Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2021
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	(5)Commitments and Contingencies Litigation The active pharmaceutical ingredient in VASCEPA is difficult and time consuming to manufacture, often requires considerable advanced planning and long-term financial commitment to ensure sufficient capacity is available when needed. The Company has invested over a decade to develop with individual members of its third-party, active pharmaceutical ingredient supply chain the technical knowhow, manufacturing processes and related regulatory approvals that have helped enable the Company’s suppliers to supply the Company’s need for clinical and commercial supply globally. Based on statements made by generic competitors, Hikma and Dr. Reddy’s, the active pharmaceutical ingredient of VASCEPA needed to manufacture their generic versions of VASCEPA is in short supply to them. The Company believes this may be due to their lack of adequate planning, investment, knowhow and expertise regarding this fragile active ingredient. As has been a practice in the generic pharmaceutical industry, on April 27, 2021, Dr. Reddy’s filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court District of New Jersey (case no. 2:21-cv-10309) alleging various antitrust violations stemming from alleged anticompetitive practices related to the supply of active pharmaceutical ingredient of VASCEPA. 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. Amarin believes it has valid defenses and will vigorously defend against the claims. Amarin has also received a civil investigative demand from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and a subpoena from the New York Attorney General with respect to information on the same topic. The Company believes such contact from the governments may have been prompted by a generic competitor. Amarin is cooperating with the government agencies. Such litigation and 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 February 22, 2019, a purported investor in the Company’s publicly traded securities filed a putative class action lawsuit against Amarin Corporation plc, the chief executive officer and chief scientific officer in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Debendra Sharma v. Amarin Corporation plc, John F. Thero and Steven Ketchum, No. 2:19-cv-06601 (D.N.J. Feb. 22, 2019). On March 12, 2019, another purported investor filed a substantially similar lawsuit captioned Richard Borghesi v. Amarin Corporation plc, John F. Thero and Steven Ketchum, No. 3:19-cv-08423 (D.N.J. March 12, 2019). On May 14, 2019 the court consolidated the cases under the caption In re Amarin Corporation PLC Securities Litigation, No. 3:19-cv-06601 and appointed two other purported shareholders, Dan Kotecki and the Gaetano Cecchini Living Trust, as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, or Amended Complaint, on July 22, 2019 that added as defendants the Company’s current chief medical officer and the Company’s former chief executive officer, who is a current director. The Amended Complaint alleged that from September 24, 2018 to November 9, 2018 the Company misled investors by releasing topline results for the REDUCE-IT study without disclosing data on biomarker increases in the placebo group as compared with baseline measurement. The Amended Complaint alleged that these data suggest that the mineral oil placebo used in the REDUCE-IT study may have interfered with statin absorption in the placebo group, which they alleged may have increased adverse outcomes in the placebo group. The Amended Complaint further alleged that these purported misrepresentations and omissions inflated the share price. Based on these allegations, the suit asserted claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and sought unspecified monetary damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 29, 2021, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss this litigation for failure to state a valid claim. The litigation was dismissed without prejudice, giving the plaintiffs the right to file an amended complaint. We intend to vigorously defend against any future complaint in this matter. In September and October 2016, the Company received paragraph IV certification notices from four companies contending to varying degrees that certain of its patents are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, sale or offer for sale of a generic form of VASCEPA as described in those companies’ ANDAs. The Company filed patent infringement lawsuits against three of these four ANDA applicants. In October 2016, Amarin filed a lawsuit against Roxane Laboratories, Inc. and related parties (collectively, “Roxane”) in the Nevada Court. The case against Roxane was captioned Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. et al., Civ. A. No. 2:16-cv-02525 (D. Nev.). According to a stipulation filed with the Nevada Court, in December 2016, Roxane transferred its ANDA to West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited, which then designated West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp. (or together with West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited, West-Ward) as its agent for U.S. FDA communications. In view of the ANDA transfer, in February 2017, West-Ward