Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	(5) Commitments and Contingencies Amarin accrues a liability for legal contingencies when it believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and that it can reasonably estimate the amount of the loss. Amarin reviews these accruals and adjusts them to reflect ongoing negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other relevant information. To the extent new information is obtained and Amarin’s views on the probable outcomes of claims, suits, assessments, investigations or legal proceedings change, changes in Amarin’s accrued liabilities would be recorded in the period in which such determination is made. For the matters referenced below, the amount of liability is not probable nor can the amount be reasonably estimated; therefore, accruals have not been made. In addition, in accordance with the relevant authoritative guidance, for matters in which the likelihood of material loss is at least reasonably possible, Amarin provides disclosure of the possible loss or range of loss. If a reasonable estimate cannot be made, however, Amarin will provide disclosure to that effect. Litigation Updates Amarin intends to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights relating to VASCEPA, but cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits described below, those lawsuits described in the Company's Form 10-K or any subsequently filed lawsuits. Except as described below, there have been no material updates to our litigation as reported in the Company’s Form 10-K. In April 2021, Dr. Reddy’s filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil action No.21-cv-10309, alleging various antitrust violations stemming from alleged anticompetitive practices related to the supply of active pharmaceutical ingredient of VASCEPA. The complaint also includes a related state law tortious interference claim. Damages sought include recovery for alleged economic harm to Dr. Reddy’s, payors and consumers, treble damages and other costs and fees. Injunctive relief against the alleged violative activities is also being sought by Dr. Reddy’s. In addition, in February 2023, Hikma filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court District of New Jersey (case no. 3:23-cv-01016) with allegations consistent with Dr. Reddy's complaint. Amarin believes it has valid defenses and will vigorously defend against the claims. Such litigation can be lengthy, costly and could materially affect and disrupt our business. Amarin is also named as a defendant in six antitrust class action lawsuits in the District Court for the District of New Jersey. Amarin is a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed by Uniformed Fire Officers Association Family Protection Plan Local 854 and the Uniformed Fire Officers Association for Retired Fire Officers Family Protection Plan, on behalf of indirect purchasers, in the District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 21-12061, alleging Amarin and its co-defendant suppliers violated state and federal antitrust laws by monopolizing and engaging in a conspiracy to restrain trade in the icosapent ethyl drug and API markets. Amarin is a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed by The International Union of Operating Engineers Locals 137, 137A, 137B, 137C, 137R, on behalf of indirect purchasers, in the District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 21-12416, alleging Amarin violated state and federal antitrust laws by monopolizing and engaging in a conspiracy to restrain trade in the icosapent ethyl drug and API markets. Amarin is a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed by KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., on behalf of direct purchasers, in the District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 21-12747, alleging Amarin and its co-defendant suppliers violated state and federal antitrust laws by monopolizing and engaging in a conspiracy to restrain trade in the icosapent ethyl drug and API markets. Amarin is a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed by Local 464A United Food and Commercial Workers Union Welfare Service Benefit Fund, on behalf of direct purchasers, in the District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 21-13009. Amarin is a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed by Teamsters Health & Welfare Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity, on behalf of indirect purchasers, in the District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 21-13406, alleging Amarin violated state and federal antitrust laws by monopolizing and engaging in a conspiracy to restrain trade in the icosapent ethyl drug and API markets. Such antitrust litigation, and antitrust investigations, can be lengthy, costly and could materially affect and disrupt the Company’s business. The Company cannot predict when these matters will be resolved, their outcome or their potential impact on the Company’s business. If a government determines that Amarin has violated antitrust law, the Company could be subject to significant civil fines and penalties. On October 21, 2021, a purported investor in the Company's publicly traded securities filed a putative class action lawsuit against Amarin Corporation plc, the former chief executive officer and the former chief financial officer in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Vincent Dang v. Amarin