What Is the Status of the Dupixent Lawsuit in Pennsylvania?

Super Lawyers® 2014–2024(888) 348-2735

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 Pennsylvania; 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 Pennsylvania; details below.

Where Things Stand in the Dupixent CTCL Litigation

In Pennsylvania 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 Pennsylvania 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 Pennsylvania counted 38 pending cases as of October 1, 2026; the MDL 3180 tracker keeps the current count and its method. No court has ruled on the merits of any Dupixent claim — from Pennsylvania or anywhere else — and no settlement exists.

What the Filings Allege — and What They Do Not

An association is alleged; no court, in Pennsylvania 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 Pennsylvania 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 Pennsylvania or anywhere else.

Pennsylvania Residents in the Dupixent MDL: Two Docketed Cases

A Pennsylvania resident filed one of the earliest Dupixent CTCL lawsuits, Boggs v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on February 6, 2026 (No. 2:26-cv-00763, public docket). The 119-page complaint alleges that the plaintiff used Dupixent for atopic dermatitis from approximately 2020 until February 2023 and was thereafter diagnosed with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma; it names Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, and Genzyme Corporation, pleads a failure to warn, and includes a spouse’s loss-of-consortium claim. Pennsylvania has a second docketed filing on this track, Hinton (Eastern District of Pennsylvania, March 2026, pleading a mycosis fungoides diagnosis after injections in 2025). Both were transferred to MDL 3180 in the District of New Jersey. These are allegations from a complaint; no court has ruled on them, and no settlement exists.

Who the Filed Cases Include

For Pennsylvania 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 Pennsylvania, 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 Pennsylvania resident, it is a question for an attorney licensed in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania’s Federal Courts and the Path to MDL 3180

Pennsylvania is served by three federal district courts: the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; and the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. 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 Pennsylvania 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 Pennsylvania, remains an individual claim — an MDL is not a class action.

Filing Deadlines Under Pennsylvania Law

Pennsylvania’s general statute of limitations for personal-injury claims is two years under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524. Pennsylvania applies a discovery rule: accrual is deferred until the plaintiff knows, or reasonably should know, that she has been injured and that the injury was caused by another party’s conduct. How a limitations period applies to any specific CTCL diagnosis depends on the dates in the medical records, the legal theory pleaded, and Pennsylvania tolling and accrual doctrine. An attorney licensed in Pennsylvania can evaluate whether a claim is timely.

A wrongful-death claim carries a two-year period that begins at death (42 Pa. C.S. § 5524(2)), brought by the personal representative.

How Common Is CTCL in Pennsylvania?

Pennsylvania is home to about 13.1 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 110 new CTCL diagnoses across Pennsylvania in a typical year. That rarity is why no statistic on this page can answer an individual question from Pennsylvania: medical records, read against state law, decide any single claim.

About Marin & Murphy Law Firm and Pennsylvania

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 Pennsylvania. The firm does not accept Pennsylvania legal matters; inquiries from Pennsylvania residents are referred to attorneys licensed in Pennsylvania. Some matters may be referred to other lawyers. An attorney licensed in Pennsylvania can evaluate whether a claim is timely and how Pennsylvania law applies to a particular diagnosis.

Pennsylvania Dupixent Litigation FAQs