XML 24 R11.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.21.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | (5) Commitments and Contingencies Litigation – U.S. ANDAs On March 30, 2020, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, or the Nevada Court, ruled in favor of two generics companies, Hikma and Dr. Reddy’s, in Amarin’s patent litigation related to its ANDAs that sought U.S. FDA approval for sale of generic versions of VASCEPA for the original indication of VASCEPA as an adjunct to diet to reduce TG levels in adult patients with severe (>500 mg/dL) hypertriglyceridemia. On September 3, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or the Federal Circuit, upheld the March ruling by the Nevada Court in favor of the two generics companies. On October 2, 2020, the Company filed a combined petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc. On November 4, 2020, the Company’s rehearing and en banc petitions were denied. On February 11, 2021, Amarin filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court to ask the Court to hear the Company’s appeal in this litigation, which was denied on June 18, 2021. On May 22, 2020 and August 10, 2020, Hikma and Dr. Reddy’s, respectively, received U.S. FDA approval to market its generic versions of VASCEPA. During the ANDA litigation, the Company reached agreements with Teva and Apotex, under which they received royalty-free license agreements to promote a generic version of icosapent ethyl in the U.S. under certain circumstances, one of which circumstances was achieved when the Federal Circuit upheld the ruling by the Nevada Court and Hikma launched its generic version of icosapent ethyl. On September 11, 2020, and June 30, 2021, Teva and Apotex, respectively, received U.S. FDA approval to market their respective generic versions of icosapent ethyl. In November 2020, Hikma priced and launched its generic version of icosapent ethyl. In June 2021, following the denial to hear the Company’s appeal by the U.S. Supreme Court, Dr. Reddy’s announced the price of its generic version of icosapent ethyl and launched its generic version of icosapent ethyl. The generic versions of icosapent ethyl as approved by the U.S. FDA for both Hikma and Dr. Reddy’s pertains to the MARINE indication of VASCEPA, lowering of TG levels in patients with very high TG (>500 mg/dL). As of September 30, 2021, neither Teva or Apotex had announced pricing or launched a generic version of icosapent ethyl. Current generic competition, together with past and on-going litigation related to such generic versions of icosapent ethyl are applicable to the U.S. only. The Company did not seek, nor is VAZKEPA approved in Europe for lowering of TG levels in patients with very high TG (>500 mg/dL). The active pharmaceutical ingredient in VASCEPA is difficult and time consuming to manufacture, often requires considerable advanced planning and long-term financial commitment, including to manufacturing infrastructure such as dedicated facilities, 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 limited supply to them. The Company believes all icosapent ethyl generic manufacturers are similarly situated. The Company believes the limited supply of generic icosapent ethyl may be due to such companies’ lack of adequate planning, investment, knowhow and expertise regarding this fragile active ingredient. In November 2020, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Hikma in the United States District Court in Delaware. The complaint alleges that Hikma 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 or Health Net. Through insurance coverage and economic incentives the Company alleges that Health Net 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 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 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. 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 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. Amarin believes it has valid defenses and will vigorously defend against the claims. Amarin 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 antitrust topic covered in the Dr. Reddy's litigation. The Company believes such contact from the governments may have been prompted by a generic competitor. Amarin is cooperating with the government agencies. As has been a practice of class action legal counsel following governmental investigations and litigation by generics companies, Amarin is also named as a defendant in five 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 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. 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. Litigation – Other 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 former chief medical officer and the Company’s former chief executive officer. 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. Plaintiffs in this action did not file an amended complaint within the permitted filing deadline. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the motion to dismiss ruling, which has been denominated In re: Amarin Corp. PLC, case number 21-2071 (3d Cir.). The Company intends to vigorously defend against any future complaint in this matter. 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 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). The complaint alleges that from December 5, 2018 through June 21, 2021 the Company misled investors by allegedly downplaying the risk associated with the ANDA litigation described above and the risk that certain of the Company's patents 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. We believe we have valid defenses and will vigorously defend against the claims but cannot predict the outcome. 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 API suppliers and encapsulators. The Company is relying on these suppliers to meet current and potential future global demand for its lead product. 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 pricing 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 September 30, 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 $6.7 million as of September 30, 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 September 30, 2021.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration