10-Q – 2026-07-30 – alny-20260630.htm

federal and state fraud and abuse laws, transparency laws and patient data privacy and security laws and regulations, including but not limited to the following:
• The federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons or entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase or ordering of, a good or service for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
• The federal false claims laws, including the federal civil False Claims Act, or FCA, which generally prohibit individuals or entities from knowingly presenting or causing to be presented, claims for payment for good or services by government-funded programs such as Medicare or Medicaid that are false or fraudulent. The FCA can be enforced by private individuals on behalf of the government through civil whistleblower or “qui tam” actions, and such individuals may share in any amounts paid by the entity to the government in fines or settlement. Manufacturers can be held liable under the FCA even when they do not submit claims directly to government payors if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims.
• The federal civil monetary penalties laws, which generally impose civil fines for, among other things, the offering or transfer of remuneration to a Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary if the person knows or should know it is likely to influence the beneficiary’s selection of a particular provider, practitioner, or supplier of services reimbursable by Medicare or Medicaid. Conduct regulated by the federal civil monetary penalties law often overlaps with other healthcare laws, including the federal Anti-Kickback Statute.
• The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which in addition to privacy and security protections applicable to healthcare providers and other entities, prohibits executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private programs, and making false statements relating to healthcare matters.
• Federal “sunshine” requirements imposed on drug, device, and medical supply manufacturers when payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program to report annually to HHS information regarding any “transfer of value” made or distributed to certain healthcare providers and organizations.
• Federal laws that require pharmaceutical manufacturers to calculate, report, and certify certain complex product prices and other data to the government or provide certain discounts or rebates to government authorities or private entities, often as a condition of reimbursement under government healthcare programs, which data may be used in the calculation of reimbursement and/or discounts on approved products.
• Federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws, which broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers.
• The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which among other things, strictly regulates drug product and medical device marketing, prohibits manufacturers from marketing such products prior to approval or for unapproved indications and regulates the distribution of samples.
• We are also subject to state and foreign laws comparable to the above federal laws, including state anti-kickback, anti-bribery and false claims laws, which may apply to healthcare items or services that are reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers; state laws that require companies to comply with specific compliance standards, restrict financial interactions between companies and healthcare providers, require companies to report information related to payments to healthcare providers, marketing expenditures or pricing or require the licensing or registration of sales representatives; and EU laws prohibiting giving healthcare professionals any gift or benefit in kind as an inducement to prescribe our products and transparency laws requiring the public disclosure of payments made to healthcare professionals and institutions, and data privacy laws.
Efforts to ensure that our activities comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations involves substantial costs. We remain focused on enhancing our global compliance infrastructure as we prepare for the launch of our products in additional countries, assuming regulatory approvals. Although effective compliance programs can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws, these risks cannot be entirely eliminated.
Given the breadth of the laws and regulations, limited guidance for certain laws and regulations, and evolving government interpretations of the laws and regulations, governmental authorities may possibly conclude that our business practices may not comply with such laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal, and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from participation in federal health care programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, and other actions. Further, defending against any such actions can be costly, time-consuming, and may require significant personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired. In October 2025, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the
68

Table of Contents

District of Massachusetts seeking documents pertaining to our government price reporting for AMVUTTRA, ONPATTRO, OXLUMO and GIVLAARI, including certain fee and discount arrangements with distributors, and certain other related documents and communications. We have produced records responsive to the subpoena and are continuing to engage with the U.S. Attorney’s Office. We anticipate that, even if government authorities conclude that our business practices were fully compliant with laws, responding to the subpoena will result in significant expense and require attention of our management.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overturned the longstanding Chevron doctrine, under which courts were required to give deference to regulatory agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes. The Loper decision could result in additional legal challenges to regulations and guidance issued by federal agencies, including FDA and CMS, on which we rely. Any such legal challenges, if successful, could have a material impact on our business. Additionally, the Loper decision may result in increased regulatory uncertainty, inconsistent judicial interpretations, and other impacts to the agency rulemaking process, any of which could adversely impact our business and operations. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action or as a result of legal challenges, either in the U.S. or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our business could be materially harmed.
We are subject to governmental regulation and other legal obligations related to privacy, data protection and information security, and we are subject to consumer protection laws that regulate our marketing practices and prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Our actual or perceived failure to comply with such obligations could harm our business.
We are subject to U.S. and international privacy laws, including, for example, health privacy laws, comprehensive state privacy laws, consumer protection laws, data localization laws, and genetic privacy laws.
In the U.S., there are numerous federal and state laws and regulations governing the privacy and the collection, use, disclosure and other processing of personal data, health data, genetic data, and children's data. For example, at the federal level, the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, sets requirements for safeguarding personal data and for providing a level of privacy commensurate to promises made to consumers. The failure to meet these requirements may constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC also has the power to enforce the Health Breach Notification Rule, which imposes notification obligations on companies for breaches of certain health information contained in personal health records. Enforcement by the FTC can result in civil penalties or enforcement actions. Additionally, at the state level, many states have enacted comprehensive consumer privacy laws, and many other consumer privacy laws are expected to go into effect in the near future. In addition, sector- and data-specific laws, such as those addressing consumer health data privacy, marketing communications, data security, and the sale/transfer of certain bulk sensitive data, may apply to aspects of our operations or the operations of our collaborators. These laws include certain transparency and other requirements to protect personal data and grant residents of such states with certain rights regarding their personal data.
The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, imposes strict requirements on controllers and processors of personal data, including special protections for “special category data,” which includes health, biometric and genetic information of data subjects located in the EEA and UK. Further, the GDPR provides a broad right for EEA Member States to create supplemental national laws, such as laws relating to the processing of health, genetic and biometric data, which could further limit our ability to use and share such data or could cause our costs to increase, and harm our business and financial condition.
Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and the related national data protection laws of the EEA Member States and the UK, which may deviate slightly from the GDPR, may result in fines of up to 4% of total global annual revenue, or €20.0 million (₤17.5 million under the UK GDPR), whichever is greater, and in addition to such fines, we may be the subject of litigation and/or adverse publicity, which could have a material adverse effect on our reputation and business. As a result of the implementation of the GDPR, we are required to implement a number of measures to ensure compliance with the data protection regime. The GDPR (i) requires us to inform data subjects of how we process their personal data and how they can exercise their rights, (ii) requires us to ensure we have a valid legal basis to process personal data (if this is consent, the requirements for obtaining consent carries a higher threshold), (iii) requires us to appoint a data protection officer where sensitive personal data (i.e., health data) is processed on a large scale, (iv) introduces mandatory data breach notification requirements throughout the EEA and UK, (v) requires us to maintain records of our processing activities and document data protection impact assessments where there is high risk processing, (vi) imposes additional obligations on us when we are contracting with service providers, requires (vii) appropriate technical and organizational measures to be put in place to safeguard personal data and (viii) requires us to adopt appropriate privacy governance including policies, procedures, training and data audit.
Significantly, the GDPR imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the EEA and UK to the U.S. or other regions that have not been deemed to offer “adequate” privacy protections. In the past, companies in the U.S. were able to rely upon the EU-U.S., UK-U.S. and the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield frameworks as a basis for lawful transfer of personal data from the EU and the UK to the U.S. In July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union, or CJEU, in Case C-311/18 (Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland and Maximillian Schrems, or Schrems II) invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield
69

Table of Contents

on the grounds that the Privacy Shield failed to offer adequate protections to EU personal data transferred to the U.S. The CJEU, in the same decision, deemed that the Standard Contractual Clauses, or SCCs, published by the EC are valid. However, the CJEU ruled that transfers made pursuant to the SCCs need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis to ensure the law in the recipient country provides “essentially equivalent” protections to safeguard the transferred personal data as the EU, and required businesses to adopt supplementary measures if such standard is not met. Subsequent guidance published by the European Data Protection Board in June 2021 described what such supplementary measures must be, and stated that businesses should avoid or cease transfers of personal data if, in the absence of supplementary measures, equivalent protections cannot be afforded. On June 4, 2021, the EC published new versions of the SCCs, which seek to address the issues identified by the CJEU’s Schrems II decision and provide further details regarding the transfer assessments that the parties are required to conduct when implementing the new SCCs. However, there continue to be concerns about whether the SCCs and other mechanisms will face additional challenges. Similarly, in September 2020, the Swiss data protection authority determined the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield framework was no longer a valid mechanism for Swiss-U.S. data transfers and raised questions about the validity of the SCCs as a mechanism for transferring personal data from Switzerland. While SCCs provide an alternative to our Privacy Shield certification for EU-U.S. data flows, the decision (and certain regulatory guidance issued in its wake) casts doubt on the legality of EU-U.S. data flows in general. Any inability to transfer, or burdensome restrictions on the ability to transfer, personal data from the EU to the U.S. in compliance with applicable data protection laws may impede our ability to conduct clinical trials and may adversely affect our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition. The UK is not subject to the EC’s new SCCs but has published its own transfer mechanism, the International Data Transfer Agreement or International Data Transfer Addendum, which enables transfers from the UK. On March 25, 2022, the EC and the U.S. announced a political agreement on a new “Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework” to replace the invalidated Privacy Shield. The framework introduced new binding safeguards to address the concerns raised by the CJEU in Schrems II. On July 10, 2023, the EC announced that it had adopted its adequacy decision for that data privacy framework, labelled the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework. The adequacy decision concluded that the U.S. ensures an adequate level of protection for personal data transferred from the EU to U.S. companies under the new framework, and the EC stated that as a result personal data can flow safely from the EU to U.S. companies participating in the framework, without having to put in place additional data protection safeguards. The EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework is subject to periodic reviews, to be conducted by the EC, together with other European data protection authorities and U.S. authorities, with the first review to take place within a year of adoption of the adequacy decision. A case has been lodged with and remains pending before the EU courts challenging the validity of the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework.
EEA Member States have adopted implementing national laws to implement the GDPR which may partially deviate from the GDPR and the competent authorities in the EEA Member States may interpret GDPR obligations slightly differently from country to country, and we do not expect to operate in a uniform legal landscape in the EU. In addition, following Brexit, the GDPR was incorporated into the law of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and as amended by the Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (SI 2019/419), or UK GDPR. The UK’s data protection authority, the Information Commissioner’s Office, has indicated that it will continue to enforce UK GDPR in line with the enforcement of GDPR in the EU, and currently the UK GDPR and the GDPR are broadly aligned. However, the UK’s Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA), which received Royal Assent in June 2025 and will take effect in stages between June 2025 and June 2026, creates divergence between the EU and UK data protection regimes.
We are subject to the supervision of local data protection authorities in those jurisdictions in which we are monitoring the behavior of individuals in the EEA or UK (i.e., undertaking clinical trials). We depend on a number of third parties in relation to the provision of our services, a number of which process personal data of EU and/or UK individuals on our behalf. With each such provider we enter or intend to enter into contractual arrangements under which the provider is contractually obligated to only process personal data according to our instructions, and conduct or intend to conduct diligence to ensure that they have sufficient technical and organizational security measures in place.
We are also subject to evolving European privacy laws on electronic marketing and cookies. The EU is in the process of replacing the e-Privacy Directive (2002/58/EC) with a new set of rules taking the form of a regulation, which will be directly implemented in the laws of each European member state, without the need for further enactment. While the e-Privacy Regulation was originally intended to be adopted on May 25, 2018 (alongside the GDPR), it is still going through the European legislative process. Draft regulations were rejected by the Permanent Representatives Committee of the Council of EU on November 22, 2019; it is not clear when, or even if, new regulations will be adopted. We are also subject to current and evolving privacy laws in other foreign countries, such as Canada.
Compliance with U.S. and international data protection laws and regulations requires that we take on more onerous obligations in our contracts, restrict our ability to collect, use and disclose data, and, in some cases, impacts our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could result in government enforcement actions (which could include civil, criminal and administrative penalties), private litigation, and/or adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business. Moreover, clinical trial subjects, employees and other individuals about whom we or our potential collaborators obtain personal information, as well as the providers who share this information with us, may limit our ability to collect, use and disclose the information. Claims that we have violated individuals’ privacy rights,
70

Table of Contents

failed to comply with data protection laws, or breached our contractual obligations, even if we are not found liable, could be expensive and time-consuming to defend and could result in adverse publicity that could harm our business.
If we fail to comply with our pricing and price reporting obligations under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, Medicare Part B, the 340B Drug Pricing Program and other federal and state government pricing programs, we could be subject to legal sanctions, including penalties, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition.
We participate in and/or report pricing and other data in connection with the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, Medicare Part B, the 340B Drug Pricing Program, the Veterans Health Care Act, and a number of other federal and state government programs in the U.S. Participation in some of these programs is required in order to obtain reimbursement of our drug products under Medicaid or Medicare Part B. These programs generally require that we provide discounts or pay rebates to certain payers or purchasers when our products are dispensed to beneficiaries of these programs. To support the calculation of these discounts and rebates, these programs may also impose periodic and special price and product data reporting requirements. Program requirements are often ambiguous, and historically there have been various, evolving changes to manufacturer reporting and other obligations under these government pricing programs. Such changes could significantly impact our business and operations. For example, changes in the determination of “average sales price” under Medicare Part B related to “bona fide service fees” and the mandatory submission of the manufacturer’s reasonable assumptions in calculating “average sales price,” both of which take effect in 2026, may increase the complexity and compliance burden around Medicare Part B reporting.
Our price and price reporting obligations are complex, vary across drug products and programs, continue to evolve, and are often subject to interpretation by agencies and courts. These interpretations may change over time, and complex methodologies and related assumptions used in making calculations under these programs are subject to review and challenge. In October 2025, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts seeking documents pertaining to our government price reporting for AMVUTTRA, ONPATTRO, OXLUMO and GIVLAARI, including certain fee and discount arrangements with distributors, and certain other related documents and communications. Any inaccuracies in our prior reporting may lead to recalculations and restatements, which may increase our historic liability. Further, civil monetary or other penalties may be applied if we fail to pay required rebates or other amounts, if we are found to have knowingly submitted false pricing or product information to the government, or if we are found to have made other misrepresentations or errors in our pricing submissions. Government agencies also could decide to terminate our relevant government agreements, in which case federal government reimbursement would not be available under Medicaid or Medicare Part B for our products. In addition, potential policy changes by the current presidential administration may introduce additional uncertainty for our business. These could include changes to the level of scrutiny applied by the Health Resources and Services Administration to enforce non-compliance with the 340B Drug Pricing Program, new price restrictions on products we sell to Medicaid, Medicare or other government purchasers, or other regulatory changes impacting reimbursement or competitive dynamics in multi-source markets. Any such policy shifts could significantly impact our business and operations.
Increasingly, states are enacting legislation requiring manufacturers to report drug pricing information. States, however, have not always clearly defined their reporting requirements, which may result in manufacturers inadvertently failing to properly disclose the required pricing information. Complying with federal and state programs and future changes to these programs can be complex and cost-and resource-intensive, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition.
There is a substantial risk of product liability claims in our business. If we are unable to obtain sufficient insurance, a product liability claim against us could adversely affect our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition.
Our business exposes us to significant potential product liability risks that are inherent in the development, testing, manufacturing and marketing of human therapeutic products. Product liability claims could delay or prevent completion of our clinical development programs. Such claims might not be fully covered by product liability insurance. In addition, product liability claims could result in an FDA investigation of the safety and effectiveness of our approved products, our manufacturing processes and facilities or our marketing programs, and potentially a recall of our products or more serious enforcement action, limitations on the approved indications for which they may be used, or suspension or withdrawal of approvals. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may also result in decreased demand for our products, injury to our reputation, costs to defend the related litigation, a diversion of management’s time and our resources, substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients and a decline in our stock price. Any product liability insurance we have or may obtain may not provide sufficient coverage against potential liabilities. Furthermore, clinical trial and product liability insurance is becoming increasingly expensive. As a result, we may be unable to obtain sufficient insurance at a reasonable cost to protect us against losses caused by product liability claims that could have a material adverse effect on our business.
Our employees may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements or insider trading violations, which could significantly harm our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition.
We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct. Misconduct by employees could include intentional failures to comply with governmental regulations, including healthcare fraud and abuse and anti-kickback laws and regulations
71

