Home › Lawsuits › Paragard IUD lawsuit
Paragard IUD lawsuit
Active MDL; first bellwether trial ended in a defense verdict in February 2026, next bellwether trial set for September 28, 2026. Federal MDL over claims the Paragard copper IUD can break during removal, requiring surgery to remove fragments.
The docket record
- Actions pending
- 4,185+29(+0.7%)
- Total actions, historical
- 4,503
- Change, 3 months
- +114(+2.8%)
- Change, 12 months
- +616(+17.3%)
- Docket
- MDL No. 2974
- Court
- Northern District of Georgia
- Transferee judge
- Leigh Martin MayU.S. District Judge
- Last report
- September 1, 2026
Source: JPML “Pending MDL Dockets by Actions Pending,” report dated September 1, 2026 · first in our series Jan 2024
Month-by-month figures, Jan 2024 to Sep 2026
| Report date | Actions pending | Change | Total, historical | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| September 1, 2026 | 4,185 | +29 | 4,503 | |
| August 3, 2026 | 4,156 | +45 | 4,460 | |
| July 1, 2026 | 4,111 | +40 | 4,409 | |
| June 1, 2026 | 4,071 | +87 | 4,366 | |
| May 1, 2026 | 3,984 | +2 | 4,278 | |
| April 1, 2026 | 3,982 | +56 | 4,276 | |
| March 2, 2026 | 3,926 | +59 | 4,214 | |
| February 2, 2026 | 3,867 | +67 | 4,139 | |
| January 5, 2026 | 3,800 | +51 | 4,071 | |
| December 2, 2025 | 3,749 | +91 | 4,010 | |
| November 3, 2025 | 3,658 | +63 | 3,919 | |
| October 1, 2025 | 3,595 | +26 | 3,850 | |
| September 2, 2025 | 3,569 | +40 | 3,821 | |
| August 1, 2025 | 3,529 | +55 | 3,775 | |
| July 1, 2025 | 3,474 | +144 | 3,717 | |
| June 2, 2025 | 3,330 | +78 | 3,573 | |
| May 1, 2025 | 3,252 | +216 | 3,494 | |
| April 1, 2025 | 3,036 | +71 | 3,275 | |
| March 3, 2025 | 2,965 | +28 | 3,166 | |
| February 3, 2025 | 2,937 | +55 | 3,134 | |
| January 2, 2025 | 2,882 | +20 | 3,077 | |
| December 2, 2024 | 2,862 | +115 | 3,056 | |
| October 1, 2024 | 2,747 | −46 | 2,934 | |
| September 3, 2024 | 2,793 | +19 | 2,879 | |
| August 1, 2024 | 2,774 | +38 | 2,860 | |
| July 1, 2024 | 2,736 | +46 | 2,822 | |
| June 3, 2024 | 2,690 | +39 | 2,773 | |
| May 1, 2024 | 2,651 | +37 | 2,731 | |
| April 1, 2024 | 2,614 | +44 | 2,692 | |
| March 1, 2024 | 2,570 | +126 | 2,647 | |
| February 1, 2024 | 2,444 | +28 | 2,521 | |
| January 2, 2024 | 2,416 | 2,493 |
Full docket title: IN RE: Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation. Programmatic record page: MDL 2974.
Where it stands
MDL No. 2974 (In re: Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation) remains an active, consolidated pretrial proceeding before Judge Leigh Martin May in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The first bellwether trial, Rickard v. Teva, concluded in early February 2026 with an Atlanta jury returning a defense verdict, rejecting design-defect, failure-to-warn, and fraudulent-omission claims against Teva. The second and third bellwether trials, originally set for spring 2026, were pushed to fall 2026; the next trial (Robere v. Teva) is scheduled to begin September 28, 2026. As of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's September 1, 2026 pending-actions report, 4,185 actions remain pending in the MDL, up 29 from the prior month. No global settlement has been announced as of this writing.
