Paragard IUD Mass Tort Marketing Campaigns For Lawyers

Preparations continue for the next bellwether trial in the Paragard IUD MDL, Robere v. Teva, which is slated to begin Sept. 28.

 
Judge Leigh Martin May entered an order setting deadlines for motions in limine, deposition designations, exhibit and witness lists, proposed jury instructions, and the final pretrial conference.

 
Teva Pharmaceuticals won a defense verdict in the first bellwether trial in the Northern District of Georgia. After a two-week trial, the jury rejected claims that Teva failed to warn about Paragard’s tendency to break, or that the device was defectively designed or marketed.

 
As of the start of August there were 4,156 pending lawsuits in the MDL, an increase of 45 from the previous month as the litigation continues its steady growth, though the pace of new filings has slowed.

 
The next round of Paragard bellwether trials will include claims involving both the period when Teva controlled the product and the later period involving CooperSurgical.
Teva Pharmaceuticals manufactured and sold Paragard originally, then sold the product line to CooperSurgical in 2017.

 
Plaintiffs will select four Teva-era cases and four Cooper-era cases. Each defendant will select four cases from its own period, creating an initial pool of 16 potential bellwether lawsuits.

 
Plaintiffs may remove one Teva selection and one Cooper selection, while each defendant may remove one case selected against it, leaving 12 cases. The parties will then give Judge May short explanations of why each case should or should not be tried. The judge will choose the final four cases and determine the order in which they will go before juries.

The next bellwether trial in the Paragard IUD MDL has been scheduled for September 28, 2026.

 
Judge Leigh Martin May, overseeing the litigation in the Northern District of Georgia, entered a scheduling order setting the date for Robere v. Teva. Alisa Robere is among the plaintiffs suing Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. over claims its Paragard intrauterine contraceptive device was prone to breaking apart inside people’s bodies during the removal process, and that the company failed to provide adequate warning of this problem.

 
The order by Judge May establishes deadlines for motions in limine, deposition designations, exhibit and witness lists, proposed jury instructions, and the final pretrial conference.

 
Teva prevailed in the first bellwether trial in February after a jury rejected plaintiff Pauline Rickard’s attempt to hold the company liable for allegedly failing to warn her about problems with its product.

 
Judge May has also asked each side in the MDL to suggest four cases that they would like to be included as bellwethers and set guidelines for which cases the parties may suggest. She outlined a process for the parties to explain their choices and veto the cases the other side chose.

87 new cases were added to the Paragard IUD MDL over the past month, bringing the total to 4,071 at the beginning of June.

 
The third scheduled bellwether trial in the litigation has been put on hold by Judge Leigh Martin May, pending the outcome of an interlocutory appeal involving federal preemption.

 
Teva wants the Eleventh Circuit appellate court to consider the question of whether information that a company did not actually have in its possession at the time a plaintiff used the product can count as newly acquired information under the federal “changes being effected” (CBE) regulations. These regulations govern when manufacturers can update warning labels without prior FDA approval.

 
Teva argues that federal law bars plaintiffs’ warning claims unless they can prove the company actually possessed newly acquired safety information before the plaintiffs’ implant procedures in 2011 and 2014. Plaintiffs contend Teva could have identified safety concerns by properly analyzing data already available at the time.

The federal judge overseeing the Paragard IUD litigation, Judge Leigh Martin May, paused the third scheduled bellwether trial indefinitely while Teva pursues an interlocutory appeal.

 
Teva wants the Eleventh Circuit appellate court to consider the question of whether information that a company did not actually have in its possession at the time a plaintiff used the product can count as newly acquired information under the federal “changes being effected” (CBE) regulations. These regulations govern when manufacturers can update warning labels without prior FDA approval.

 
The issue focuses on whether plaintiffs can rely on information Teva allegedly “should have known” through analysis of existing data, even if the company did not actually possess that information at the time patients received the Paragard device.

