-kickback statute safe harbors that eliminate anti-kickback statute discount safe harbor protection for certain manufacturer rebate arrangements; and •legislation relating to drug pricing, including enhanced transparency measures into drug pricing. We expect government scrutiny over drug pricing, reimbursement, and distribution to continue. Potential future government regulation of drug prices or reimbursement creates uncertainties about our portfolio and could have a material adverse effect on our operations.

•We invest significant resources in the research, development, manufacturing and supply of therapies for serious diseases, and if we are unable to successfully develop and commercialize additional products, our business could be materially harmed. •Over the last several years all of our product revenues were derived from sales of our CF medicines. If we are unable to continue to increase revenues from sales of our CF medicines, our business would be materially harmed and the market price of our common stock would likely decline. •If we are not successful in commercializing CASGEVY, our revenue growth could be limited and our business could be materially harmed. •If we are unable to successfully develop, obtain approval, and commercialize treatments for acute and neuropathic pain, our business could be materially harmed. •If our competitors bring products with superior product profiles to market, our products may not be competitive, and our revenues could decline. •If we discover safety issues with any of our products or if we fail to comply with continuing U.S. and applicable foreign regulations, commercialization efforts for the product could be negatively affected, the approved product could lose its approval or sales could be suspended, and our business could be materially harmed. •If physicians and patients do not accept our products, or if patients do not remain on treatment or comply with their prescribed dosing regimen, our product revenues would be materially harmed in future periods. •Cell and genetic therapies face increased scrutiny from the public and medical communities and commercial success will depend, in part, upon the acceptance of those communities.

•We invest significant resources in the research, development, manufacturing and supply of therapies for serious diseases other than CF, and if we are unable to successfully commercialize one or more of these therapies, our business could be materially harmed. •All of our product revenues and the vast majority of our total revenues are derived from sales of medicines for the treatment of CF. If we are unable to continue to increase revenues from sales of our CF medicines or to eventually derive revenues from the sales of our pipeline products, our business would be materially harmed and the market price of our common stock would likely decline. •We have limited experience developing and commercializing cell and genetic therapies and could experience challenges with these programs, which could result in delays or prevent the development, manufacturing and commercialization of our cell and genetic therapies. •If our competitors bring products with superior product profiles to market, our products may not be competitive and our revenues could decline. •If we discover safety issues with any of our products or if we fail to comply with continuing U.S. and applicable foreign regulations, commercialization efforts for the product could be negatively affected, the approved product could lose its approval or sales could be suspended, and our business could be materially harmed. •If physicians and patients do not accept our products, or if patients do not remain on treatment or comply with their prescribed dosing regimen, our product revenues would be materially harmed in future periods.

We invest significant resources in the research and development of therapies for serious diseases, including CF, SCD, TDT, acute and neuropathic pain, AMKD, T1D, DM1, and AATD. Product development is highly uncertain and expensive, and we may experience unforeseen delays, including regulatory and commercialization delays. Product candidates that may appear promising in the early phases of research and development may fail to reach commercial success for many reasons, including the failure to demonstrate acceptable clinical trial results or obtain marketing approval, the inability to manufacture or commercialize the product candidate on economically feasible terms, or the appearance of safety issues. When we receive marketing approval for a pipeline product, we cannot be sure that we will obtain market acceptance or adequate reimbursement levels from third-party payors or foreign governments for such product. Additionally, many of the therapies that we are developing in our pipeline target rare diseases that affect a limited number of patients. There can be no guarantee that we will effectively identify patients that are eligible for enrollment in our clinical trials or treatment with our product candidates. Even if we do successfully identify eligible patients, the number of patients that our product candidates are able to treat may turn out to be lower than we expect or new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify, each of which may adversely affect our revenues and materially harm our business. If we are not able to successfully develop and commercialize additional products our business could be materially harmed.