replaced Roxane and related parties as Defendants in the above-referenced case. The case against West-Ward was then captioned Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp. et al., Civ. A. No. 2:16-cv-02525 (D. Nev.). In November 2016, the Company filed a lawsuit against Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. (collectively, “DRL”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The case against DRL is captioned Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. et al., Civ. A. No. 2:16-cv-02562 (D. Nev.). In November 2016, the Company filed a lawsuit against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited (collectively, “Teva”) in the Nevada Court. The case against Teva was captioned Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al., Civ. A. No. 2:16-cv-02658. In all three lawsuits, the Company sought, among other remedies, an order enjoining each defendant from marketing generic versions of VASCEPA before the last to expire of the asserted patents in 2030. The fourth ANDA applicant referenced above is Apotex Inc., or Apotex, which sent the Company a paragraph IV certification notice in September 2016. The notice reflected that Apotex made a paragraph IV notice as to some, but not all, of the patents listed in the Orange Book for VASCEPA. In October 2016, the Company introduced to the market a 0.5-gram dose strength of VASCEPA. In August 2017, as anticipated, the Company received a paragraph IV certification notice from Teva contending that certain of its patents are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, sale or offer for sale of a generic form of the 0.5-gram dose strength of VASCEPA, as described in the Teva ANDA. This Teva ANDA was filed as an amendment to the 1-gram Teva ANDA and is related to patents already at issue in the 1-gram VASCEPA patent litigation. This certification followed the related listing in the Orange Book of patents associated with the 0.5-gram product in June 2017. This June 2017 listing was within the five-year, post NDA-approval period during which the Hatch-Waxman Amendments require a paragraph IV certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement under the Hatch-Waxman, five-year, NCE regulatory scheme. Accordingly, in October 2017, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The case was captioned Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al., Civ. A. No. 2:17-cv-2641 (D. Nev.). In this lawsuit, the Company sought, among other remedies, an order enjoining Teva from marketing generic versions of the 0.5-gram dose strength of VASCEPA before the last to expire of the asserted patents in 2030. On May 24, 2018, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Teva that resolved its ANDA patent litigation as it relates to Teva’s as amended ANDA for both the 1-gram and 0.5-gram dose strengths of VASCEPA. As part of the settlement agreement, Teva may, subject to procurement of product supply, sell a generic version of VASCEPA in the United States now that the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued its mandate following our Nevada Court trial appeal lost at the level. The settlement agreement with Teva also substantially resolved litigation with Teva that could have ensued related to the December 2019 cardiovascular risk reduction indication of VASCEPA based on the REDUCE-IT study. In July 2018, as anticipated, the Company received a paragraph IV certification notice from DRL contending that certain of its patents are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, sale or offer for sale of a generic form of the 0.5-gram dose strength of VASCEPA, as described in the DRL ANDA. This DRL ANDA was filed as an amendment to the 1-gram DRL ANDA and is related to patents already at issue in the 1-gram VASCEPA patent litigation. This certification followed the related listing in the Orange Book of patents associated with the 0.5-gram product in June 2017. This June 2017 listing was within the five-year, post NDA-approval period during which the Hatch-Waxman Amendments require a paragraph IV certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement lawsuit against DRL in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The case is captioned Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. et al., Civ. A. No. 2:18-cv-01596 (D. Nev.). In this lawsuit, the Company sought, among other remedies, an order enjoining DRL from marketing generic versions of the 0.5-gram dose strength of VASCEPA before the last to expire of the asserted patents in 2030. In light of the overlap between the cases, DRL and the Company have stipulated that the final judgment on the merits of the parties’ contentions in the consolidated 1-gram action shall also be binding in the 0.5-gram case. The trial for the ANDA patent litigation against defendants DRL and Hikma, and certain of their respective affiliates, or the Defendants, took place in the Nevada Court (case no.: 2:16-cv-02525-MMD-NJK (consolidated with 2:16-cv=02562=MMD-NJK). Following conclusion of the trial in late January 2020, the Nevada Court, on March 30, 2020, decided in favor of the Defendants, ruling that the relevant patents are invalid due to obviousness. Amarin appealed this decision to the Federal Circuit (case no.: 20-1723). In June 2020, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Apotex