 
Teva argues that federal law bars the plaintiffs’ failure to warn claims unless they can prove the company actually possessed newly acquired safety information before the plaintiffs’ implant procedures in 2011 and 2014.

 
The plaintiffs maintain that Teva could have identified safety concerns by properly analyzing data already available at the time.

 
The court conditionally granted Teva’s request to certify a prior ruling for interlocutory appeal before the case goes to trial, but added that the second bellwether trial remains on schedule and will proceed as planned.

 
The court also ordered the parties to begin proposing a second round of bellwether cases within 30 days.

Judge Leigh Martin May, presiding over the Paragard class action MDL in the Northern District of Georgia, has decided that the second bellwether trial in the litigation originally scheduled for last month will be postponed to the fall of 2026.

 
In the first bellwether trial, a federal jury in Atlanta found in favor of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc, rejecting the plaintiff’s attempt to hold the company liable over claims its Paragard intrauterine contraceptive device was prone to breaking apart inside people’s bodies during the removal process, and that the company failed to provide adequate warning of this problem.

 
Teva has argued that the plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by federal law governing drug labeling and said the company adequately warned physicians of the risk of breakage.

 
The Paragard IUD MDL added 56 cases between March and April, increasing from 3,926 to 3,982.

There were 3,926 claims in the federal Paragard IUD MDL at the beginning of March, an increase of 59 from the previous month. The court continues to oversee coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings within the litigation.

 
The parties held a hearing to discuss new dates for upcoming bellwether trials. Judge Leigh Martin May, presiding in the Northern District of Georgia, indicated that the second bellwether trial may be rescheduled to the fall of 2026, which will give the parties more time to file motions and prepare.

 
The first trial ended in favor of Teva Pharmaceuticals after a jury in Atlanta rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to hold the company liable for allegedly failing to warn her about problems with its product.

A federal jury in Atlanta found in favor of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. in the first bellwether trial over claims the company’s Paragard intrauterine contraceptive device was prone to breaking apart inside people’s bodies during the removal process.

 
The trial in the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia was the first of three bellwether cases meant to test the claims brought in the MDL involving more than 3,800 lawsuits. Plaintiffs allege Teva failed to warn women about the potential breakage of the IUD, causing injuries that can impact fertility and often require surgical removal.

 
The jury rejected plaintiff Pauline Rickard’s attempt to hold the company liable for allegedly failing to warn her about problems with its product. Rickard sued Teva in 2021, claiming she needed multiple procedures to remove her Paragard IUD.

 
Teva has argued that the plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by federal law governing drug labeling and said the company adequately warned physicians of the risk of breakage.

 
Plaintiffs will have more opportunities to prove their claims at the next bellwether trials. An attorney for Rickard, Erin Copeland, said the verdict will not stop the legal battle against Teva.

 
“We will continue to expose what has been buried in the company documents, including the conduct that kept women in the dark, and demand accountability, regardless of the outcome of any one trial,” Copeland said.

U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May in Atlanta rejected an attempt by Teva Pharmaceuticals to delay the first bellwether trial in the Paragard class action MDL. The company was weighing whether to appeal May’s ruling.

 
The trial is the first of more than 3,700 Paragard lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide scheduled to go before a jury.

 
Plaintiffs allege that the Paragard intrauterine device can break under the stress of the removal process, causing the need for invasive surgical procedures to retrieve the fragments, as well as pain, bleeding, fertility complications and other long-term injuries.

 
Teva has contended that claims by plaintiffs should be barred because federal law prevents the company from changing Paragard’s warning label without FDA approval. Last month the judge rejected that argument, pointing to evidence that Teva had received new information about Paragard that would have allowed it to update the label.

91 new cases were added to the Paragard class action MDL last month, bringing the total as of the start of December to 3,749.

 
The first bellwether trial in the litigation is scheduled for January 20, 2026, with two more trials to follow in March and May 2026, all with Judge Leigh Martin May presiding in the Northern District of Georgia.