Table of Contents

in the U.S. and abroad, or failure to report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. As discussed in the Risk Factor above captioned “If we fail to comply with broad and complex healthcare and other laws, we could face substantial penalties and our business, operations, and financial condition could be adversely affected,” these laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Employee misconduct could also involve the improper use of, including improper trading based upon, material information obtained in the course of clinical trials or other material non-public information, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. We maintain a global compliance program and remain focused on its evolution and enhancement. Our program includes efforts such as risk assessment and monitoring, fostering a speak-up culture encouraging employees and third parties to raise good faith questions or concerns, and defined processes and systems for reviewing and remediating allegations and identified potential concerns. It is not always possible, however, to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.
If we do not comply with laws regulating the protection of the environment and health and human safety, our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition could be adversely affected.
Our research, development and manufacturing activities involve the use of hazardous materials, chemicals and various radioactive compounds. We maintain quantities of various flammable and toxic chemicals in our facilities in Cambridge and Norton that are required for our research, development and manufacturing activities. We are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these hazardous materials. We believe our procedures for storing, handling and disposing these materials in our Cambridge and Norton facilities comply with the relevant guidelines of the City of Cambridge, the town of Norton, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor. Although we believe that our safety procedures for handling and disposing of these materials comply with the standards mandated by applicable regulations, the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials cannot be eliminated. If an accident occurs, we could be held liable for resulting damages, which could be substantial. We are also subject to numerous environmental, health and workplace safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures, exposure to blood-borne pathogens and the handling of biohazardous materials.
Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of these materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us in connection with our storage or disposal of biological, hazardous or radioactive materials. Additional federal, state and local laws and regulations affecting our operations may be adopted in the future. We may incur substantial costs to comply with, and substantial fines or penalties if we violate, any of these laws or regulations.
Risks Related to Patents, Licenses and Trade Secrets
If we are not able to obtain and enforce patent protection for our discoveries, our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates will be harmed.
Our success depends, in part, on our ability to protect proprietary compositions, methods and technologies that we develop under the patent and other intellectual property laws of the U.S. and other countries, so that we can prevent others from unlawfully using our inventions and proprietary information. However, we may not hold proprietary rights to some patents required for us to manufacture and commercialize our current and future products. Because certain U.S. patent applications are confidential until the patents issue, such as applications filed prior to November 29, 2000, or applications filed after such date that will not be filed in foreign countries, third parties may have filed patent applications for subject matter covered by our pending patent applications without our being aware of those applications, and our patent applications may not have priority over those applications. For this and other reasons, we may be unable to secure desired patent rights, thereby losing desired exclusivity. Further, we or our collaborators may be required to obtain licenses under third-party patents to market one or more of our or our collaborator’s approved products, or further develop and commercialize future products, or continue to develop product candidates in our pipeline being developed by us or our collaborators. If licenses are not available to us or not available on reasonable terms or at all, we or our licensees may not be able to market the affected products or conduct the desired activities.
Our strategy depends on our ability to rapidly identify and seek patent protection for our discoveries. In addition, we may rely on third-party collaborators to file patent applications relating to proprietary technology that we develop jointly as part of collaborations. The process of obtaining patent protection is expensive and time-consuming. If we or our collaborators fail to file and prosecute all necessary and desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost and in a timely manner, our business may
72

Table of Contents

be adversely affected. Despite our efforts and the efforts of our collaborators to protect our proprietary rights, unauthorized parties may be able to obtain and use information that we regard as proprietary. While issued patents are presumed valid, this does not guarantee that the patent will survive a validity challenge or be held enforceable. Any patents we have obtained, or obtain in the future, may be challenged, invalidated, adjudged unenforceable or circumvented by parties attempting to design around our intellectual property. Moreover, third parties may commence administrative proceedings that challenge the validity, enforceability, inventorship, or ownership of our patents or patent applications. Any challenge to, finding of unenforceability or invalidation or circumvention of, our patents or patent applications, would be costly, would require significant time and attention of our management, could reduce or eliminate milestone and/or royalty payments to us from third party licensors and could have a material adverse effect on our business.
Our pending patent applications may not result in issued patents. The patent position of pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies, including ours, is generally uncertain and involves complex legal and factual considerations. The standards that the United States Patent and Trademark Office and its foreign counterparts use to grant patents are not always applied predictably or uniformly and can change. Similarly, the ultimate degree of protection that will be afforded to biotechnology inventions, including ours, in the U.S. and foreign countries, remains uncertain and is dependent upon the scope of the protection decided upon by patent offices, courts and lawmakers. Moreover, there are periodic discussions in the U.S. Congress and in international jurisdictions about modifying various aspects of patent law.
Accordingly, we do not know the degree of future protection for our proprietary rights or the breadth of claims that will be allowed in any patents issued to us or to others. We also rely to a certain extent on trade secrets, know-how and technology, which are not protected by patents, to maintain our competitive position. If any trade secret, know-how or other technology not protected by a patent were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.
Failure to obtain and maintain broad patent scope and all available regulatory exclusivities and to maximize patent term restoration or extension on patents covering our products and product candidates may lead to loss of exclusivity and generic entry resulting in a loss of market share and/or revenue.
We license patent rights from third-party owners. If such owners do not properly or successfully obtain, maintain or enforce the patents underlying such licenses, our competitive position and business, prospects, operating results and financial condition may be harmed.
We are a party to a number of licenses that give us rights to third-party intellectual property that is necessary or useful for our business. In particular, we have obtained licenses from, among others, Ionis, Arbutus, and Dicerna. We may also enter into additional licenses to third-party intellectual property in the future.
Our success will depend in part on the ability of our licensors to obtain, maintain and enforce patent protection for our licensed intellectual property, in particular, those patents to which we have secured exclusive rights. Our licensors may not successfully prosecute the patent applications we have licensed. Even if patents issue in respect of these patent applications, our licensors may fail to maintain these patents, may determine not to pursue litigation against other companies that are infringing these patents, or may pursue such litigation less aggressively than we would. Without protection for the intellectual property we license, other companies might be able to offer substantially identical products for sale, which could adversely affect our competitive business position and harm our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition. In addition, we sublicense our rights under various third-party licenses to our collaborators. Any impairment of these sublicensed rights could result in reduced revenues under our collaboration agreements or result in termination of an agreement by one or more of our collaborators.
Other companies or organizations may challenge our patent rights or may assert patent rights that prevent us from developing and commercializing our products.
RNAi is a growing scientific field, the commercial exploitation of which has resulted in many different patents and patent applications from organizations and individuals seeking to obtain patent protection in the field. We have obtained grants and issuances of RNAi patents and have licensed many of these patents from third parties on an exclusive basis. The issued patents and pending patent applications in the U.S. and in key markets around the world that we own or license claim many different methods, compositions and processes relating to the discovery, development, manufacture and commercialization of RNAi therapeutics.
Specifically, we have a portfolio of patents, patent applications and other intellectual property covering, among other things: fundamental aspects of the structure and uses of siRNAs, including their use as therapeutics, and RNAi-related mechanisms; chemical modifications to siRNAs that improve their suitability for therapeutic and other uses; siRNAs directed to specific targets as treatments for particular diseases; delivery technologies, such as in the fields of carbohydrate conjugates and cationic liposomes; and all aspects of our specific development candidates.
As the field of RNAi therapeutics continues to mature, patent applications are being fully processed by national patent offices around the world. There is uncertainty about which patents will issue, and, if they do, as to when, to whom, and with what claims. It is likely that there will be significant litigation and other proceedings, such as derivation, re-examination and
73

