(6)	Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

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. “Item 3. Legal Proceedings” of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 and “Item 1. Legal Proceedings” of the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2017 and June 30, 2017 include discussions of the Company’s current legal proceedings. There have been no material changes to those disclosures as of the date of this filing, other than as set forth below.

On May 23, 2017, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the May 26, 2016 judgment of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in connection with the district court’s grant of the Company’s motion to dismiss the putative consolidated class action lawsuit captioned In re Amarin Corporation plc, Securities Litigation, No. 3:13-cv-06663 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2013). Plaintiffs sought a rehearing and en banc review of such affirmation, each of which were denied. The appeal period for this matter has expired. The Company considers this matter closed.

On August 30, 2017, Amarin Pharma, Inc. and Amarin Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited, each wholly-owned subsidiaries of Amarin Corporation plc, filed a lawsuit with the United States International Trade Commission, or the ITC, captioned, In the Matter of Certain Synthetically Produced, Predominantly EPA Omega-3 Products in Ethyl Ester or Re-esterified Triglyceride Form, USITC Docket 337-3247, against manufacturers, importers, and distributors of products containing synthetically produced omega-3 products in ethyl ester or re-esterified triglyceride form that contain more EPA than DHA or any other single component, for use in, or as dietary supplements. The lawsuit seeks an investigation by the ITC under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. §1337), which makes unlawful unfair methods of competition and unfair acts involving the importation and sale of articles in the United States that injure or threaten injury to a domestic industry. On October 27, 2017, the ITC determined to not institute the Company’s requested investigation. The Company is currently considering its next steps in this matter.

The Company introduced to the market its 500-mg dose strength of Vascepa in October 2016. In August 2017, as anticipated, the Company received a paragraph IV certification notice from Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, or collectively, Teva, contending that certain of the Company’s 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 500-mg dose strength of Vascepa, as described in the Teva abbreviated new drug application, or 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. 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 is 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 is seeking, among other remedies, an order enjoining Teva from marketing generic versions of the 500-mg dose strength of Vascepa before the last to expire of the asserted patents in 2030. The Company anticipates that this new lawsuit against Teva will be consolidated with the previously disclosed pending lawsuits against Teva, West-Ward-Pharmaceuticals Corp. et al., and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. et al. based on the 1-gram dose strength of Vascepa, and the Company anticipates that all four lawsuits will proceed on the same schedule. 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.

Milestone and Supply Purchase Obligations

The Company entered into long-term supply agreements with multiple 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, as detailed below.

The Company entered into its initial Vascepa API supply agreement with Nisshin Pharma, Inc. (“Nisshin”) in 2010. In 2011, the Company entered into agreements with two additional suppliers, Chemport, Inc. (“Chemport”) and BASF (formerly Equateq Limited), for the supply of API. In 2012, the Company agreed to terms with a fourth API supplier, a consortium of companies led by Slanmhor Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Slanmhor”). The API supply agreement with BASF terminated in February 2014. In July 2014, the Company terminated the supply agreement with Slanmhor and subsequently, in June 2015, entered into a new supply agreement with Finorga SAS (“Novasep”). These agreements included requirements for the suppliers to meet certain product specifications and qualify their materials and facilities with applicable regulatory authorities including the FDA. The Company has incurred certain costs associated with the qualification of product produced by these suppliers as described below.

Nisshin, Chemport and Novasep are currently the three manufacturers from which the Company purchases API. As of September 30, 2017, the Company has no royalty, milestone or minimum purchase commitments with Nisshin.

Chemport was approved by the FDA to manufacture API for commercial sale in April 2013 and the Company began purchasing commercial supply from Chemport in 2013. The agreement with Chemport contains a provision requiring the Company to pay Chemport a certain cash remedy for any shortfall in the minimum purchase obligations. The Company began purchasing commercial supply from Novasep in 2015. API manufactured by Novasep was previously approved by the FDA in July 2014. The 2015 supply agreement with Novasep contains a provision requiring the Company to pay Novasep a certain cash remedy for any shortfall in the minimum purchase obligations. The Company continues to meet its contractual purchase obligations.

Under the 2004 share repurchase agreement with Laxdale Limited (“Laxdale”) upon receipt of marketing approval in Europe for the first indication for Vascepa (or first indication of any product containing Amarin Neuroscience Limited 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 (approximately $10.0 million as of September 30, 2017). Also under the Laxdale agreement, upon receipt of a marketing approval in the United States or Europe for a further indication of Vascepa (or further indication of any other product using Amarin Neuroscience Limited intellectual property), the Company must make an aggregate stock or cash payment (at the sole option of each of the sellers) of £5 million (approximately $6.7 million as of September 30, 2017) for each of the two potential market approvals (i.e. £10 million maximum, or approximately $13.4 million as of September 30, 2017).

The Company has no provision for any of the obligations above since the amounts are either not probable or able to be estimated as of September 30, 2017.