Teva can't delay first trial over Paragard IUDs with appeal

By Diana Novak Jones

Jan 12 (Reuters) - Teva Pharmaceuticals can’t delay the first trial in thousands of lawsuits over claims its Paragard intrauterine contraceptive device can break apart during removal, a Georgia federal judge said Monday.

U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May in Atlanta rejected the Israel-based company’s request to pause the trial, scheduled to begin on January 20, so it may appeal May’s ruling rejecting its bid to get the plaintiffs’ claims tossed.

The company argued that a successful appeal would likely have ended the litigation over the devices, which currently includes 3,800 lawsuits in federal court. The plaintiffs objected, calling the move a stall tactic.

Representatives for the company and for the plaintiff in the first trial, Pauline Rickard, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The lawsuits in federal court have been consolidated in a multi-district litigation, which May is overseeing. Rickard’s case will be the first “bellwether” trial in the litigation. Bellwethers are used to test the claims before juries and determine their value for potential settlements.

Paragard is a non-hormone based contraceptive device or IUD made from copper that can be implanted in the uterus and used for years. The lawsuits claim the company failed to warn women that the IUD can break apart while inside the body, causing injuries that can impact fertility and often requiring surgical removal.

Rickard sued the company in 2021, claiming she needed multiple procedures to remove her Paragard IUD. Her case is the first of three planned bellwether trials coming up in the next few months.

Teva sold Paragard to CooperSurgical in 2017. Rickard’s claims against CooperSurgical were dismissed separately. Teva faces claims from people who, like Rickard, received their IUDs when the company owned the Paragard product.

Teva had sought to appeal the judge's December ruling rejecting the company’s argument that the claims in the trial are barred because federal law prevents the company from changing Paragard’s warning label without U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval. In that ruling, May found that there was evidence that Teva had received new information about Paragard that would have allowed it to update the label, and it didn’t matter that the information came after the women in the bellwether cases had received their IUDs.

But May said Monday that the question was too fact-specific for an appeal at this early stage and it would slow the entire litigation down.

The case is In Re: Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, No 1:20-md-02974.

For the plaintiffs: Erin Copeland of Fibich Leebron Copeland & Briggs; and Nicole Berg of Keller Postman

For Teva: Jaime Santos of Goodwin Procter; and Christopher Morris and Pamela Ferrell of Butler Snow