Table of Contents

opposition proceedings, as well as pre- and post-grant review proceedings in various patent offices relating to patent rights in the RNAi field. In addition, third parties may challenge the validity of our patents. We expect that challenges will be raised relating to patents and patent applications in our portfolio. In many cases, the possibility of appeal exists for either us or our opponents, and it may be years before final, unappealable rulings are made with respect to these patents in certain jurisdictions. The timing and outcome of these and other proceedings is uncertain and may adversely affect our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition if we are not successful in defending the patentability and scope of our pending and issued patent claims. Even if our rights are not directly challenged, disputes could lead to the weakening of our intellectual property rights. Our defense against any attempt by third parties to circumvent or invalidate our intellectual property rights could be costly to us, could require significant time and attention of our management and could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition and on our ability to successfully compete in the field of RNAi.
There are many issued and pending patents that claim aspects of oligonucleotide chemistry and modifications that we may need for our siRNA products marketed by us or our licensees, our late-stage therapeutic candidates being developed by us or our collaborators, including zilebesiran and fitusiran, as well as our other pipeline products. There are also many issued patents that claim targeting genes or portions of genes that may be relevant for siRNA drugs we wish to develop. In addition, there may be issued and pending patent applications that may be asserted against us in a court proceeding or otherwise based upon the asserting party’s belief that we may need such patents for our siRNA therapeutic candidates or marketed products, or to further develop and commercialize future products, or to continue to develop candidates in our pipeline that are being developed by us or our collaborators. Thus, it is possible that one or more organizations will hold patent rights to which we may need a license, or hold patent rights which could be asserted against us. If those organizations refuse to grant us a license to such patent rights on reasonable terms or at all and/or a court rules that we need such patent rights that have been asserted against us, we may be unable to market our products, including AMVUTTRA, ONPATTRO, GIVLAARI or OXLUMO, or to perform research and development or other activities covered by such patents.
Competitors could enter the market with generic versions of AMVUTTRA or our or our collaborators’ other marketed products developed in collaboration with us, which may result in a material decline in sales of affected product(s).
Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, a pharmaceutical manufacturer may file an abbreviated new drug application, or an ANDA, seeking approval of a generic copy of an approved, innovator product such as AMVUTTRA or our or our collaborators’ other marketed products developed in collaboration with us. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, a manufacturer may also submit a 505(b)(2) application that references the FDA’s finding of safety and effectiveness of a previously approved innovator product. A 505(b)(2) application product may be for a new or improved version of the original innovator product. Innovative products may be eligible for certain periods of regulatory exclusivity (e.g., five years for new chemical entities, three years for changes to an approved drug requiring a new clinical study, and seven years for orphan drugs), which preclude FDA approval (or in some circumstances, FDA filing and review of) an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application relying on the FDA’s finding of safety and effectiveness for the innovative drug. In addition to the benefits of regulatory exclusivity, an innovator NDA holder may have patents claiming the active ingredient, product formulation or an approved use of the drug, which would be listed with the product in the Orange Book. If there are patents listed in the Orange Book, a generic applicant that seeks to market its product before expiration of the patents must include a Paragraph IV certification in the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application challenging the validity or enforceability of, or claiming non-infringement of, the listed patent or patents. Notice of the Paragraph IV certification must be given to the innovator, and if within 45 days of receiving notice the innovator sues to enforce its patents, approval of the ANDA is stayed for 30 months, or as lengthened or shortened by the court.
On March 13, 2026, we and our collaborators, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., Novartis Technology LLC, and The Medicines Company, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Cipla USA Inc. and Cipla Ltd, or collectively, Cipla, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware based on Cipla’s ANDA seeking approval from FDA to market a generic version of Leqvio. We cannot predict the outcome of any litigation regarding the Leqvio patents, nor can we predict whether there will be additional ANDA filings or 505(b)(2) applications for Leqvio, or whether there will be ANDA filings for AMVUTTRA or our or our collaborators’ other product candidates developed in collaboration with us.
There have been a number of recent regulatory and legislative initiatives designed to encourage generic competition for pharmaceutical products. For instance, in December 2019, the Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples Act, or the CREATES Act, was enacted, which provides a legislatively defined private right of action under which eligible product developers can bring suit against companies who refuse to sell sufficient quantities of their branded products on commercially reasonable, market-based terms to support such eligible product developers’ marketing applications.
We and our collaborators may not be successful in securing or maintaining proprietary patent protection for our marketed products. Moreover, if any patents that are granted and listed in the Orange Book are successfully challenged by way of a Paragraph IV certification and subsequent litigation, the affected product could more immediately face generic competition and its sales would likely decline materially. For instance, if the existing ANDA filers or additional competitors are able to enter the market with generic versions of Leqvio, Novartis’ sales of Leqvio could materially decline which could have an adverse impact on the royalties that we receive on Leqvio sales.
74