that resolved patent litigation that was expected to result from the ANDA filed by Apotex with the U.S. FDA, which ANDA was amended in May 2020, seeking approval of a generic form of VASCEPA capsules based on the MARINE study. As part of the settlement agreement, Apotex may, subject to U.S. FDA approval of its ANDA and procurement of product supply, sell a generic version of VASCEPA with MARINE indication labeling in the United States now that the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued its mandate following our Nevada Court trial appeal loss at the level (the same such date provided for under the 2018 settlement agreement with Teva). The settlement agreement with Apotex also substantially resolved litigation with Apotex that could have ensued related to the December 2019 cardiovascular risk reduction indication of VASCEPA based on the REDUCE-IT study. Apotex may amend its label under our settlement agreement to include the REDUCE-IT indication after expiration of the associated Hatch-Waxman Act regulatory exclusivity expires in December 2022. On September 3, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit upheld the March 2020 trial ruling by the Nevada Court in favor of Hikma and DRL. On October 2, 2020, the Company filed a combined petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc (case no.: 20-1723-1901), which was denied. On February 11, 2021, the Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court to ask the Supreme Court to hear the appeal in this litigation (case no.: 20-1119). That petition is pending. In November 2020, the Company filed a new patent infringement lawsuit against Hikma in the United States District Court in Delaware. The complaint alleges that Hikma has induced the infringement of VASCEPA-related cardiovascular risk reduction U.S. Patent Nos. 9,700,537 (Composition for preventing the occurrence of cardiovascular event in multiple risk patient), 8,642,077 (Stable pharmaceutical composition and methods of using same), and 10,568,861 (Methods of reducing the risk of a cardiovascular event in a subject at risk for cardiovascular disease) by making, selling, offering to sell and importing generic icosapent ethyl capsules in or into the United States. The Company is seeking remedies including a permanent injunction against Hikma’s unlawful inducement of infringing uses of its generic product to reduce cardiovascular risk and monetary damages in an amount sufficient to compensate the Company for such infringement. In January 2021, the Company expanded the scope of the VASCEPA CV risk reduction patent infringement lawsuit against Hikma to include a health care insurance provider in the United States, Health Net, LLC. Through insurance coverage and economic incentives the Company alleges that Health Net, LLC has actively induced pharmacies to dispense, and patients to use, Hikma generic icosapent ethyl capsules in infringement of the related patents. In the complaint, the Company is seeking remedies including a permanent injunction against the unlawful inducement by Hikma and Health Net, LLC of infringing uses of the Hikma generic product, i.e., uses to reduce cardiovascular risk as detailed in the patents, and monetary damages in an amount sufficient to compensate the Company for such infringement. The Company is considering its legal options against parties similarly situated to Health Net, LLC and Hikma and acting in concert with either by making or selling any drug product or component thereof covered by the subject patents, or inducing others to do the same. The Company intends to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights relating to VASCEPA, but cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or any subsequently filed lawsuits. 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 entered into long-term supply agreements with multiple U.S. FDA-approved API suppliers and encapsulators. 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. Pursuant to the supply agreements, there is a total of approximately $213.0 million that is potentially payable over the term of such agreements based on minimum purchase obligations. The Company continues to meet its contractual purchase obligations. On March 26, 2021, the EC approved the marketing authorization application for VAZKEPA. Under the 2004 share repurchase agreement with Laxdale, upon receipt of marketing approval in Europe for the first indication for VASCEPA (or first indication of any product containing intellectual property acquired from Laxdale in 2004), the Company must make an aggregate stock or cash payment to the former shareholders of Laxdale (at the sole option of each of the sellers) of £7.5 million. The Company recorded a liability of $12.0 million in Accrued expenses and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2021. 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 the sellers) of £5 million (approximately $6.9 million as of March 31, 2021) for the potential 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 March 31, 2021. Marketing Obligations As of March 31, 2021, the Company had certain marketing commitments, consisting of communication costs related to the direct-to-consumer activities, totaling approximately $14.2 million.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2021