 
Plaintiffs allege the Paragard intrauterine device’s arms break during removal, embedding fragments and causing severe issues such as uterine perforation, infection, and infertility. The lawsuits claim that product warnings and labeling by manufacturers Teva Pharmaceuticals & CooperSurgical failed to disclose these risks.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation reports that the number of pending cases in the Paragard class action MDL rose by 63 during October, bringing the total lawsuits to 3,658 at the start of November. It is the nation’s 10th largest MDL.

 
Both sides are preparing for the first bellwether trial set to begin on January 20, 2026, in the Northern District of Georgia: Richard v. CooperSurgical. The plaintiff had a Paragard IUD inserted in 2012. When the provider tried to remove it in 2021, the device fractured. She had a second procedure to remove the broken pieces, and is now requesting compensation for serious pain, suffering, and the impact on her reproductive health.

 
Two additional trials are also set on March 23 and May 18, 2026.

As the first bellwether trial approaches in the Paragard MDL, the number of pending lawsuits has seen an increase to 3,595 at the beginning of October, up by 40 from the prior month.

 
The first bellwether trial will begin January 20, 2026, followed by two more on March 23, and May 18.

 
Responses to Daubert and dispositive motions for the first trial are due at the end of October, and replies are due in early November. Motions in limine are due by mid-November, with the exchange of exhibit and witness lists scheduled for November 21. The Joint Pretrial Order is due on January 6, 2026.

 
The initial trial, chosen by the defense, is Braxton v. Teva in which the plaintiff had the Paragard IUD implanted in 2014. During its removal in 2019, the device fractured inside her body, requiring an additional surgical procedure to retrieve the broken pieces. Her lawsuit details long-term injuries, including reproductive damage, disfigurement, and chronic pain.

The Paragard IUD MDL remains in the discovery phase this month, with both parties intensifying their trial preparations. Several key depositions were scheduled as the attorneys prepared to interview experts about Paragard’s research, development, safety testing, and complications. Among the experts expected to be deposed were those who helped design the Paragard IUD. Plaintiffs hoped these depositions would help support their case that the company marketed the implantable copper IUD as safe while knowing about the product’s risks.

Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a formal objection to an attempt by the defense team to demand extra documentation from one of the plaintiffs’ key experts, Dr. David Kessler. The objection points out that many of the requested materials have already been disclosed or are publicly available. It was arqued that the effort to compel 23 categories of documents goes well beyond what is permitted under the Federal Rules, the court’s expert protocol, and the existing scheduling orders.

At the start of the month there were 3,529 lawsuits in the national Paragard IUD MDL, one of the largest MDL cases in the country. That represents an increase of more than 50 cases from the start of July as more plaintiffs come forward to allege that the Paragard IUD fractured during removal, causing injury and often requiring surgical intervention.

Plaintiffs faced a deadline late last month to submit their expert disclosures and reports to provide scientific evidence that would support their allegations. The defendants were given an August 18 deadline for submitting their own expert disclosures and reports. The first bellwether trials remain scheduled for early 2026, beginning in January. Judge Leigh Martin May presides over the federal Paragard litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The number of lawsuits in the Paragard IUD MDL has continued to climb. At the start of the month, the total stood at 3,474, filed against CooperSurgical and Teva Pharmaceuticals by women who allege they were harmed by Paragard. The women contend they were not properly warned about the dangers associated with their copper IUDs.

The filing of more claims reflects an effort by lawyers to add more eligible plaintiffs to the MDL during the pretrial proceedings in advance of any global settlement.

One of the newest cases in the federal lawsuit was filed by a Delaware woman who alleges that part of her IUD broke off during removal, requiring her to undergo a surgical procedure called a hysteroscopy.

The Paragard intrauterine device MDL has taken a step forward with a new scheduling order in the case. Judge Leigh Martin May said that discovery will continue through late this year, with the first bellwether trial scheduled for January 20, 2026. Subsequent bellwether trials are scheduled for March 3 and May 11, 2026.