Table of Contents

If we become involved in intellectual property litigation or other proceedings related to a determination of rights, we could incur substantial costs and expenses, and in the case of such litigation or proceedings against us, substantial liability for damages or be required to stop our product development and commercialization efforts.
Third parties may sue us for infringing their patent rights. For example, in December 2024, the Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, or the University of Texas, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging that we infringe one of the University of Texas’ patents by making, using and commercializing ONPATTRO in the U.S. In February 2025, we filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue and an alternative motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On July 2, 2025, the Court denied the motion to dismiss and to transfer the case without prejudice, and we filed a renewed motion to dismiss and to transfer the case on September 24, 2025. On December 15, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss and ordered the case transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts after determining that venue was improper in the Western District of Texas. The case is now proceeding in the District of Massachusetts, and a claim construction hearing was held in July 2026. Third parties may also claim that we have improperly obtained or used their confidential or proprietary information.
Furthermore, third parties may challenge the inventorship of our patents or licensed patents. For example, in March 2011, The University of Utah, or Utah, filed a complaint against us, Max Planck Gesellschaft Zur Foerderung Der Wissenschaften e.V. and Max Planck Innovation, together, Max Planck, Whitehead, MIT and the University of Massachusetts, claiming that a professor of Utah was the sole inventor, or in the alternative, a joint inventor of certain of our in-licensed patents. Utah was seeking correction of inventorship of the Tuschl patents, unspecified damages and other relief. After several years of court proceedings and discovery, the court granted our motions for summary judgment and dismissed Utah’s state law damages claims. During the pendency of this litigation, we incurred significant costs, and in each case, the litigation diverted the attention of our management and other resources that would otherwise have been engaged in other activities.
We may need to resort to litigation to enforce patents issued or licensed to us or to determine the scope and validity of proprietary rights of others or protect our proprietary information and trade secrets. In March 2022, we filed separate lawsuits in United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Moderna and Pfizer, seeking damages for patent infringement in the parties’ manufacture and sale of their messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccines. In August 2025, we entered a settlement agreement with Pfizer, and in September 2025, we entered a settlement agreement with Moderna, resolving all claims in both actions.
In protecting our intellectual patent rights through litigation or other means, a third party may claim that we have improperly asserted our rights against them. For example, in August 2017, Dicerna successfully added counterclaims against us in the above-referenced trade secret lawsuit alleging that our lawsuit represented abuse of process and claiming tortious interference with its business. In addition, in August 2017, Dicerna filed a lawsuit against us in the United States District Court of Massachusetts alleging attempted monopolization by us under the Sherman Antitrust Act. As noted above, in April 2018, we and Dicerna settled all claims in the litigation between us.
In addition, in connection with certain license and collaboration agreements, we have agreed to indemnify certain third parties for certain costs incurred in connection with litigation relating to intellectual property rights or the subject matter of the agreements. The cost to us of any litigation or other proceeding relating to such intellectual property rights, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial, and litigation would divert our management’s efforts. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation or legal proceeding could delay our research, development and commercialization efforts and limit our ability to continue our operations.
If any parties successfully claim that our creation or use of proprietary technologies infringes upon or otherwise violates their intellectual property rights, we might be forced to pay damages, potentially including treble damages, if we are found to have willfully infringed on such parties’ patent rights. In addition to any damages we might have to pay, a court could issue an injunction requiring us to stop the infringing activity or obtain a license from the claimant. Any license required under any patent may not be made available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. In addition, such licenses are in many instances non-exclusive and, therefore, our competitors may have access to the same technology that is licensed to us. If we fail to obtain a required license and are unable to design around a patent, we may be unable to effectively market some of our technology and products, which could limit our ability to generate revenues or maintain profitability and possibly prevent us from generating revenue sufficient to sustain our operations. Moreover, we expect that a number of our collaboration agreements will provide that royalties payable to us for licenses to our intellectual property may be offset by amounts paid by our collaborators to third parties who have competing or superior intellectual property positions in the relevant fields, which could result in significant reductions in our revenues from products developed through collaborations.
75

Table of Contents

If we fail to comply with our obligations under any licenses or related agreements, we may be required to pay damages and could lose license or other rights that are necessary for developing, commercializing and protecting our RNAi technology, as well as our products and product candidates.
Our current licenses impose, and any future licenses we enter into are likely to impose, various development, commercialization, funding, milestone, royalty, diligence, sublicensing, insurance, patent prosecution and enforcement, and other obligations on us. If we breach any of these obligations, or use the intellectual property licensed to us in an unauthorized manner, we may be required to pay damages and the licensor may have the right to terminate the license or render the license non-exclusive, which could result in us being unable to develop, manufacture, market and sell products that are covered by the licensed technology or enable a competitor to gain access to the licensed technology. Moreover, we could incur significant costs and/or disruption to our business and distraction of our management defending against any breach of such licenses alleged by the licensor. For example, in June 2018, Ionis sent us a notice claiming that it was owed technology access fees, or TAFs, based on rights granted and amounts paid to us in connection with the January 2018 amendment of our collaboration agreement with Sanofi and the related Exclusive TTR License and AT3 License Terms. Following arbitration proceedings, the panel ruled in favor of each party on certain TAF associated claims and awarded Ionis compensation of $41.2 million for a TAF on certain rights we received in the Sanofi restructuring.
Moreover, our licensors may own or control intellectual property that has not been licensed to us and, as a result, we may be subject to claims, regardless of their merit, that we are infringing or otherwise violating the licensor’s rights. In addition, while we cannot currently determine the amount of the royalty obligations we will be required to pay on sales of each of our approved products or future products, if any, the amounts may be significant. The amount of our future royalty obligations will depend on the technology and intellectual property we use in such products. Therefore, even if we successfully develop and commercialize products, we may be unable to maintain profitability.
Confidentiality agreements with employees and others may not adequately prevent disclosure of trade secrets and other proprietary information.
In order to protect our proprietary technology and processes, we rely in part on confidentiality agreements with our collaborators, potential collaborators, employees, consultants, scientific advisors, CMOs, outside scientific collaborators and sponsored researchers, and other advisors. These agreements may not effectively prevent disclosure of confidential information and may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. In addition, other third parties may independently discover trade secrets and proprietary information, and in such cases we could not assert any trade secret rights against such party. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our proprietary rights, and failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition.
Risks Related to Competition
The pharmaceutical market is intensely competitive. If we or our collaborators are unable to compete effectively with existing drugs, new treatment methods and new technologies, we or our collaborators may be unable to commercialize successfully any drugs that we or our collaborators develop.
The pharmaceutical market is intensely competitive and rapidly changing. Many large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and other public and private research organizations are pursuing the development of novel drugs for the same diseases that we are targeting or expect to target. Many of our competitors have:
• substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we have;
• more extensive experience in preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and in manufacturing, marketing and selling drug products;
• multiple products that have been approved or are in late stages of development; and
• collaborative arrangements in our target markets with leading companies and research institutions.
We face intense competition from drugs that have already been approved and accepted by the medical community for the treatment of the conditions for which we have developed products. In addition, there are a number of drugs currently under development and that may become commercially available in the future, for the treatment of conditions for which we may try to develop product candidates. These drugs may be more effective, safer, less expensive, have more convenient administration or be marketed and sold more effectively, than any products we develop and commercialize.
For example, AMVUTTRA for the treatment of ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy, competes with VYNDAQEL/VYNDAMAX (tafamidis), which is marketed by Pfizer, and ATTRUBY (acoramidis), which is marketed by BridgeBio, both of which are approved to treat ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy. While we believe AMVUTTRA has a competitive profile for the treatment of patients with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy, both VYNDAQEL/VYNDAMAX and ATTRUBY are administered in pill form and are available in the U.S. at lower list prices than AMVUTTRA, which may impact our ability to compete favorably with these products and may adversely affect AMVUTTRA’s market share and net product
76