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

(5)Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

The active pharmaceutical ingredient in VASCEPA is difficult and time consuming to manufacture, often requires considerable advanced planning and long-term financial commitment to ensure sufficient capacity is available when needed. The Company has invested over a decade to develop with individual members of its third-party, active pharmaceutical ingredient supply chain the technical knowhow, manufacturing processes and related regulatory approvals that have helped enable the Company’s suppliers to supply the Company’s need for clinical and commercial supply globally. Based on statements made by generic competitors, Hikma and Dr. Reddy’s, the active pharmaceutical ingredient of VASCEPA needed to manufacture their generic versions of VASCEPA is in short supply to them. The Company believes this may be due to their lack of adequate planning, investment, knowhow and expertise regarding this fragile active ingredient.

As has been a practice in the generic pharmaceutical industry, on April 27, 2021, Dr. Reddy’s filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court District of New Jersey (case no. 2:21-cv-10309) alleging various antitrust violations stemming from alleged anticompetitive practices related to the supply of active pharmaceutical ingredient of VASCEPA. 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. Amarin believes it has valid defenses and will vigorously defend against the claims. Amarin has also received a civil investigative demand from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and a subpoena from the New York Attorney General with respect to information on the same topic. The Company believes such contact from the governments may have been prompted by a generic competitor. Amarin is cooperating with the government agencies. Such litigation and 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 February 22, 2019, a purported investor in the Company’s publicly traded securities filed a putative class action lawsuit against Amarin Corporation plc, the chief executive officer and chief scientific officer in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Debendra Sharma v. Amarin Corporation plc, John F. Thero and Steven Ketchum, No. 2:19-cv-06601 (D.N.J. Feb. 22, 2019). On March 12, 2019, another purported investor filed a substantially similar lawsuit captioned Richard Borghesi v. Amarin Corporation plc, John F. Thero and Steven Ketchum, No. 3:19-cv-08423 (D.N.J. March 12, 2019). On May 14, 2019 the court consolidated the cases under the caption In re Amarin Corporation PLC Securities Litigation, No. 3:19-cv-06601 and appointed two other purported shareholders, Dan Kotecki and the Gaetano Cecchini Living Trust, as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, or Amended Complaint, on July 22, 2019 that added as defendants the Company’s current chief medical officer and the Company’s former chief executive officer, who is a current director. The Amended Complaint alleged that from September 24, 2018 to November 9, 2018 the Company misled investors by releasing topline results for the REDUCE-IT study without disclosing data on biomarker increases in the placebo group as compared with baseline measurement. The Amended Complaint alleged that these data suggest that the mineral oil placebo used in the REDUCE-IT study may have interfered with statin absorption in the placebo group, which they alleged may have increased adverse outcomes in the placebo group. The Amended Complaint further alleged that these purported misrepresentations and omissions inflated the share price. Based on these allegations, the suit asserted claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and sought unspecified monetary damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.

On March 29, 2021, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss this litigation for failure to state a valid claim. The litigation was dismissed without prejudice, giving the plaintiffs the right to file an amended complaint. We intend to vigorously defend against any future complaint in this matter.

In September and October 2016, the Company received paragraph IV certification notices from four companies contending to varying degrees that certain of its patents are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, sale or offer for sale

of a generic form of VASCEPA as described in those companies’ ANDAs. The Company filed patent infringement lawsuits against three of these four ANDA applicants. In October 2016, Amarin filed a lawsuit against Roxane Laboratories, Inc. and related parties (collectively, “Roxane”) in the Nevada Court. The case against Roxane was captioned Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. et al., Civ. A. No. 2:16-cv-02525 (D. Nev.). According to a stipulation filed with the Nevada Court, in December 2016, Roxane transferred its ANDA to West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited, which then designated West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp. (or together with West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited, West-Ward) as its agent for U.S. FDA communications. In view of the ANDA transfer, in February 2017, West-Ward replaced Roxane and related parties as Defendants in the above-referenced case. The case against West-Ward was then captioned Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp. et al., Civ. A. No. 2:16-cv-02525 (D. Nev.). In November 2016, the Company filed a lawsuit against Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. (collectively, “DRL”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The case against DRL is captioned Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. et al., Civ. A. No. 2:16-cv-02562 (D. Nev.). In November 2016, the Company filed a lawsuit against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited (collectively, “Teva”) in the Nevada Court. The case against Teva was captioned Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al., Civ. A. No. 2:16-cv-02658. In all three lawsuits, the Company sought, among other remedies, an order enjoining each defendant from marketing generic versions of VASCEPA before the last to expire of the asserted patents in 2030.

