Latest Dupixent MDL Update
Last reviewed by Keke Feng, Esq. — October 12, 2026
The latest confirmed update is the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s
October 1, 2026 statistical report, which lists 38 pending actions and 39 total
historical actions in MDL No. 3180. These figures represent federal actions reflected in
the JPML report, not individual patients or potential claimants. Read the official JPML October 1, 2026 MDL Statistics Report (PDF).
What changed since the MDL was created?
The confirmed change is that the JPML centralized the listed actions in the District of
New Jersey, transferring the actions pending outside that district and assigning the
litigation to Judge Zahid N. Quraishi for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings. That procedural order did not resolve causation, warning adequacy, liability,
or any individual claim.
What happens next?
Confirmed: the listed cases are centralized for pretrial proceedings, and the JPML’s
October 1 report lists 38 pending actions and 39 total historical actions. Additional
procedural developments will be added here only when supporting court records are reviewed.
For an explanation of how this MDL differs from a class action and what the litigation
alleges, see the Dupixent lawsuit overview.
October 2026
Dupixent MDL 3180 Status Update
Current status: Federal Dupixent cases involving alleged cutaneous
T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) injuries are being coordinated in the District of New Jersey as
MDL No. 3180, In re: Dupixent (Dupilumab) Products Liability Litigation, before
U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi.
JPML statistics: The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s
October 1, 2026 statistical report lists 38 actions pending and 39 total historical
actions in the MDL. These figures represent federal actions reflected in the JPML report,
not the number of individual patients or potential claimants.
Procedural context: The JPML centralized the litigation on June 4, 2026.
The court’s Initial Procedure Order No. 1, entered June 11, scheduled an Initial
Management Conference for October 1, 2026. The scheduling order does not, by itself,
establish what occurred at that conference or what subsequent directions the court may
have issued.
Additional procedural developments will be reported as supporting court records are
reviewed. MDL coordination is procedural; it does not establish medical causation,
defendant liability, or the validity of any individual claim.
JPML October 1, 2026 MDL Statistics Report (PDF)
June 11, 2026
Initial Procedure Order Entered; Initial Management Conference Set
What happened: Judge Zahid N. Quraishi entered Initial Procedure Order
No. 1, bringing the listed cases together for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The order
also directs filings to the master docket unless the court orders otherwise.
Scheduled conference: The order set an Initial Management Conference for
October 1, 2026 at 1:00 PM in Trenton before Judge Quraishi and Magistrate Judge J.
Brendan Day. The scheduling order does not establish what occurred at that conference.
This update reflects public court docket records. Court filings and hearing dates may change.
June 4, 2026
JPML Grants Dupixent MDL and Transfers Cases to New Jersey
What happened: The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted
centralization for federal Dupixent cases involving alleged CTCL.
The coordinated proceedings are now MDL No. 3180, In re: Dupixent (Dupilumab) Products
Liability Litigation, in the District of New Jersey.
Why it matters: Related federal cases will proceed together for
coordinated pretrial work, including discovery, motions, expert issues, and other
case-management steps. The order states that possible future expansion beyond CTCL
cases can be addressed through the conditional transfer process.
The transfer order does not decide whether Dupixent caused CTCL, whether defendants are
liable, or whether any individual claim will succeed.
Individual review still depends on diagnosis, Dupixent use history, timing, medical
records, state-law deadlines, and representation status.
For a fuller patient-facing explanation of what the new MDL means, read our resource:
What the New Dupixent MDL Means for Patients Diagnosed With CTCL.
May 28, 2026
May 28, 2026 — JPML Hearing Scheduled
What is happening: The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
scheduled oral arguments in MDL No. 3180, In re Dupixent (Dupilumab) Products Liability
Litigation, for its May 28, 2026 hearing session in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
What this means for patients: At a JPML hearing session, the Panel
may consider whether related federal Dupixent CTCL cases should be transferred to one
district court for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
The hearing does not decide causation, liability, or whether any individual claim
should move forward. Patients considering review may want to preserve diagnosis, biopsy,
dermatology, oncology, and prescription records.
Why it matters for people considering a case review: An MDL ruling is
a litigation milestone, not a decision on the merits of any individual claim. People
considering whether their Dupixent history warrants review do not need to wait for an
MDL ruling to submit basic information.
April 16, 2026
April 16, 2026 — JPML Schedules Dupixent MDL Motion for May Hearing
What happened: The JPML filed a Notice of Hearing Session and Hearing
Session Order scheduling MDL No. 3180, In re Dupixent (Dupilumab) Products Liability
Litigation, for the May 28, 2026 hearing session in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Why it matters: A JPML hearing session is part of the process for
considering whether related federal actions should be centralized for coordinated pretrial
proceedings. Scheduling a hearing does not decide whether centralization will be granted
and does not decide the merits of any individual claim.
February 13, 2026
February 13, 2026 — Plaintiffs Seek MDL Coordination for Dupixent T-Cell Lymphoma Cases
What happened: In filed JPML materials dated February 13, 2026,
plaintiffs sought centralization of Dupixent T-cell lymphoma cases, identified fifteen
actions, and proposed the Northern District of Georgia as the transferee court.
Why it matters: MDL coordination, if granted, can affect discovery,
pretrial motions, expert issues, and case-management procedures. It does not decide
whether any individual claim is valid.
Read the Dupixent lawsuit overview
How to use these updates
Litigation updates can help patients and families understand where the Dupixent CTCL
litigation stands procedurally. They may explain whether a JPML hearing has been
scheduled, whether an MDL has been formed, or whether later court orders have changed the
litigation timeline.
These updates are general litigation information. A person’s own review still depends
on individual facts, including Dupixent use, diagnosis history, timing, and medical
records.
If you want your own history reviewed, you may submit basic information through the
initial review form.