Table of Contents

revenue. We are also aware of other product candidates in clinical development for the treatment of ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy, including WAINUA (eplontersen), which is being developed by Ionis and AstraZeneca plc, or AstraZeneca; nexiguran ziclumeran (formerly NTLA-2001), which is being developed by Intellia Therapeutics, Inc. and Regeneron and is in Phase 3 clinical development; cliramitug (formerly ALXN2220/NI006), which is being developed by Neurimmune AG and Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a subsidiary of AstraZeneca) and is in Phase 3 clinical development; coramitug (NNC6019-0001), which is being developed by Novo Nordisk and is in Phase 3 clinical development; ART-001 which is being developed by Accuredit Therapeutics and is in Phase 2 clinical development (China only); YOLT-201 which is being developed by YolTech and is in Phase 2 clinical development (China only); AT-02, which is being developed by Attralus, Inc. and is in Phase 2 clinical development; and BPR-30221616, which is being developed by Chengdu Beite Pharma and is in Phase 1 clinical development (China only). We expect to face competition from any of these and potentially other additional new drugs that enter the market to treat patients with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy.
Positive or negative safety or efficacy developments with competitive products or product candidates may impact revenue from AMVUTTRA and the commercial potential of any other products for which we receive regulatory approval for the treatment of ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy. In July 2026, for example, Ionis and AstraZeneca announced topline results from their Phase 3 CARDIO-TTRansform trial of eplontersen in patients with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy, reporting that the trial did not meet its primary endpoint of reducing cardiovascular mortality and recurrent cardiovascular events and did not demonstrate a statistically significant benefit in a contemporary patient population in which a majority of patients were treated with a TTR stabilizer. The full data set from the CARDIO-TTRansform clinical trial, when released, may influence physicians’ prescribing patterns, which may impact demand for AMVUTTRA and any other products for which we receive regulatory approval for the treatment of ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy, affecting our revenue.
AMVUTTRA and ONPATTRO are also approved in certain jurisdictions for the treatment of certain patients with hATTR amyloidosis with polyneuropathy. We are aware of other approved products used to treat this disease, including WAINUA (eplontersen), VYNDAQEL/VYNDAMAX (tafamidis), and TEGSEDI (inotersen), which is marketed by Ionis. There are also product candidates in various stages of clinical development for the treatment of hATTR amyloidosis patients with polyneuropathy, including nexiguran ziclumeran (nex-z, formerly NTLA-2001), which is in Phase 3 clinical development; ART-001, which is being developed by Accuredit Therapeutics and is in Phase 2 clinical development (China only); and YOLT-201, which is being developed by YolTech and is planned for Phase 3 clinical development after recent completion of its Phase 2 clinical trial (China only). AMVUTTRA and ONPATTRO may face continued competitive pressures from these approved products and product candidates, or others, which could adversely affect their market share and net product revenues.
We are aware of approved products and product candidates in various stages of clinical development for the treatment of PH1 that would compete with OXLUMO, our RNAi therapeutic approved in the U.S. and EU for the treatment of this disease, including Novo Nordisk’s RIVFLOZA (nedosiran), which was approved for the treatment of PH1 in September 2023 and launched in the U.S. in early 2024. RIVFLOZA is a once-monthly subcutaneous RNAi therapy that was developed by Dicerna. In April 2020, we and Dicerna granted each other a non-exclusive cross-license to our respective intellectual property related to lumasiran and Dicerna’s nedosiran. In addition, several companies have investigational drugs in clinical development for the treatment of PH1, including Biocodex, Inc. in collaboration with M8 Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and YolTech.
If we or our collaborators continue to successfully develop product candidates, and obtain approval for them, we and our collaborators will face competition based on many different factors, including:
• the safety and effectiveness of our or our collaborators’ products relative to alternative therapies, if any;
• the ease with which our or our collaborators’ products can be administered and the extent to which patients accept relatively new routes of administration;
• the timing and scope of regulatory approvals for these products;
• the availability and cost of manufacturing, marketing and sales capabilities;
• the price of our or our collaborators’ products relative to alternative approved therapies;
• reimbursement coverage; and
• patent position.
Our competitors may develop or commercialize products with significant advantages over any products we or our collaborators develop based on any of the factors listed above or on other factors. In addition, our competitors may enter into collaborations with or receive funding from larger pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies, providing them with an advantage over us and our collaborators. Our competitors may therefore be more successful in commercializing their products than we or our collaborators are, which could adversely affect our competitive position and business, prospects, operating results and financial condition. Competitive products may make any products we or our collaborators develop obsolete or noncompetitive before we can recover the expenses of developing and commercializing our product candidates. Such competitors could also recruit our employees, which could negatively impact our level of expertise and our ability to execute on our business plan. Furthermore, we and our collaborators also face competition from existing and new treatment methods that
77

Table of Contents

reduce or eliminate the need for drugs, such as the use of advanced medical devices. The development of new medical devices or other treatment methods for the diseases we and our collaborators are targeting could make our or our collaborators’ product candidates noncompetitive, obsolete or uneconomical.
We and our collaborators face competition from other companies that are working to develop novel drugs and technology platforms using technology similar to ours, as well as from companies utilizing emerging technologies. If these companies develop drugs more rapidly than we or our collaborators do or their technologies, including delivery technologies, are more effective, our and our collaborators’ ability to successfully commercialize our products may be adversely affected.
In addition to the competition we face from competing drugs in general, we and our collaborators also face competition from other companies working to develop novel drugs using technology that competes more directly with our own. We are aware of several other companies that are working to develop RNAi therapeutic products. Some of these companies are seeking, as we are, to develop chemically synthesized siRNAs as drugs. Others are following a gene therapy approach, with the goal of treating patients with synthetic, exogenously-introduced genes designed to produce siRNA-like molecules within cells. Companies working on chemically synthesized siRNAs include, but are not limited to, ADARx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Amgen Inc., Argo Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Aro Biotherapeutics, Arrowhead and its collaborators, AstraZeneca, Dyne Therapeutics, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Novartis, Novo Nordisk A/S, SanegeneBio, Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., Silence Therapeutics plc, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., and Wave Life Sciences, Ltd., as well as our collaborators Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi and Vir. In addition, we granted licenses or options for licenses to Ionis, Benitec Biopharma Ltd., Arrowhead, Arbutus, Sylentis and other companies under which these companies may independently develop RNAi therapeutics against a limited number of targets. Any one of these companies may develop its RNAi technology more rapidly and more effectively than we do. In addition, as a result of agreements that we have entered into, Takeda has obtained a non-exclusive license, and Arrowhead, as the assignee of Novartis, has obtained specific exclusive licenses for 30 gene targets, that include access to certain aspects of our technology.
We and our collaborators also compete with companies working to develop antisense-based drugs. Similar to RNAi therapeutics, antisense drugs target mRNAs in order to suppress the activity of specific genes. Akcea Therapeutics, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Ionis, has received marketing approval for an antisense drug, inotersen, for the treatment of adult hATTR amyloidosis patients with stage 1 or stage 2 polyneuropathy. Several antisense drugs developed by Ionis have been approved and are currently marketed, including WAINUA (eplontersen), and Ionis has multiple antisense product candidates in clinical trials. Ionis is also developing antisense drugs using ligand-conjugated GalNAc technology licensed from us, and these drugs have been shown to have increased potency at lower doses in clinical and preclinical studies, compared with antisense drugs that do not use such licensed GalNAc technology. The development of antisense drugs and antisense technology may become the preferred technology for drugs that target mRNAs to silence specific genes.
In addition to competition with respect to RNAi and with respect to specific products, we face substantial competition to discover and develop safe and effective means to deliver siRNAs to the relevant cell and tissue types. If our competitors develop safe and effective means to deliver siRNAs to the relevant cell and tissue types, our ability to successfully commercialize a competitive product would be adversely affected. In addition, third parties are expending substantial resources to discover and develop a safe and effective means of delivering siRNAs into the relevant cell and tissue types, including both private companies and academic laboratories. Some of our competitors have substantially greater resources than we do, and if our competitors negotiate exclusive access to delivery solutions developed by third parties, we may be unable to successfully commercialize our product candidates.
Risks Related to Our Common Stock
Our stock price has been and may in the future be volatile, and an investment in our common stock could suffer a decline in value.
Our stock price has been and may in the future be volatile. The stock market in general and the market for biotechnology companies in particular have experienced extreme price and volume volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. The market price of our common stock in the future could be significantly and adversely affected by many factors, including:
• the information contained in our quarterly earnings releases and other public announcements, including updates regarding AMVUTTRA and our or our collaborators’ other commercialized products or product candidates, our net product and collaboration revenues and operating expenses for completed periods and financial guidance regarding future periods;
• the success of existing or new competitive products or technologies;
• regulatory actions with respect to our or our collaborators’ products or product candidates;
• announcements by us or our competitors of significant acquisitions, collaborations, joint ventures, collaborations or capital commitments;
78

