Contact Marin & Murphy
Marin & Murphy is licensed in South Carolina, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, and works with lawyers licensed across the country.
Marin & Murphy is not licensed in Montana; a matter there would be handled with, or referred to, a lawyer licensed in that state.
Dupixent — CTCL Litigation
The Dupixent Litigation, Explained
Federal cases are consolidated in MDL 3180, most cases are in their earliest stages, and no settlement exists. Here is what is publicly known.
ACTIVE LITIGATION — NO SETTLEMENT. MDL 3180 underway · deadlines vary by state.
Marin & Murphy is not licensed in Montana; details below.
Partners
Stefanie A. Murphy & Matthew T. Marin
Super Lawyers® honorees · members of the American Association for Justice · concentrating in personal injury and mass-tort litigation.
No settlement has been reached in the Dupixent litigation, and most cases are in their earliest stages. Every case must be proven on its own facts. Whether any patient has a claim depends on the facts and the law of their state. The information below covers the litigation itself.
Marin & Murphy Law Firm is not licensed in Montana; details below.
The allegation, in Montana and nationwide, is an association between Dupixent (dupilumab) and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma; no court has found Dupixent causes CTCL, and no settlement of any kind exists. Whether any individual has a claim depends on their medical records and the law of their state. The information below covers the litigation itself.
Where Things Stand in the Dupixent CTCL Litigation
In Montana as nationwide, Dupixent (dupilumab) — a prescription biologic made by Sanofi and Regeneron, FDA-approved since March 2017 — now carries nine indications, including atopic dermatitis, asthma, and COPD. For Montana claimants, the operative order came in June 2026, when the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the pending federal cases as MDL 3180 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, before Judge Zahid N. Quraishi. The complaints in the consolidated Dupixent lawsuit allege that the drug is associated with an increased risk of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) and that the manufacturers failed to warn patients and doctors. The MDL that would receive a case from Montana counted at least 36 identified member cases as of September 15, 2026; the MDL 3180 tracker keeps the current count and its method. No court has ruled on the merits of any Dupixent claim — from Montana or anywhere else — and no settlement exists.
What the Filings Allege — and What They Do Not
An association is alleged; no court, in Montana or elsewhere, has adjudicated it as fact. Published studies report a statistical association between dupilumab and CTCL — an association the study authors themselves note does not establish causation — and the FDA has identified a potential safety signal for CTCL that it is still evaluating. Dupixent’s label — the same label patients in Montana see — currently contains no lymphoma or malignancy warning. The FDA adverse event reports connected to this question are agency reports, not verified causes, and the courts have decided nothing on the merits — in Montana or anywhere else.
Is Anyone From Montana Already in the Dupixent Litigation?
Possibly, but the public record does not yet let us say so responsibly. All federal Dupixent CTCL cases are consolidated in MDL 3180 in the District of New Jersey, and the MDL’s member-case complaints are mostly not in the free public record; a case’s original filing court also does not establish where the plaintiff lives. This page therefore reports the litigation’s overall posture through the MDL 3180 tracker rather than an unverified Montana figure, and it will describe a Montana resident’s case when a publicly available complaint documents one.
Who the Filed Cases Include
For Montana families reviewing the criteria: the consolidated cases involve Dupixent use followed by a diagnosis of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma or a related T-cell lymphoma subtype during or after that use. There is no minimum length of Dupixent use required; in Montana, estates of patients who have died bring claims under state wrongful-death and survival statutes. Whether any individual’s circumstances resemble the filed cases is a question of medical records and state law, not of headlines — and for a Montana resident, it is a question for an attorney licensed in Montana.
Montana’s Federal Courts and the Path to MDL 3180
Montana has one federal district court: the United States District Court for the District of Montana. No Dupixent CTCL lawsuit filed there proceeds alone — the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has centralized these cases as MDL 3180 before Judge Zahid N. Quraishi in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, so a Montana case is transferred to the MDL for coordinated pretrial proceedings — or, where the MDL court’s case-management orders permit, filed in the District of New Jersey directly. Both routes end in the same consolidated proceeding; every case, including any from Montana, remains an individual claim — an MDL is not a class action.
Filing Deadlines Under Montana Law
Montana’s general statute of limitations for personal-injury claims is three years under Mont. Code § 27-2-204. Montana applies a discovery rule: accrual is deferred until the plaintiff discovers the injury and its cause. How a limitations period applies to any specific CTCL diagnosis depends on the dates in the medical records, the legal theory pleaded, and Montana tolling and accrual doctrine. An attorney licensed in Montana can evaluate whether a claim is timely.
A wrongful-death claim carries a three-year period that begins at death (Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-204(2)), brought by the personal representative.
How Common Is CTCL in Montana?
Montana is home to about 1.1 million people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2024 estimate). Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma is rare — roughly 8.55 new cases per million person-years (SEER) — which works out to on the order of 9 new CTCL diagnoses across Montana in a typical year. That rarity is why no statistic on this page can answer an individual question from Montana: medical records, read against state law, decide any single claim.
