What Is the Status of the Dupixent Lawsuit in Utah?

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 Utah; 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 Utah; details below.

The Dupixent CTCL Litigation: Where Things Stand

In Utah 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 Utah 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 Utah 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 Utah or anywhere else — and no settlement exists.

The Allegations — and Their Limits

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

Who Is Included in the Filed Dupixent Cases? — Utah

Every Dupixent CTCL lawsuit filed in federal court now proceeds in one place, MDL 3180 in the District of New Jersey, regardless of where the plaintiff lives. Public docket indexes do not reliably show which member cases were brought by Utah residents: most complaints in the MDL are not available in the free public record, and the court a case was filed in says little about the plaintiff’s home state. Rather than guess, this page states what the record supports. The MDL 3180 tracker carries the current case count, how it is counted, and the latest docket activity; when a Utah resident’s complaint becomes publicly available, this section will describe it.

Who Falls Within the Filed Cases?

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

Utah’s Federal Courts and the Path to MDL 3180

Utah has one federal district court: the United States District Court for the District of Utah. A Dupixent CTCL lawsuit filed there does not proceed 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 Utah 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 Utah, remains an individual claim — an MDL is not a class action.

Filing Deadlines Under Utah Law

Utah law sets filing deadlines for injury claims, and the period that would govern a Dupixent CTCL claim depends on the legal theory pleaded, on when the claim is treated as having accrued, and on how Utah law treats discovery of a latent injury. More than one rule can bear on timing; the figures below describe the statutes themselves, and which period governs any individual claim is case-specific. An attorney licensed in Utah can evaluate whether a claim is timely.

Utah’s Product Liability Act sets a two-year period that runs from discovery: under Utah Code § 78B-6-706, the clock starts when the claimant discovered, or with due diligence should have discovered, both the harm and its cause. For a rare cancer like CTCL, that discovery question is often the heart of the timing analysis — and it is answered by records and dates, not by a webpage. Utah filings go through the District of Utah before transfer to MDL 3180 in the District of New Jersey.

A wrongful-death claim must be brought within two years of death (Utah Code § 78B-2-304(2)) by the heirs or the personal representative on their behalf (§ 78B-3-106).

How Common Is CTCL in Utah?

Utah is home to about 3.5 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 30 new CTCL diagnoses across Utah in a typical year. That rarity is why no statistic on this page can answer an individual question from Utah: medical records, read against state law, decide any single claim.

About Marin & Murphy Law Firm and Utah

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

Utah Dupixent Litigation FAQs