Corporation plc, John F. Thero and Michael W. Kalb, No. 1:21-cv-19212 (D.N.J. Oct. 21, 2021). A subsequent case, Dorfman v. Amarin Corporation plc, et al., No. 3:21-cv-19911 (D.N.J. filed Nov. 10, 2021), was filed in November 2021. In December 2021, several Amarin shareholders moved to consolidate the cases and appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The complaints in these actions are nearly identical and allege that the Company misled investors by allegedly downplaying the risk associated with the Company's ANDA litigation described above and the risk that certain of the Company's patents related to the MARINE indication would be invalidated. Based on these allegations, plaintiff alleges that he purchased securities at an inflated share price and brings claims under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 seeking unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On January 13, 2023, Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that also named the former general counsel, and again alleged that the Company made false statements regarding the ANDA Litigation as well as about the REDUCE-IT indication and VASCEPA’s financial prospects resulting from REDUCE-IT. All Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The Company believes it has valid defenses and will vigorously defend against the claims but cannot predict the outcome. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate the loss exposure, if any, associated with these claims. On March 29, 2023, purported investors in the Company’s publicly traded securities filed a derivative lawsuit, naming as defendants the Company’s former general counsel, the Company’s trial counsel for the ANDA litigation, and the Company as nominal defendant, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, captioned Anne Abramson, John Lissandrello, Georgette Appiano, and Andrew Bondarowicz v. Amarin Corporation plc, Covington & Burling, LLP, Joseph T. Kennedy, and John Does A-Z, No. MON-L-000984-23 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. Mar. 29, 2023). The complaint alleged that the defendants failed to exercise appropriate diligence and due care in their conduct of the ANDA litigation. Based on those allegations, the complaint alleged that the defendants committed legal malpractice and sought monetary damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 8, 2023, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this case without prejudice. On March 31, 2023, the Company’s former chief executive officer, Karim Mikhail, filed a complaint against the Company and certain of its affiliates in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division – Somerset County, captioned Mikhail v. Amarin Corporation, plc (Docket No. SOM-L-000366-23), concerning Mr. Mikhail’s alleged “constructive termination” from the Company. The complaint seeks unspecified damages arising from claims for breaches of his employment agreement, Executive Severance and Change of Control Plan, and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On April 3, 2023, the case moved to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Civ. No. 3:23-cv-01856). On June 30, 2023, all defendants moved to dismiss this case without prejudice. In addition to the above, in the ordinary course of business, the Company is from time to time involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations, proceedings, and threats of litigation relating to intellectual property, commercial arrangements and other matters. Milestone and Supply Purchase Obligations The Company currently has long-term supply agreements with multiple API suppliers and encapsulators. The Company is relying on these suppliers to meet current and potential future global demand for VASCEPA. Certain supply agreements require annual minimum volume commitments by the Company and certain volume shortfalls may require payments for such shortfalls. These agreements include requirements for the suppliers to meet certain product specifications and qualify their materials and facilities with applicable regulatory authorities, including the U.S. FDA. The Company has incurred certain costs associated with the qualification of product produced by these suppliers. The Company continues to negotiate with contract suppliers to align its supply arrangements with current and future global demand which may result in additional costs to the Company. As of June 30, 2023, the Company has a total of approximately $60.2 million in future contractual purchase obligations without consideration to ongoing discussions with other suppliers. In addition, the Company has total obligations of $58.3 million contingent on either certain suppliers obtaining regulatory approval in Europe or pricing reimbursement in certain European countries not occurring by June 30, 2024. Also, under the Laxdale agreement, upon receipt of a marketing approval in Europe for a further indication of VASCEPA (or further indication of any other product acquired from Laxdale in 2004), the Company must make an aggregate stock or cash payment (at the sole option of each of such former shareholders) of £5 million (approximately $6.3 million as of June 30, 2023) for any such market approval. The Company has no provision for any of these obligations, except as noted above, since the amounts are either not paid or payable as of June 30, 2023.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