Sources: Case Management Order Regarding Plaintiff Fact Sheets and… · Second Amended Case Management Order Regarding Service (D… · MDL-2974 Tag-Along Transfer Order · Northern District of Georgia Consents to Transfer of Para…; full list at the end of this page.
What the lawsuits are about
Paragard is a T-shaped, hormone-free copper IUD manufactured by Teva and, since a 2017 divestiture of the Paragard business, marketed and sold by CooperSurgical. Plaintiffs allege the device is defectively designed so that its plastic arms can break or fracture when a clinician removes it, leaving fragments embedded in the uterus or migrating elsewhere in the pelvis. Plaintiffs further allege Teva and CooperSurgical knew or should have known about this breakage risk and failed to adequately warn patients and physicians, and that removal complications have required surgical procedures including hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, and in some cases more invasive surgery to locate and extract broken pieces.
on the origin of the MDL: the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized federal Paragard breakage lawsuits into MDL No. 2974, In re: Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation, in the Northern District of Georgia by transfer order dated December 16, 2020, assigning the litigation to Judge Leigh Martin May. The court later entered a case management order (July 7, 2022) establishing a standardized Plaintiff Fact Sheet that requires each plaintiff to detail the placement and removal of their Paragard, any problems that occurred at removal, and any related medical tests, procedures, or surgeries.
Litigation status as of September 2026: the case has moved past pretrial discovery into bellwether trials, which are individual test cases used to help both sides and the court gauge how juries respond to the evidence before larger numbers of cases are resolved. The first bellwether, tried in the Northern District of Georgia in late January/early February 2026, ended in a defense verdict for Teva. That outcome does not bind or resolve the claims of other plaintiffs in the MDL. Additional bellwether trials are scheduled for fall 2026, and the litigation otherwise continues with thousands of individual cases still pending centralized pretrial proceedings.
Injuries named in the filings
- Breakage or fracture of the Paragard device during removal
- Embedded or migrated device fragments requiring surgical retrieval
- Uterine or pelvic organ perforation
- Infection
- Chronic pelvic pain
- Infertility or reduced fertility
Principal defendants: Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Teva Women's Health, LLC; CooperSurgical, Inc..
Sources: Case Management Order Regarding Plaintiff Fact Sheets and… · Second Amended Case Management Order Regarding Service (D… · MDL-2974 Tag-Along Transfer Order · Northern District of Georgia Consents to Transfer of Para…; full list at the end of this page.
Who the filings say qualifies
Eligibility criteria below are drawn from the MDL's court-ordered Plaintiff Fact Sheet (Case Management Order, Doc. 331, filed July 7, 2022), which every plaintiff in MDL No. 2974 must complete. It is not a law firm marketing checklist.
- Had a Paragard (T 380A copper IUD) placed
- Had the Paragard removed, or had removal attempted, by a health care provider (or, in some cases, another person)
- The Plaintiff Fact Sheet requires reporting any problems that occurred at removal, which in practice covers claims that the device broke, fractured, or left fragments behind
- Underwent a medical test, procedure, or surgery connected to the removal or attempted removal (the fact sheet specifically asks about ultrasound-guided removal and related procedures)
- Can produce records of health care facility treatment, including surgical procedures, tied to the device or its removal
- Claim not barred by the applicable state statute of limitations
These are the criteria in the public record, not a promise about any individual case. A law firm evaluates each case on its own facts, and limitations periods vary by state.
Want a case review for the Paragard IUD?
Case reviews for this litigation are not open through this site yet. Leave your details and we will pass them to a participating firm or intake partner only if one accepts this litigation, and only with the consent below.