We invest significant resources in the research and development of medicines for serious diseases including SCD, beta thalassemia, pain, AMKD, T1D, AATD, DMD and DM1. Some of these programs have progressed into clinical trials, while others are still in pre-clinical development. Product development is highly uncertain and expensive, and we may experience unforeseen delays, including regulatory and commercialization delays. Product candidates that may appear promising in the early phases of research and development may fail to reach commercial success for many reasons, including the failure to demonstrate acceptable clinical trial results or obtain marketing approval, the inability to manufacture or commercialize the product candidate on economically feasible terms, or the appearance of safety issues. For example, in October 2020, we decided not to progress VX-814, a drug candidate for the treatment of AATD, into further development based on safety and pharmacokinetic data observed in a Phase 2 clinical trial. Even if we gain marketing approval for one or more pipeline products, we cannot be sure that we will obtain market acceptance or adequate reimbursement levels from third-party payors or foreign governments for such products. Additionally, many of the therapies that we are developing in our pipeline target rare diseases that affect a limited number of patients. There can be no guarantee that we will effectively identify patients that are eligible for enrollment in our clinical trials or treatment with our product candidates. Even if we do successfully identify eligible patients, the number of patients that our product candidates are able to treat may turn out to be lower than we expect or new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify, each of which may adversely affect our revenues and materially harm our business. For these and other reasons, we may never be successful in expanding our pipeline and future revenue may continue to depend on sales of our CF medicines.

The risks that we face in connection with our current collaborations, including with CRISPR, Moderna, and Entrada, and any future collaborations, include the following: •Collaborators may develop and commercialize, either alone or with others, drugs or therapies that are similar to or competitive with the products or product candidates that are the subject of their collaborations with us. •Disagreements with collaborators, including disagreements over proprietary rights, contract interpretation or the preferred course of development, might cause delays or termination of the research, development or commercialization of product candidates, might lead to additional responsibilities or costs for us with respect to product candidates, or might result in litigation or arbitration. Any such disagreements would divert management attention and resources and would be time-consuming and expensive. •Collaborators may not properly maintain or defend our intellectual property rights or may use our proprietary information in such a way as to invite litigation that could jeopardize or invalidate our intellectual property or proprietary information or expose us to potential litigation. •Collaborators may infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties, which may expose us to litigation and potential liability. •Investigations and/or compliance or enforcement actions against a collaborator, which may expose us to indirect liability as a result of our partnership with such collaborator. If a collaborator were to be involved in a business combination with a third party, it might de-emphasize or terminate the development or commercialization of any product candidate licensed to it by us. If one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to attract new collaborators and our perception in the business and financial communities could be harmed. 49 49 49 Moreover, as part of our ongoing strategy, we may seek additional collaborative arrangements for certain of our development programs and/or seek to expand existing collaborations to cover additional commercialization and/or development activities. Whether we reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authorities, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of the applicable intellectual property, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge, and industry and market conditions generally. No assurance can be given that any efforts we make to seek additional collaborative arrangements will be successfully completed on a timely basis or at all.

The risks that we face in connection with our current collaborations, including CRISPR and Entrada, and any future collaborations, include the following: •Our collaborators may change the focus of their development and commercialization efforts or may have insufficient resources or expertise to effectively develop, manufacture or commercialize our product candidates. •The ability of some of our therapies to reach their potential could be limited if collaborators are unable to effectively develop, manufacture or commercialize these therapies or product candidates or decrease or fail to increase development or commercialization efforts related to those therapies or product candidates. Our collaboration agreements allocate development, manufacturing and commercialization responsibilities between us and our collaborators and provide our collaborators with a level of discretion in determining the amount and timing of efforts and resources that they will apply to these collaborations. 46 46 46 •Our collaborators may have limited experience in developing, manufacturing and commercializing therapies, either generally, or in the specific therapeutic area. •Collaboration agreements may have the effect of limiting the areas of research and development that we may pursue, either alone or in collaboration with third parties. •Collaborators may develop and commercialize, either alone or with others, drugs that are similar to or competitive with the products or product candidates that are the subject of their collaborations with us. •Disagreements with collaborators, including disagreements over proprietary rights, contract interpretation or the preferred course of development, might cause delays or termination of the research, development or commercialization of product candidates, might lead to additional responsibilities or costs for us with respect to product candidates, or might result in litigation or arbitration. Any such disagreements would divert management attention and resources and would be time-consuming and expensive. •Collaborators may not properly maintain or defend our intellectual property rights or may use our proprietary information in such a way as to invite litigation that could jeopardize or invalidate our intellectual property or proprietary information or expose us to potential litigation. •Collaborators may infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties, which may expose us to litigation and potential liability. •Investigations and/or compliance or enforcement actions against a collaborator, which may expose us to indirect liability as a result of our partnership with such collaborator. •Our collaboration agreements are subject to termination under various circumstances. •We may be unable to control the resources our collaborators devote to our programs, products or product candidates, and the priorities and strategic objectives of our collaborators may not align precisely with ours. Additionally, if a collaborator were to be involved in a business combination with a third party, it might de-emphasize or terminate the development or commercialization of any product candidate licensed to it by us. If one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to attract new collaborators and our perception in the business and financial communities could be harmed.

