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 Washington; 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 Washington; 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 Washington; details below.
The allegation, in Washington 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 the Dupixent CTCL Litigation Stands
In Washington 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 Washington 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 Washington 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 Washington or anywhere else — and no settlement exists.
What the Filings Claim — and What Remains Unproven
An association is alleged; no court, in Washington 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 Washington 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 Washington or anywhere else.
Who Is Included in the Filed Dupixent Cases? — Washington
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 Washington 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 Washington resident’s complaint becomes publicly available, this section will describe it.
Who Is Covered by the Filed Cases?
For Washington 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 Washington, 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 Washington resident, it is a question for an attorney licensed in Washington.
Washington’s Federal Courts and the Path to MDL 3180
Washington is served by two federal district courts: the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington and the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. A Dupixent CTCL suit filed there does not stand alone: through the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, these cases are centralized as MDL 3180 before Judge Zahid N. Quraishi in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, so a Washington 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 Washington, remains an individual claim — an MDL is not a class action.
Filing Deadlines Under Washington Law
Washington’s general statute of limitations for personal-injury claims is three years under Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.080(2). Washington applies a discovery rule: accrual is deferred until the plaintiff discovers, or should have discovered, the harm 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 Washington tolling and accrual doctrine. An attorney licensed in Washington can evaluate whether a claim is timely.
A wrongful-death claim carries a three-year period that begins at death (Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.080(2)), brought by the personal representative.
How Common Is CTCL in Washington?
Washington is home to about 8 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 70 new CTCL diagnoses across Washington in a typical year. That rarity is why no statistic on this page can answer an individual question from Washington: medical records, read against state law, decide any single claim.
About Marin & Murphy Law Firm and Washington
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 Washington. The firm does not accept Washington legal matters; inquiries from Washington residents are referred to attorneys licensed in Washington. Some matters may be referred to other lawyers. An attorney licensed in Washington can evaluate whether a claim is timely and how Washington law applies to a particular diagnosis.
Washington Dupixent Litigation FAQs
Are there Dupixent lawsuits in Washington courts?
The federal cases are consolidated in MDL 3180 in the District of New Jersey; a case from Washington would join that proceeding rather than proceed separately. A Dupixent CTCL case filed in a Washington 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 Washington 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 Washington, 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 Washington 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 Washington claimants as for all others — the litigation is in its earliest stages. If a figure suggests otherwise to someone in Washington, it did not come from the docket.
What is the filing deadline for a Washington Dupixent claim?
Filing deadlines come from Washington 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 Washington can evaluate whether a claim is timely.
Does Marin & Murphy Law Firm accept Washington cases?
No. Marin & Murphy Law Firm is not licensed in Washington and does not accept Washington legal matters; inquiries from Washington residents are referred to attorneys licensed in Washington.
The Data on Dupixent Use in Washington
In Washington, Dupixent (dupilumab) is a common prescription for atopic dermatitis and related inflammatory conditions. State-level federal utilization data captures the scale of its use:
Between 2024 and 2025, Medicaid prescriptions reported in Washington increased around 22%. These counts reflect Medicaid outpatient reporting alone; prescriptions covered by Medicare or private insurance are not included, so the true number of residents of Washington using Dupixent is larger. A small number of privacy-suppressed records are excluded from the totals.
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.
- Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.080(2) — Washington 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 Washington. The firm does not accept Washington legal matters; inquiries from Washington residents are referred to attorneys licensed in Washington. 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 Washington. The firm does not accept Washington legal matters; inquiries from Washington residents are referred to attorneys licensed in Washington. 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.