The fourth ANDA applicant referenced above is Apotex Inc., or Apotex, which sent the Company a paragraph IV certification notice in September 2016. The notice reflected that Apotex made a paragraph IV notice as to some, but not all, of the patents listed in the Orange Book for VASCEPA.

In October 2016, the Company introduced to the market a 0.5-gram dose strength of VASCEPA. In August 2017, as anticipated, the Company received a paragraph IV certification notice from Teva contending that certain of its patents are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, sale or offer for sale of a generic form of the 0.5-gram dose strength of VASCEPA, as described in the Teva ANDA. This Teva ANDA was filed as an amendment to the 1-gram Teva ANDA and is related to patents already at issue in the 1-gram VASCEPA patent litigation. This certification followed the related listing in the Orange Book of patents associated with the 0.5-gram product in June 2017. This June 2017 listing was within the five-year, post NDA-approval period during which the Hatch-Waxman Amendments require a paragraph IV certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement under the Hatch-Waxman, five-year, NCE regulatory scheme. Accordingly, in October 2017, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The case was captioned Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al., Civ. A. No. 2:17-cv-2641 (D. Nev.). In this lawsuit, the Company sought, among other remedies, an order enjoining Teva from marketing generic versions of the 0.5-gram dose strength of VASCEPA before the last to expire of the asserted patents in 2030.

On May 24, 2018, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Teva that resolved its ANDA patent litigation as it relates to Teva’s as amended ANDA for both the 1-gram and 0.5-gram dose strengths of VASCEPA. As part of the settlement agreement, Teva may, subject to procurement of product supply, sell a generic version of VASCEPA in the United States now that the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued its mandate following our Nevada Court trial appeal lost at the level. The settlement agreement with Teva also substantially resolved litigation with Teva that could have ensued related to the December 2019 cardiovascular risk reduction indication of VASCEPA based on the REDUCE-IT study.

In July 2018, as anticipated, the Company received a paragraph IV certification notice from DRL contending that certain of its patents are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, sale or offer for sale of a generic form of the 0.5-gram dose strength of VASCEPA, as described in the DRL ANDA. This DRL ANDA was filed as an amendment to the 1-gram DRL ANDA and is related to patents already at issue in the 1-gram VASCEPA patent litigation. This certification followed the related listing in the Orange Book of patents associated with the 0.5-gram product in June 2017. This June 2017 listing was within the five-year, post NDA-approval period during which the Hatch-Waxman Amendments require a paragraph IV certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement lawsuit against DRL in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The case is captioned Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. et al., Civ. A. No. 2:18-cv-01596 (D. Nev.). In this lawsuit, the Company sought, among other remedies, an order enjoining DRL from marketing generic versions of the 0.5-gram dose strength of VASCEPA before the last to expire of the asserted patents in 2030. In light of the overlap between the cases, DRL and the Company have stipulated that the final judgment on the merits of the parties’ contentions in the consolidated 1-gram action shall also be binding in the 0.5-gram case.

The trial for the ANDA patent litigation against defendants DRL and Hikma, and certain of their respective affiliates, or the Defendants, took place in the Nevada Court (case no.: 2:16-cv-02525-MMD-NJK (consolidated with 2:16-cv=02562=MMD-NJK). Following conclusion of the trial in late January 2020, the Nevada Court, on March 30, 2020, decided in favor of the Defendants, ruling that the relevant patents are invalid due to obviousness. Amarin appealed this decision to the Federal Circuit (case no.: 20-1723).