Substantially all of our net product revenues have been derived from the sale of our CF medicines over the last several years. As a result, our business is dependent upon our ability to sustain and increase revenues from sales of our CF medicines. We seek to continue to increase our CF product revenue through serial innovation, including the potential approval of our vanzacaftor/tezacaftor/deutivacaftor triple combination, development and commercialization CF medicines in younger children with CF and through securing additional approvals and reimbursements for our CF medicines in ex-U.S. markets. Our concentrated source of revenues presents a number of risks to our business, including: •that one or more competing therapies may be developed successfully as a treatment for people with CF; •that reimbursement policies of payors and other third parties may make it difficult to obtain reimbursement or reduce the net price we receive for our products; •that we may experience manufacturing or supply disruptions for our CF medicines; and •that we may experience adverse developments with respect to development or commercialization of our CF medicines. If any of the above risks were to materialize, if we are otherwise unable to increase revenues from sales of our CF medicines, or if we do not meet the expectations of investors or public equity market analysts, our business would be materially harmed and our ability to fund our operations could be adversely affected.

Our net product revenues and the vast majority of our total revenues are derived from the sale of our CF medicines. As a result, our future success is largely dependent upon our ability to increase revenues from sales of our CF medicines. This will require us to continue to gain approval and reimbursement for TRIKAFTA/KAFTRIO in ex-U.S. markets, successfully develop and commercialize TRIKAFTA/KAFTRIO for younger children with CF or successfully develop and commercialize products from our pipeline. Our concentrated source of revenues presents a number of risks to our business, including: •that one or more competing therapies may be developed successfully as a treatment for people with CF; •that reimbursement policies of payors and other third parties may make it difficult to obtain reimbursement or reduce the net price we receive for our products; •that we may experience manufacturing or supply disruptions for our CF medicines; and •that we may experience adverse developments with respect to development or commercialization of our CF medicines and/or pipeline product candidates. If any of the above risks were to materialize, if we are otherwise unable to increase revenues from sales of our CF medicines, or if we do not meet the expectations of investors or public equity market analysts, our business would be materially harmed and our ability to fund our operations could be adversely affected.

As we advance our cell and genetic therapy product candidates, we will be required to consult with various regulatory authorities, and we must comply with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, which may change from time to time, including during the course of development of our cell and genetic therapy product candidates. If we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue the clinical development of certain of our cell and genetic therapy product candidates. These additional processes may result in a review and approval process that is longer than we otherwise would have expected. Even if we comply with applicable laws, rules, and regulations, and even if we maintain close coordination with the applicable regulatory authorities with oversight over our cell and genetic therapy product candidates, our development programs may experience delays or fail to succeed. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential cell or genetic therapy product to market would materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. The regulatory approval process and clinical trial requirements for cell and genetic therapies can be more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or more extensively studied product candidates, and regulatory requirements 45 45 45 governing cell and genetic therapy products have changed frequently and may continue to change in the future. For example, the FDA established the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (“CBER”) to consolidate the review of cell therapies and related products, and the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER on its review. These and other regulatory review agencies, committees and advisory groups, and the requirements and guidelines they promulgate, may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of these treatment candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions.