In another development, Judge May ruled that the plaintiffs may reopen the deposition of key corporate witness William Senatore, granting an additional two hours of questioning specifically focused on a 2023 Inspection Preparedness Services audit.

The defendants had attempted to block questioning about the audit, a review process typically conducted by companies to identify potential quality control issues and regulatory compliance risks.

Judge May rejected claims of the defendants who asserted privilege and said the audit was outside the scope of the deposition. The judge said the audit is highly relevant to the lawsuit and relates to changes made to improve oversight of the Paragard manufacturing facility.

The first bellwether trial in the Paragard intrauterine device MDL has been selected – Braxton v. Teva. While plaintiffs and defendants are both typically permitted to nominate cases, Braxton v. Teva was chosen by the defense, meaning that Teva and CooperSurgical believe it is a weaker case and could give them more leverage in settlement negotiations.

In the Braxton case, the plaintiff underwent removal of an implanted Paragard IUD and the device fractured, leaving behind pieces that required an additional surgical procedure to extract. The lawsuit contends Braxton sustained permanent injuries, including reproductive harm, lasting impairments, and disfigurement.

216 new cases were added to the Paragard class action MDL during April, the largest increase in filings in some time, bringing the total number of pending cases to 3,252.

71 new cases were added to the Paragard IUD MDL in March, bringing the total to 3,036. It is believed that more cases are being filed in order to beat any cutoff date as momentum builds toward a potential settlement.

The MDL judge, Leigh Martin May, denied motions by six plaintiffs who sought reconsideration of the judge’s decision to dismiss their lawsuits.

Their suits had been dismissed with prejudice due to failure to comply with Case Management Orders related to Plaintiff Fact Sheets.

The court issued a show-cause order last December calling on the plaintiffs to explain why their cases should not be dismissed for non-compliance. None of the plaintiffs filed a response.

As of early March, the total number of pending cases in the Paragard class action litigation was at 2,965, showing an increase of 28 new cases over the course of February.

The court denied defendants’ attempt to block 30(b)(6) depositions in the litigation, allowing plaintiffs to move forward with questioning corporate representatives. Even as the judge may still limit the scope of some topics, this is a win for plaintiffs seeking corporate accountability.

Separately, the court rejected reconsideration motions from six plaintiffs whose cases were previously dismissed with prejudice for failing to comply with Case Management Orders. Despite multiple warnings and a final 14-day deadline, the plaintiffs never responded. The judge found no good cause to reinstate the cases, reinforcing the importance of procedural compliance in large-scale MDLs.

Since the previous month, the Paragard MDL has seen an increase of 55 new cases, making a total of 2,937 pending cases.

At the start of the month, a California woman filed a new lawsuit in the MDL-2974. The suit names Teva, Cooper, and other associated entities, and alleges that an IUD that she had inserted in 2016 in Beverly Hills fractured during its 2004 removal. The event required an addition procedure, which she attributes to a loss of reproductive health, causing her pain and suffering.

At the start of January, a total of 2,882 pending cases were recorded in the Paragard MDL, with only 20 new cases having been added in December. The decrease in new cases signals that the MDL is maturing and is not likely to see a big increase in new cases.

Teva Pharmaceutical continues to focus on reducing pending cases before any settlement discussions. By identifying deficiencies in plaintiff documentation, as seen in a recent Northern District of Georgia case, Teva has reinforced its strategy of strict procedural compliance. Plaintiffs must stay proactive in fulfilling their legal responsibilities, including meeting documentation requirements. While judges often allow time to address deficiencies, it’s crucial for plaintiffs to act promptly to avoid jeopardizing their claims and ensure compliance with court orders.

At the start of December, the total number of cases in the Paragard MDL totaled 2,862, with 38 new cases having been added in the previous month.

By mid-month, the MDL judge had granted defendants an extension to answer contention interrogatories but rejected their request to delay until the pretrial conference. While the court stayed defendants’ obligation to respond, it emphasized the issue will be revisited at the next discovery conference. Plaintiffs had opposed the extension, highlighting the need for timely information during active discovery to build their case.