Table of Contents

• the timing and results of clinical trials, or emerging real world evidence, for our or our collaborators’ product candidates;
• commencement or termination of collaborations for our development programs;
• failure or discontinuation of any of our or our collaborators’ development programs;
• results of clinical trials, or emerging real world evidence, for our competitors’ products or product candidates;
• regulatory or legal developments in the U.S. and other countries;
• developments or disputes concerning patent applications, issued patents or other proprietary rights;
• the recruitment or departure of key personnel;
• the level of expenses related to any of our product candidates or clinical development programs;
• the results of our or our collaborators’ efforts to develop additional product candidates or products;
• actual or anticipated changes in financial results or development timelines;
• announcement or expectation of financing efforts;
• sales of our common stock by us, our insiders or other stockholders;
• variations in our financial results or those of companies that are perceived to be similar to us;
• failure to meet our financial guidance or expectations of investors or any of the securities analysts that cover us;
• changes in estimates or recommendations by any of the securities analysts that cover us;
• changes in the structure of healthcare payment systems;
• market conditions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors;
• general economic, industry and market conditions, including the extent to which such conditions are impacted by administrative and policy decisions globally and in the U.S.; and
• the other factors described in this “Risk Factors” section.
In the past, securities class action litigation has often been brought against companies following declines in the market price of their securities. This risk is especially relevant for biopharmaceutical companies, which have experienced significant stock price volatility in recent years. We may be the target of securities litigation that could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention and resources, which could cause serious harm to our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition. We maintain liability insurance; however, if any costs or expenses associated with litigation exceed our insurance coverage, we may be forced to bear some or all of these costs and expenses directly, which could be substantial. In addition, we have obligations to indemnify third parties, including our officers and directors, in connection with certain litigation, and those obligations may not be covered by insurance.
Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock, including by us, our officers or directors, or our significant stockholders, into the public market could cause the price of our common stock to decline.
A small number of our stockholders beneficially own a substantial amount of our common stock. As of June 30, 2026, our eight largest stockholders beneficially owned in excess of 50% of our outstanding shares of common stock. If we, our officers or directors, or our significant stockholders sell substantial amounts of our common stock in the public market, or there is a perception that such sales may occur, the market price of our common stock could be adversely affected. Sales of common stock by our significant stockholders might make it more difficult for us to raise funds by selling equity or equity-related securities in the future at a time and price that we deem appropriate.
Anti-takeover provisions in our governing documents and under Delaware law could make an acquisition of us, which may be beneficial to our stockholders, more difficult and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management or members of our board of directors.
Provisions in our certificate of incorporation and our bylaws may delay or prevent an acquisition of us or a change in the current members of our management or the members of our board of directors. Among other things, these provisions:
• establish a classified board of directors such that all members of our board of directors are not elected at one time;
• establish a prohibition on actions by our stockholders by written consent;
• authorize our board of directors to issue preferred stock without stockholder approval, which could be used to institute a “poison pill” that would work to dilute the stock ownership of a potential hostile acquirer, effectively preventing acquisitions that have not been approved by our board of directors;
79

Table of Contents

• allow the authorized number of our directors to be changed only by resolution of our board of directors.
• limit who may call a special meeting of stockholders;
• require the approval of the holders of at least 75% of the votes that all our stockholders would be entitled to cast to amend or repeal certain provisions of our charter or bylaws;
• limit the manner in which stockholders can remove directors from our board of directors; and
• establish advance notice requirements for election to our board of directors and for proposing matters that can be acted upon at stockholder meetings.
In addition, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which prohibits a person who owns in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with us for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person acquired in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock, unless the merger or combination is approved in a prescribed manner. These provisions would apply even if the proposed merger or acquisition could be considered beneficial by some stockholders.
Risks Related to Our Convertible Notes
We may not have sufficient cash flow from our business to pay our indebtedness.
As of June 30, 2026, we had $1.02 billion in total aggregate principal amount of Notes issued and outstanding. The interest rate for the 2027 Notes is fixed at 1.00% per annum and is payable semi-annually in arrears on March 15 and September 15 of each year. The 2028 Notes do not bear regular interest. Our ability to make scheduled payments of the principal of, to pay interest on or to refinance our indebtedness, including the Notes, or to make cash payments in connection with any conversions of Notes, depends on our future performance, which is subject to economic, financial, competitive and other factors beyond our control. Our business may not generate cash flow from operations in the future sufficient to service our debt and make necessary capital expenditures. If we are unable to generate such cash flow, we may be required to adopt one or more alternatives, such as selling assets, restructuring debt or obtaining additional debt financing or equity capital on terms that may be onerous or highly dilutive. Our ability to refinance any future indebtedness will depend on the capital markets and our financial condition at such time. From time to time, we may repurchase, redeem or otherwise extinguish any of our outstanding notes in open market or privately negotiated purchases or otherwise, or we may repurchase or redeem outstanding notes pursuant to the terms of the applicable indenture. We may not be able to engage in any of these activities or engage in these activities on desirable terms, which could result in a default on our debt obligations.
In addition, our indebtedness, combined with our other financial obligations and contractual commitments, could have other important consequences. For example, it could:
• make us more vulnerable to adverse changes in general U.S. and worldwide economic, industry and competitive conditions and adverse changes in government regulation;
• limit our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and our industry;
• place us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors who have less debt;
• limit our ability to borrow additional amounts to fund acquisitions, for working capital and for other general corporate purposes; and
• make an acquisition of our company less attractive or more difficult.
Any of these factors could harm our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition. In addition, if we incur additional indebtedness, the risks related to our business and our ability to service or repay our indebtedness would increase.
We may not have the ability to raise the funds necessary to settle for cash conversions of the Notes or to repurchase the Notes for cash upon a fundamental change.
Holders of the Notes have the right to require us to repurchase their Notes upon the occurrence of a fundamental change (as defined in the indenture governing the Notes) at a repurchase price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the Notes to be repurchased, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any. Upon conversion of the Notes, unless we elect to deliver solely shares of our common stock to settle such conversion (other than paying cash in lieu of delivering any fractional share), we will be required to make cash payments in respect of the Notes being converted. We may not have enough available cash or be able to obtain financing at the time we are required to make repurchases of Notes surrendered or Notes being converted. In addition, our ability to repurchase the Notes or to pay cash upon conversions of the Notes may be limited by law, by regulatory authority or by agreements governing our future indebtedness. Our failure to repurchase Notes at a time when the repurchase is required by the indenture governing such notes or to pay any cash payable on future conversions of the Notes as required by such indenture would constitute a default under such indenture. A default under the indenture governing the Notes or the fundamental change itself could also lead to a default under agreements governing our future indebtedness. If the repayment of
80