Key dates
- JPML transfer order centralizes federal Paragard breakage lawsuits into MDL No. 2974 in the Northern District of Georgia, before Judge Leigh Martin May. source
- Court enters Case Management Order establishing the standardized Plaintiff Fact Sheet and document-production process for all MDL plaintiffs. source
- Deadline for existing MDL plaintiffs to submit completed Plaintiff Fact Sheets and signed authorizations to defendants. source
- Court enters Second Amended Case Management Order Regarding Service, governing how individual actions are served within the MDL. source
- First bellwether trial (Rickard v. Teva) ends with an Atlanta jury returning a defense verdict for Teva on strict liability, failure-to-warn, design-defect, and fraudulent-omission claims. source
- JPML pending-actions report lists 4,185 actions pending in MDL No. 2974, an increase of 29 from the prior month. source
- Second bellwether trial (Robere v. Teva) scheduled to begin, after being pushed from an original spring 2026 date. source
Questions people ask
Is the Paragard lawsuit still active in 2026?
Yes. MDL No. 2974 remains an active, consolidated litigation before Judge Leigh Martin May in the Northern District of Georgia. As of the JPML's September 1, 2026 report, 4,185 actions were pending. No global settlement had been announced as of that date.
What happened in the first Paragard bellwether trial?
The first bellwether trial ended in early February 2026 with an Atlanta federal jury returning a defense verdict for Teva, rejecting the plaintiff's design-defect, failure-to-warn, strict liability, and fraudulent-omission claims. Because bellwether trials are test cases, this single verdict does not decide the claims of other plaintiffs in the MDL.
Who are the defendants in the Paragard lawsuits?
The lawsuits name Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and related Teva entities, which manufactured Paragard, and CooperSurgical, Inc., which has marketed and sold Paragard since acquiring the product line from Teva in 2017.
What do plaintiffs have to show to be part of the Paragard litigation?
Under the MDL's court-ordered Plaintiff Fact Sheet, plaintiffs must document that they had a Paragard placed and later removed (or attempted to be removed), describe any problems that occurred at removal, and provide records of any related medical tests, procedures, or surgeries. Claims are also subject to each state's statute of limitations.
Has Paragard been recalled?
No recall of Paragard has been reported as of September 2026. The device remains on the market; the litigation concerns alleged defects and warning failures related to breakage during removal, not a product recall.
When is the next Paragard bellwether trial?
A second bellwether trial, Robere v. Teva, is scheduled to begin September 28, 2026, after being postponed from an earlier spring 2026 date to give both sides time to work through expert discovery following the first trial.
Sources: Case Management Order Regarding Plaintiff Fact Sheets and… · Second Amended Case Management Order Regarding Service (D… · MDL-2974 Tag-Along Transfer Order · Northern District of Georgia Consents to Transfer of Para…; full list at the end of this page.
Track this docket
We re-read the JPML report on the first business day of each month. Get an email when this record changes: case count, status, or a settlement development.
Sources
- U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, “Pending MDL Dockets by Actions Pending,” monthly reports January 2, 2024 to September 1, 2026. Transferee court: Northern District of Georgia, Leigh Martin May.
- Case Management Order Regarding Plaintiff Fact Sheets and PFS Document Production (Doc. 331), U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia (MDL No. 2974). Accessed September 3, 2026.
- Second Amended Case Management Order Regarding Service (Doc. 635), U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia (MDL No. 2974). Accessed September 3, 2026.
- MDL-2974 Tag-Along Transfer Order, U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Accessed September 3, 2026.
- Northern District of Georgia Consents to Transfer of Paragard IUD Cases, HarrisMartin Publishing. Accessed September 3, 2026.
- Teva Wins Jury Verdict in First Paragard IUD Bellwether Trial, Bloomberg Law. Accessed September 3, 2026.
- Paragard MDL Update: First Bellwether Defense Verdict (2026), MDL Update. Accessed September 3, 2026.
- Paragard IUD Bellwether Verdict 2026: Defense Wins Round One, Mass Tort Injury Calculator. Accessed September 3, 2026.
- Paragard IUD Lawsuit Lawyer | August 2026 Update (as summarized by plaintiff-side sources), Miller & Zois (law firm). Accessed September 3, 2026.
Settlement Record is not a law firm and does not give legal advice. We may be compensated if you request a case review and are referred to a law firm or intake partner. Settlement Record is not affiliated with any court, agency, defendant or law firm named on this page.