(5) Commitments and Contingencies

Amarin accrues a liability for legal contingencies when it believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and that it can reasonably estimate the amount of the loss. Amarin reviews these accruals and adjusts them to reflect ongoing negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other relevant information. To the extent new information is obtained and Amarin’s views on the probable outcomes of claims, suits, assessments, investigations or legal proceedings change, changes in Amarin’s accrued liabilities would be recorded in the period in which such determination is made. For the matters referenced below, the amount of liability is not probable nor can the amount be reasonably estimated; therefore, accruals have not been made. In addition, in accordance with the relevant authoritative guidance, for matters in which the likelihood of material loss is at least reasonably possible, Amarin provides disclosure of the possible loss or range of loss. If a reasonable estimate cannot be made, however, Amarin will provide disclosure to that effect.

Litigation Updates

Amarin intends to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights relating to VASCEPA, but cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits described below, those lawsuits described in the Company's Form 10-K or any subsequently filed lawsuits. Except as described below, there have been no material updates to our litigation as reported in the Company’s Form 10-K.

In April 2021, Dr. Reddy’s filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil action No.21-cv-10309, alleging various antitrust violations stemming from alleged anticompetitive practices related to the supply of active pharmaceutical ingredient of VASCEPA. The complaint also includes a related state law tortious interference claim. Damages sought include recovery for alleged economic harm to Dr. Reddy’s, payors and consumers, treble damages and other costs and fees. Injunctive relief against the alleged violative activities is also being sought by Dr. Reddy’s. In addition, in February 2023, Hikma filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court District of New Jersey (case no. 3:23-cv-01016) with allegations consistent with Dr. Reddy's complaint. Amarin believes it has valid defenses and will vigorously defend against the claims. Such litigation can be lengthy, costly and could materially affect and disrupt our business.

Amarin is also named as a defendant in six antitrust class action lawsuits in the District Court for the District of New Jersey. Amarin is a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed by Uniformed Fire Officers Association Family Protection Plan Local 854 and the Uniformed Fire Officers Association for Retired Fire Officers Family Protection Plan, on behalf of indirect purchasers, in the District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 21-12061, alleging Amarin and its co-defendant suppliers violated state and federal antitrust laws by monopolizing and engaging in a conspiracy to restrain trade in the icosapent ethyl drug and API markets. Amarin is a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed by The International Union of Operating Engineers Locals 137, 137A, 137B, 137C, 137R, on behalf of indirect purchasers, in the District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 21-12416, alleging Amarin violated state and federal antitrust laws by monopolizing and engaging in a conspiracy to restrain trade in the icosapent ethyl drug and API markets. Amarin is a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed by KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., on behalf of direct purchasers, in the District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 21-12747, alleging Amarin and its co-defendant suppliers violated state and federal antitrust laws by monopolizing and engaging in a conspiracy to restrain trade in the icosapent ethyl drug and API markets. Amarin is a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed by Local 464A United Food and Commercial Workers Union Welfare Service Benefit Fund, on behalf of direct purchasers, in the District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 21-13009. Amarin is a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed by Teamsters Health & Welfare Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity, on behalf of indirect purchasers, in the District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 21-13406, alleging Amarin violated state and federal antitrust laws by monopolizing and engaging in a conspiracy to restrain trade in the icosapent ethyl drug and API markets.

Such antitrust litigation, and antitrust investigations, can be lengthy, costly and could materially affect and disrupt the Company’s business. The Company cannot predict when these matters will be resolved, their outcome or their potential impact on the Company’s business. If a government determines that Amarin has violated antitrust law, the Company could be subject to significant civil fines and penalties.