Table of Contents

the related indebtedness were to be accelerated after any applicable notice or grace periods, we may not have sufficient funds to repay the indebtedness and repurchase the Notes or make cash payments upon conversions.
The conditional conversion feature of the Notes, if triggered, may adversely affect our liquidity.
In the event the conditional conversion feature of the Notes is triggered, holders of the Notes will be entitled to convert the Notes at any time during specified periods at their option. If one or more holders elect to convert their Notes, unless we elect to satisfy our conversion obligation by delivering solely shares of our common stock (other than paying cash in lieu of delivering any fractional share), we would be required to settle a portion or all of our conversion obligation through the payment of cash, which could adversely affect our liquidity. In addition, even if holders do not elect to convert their Notes, we could be required under applicable accounting rules to reclassify all or a portion of the outstanding principal of the Notes as a current liability, rather than long-term liability, which would result in a material reduction of our net working capital.
Transactions relating to the Notes may affect the value of our common stock.
The conversion of some or all of the Notes would dilute the ownership interests of existing stockholders to the extent we satisfy our conversion obligation by delivering shares of our common stock upon any conversion of such Notes. The Notes may become in the future convertible at the option of their holders under certain circumstances. If holders of the Notes elect to convert their notes, we may settle our conversion obligation by delivering to them a significant number of shares of our common stock, which would cause dilution to our existing stockholders.
In addition, in connection with the issuance of the Notes, we entered into the Capped Calls with certain financial institutions, or the Option Counterparties. The Capped Calls are generally expected to reduce potential dilution to our common stock upon any conversion or settlement of the Notes and/or offset any cash payments we are required to make in excess of the principal amount of converted Notes, with such reduction and/or offset subject to a cap.
In connection with establishing their initial hedges of the Capped Calls, the Option Counterparties or their respective affiliates entered into various derivative transactions with respect to our common stock and/or purchased shares of our common stock concurrently with or shortly after the pricing of the Notes.
From time to time, the Option Counterparties or their respective affiliates may modify their hedge positions by entering into or unwinding various derivative transactions with respect to our common stock and/or purchasing or selling our common stock or other securities of ours in secondary market transactions prior to the maturity of the Notes (and are likely to do so following any conversion of the Notes, any repurchase of the Notes by us on any fundamental change repurchase date, any redemption date, or any other date on which the Notes are retired by us, in each case, if we exercise our option to terminate the relevant portion of the Capped Calls). This activity could cause a decrease and/or increased volatility in the market price of our common stock.
We do not make any representation or prediction as to the direction or magnitude of any potential effect that the transactions described above may have on the price of the Notes or our common stock. In addition, we do not make any representation that the Option Counterparties will engage in these transactions or that these transactions, once commenced, will not be discontinued without notice.
We are subject to counterparty risk with respect to the Capped Calls.
The Option Counterparties are financial institutions, and are subject to the risk that any or all of them might default under the Capped Calls. Our exposure to the credit risk of the Option Counterparties will not be secured by any collateral. Past global economic conditions have resulted in the actual or perceived failure or financial difficulties of many financial institutions. If an Option Counterparty becomes subject to insolvency proceedings, we will become an unsecured creditor in those proceedings with a claim equal to our exposure at that time under the Capped Calls with such Option Counterparty. Our exposure will depend on many factors but, generally, an increase in our exposure will be correlated to an increase in the market price and in the volatility of our common stock. In addition, upon a default by an Option Counterparty, we may suffer adverse tax consequences and more dilution than we currently anticipate with respect to our common stock. We can provide no assurances as to the financial stability or viability of the Option Counterparties.
The accounting method for convertible debt securities that may be settled in cash, such as the Notes, could have a material effect on our reported financial results.
The accounting method for reflecting the Notes on our condensed consolidated balance sheet, accruing interest expense for the Notes and reflecting the underlying shares of our common stock in our reported diluted earnings per share may adversely affect our reported earnings and financial condition.
The Notes are reflected as a liability on our condensed consolidated balance sheets, with the initial carrying amount equal to the principal amount of the Notes, net of issuance costs. The issuance costs were treated as a debt discount for accounting purposes, which is being amortized into interest expense over the term of the Notes. As a result of this amortization, the interest expense that we expect to recognize for the Notes for accounting purposes will be greater than the cash interest payments we will pay on the Notes, which will result in lower reported net income or higher reported net loss, as the case may be.
81

Table of Contents

In addition, the shares of common stock underlying the Notes are reflected in our diluted earnings per share using the “if-converted” method, in accordance with ASU 2020-06. Under this method, diluted earnings per share is generally calculated assuming that all the Notes were converted solely into shares of common stock at the beginning of the reporting period, unless the result would be anti-dilutive. The application of the if-converted method may reduce our reported diluted earnings per share to the extent we are profitable in the future, and accounting standards may change in the future in a manner that may adversely affect our diluted earnings per share.
Furthermore, if any of the conditions to the convertibility of the Notes is satisfied, then we may be required under applicable accounting standards to reclassify the liability carrying value of the Notes as a current, rather than a long-term, liability. This reclassification could be required even if no holders actually convert their Notes and could materially reduce our reported working capital.

ITEM 5. OTHER INFORMATION
Adoption of 10b5-1 Trading Plans by Our Officers and Directors
During our fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2026, none of our directors or officers adopted or terminated a “Rule 10b5-1 trading plan” or a “non-Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement,” each as defined in Item 408 of Regulation S-K.

ITEM 6. EXHIBITS

31.1# Certification of principal executive officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended

31.2# Certification of principal financial officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended

32.1#+ Certification of principal executive officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code

32.2#+ Certification of principal financial officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code

101.SCH Inline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document
101.CAL Inline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document
101.LAB Inline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document
101.PRE Inline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document
101.DEF Inline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document
104 Cover Page Interactive Data File (formatted as inline XBRL with applicable taxonomy extension information contained in Exhibits 101.*)

# Filed herewith.

+ This certification will not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent specifically incorporated by reference into such filing.

82

Table of Contents

SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

Date: July 30, 2026 /s/ Yvonne L. Greenstreet, M.D.

Yvonne L. Greenstreet, M.D.
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

Date: July 30, 2026 /s/ Jeffrey V. Poulton
Jeffrey V. Poulton
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

83