About Marin & Murphy Law Firm and Montana
Marin & Murphy Law Firm is a personal-injury and mass-tort law firm; its attorneys’ individual admissions are listed at the bottom of this page, and this page is published as litigation information. Marin & Murphy Law Firm is not licensed in Montana. The firm does not accept Montana legal matters; inquiries from Montana residents are referred to attorneys licensed in Montana. Some matters may be referred to other lawyers. An attorney licensed in Montana can evaluate whether a claim is timely and how Montana law applies to a particular diagnosis.
Montana Dupixent Litigation FAQs
Are there Dupixent lawsuits in Montana courts?
The federal cases are consolidated in MDL 3180 in the District of New Jersey; a case from Montana would join that proceeding rather than proceed separately. A Dupixent CTCL case filed in a Montana federal court is subject to transfer into that consolidated proceeding. This page does not track filings outside the federal system.
Who is included in the filed cases?
Anyone — residents of Montana included — who used Dupixent and was diagnosed with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma or a related T-cell lymphoma subtype during or after that use. The claims do not depend on a minimum duration of use, and in Montana, estates of patients who have died bring claims under state wrongful-death and survival statutes.
Has any court found that Dupixent causes CTCL?
No. What exists, in Montana as everywhere: an alleged association; published studies reporting a statistical association their authors note does not establish causation; an FDA evaluation of a potential safety signal that is still under way; and a Dupixent label with no lymphoma warning.
Is there a Dupixent settlement?
No. No settlement exists, no court has ruled on the merits, and — for Montana claimants as for all others — the litigation is in its earliest stages. If a figure suggests otherwise to someone in Montana, it did not come from the docket.
What is the filing deadline for a Montana Dupixent claim?
Filing deadlines come from Montana statutes and court doctrine, and more than one rule can bear on when the period begins to run; the section above covers what is settled and what is not. An attorney licensed in Montana can evaluate whether a claim is timely.
Does Marin & Murphy Law Firm accept Montana cases?
No. Marin & Murphy Law Firm is not licensed in Montana and does not accept Montana legal matters; inquiries from Montana residents are referred to attorneys licensed in Montana.
Nearby states
Dupixent in Montana: Prescription Data at a Glance
Prescribers across Montana rely on Dupixent (dupilumab) for atopic dermatitis and several other inflammatory conditions. Federal drug-utilization records show how widely the medication is used in the state:
Montana saw its reported Medicaid prescription count grow by about 12% between 2024 and 2025. These figures cover Medicaid outpatient utilization only — they do not include prescriptions paid through Medicare or private insurance, so the total number of residents of Montana using Dupixent is higher. Totals exclude a small number of records the program suppresses for privacy.
Sources: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, State Drug Utilization Data 2024 and 2025 (accessed August 21, 2026); In re: Dupixent (Dupilumab) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3180, JPML Transfer Order, Schedule A (June 4, 2026). Utilization data reflects prescriptions reported by state Medicaid programs and is not evidence that any individual prescription caused injury.
Sources
- U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Pending MDL Dockets by MDL Number (August 3, 2026) — jpml.uscourts.gov
- MDL 3180 docket records — CourtListener dockets 72288297 (JPML) and 73443394 (D.N.J. 3:26-md-03180), reviewed September 15, 2026.
- Mont. Code § 27-2-204 — Montana statute of limitations discussed above.
- U.S. Census Bureau, Vintage 2024 Population Estimates (NST-EST2024), resident population as of July 1, 2024.
- SEER program data: cutaneous T-cell lymphoma incidence ≈8.55 cases per million person-years.
Marin & Murphy Law Firm is not licensed in Montana. The firm does not accept Montana legal matters; inquiries from Montana residents are referred to attorneys licensed in Montana. Some matters may be referred to other lawyers.
Attorney admissions: Matthew T. Marin — RI, CT, MA, SC, U.S.D.C. D.R.I. · Stefanie A. Murphy — RI, CT, MA, U.S.D.C. D.R.I./D.Conn./D.Mass.
Attorney Advertising.
Attorney Advertising. This page is for general information and is not legal advice; reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship, and no attorney-client relationship is formed until a written engagement agreement is signed. Marin & Murphy Law Firm attorneys are licensed in Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and South Carolina; the firm’s mass-tort practice is directed from its Charleston, South Carolina office. Responsible attorney: Matthew T. Marin, 997 Morrison Drive, Suite 200, Charleston, SC 29403. Cases may be handled together with co-counsel; whether a claim is accepted is determined after review. No representation is made that the quality of legal services is greater than that of other lawyers. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome; every case depends on its own facts.
Where we practice
Marin & Murphy Law Firm attorneys are licensed in Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and South Carolina. We are not licensed in Montana. The firm does not accept Montana legal matters; inquiries from Montana residents are referred to attorneys licensed in Montana. This page is attorney advertising and is provided for general information; it is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney–client relationship.