Paragard IUD Litigation: MDL 2974 Status and Court Record

The Paragard litigation is a group of federal product liability cases about a copper intrauterine device and injuries allegedly caused when it breaks during removal. The cases are consolidated as MDL 2974 in the Northern District of Georgia before Judge Leigh Martin May. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation counted 4,224 actions pending as of October 1, 2026, out of 4,552 filed. The court has ruled on parts of the preemption defense and held a first bellwether trial, but the docket entries reviewed here contain no verdict or approved settlement.

What the device is

Paragard is a T-shaped intrauterine device wrapped with copper wire. Its FDA-approved labeling states that it is indicated for prevention of pregnancy for up to 10 years and lists an initial U.S. approval in 1984 (prescribing information). The label says only a trained provider should insert or remove it and that it does not protect against sexually transmitted infections. The MDL defendants include Teva and CooperSurgical entities (case information).

What is established vs. what is alleged

Established by the court record

• The consolidation exists. On December 16, 2020, the JPML centralized 55 actions pending in 31 districts as MDL 2974 and assigned it to Judge May (transfer order).
• The case count is published. The panel’s October 1, 2026 report lists 4,224 actions now pending and 4,552 total actions for the docket (JPML report).
• The court describes the subject as allegations. The Northern District of Georgia states that the litigation “involves allegations that the Paragard intrauterine device (IUD) has a propensity to break upon removal, causing complications and injuries, including surgeries to remove the broken piece of the device, infertility, and pain” (case information).
• Preemption has been decided in part. On January 16, 2026, the court granted in part and denied in part Teva’s motion for summary judgment on federal preemption, and on June 1, 2026 it certified that order for immediate interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (MDL docket).
• Bellwether trials are under way. The first trial was set for January 20, 2026, and later filings refer to the Rickard trial transcript from January 23, 2026. The court moved the second bellwether, Robere, to Fall 2026, and on August 6, 2026 selected White, Gutierrez, Rodriguez and Rounds as the next cases (MDL docket).

Alleged in the complaints

The transfer order summarized the common theory: the actions “involve common allegations that the Paragard intrauterine device (IUD) has a propensity to break upon removal, causing complications and injuries, including surgeries to remove the broken piece of the device, infertility, and pain” (transfer order). It added that the actions raise questions about the device’s development, manufacture, testing, labeling and marketing. Those are allegations, not findings.

What the FDA label says

The current prescribing information addresses removal problems in its warnings and precautions section.

• Embedment. Section 5.5 states: “Partial penetration or embedment of Paragard in the myometrium can make removal difficult. In some cases, surgical removal may be necessary. Breakage of an embedded Paragard during non-surgical removal has been reported.”
• Perforation. Section 5.6 reports an incidence of 0.2 percent (13 out of 5,344) in clinical trials and warns that delayed detection can allow migration outside the uterus.
• Expulsion. Section 5.7 reports an incidence of approximately 2.3 percent in clinical trials.

The label is a regulatory document, not a judicial finding. A warning that breakage has been reported does not establish that the device is defective or caused a particular injury. The FDA states that it regulates the sale of medical devices and monitors their safety after they reach the market (FDA medical devices).

Where the claims stand procedurally

An MDL is not a class action. It consolidates pretrial proceedings before one judge while each plaintiff keeps a separate case. The difference is explained in MDL versus class action. Other medical device litigation, such as the hernia mesh and port catheter proceedings, follows the same structure.

The court resolved several dispositive motions before trial. On December 23, 2025, it granted CooperSurgical summary judgment on the failure-to-warn claims of the three bellwether plaintiffs. On January 16, 2026, it granted in part and denied in part Teva’s preemption motion. The June 1, 2026 certification allows that ruling to be reviewed by the Eleventh Circuit while the district court case continues.

A February 17, 2026 status conference rescheduled Robere to Fall 2026; an April 24, 2026 order said Robere would proceed as scheduled and stayed the third bellwether, Braxton; and a September 16, 2026 scheduling order set pretrial deadlines in Robere. The 4,224 figure counts actions not yet closed or remanded; it does not measure how many are actively litigated or have merit.

Key dates

• December 16, 2020: The JPML creates MDL 2974 and assigns it to Judge May.
• January 16, 2026: The court grants in part and denies in part Teva’s preemption motion.
• January 20, 2026: The first bellwether trial is set to begin.
• June 1, 2026: The court certifies the preemption order for interlocutory appeal.
• August 6, 2026: The court selects White, Gutierrez, Rodriguez and Rounds as the next bellwethers.
• October 1, 2026: The JPML reports 4,224 actions pending and 4,552 filed.

What this does not establish

The record reviewed here contains no judicial finding that a Paragard device caused any plaintiff’s injury. The transfer order recites allegations, and the label warnings describe risks and reported events. The docket entries reviewed do not include a verdict or final judgment in the first bellwether trial, and no settlement or court-approved resolution of MDL 2974 appears in them.

Frequently asked questions

Is the Paragard litigation a class action?

No. It is a multidistrict proceeding in which individual plaintiffs keep separate cases consolidated for pretrial purposes. See MDL versus class action.

Has a court found that Paragard breaks or causes injury?

Not in the documents reviewed here. The court’s page and transfer order describe allegations, and the label warns that breakage during removal has been reported. None is a finding of causation.

Is there a settlement in MDL 2974?

No settlement or court-approved resolution appears in the docket entries reviewed for this article. The docket shows pretrial rulings, bellwether selection and case-specific scheduling.

Can new Paragard cases still be filed?

MDL 2974 remains on the JPML’s pending list as of October 1, 2026, and the district court docket is active. Whether a particular person can file depends on state law and the facts; statute of limitations rules for injury claims explains the general framework.

Sources

1. United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: “MDL Statistics Report - Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by District” (link, accessed 2026-10-18)
2. United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: “Transfer Order, In re Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2974” (link, accessed 2026-10-18)
3. United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia: “MDL No. 2974 Case Information, In re Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation” (link, accessed 2026-10-18)
4. Free Law Project, RECAP archive of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia: “Docket, In re Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation, No. 1:20-md-02974 (N.D. Ga.)” (link, accessed 2026-10-18)
5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration: “Medical Devices” (link, accessed 2026-10-18)
6. National Library of Medicine, DailyMed: “Paragard T 380A (copper intrauterine device) prescribing information” (link, accessed 2026-10-18)

CollectiveClaim.us publishes general legal information. This article is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Court records and agency actions change; verify current status with the court or agency before relying on it.