In June 2020, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Apotex that resolved patent litigation that was expected to result from the ANDA filed by Apotex with the U.S. FDA, which ANDA was amended in May 2020, seeking approval of a generic form of VASCEPA capsules based on the MARINE study. As part of the settlement agreement, Apotex may, subject to U.S. FDA approval of

its ANDA and procurement of product supply, sell a generic version of VASCEPA with MARINE indication labeling in the United States now that the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued its mandate following our Nevada Court trial appeal loss at the level (the same such date provided for under the 2018 settlement agreement with Teva). The settlement agreement with Apotex also substantially resolved litigation with Apotex that could have ensued related to the December 2019 cardiovascular risk reduction indication of VASCEPA based on the REDUCE-IT study. Apotex may amend its label under our settlement agreement to include the REDUCE-IT indication after expiration of the associated Hatch-Waxman Act regulatory exclusivity expires in December 2022.

On September 3, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit upheld the March 2020 trial ruling by the Nevada Court in favor of Hikma and DRL. On October 2, 2020, the Company filed a combined petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc (case no.: 20-1723-1901), which was denied. On February 11, 2021, the Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court to ask the Supreme Court to hear the appeal in this litigation (case no.: 20-1119). That petition is pending.

In November 2020, the Company filed a new patent infringement lawsuit against Hikma in the United States District Court in Delaware. The complaint alleges that Hikma has induced the infringement of VASCEPA-related cardiovascular risk reduction U.S. Patent Nos. 9,700,537 (Composition for preventing the occurrence of cardiovascular event in multiple risk patient), 8,642,077 (Stable pharmaceutical composition and methods of using same), and 10,568,861 (Methods of reducing the risk of a cardiovascular event in a subject at risk for cardiovascular disease) by making, selling, offering to sell and importing generic icosapent ethyl capsules in or into the United States. The Company is seeking remedies including a permanent injunction against Hikma’s unlawful inducement of infringing uses of its generic product to reduce cardiovascular risk and monetary damages in an amount sufficient to compensate the Company for such infringement.

In January 2021, the Company expanded the scope of the VASCEPA CV risk reduction patent infringement lawsuit against Hikma to include a health care insurance provider in the United States, Health Net, LLC. Through insurance coverage and economic incentives the Company alleges that Health Net, LLC has actively induced pharmacies to dispense, and patients to use, Hikma generic icosapent ethyl capsules in infringement of the related patents. In the complaint, the Company is seeking remedies including a permanent injunction against the unlawful inducement by Hikma and Health Net, LLC of infringing uses of the Hikma generic product, i.e., uses to reduce cardiovascular risk as detailed in the patents, and monetary damages in an amount sufficient to compensate the Company for such infringement. The Company is considering its legal options against parties similarly situated to Health Net, LLC and Hikma and acting in concert with either by making or selling any drug product or component thereof covered by the subject patents, or inducing others to do the same.

The Company intends to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights relating to VASCEPA, but cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or any subsequently filed lawsuits.

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 entered into long-term supply agreements with multiple U.S. FDA-approved API suppliers and encapsulators. 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.

Pursuant to the supply agreements, there is a total of approximately $213.0 million that is potentially payable over the term of such agreements based on minimum purchase obligations. The Company continues to meet its contractual purchase obligations.

On March 26, 2021, the EC approved the marketing authorization application for VAZKEPA. Under the 2004 share repurchase agreement with Laxdale, upon receipt of marketing approval in Europe for the first indication for VASCEPA (or first indication of any product containing intellectual property acquired from Laxdale in 2004), the Company must make an aggregate stock or cash payment to the former shareholders of Laxdale (at the sole option of each of the sellers) of £7.5 million. The Company recorded a liability of $12.0 million in Accrued expenses and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2021.

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 the sellers) of £5 million (approximately $6.9 million as of March 31, 2021) for the potential 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 March 31, 2021.

Marketing Obligations

As of March 31, 2021, the Company had certain marketing commitments, consisting of communication costs related to the direct-to-consumer activities, totaling approximately $14.2 million.