On October 21, 2021, a purported investor in the Company's publicly traded securities filed a putative class action lawsuit against Amarin Corporation plc, the former chief executive officer and the former chief financial officer in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Vincent Dang v. Amarin Corporation plc, John F. Thero and Michael W. Kalb, No. 1:21-cv-19212 (D.N.J. Oct. 21, 2021). A subsequent case, Dorfman v. Amarin Corporation plc, et al., No. 3:21-cv-19911 (D.N.J. filed Nov. 10, 2021), was filed in November 2021. In December 2021, several Amarin shareholders moved to consolidate the cases and appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The complaints in these actions are nearly identical and allege that the Company misled investors by allegedly downplaying the risk associated with the Company's ANDA litigation described above and the risk that certain of the Company's patents related to the MARINE indication would be invalidated. Based on these allegations, plaintiff alleges that he purchased securities at an inflated share price and brings claims under the Securities and

Exchange Act of 1934 seeking unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On January 13, 2023, Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that also named the former general counsel, and again alleged that the Company made false statements regarding the ANDA Litigation as well as about the REDUCE-IT indication and VASCEPA’s financial prospects resulting from REDUCE-IT. All Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The Company believes it has valid defenses and will vigorously defend against the claims but cannot predict the outcome. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate the loss exposure, if any, associated with these claims.

On March 29, 2023, purported investors in the Company’s publicly traded securities filed a derivative lawsuit, naming as defendants the Company’s former general counsel, the Company’s trial counsel for the ANDA litigation, and the Company as nominal defendant, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, captioned Anne Abramson, John Lissandrello, Georgette Appiano, and Andrew Bondarowicz v. Amarin Corporation plc, Covington & Burling, LLP, Joseph T. Kennedy, and John Does A-Z, No. MON-L-000984-23 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. Mar. 29, 2023). The complaint alleged that the defendants failed to exercise appropriate diligence and due care in their conduct of the ANDA litigation. Based on those allegations, the complaint alleged that the defendants committed legal malpractice and sought monetary damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 8, 2023, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this case without prejudice.

On March 31, 2023, the Company’s former chief executive officer, Karim Mikhail, filed a complaint against the Company and certain of its affiliates in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division – Somerset County, captioned Mikhail v. Amarin Corporation, plc (Docket No. SOM-L-000366-23), concerning Mr. Mikhail’s alleged “constructive termination” from the Company. The complaint seeks unspecified damages arising from claims for breaches of his employment agreement, Executive Severance and Change of Control Plan, and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On April 3, 2023, the case moved to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Civ. No. 3:23-cv-01856). On June 30, 2023, all defendants moved to dismiss this case without prejudice.

In addition to the above, in the ordinary course of business, the Company is from time to time involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations, proceedings, and threats of litigation relating to intellectual property, commercial arrangements and other matters.

Milestone and Supply Purchase Obligations

The Company currently has long-term supply agreements with multiple API suppliers and encapsulators. The Company is relying on these suppliers to meet current and potential future global demand for VASCEPA. Certain supply agreements require annual minimum volume commitments by the Company and certain volume shortfalls may require payments for such shortfalls.

These agreements include requirements for the suppliers to meet certain product specifications and qualify their materials and facilities with applicable regulatory authorities, including the U.S. FDA. The Company has incurred certain costs associated with the qualification of product produced by these suppliers.

The Company continues to negotiate with contract suppliers to align its supply arrangements with current and future global demand which may result in additional costs to the Company. As of June 30, 2023, the Company has a total of approximately $60.2 million in future contractual purchase obligations without consideration to ongoing discussions with other suppliers. In addition, the Company has total obligations of $58.3 million contingent on either certain suppliers obtaining regulatory approval in Europe or pricing reimbursement in certain European countries not occurring by June 30, 2024.

Also, under the Laxdale agreement, upon receipt of a marketing approval in Europe for a further indication of VASCEPA (or further indication of any other product acquired from Laxdale in 2004), the Company must make an aggregate stock or cash payment (at the sole option of each of such former shareholders) of £5 million (approximately $6.3 million as of June 30, 2023) for any such market approval.

The Company has no provision for any of these obligations, except as noted above, since the amounts are either not paid or payable as of June 30, 2023.