November 25, 2024

A California woman has filed a new lawsuit in the Paragard MDL (multi-district litigation), alleging that she suffered physical and emotional injuries when her Paragard IUD broke during February and May 2023 removals. The complaint attributes the breakage to the device’s defective design and manufacturing, maintaining that the multiple removal attempts caused the plaintiff significant physical pain, emotional distress, as well as potential harm to her reproductive health. The manufacturer, Teva, is accused of failing to adequately warn users and healthcare providers about the risks of breakage, and of neglecting to provide proper guidance on safe removal techniques.

November 4, 2024

The first bellwether trial has been scheduled for December 1, 2025. Pending “confirmation of availability from Defendants’ trial counsel,” February 2, 2026 is the anticipated date for the second trial.

November 1, 2024

Despite a drop in cases in recent months, the MDL (multi-district litigation) now has a total of 2,824 pending cases, having gained 77 new cases in October.

In the first two days of October, 12 new lawsuits were filed. One case brought by a Texas woman involves a Paragard device that was implanted in Idaho in 2019. In 2022, the device broke during a removal procedure in Texas, causing personal injury to the plaintiff and necessitating further medical interventions to remove the broken pieces. The defendants are accused of failing to sufficiently test the device, of misrepresenting product safety, and of concealing information that indicates risks of breakage. 

In the following week, another defendant, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., settled allegations of Medicare fraud with a payout of $450 million. The company was accused of covering Medicare patients’ out-of-pocket expenses by using charitable organizations in order to offer kickbacks and pad the sales of Copaxone, its multiple sclerosis drug. 

A motion to dismiss 236 lawsuits on statute of limitations grounds was filed and the court set an extended briefing schedule, which possibly could indicate a larger settlement in the works. There were 57 new cases added during the period bringing the MDL total to 2,793 pending lawsuits.

A new case filed in Missouri highlights ongoing injuries allegedly caused by the device breaking during removal. Plaintiffs pushed to add Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. as a defendant, over the company’s objections.

The Paragard MDL continues to evolve, with active cases recaching 2,736 in August. Defendants in the Paragard MDL object to the motion requiring the production of documents from 31 newly identified custodians, stating that the request is oppressive. On the other hand, plaintiffs claim that the failure to produce these custodians for two years has prejudiced their case. An October trial is scheduled, which raises concerns over the possible valuation of cases for settlement.

A woman from Southern California joined the Paragard MDL after her IUD fractured during removal, requiring a second procedure. The number of active cases increased slightly from 2,690 to 2,736, indicating sustained interest and new filings despite the MDL’s slow progress.

The upcoming status conference on July 31st and the anticipated Daubert motions on July 23rd are critical, with settlement talks expected to intensify post-Daubert. A new study highlighted the challenges of varying state laws in MDL cases, particularly regarding punitive damages, complicating the litigation landscape.

The Paragard MDL saw steady growth, adding 39 new cases to reach a total of 2,690. Plaintiffs and defendants continue to spar over document production protocols and the application of state laws to individual cases, highlighting the complexities of mass tort litigation.

The MDL added 55 new cases, bringing the total to 2,615. An investigative report revealed that CooperSurgical ignored FDA warnings about potential IUD breakage. New lawsuits continue to be filed, with allegations of severe pain and multiple surgeries due to fractured IUD pieces.

The MDL saw a surge with 126 new cases, totaling 2,570. Recent status conferences addressed procedural issues, including motions to modify leadership and coordinate discovery. Plaintiffs continue to file lawsuits alleging severe complications from Paragard IUD removal.

The MDL prepares for the next status conference on February 28th. The focus remains on procedural updates and the ongoing discovery process. New case filings are steady, with plaintiffs alleging injuries from Paragard IUD removals.

The MDL saw minimal growth with only 2 new cases added, totaling 2,501. A detailed schedule for the first Paragard IUD trial was set, outlining key deadlines for discovery, expert disclosures, and motions throughout 2024, aiming for a trial by the end of the year.