We are investing significant resources in the research, development, manufacturing, and commercialization of cell and 31 31 31 genetic therapies, including exa-cel. While we have previously successfully developed, manufactured, and commercialized several small molecule drugs, we have limited experience with the development, manufacture, and commercialization of cell and genetic therapies. Development, manufacturing, and commercialization of cell and genetic therapies are subject to similar risks and uncertainties as small molecules. In addition: •the manufacturing processes for cell and genetic therapies are different, less mature and more complex than the manufacturing processes required for small molecule drugs and require investments in systems, equipment, facilities, and expertise to develop and maintain; •we may encounter difficulties in the production of our cell and genetic therapies and ensuring that the product meets required specifications; •there have been a limited number of regulatory approvals for genetic therapies to date, the regulatory requirements governing genetic therapies continue to evolve, and regulatory positions and interpretations can change or lead to delays or significant unexpected costs with respect to our genetic therapy programs; •the commercial success of cell or genetic therapies, including exa-cel and VX-880, if approved, will depend in part on the medical community, patients, governments, and third-party or governmental payors accepting and providing adequate reimbursement for cell or genetic therapy products in general, and recognizing the applicable medicine as medically useful, cost-effective, ethical, and safe; and •market acceptance will be dependent in part on the prevalence and severity of side effects associated with the procedure by which the cell or genetic therapy is administered, including, with respect to exa-cel and VX-880, if approved, the prevalence and severity of any side effects resulting from the myeloablative preconditioning regime or immunosuppression, respectively. For programs addressing rare genetic diseases with small patient populations, we may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll a sufficient number of patients, or those with required or desired characteristics, to complete our clinical studies in an adequate and timely manner. Additionally, patients may be unwilling to participate in our clinical trials because of concerns that cell and genetic therapies are unsafe or unethical, negative publicity from adverse events in the biotechnology or gene therapy industries, or for other reasons, including competitive clinical studies for similar patient populations. Moreover, adverse developments in clinical trials conducted by others of cell and genetic therapy products or products created using similar technology, or adverse public perception of the field of cell and genetic therapies, may cause the FDA and other regulatory bodies to revise the requirements for approval of any cell or genetic therapy product candidates we may develop or limit the use of products utilizing technologies such as ours, either of which could materially harm our business. As we advance our cell and genetic therapy product candidates, we will be required to consult with various regulatory authorities, and we must comply with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, which may change from time to time, including during the course of development of our cell and genetic therapy product candidates. If we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue the clinical development of certain of our cell and genetic therapy product candidates. These additional processes may result in a review and approval process that is longer than we otherwise would have expected. Even if we comply with applicable laws, rules, and regulations, and even if we maintain close coordination with the applicable regulatory authorities with oversight over our cell and genetic therapy product candidates, our development programs may experience delays or fail to succeed. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential cell or genetic therapy product to market would materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. The regulatory approval process and clinical trial requirements for cell and genetic therapies can be more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or more extensively studied product candidates, and regulatory requirements governing cell and genetic therapy products have changed frequently and may continue to change in the future. For example, the FDA established the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (“CBER”) to consolidate the review of cell therapies and related products, and the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER on its review. These and other regulatory review agencies, committees and advisory groups, and the requirements and guidelines they promulgate, may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of these treatment candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. 32 32 32 To develop and commercialize cell or genetic therapies, including exa-cel, we are incurring substantial expenditures to develop, contract for, or otherwise arrange for the necessary supplies and manufacturing capabilities. Additionally, the manufacture of cell and genetic therapies requires significant expertise. Even with the relevant experience and expertise, manufacturers of cell and genetic therapy products often encounter difficulties in production, including difficulties with production costs and yields, quality control, and compliance with federal, state and foreign regulations. We cannot make any assurances that these problems will not occur, or that we will be able to resolve or address problems that occur in a timely manner, or at all. To the extent we develop manufacturing capabilities internally, there are many risks that could result in delays and additional costs, including the need to hire and train qualified employees and obtain access to necessary equipment and third-party technology. To the extent we partner with third parties to manufacture our cell or genetic therapies, the complexity in the manufacture of our products and product candidates may require lengthy technology transfers. In addition, the third parties on which we rely to manufacture our cell or genetic therapies may experience their own compliance challenges or delays. We are also devoting substantial resources to expand our commercial organization to prepare for the anticipated future product launches from our pipeline programs. For example, with respect to exa-cel, we are creating and developing the internal and external support systems to reach and support potential future patients, in addition to establishing and ensuring the necessary supply and manufacturing infrastructure. We cannot make any assurances that we will obtain approval for products from our pipeline programs, or that, if approved, a future product will generate substantial revenues and cash flows. We also face uncertainty as to whether cell and gene therapy treatments will gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. If we obtain regulatory approval, the commercial success of cell and gene therapy treatments will depend, in part, on the acceptance of physicians, patients, and third-party payors of gene therapy products in general, and our product candidates in particular, as medically necessary, cost-effective, and safe. In particular, our success will depend upon physicians prescribing our product candidates in lieu of existing treatments they are already familiar with and for which greater clinical data may be available. Moreover, physicians and patients may delay acceptance of cell and gene therapy product candidates until the product candidates have been on the market for a certain amount of time. In addition, medical centers that administer procedures accompanying treatment could experience capacity constraints, and these centers are subject to competing priorities that could delay patient access to procedures associated with cell and gene therapy products. Negative public opinion or more restrictive government regulations may delay or impair the successful commercialization of, and demand for, cell and gene therapies. There also is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of cell or genetic therapy products, including gene therapies that are potential one-time treatments. It is difficult to predict what third party payors, including U.S. or ex-U.S. governments or private insurance companies, will decide with respect to reimbursement for novel cell and genetic therapies like the ones in our pipeline. Additionally, reimbursement rates for cell and genetic therapies approved before ours could create an adverse environment for reimbursement of any therapies we ultimately commercialize. The administration of our products may require procedures for the collection of cells from patients, followed by other procedures either before or after delivery of the cell or genetic therapy. The manner and level at which reimbursement is provided for these services also is important. Inadequate reimbursement for such services may adversely affect physicians’ decisions to recommend any product for which we obtain approval in the future and our ability to market or sell the associated cell or genetic therapy. Given there are only a few approved cell and genetic therapy products, it also is difficult to determine how long it will take or reasonably estimate the costs to develop, manufacture, and commercialize cell or genetic therapies. In addition, our cell-based therapies include approaches involving devices, which are subject to additional regulatory requirements. If we are unable to successfully develop, manufacture, or commercialize such therapies on a timely or profitable basis, or at all, we may not realize benefits or generate cash flows based on our investments in these programs and our business, financial condition, results of operations and our stock price would likely be adversely affected.

We have expanded and are continuing to expand our global operations and capabilities, which has placed, and will continue to place, significant demands on our management and our operational, research and development and financial infrastructure. To effectively manage our business, we need to continue to adapt as our business grows in scale and complexity across multiple disease states, modalities, and geographies, including by: •implement and clearly communicating our corporate-wide strategies; •enhancing our operational and financial infrastructure, including expansion of our controls over data, records and information; •enhancing our operational, administrative, financial and management processes, including our cross-functional decision-making processes and our budget prioritization systems; •effectively growing, training and managing our global employee base; and •expanding our compliance and legal resources.

We have expanded and are continuing to expand our global operations and capabilities, which has placed, and will continue to place, significant demands on our management and our operational, research and development and financial infrastructure. To effectively manage our business, we need to: •implement and clearly communicate our corporate-wide strategies; •enhance our operational and financial infrastructure, including our controls over records and information; •enhance our operational, financial and management processes, including our cross-functional decision-making processes and our budget prioritization systems; •train and manage our global employee base; and •enhance our compliance and legal resources.