Federal District Court Denies Untimely Jurisdiction Challenge in Generic Drug Price-Fixing Case
Summary
U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea denied Mallinckrodt PLC's motion to dismiss an antitrust action for lack of personal jurisdiction or improper service, finding the company forfeited those defenses by waiting more than five and a half years after the complaint and by actively litigating on the merits in the interim. The action by 45 state attorneys general, alleging single drug conspiracies and an overarching agreement across roughly 80 generic dermatology drugs to allocate market share, coordinate price increases, and refrain from customer poaching, will continue in Connecticut et al. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 3:20 cv 00802 MPS (D. Conn.). The practical implications are immediate—plaintiffs may continue to pursue claims against Mallinckrodt in the Dermatology Action. For defense teams, the ruling underscores the need to preserve personal jurisdiction and service objections at the outset and to avoid conduct that courts may view as submission to jurisdiction.
“The Court held that, even assuming preservation, defendant's litigation conduct forfeited any personal jurisdiction or service objections.”
About this source
JD Supra is the legal industry's open library where US law firms publish client alerts and regulatory analysis. The Healthcare section aggregates everything from partners covering CMS reimbursement, HIPAA enforcement, FDA compliance, healthcare M&A, fraud and abuse, payer-provider disputes, telehealth, and the fast-moving state regulation of healthcare AI. Around 250 alerts a month. Watch this if you run a hospital legal department, advise digital health startups, manage payer compliance, or track how state Medicaid agencies and HHS-OIG actually enforce the rules they publish. The signal-to-noise ratio is genuinely good because firms only publish when they have something concrete to say to their clients. GovPing pulls each alert with the firm name, author, and topic.
What changed
The court denied Mallinckrodt's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper service, holding that the defendant forfeited those defenses by waiting nearly five and a half years to raise them while simultaneously seeking affirmative relief on the merits and participating in case management proceedings. The court found the defendant's conduct—participating through sanctions motions, summary judgment, and case management orders—was incompatible with maintaining threshold objections to the court's authority. Plaintiffs' antitrust claims alleging price-fixing and market allocation across roughly 80 generic dermatology drugs will continue against Mallinckrodt in the Dermatology Action. For pharmaceutical companies and defendants in similar multidistrict antitrust litigation, the ruling reinforces that personal jurisdiction and service objections must be raised promptly or risked being deemed waived through conduct inconsistent with challenging the court's authority.
The case arose from the broader generic drug price-fixing litigation involving state attorneys general, originally filed in Connecticut, transferred to the MDL in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and remanded to Connecticut in April 2024. Defense teams should note that seeking affirmative relief through motions and case management orders may be construed as submission to jurisdiction, even absent formal consent to service.
Archived snapshot
Apr 23, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
April 23, 2026
Federal District Court Denies Untimely Jurisdiction Challenge in Generic Drug Price-Fixing Case
A&O Shearman + Follow Contact LinkedIn Facebook X ;) Embed
On April 8, 2026, U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea denied a motion by defendant Mallinckrodt PLC to dismiss an antitrust action brought by 45 state attorneys general for lack of personal jurisdiction or improper service, concluding the company forfeited those defenses by waiting more than five years after the complaint and by litigating on the merits in the interim. Plaintiffs’ claims therefore continue against defendant in Connecticut et al. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 3:20 cv 00802 MPS (D. Conn.) (the “Dermatology Action”), which alleges single drug conspiracies and an overarching agreement across roughly eighty generic dermatology drugs.
Plaintiffs allege both discrete, single drug conspiracies and an overarching agreement among generic manufacturers covering roughly eighty dermatology drugs to allocate market share, coordinate price increases, and refrain from customer poaching. The Dermatology Action is one of three actions brought by state attorneys general that were originally filed in the District of Connecticut, transferred to the multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and remanded to the District of Connecticut in April 2024. Since remand in April 2024, the Court has overseen extensive fact and expert discovery and issued a series of rulings that preserved the core of the plaintiffs’ case for trial.
In the current motion, the defendant argued that it was never properly served, contending that a joint stipulation with plaintiffs and an answer to the complaint did not constitute acceptance of service or a waiver of its service objections. Defendant maintained that because it never formally consented to the Court’s jurisdiction, the action should be dismissed as to it. Plaintiffs countered that defendant waived those defenses by failing to raise them earlier.
The Court held that, even assuming preservation, defendant’s litigation conduct forfeited any personal jurisdiction or service objections. The Court emphasized that defendant waited nearly five and a half years after the initial complaint to seek dismissal on those grounds. In the interim, defendant participated in the case through motions including sanctions and summary judgment, thereby submitting to the Court’s jurisdiction. The Court further noted that the defendant repeatedly sought affirmative relief on the merits and through case management orders, conduct incompatible with maintaining threshold objections to the Court’s authority.
The practical implications are immediate—plaintiffs may continue to pursue claims against defendant in the Dermatology Action. For defense teams, the ruling underscores the need to preserve personal jurisdiction and service objections at the outset and to avoid conduct that courts may view as submission to jurisdiction.
[View source.]
;) ;) Report
Latest Posts
- Court Denies Northwest MLS's Bid To Dismiss Compass Antitrust Suit
- Federal District Court Denies Untimely Jurisdiction Challenge in Generic Drug Price-Fixing Case
- New EU Directive on combatting corruption: impact on bribery laws in the EU
- Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Putative Class Action Against Financial Institution In Connection With Reverse Split Of Exchange Traded Notes
- Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Seed Company Price-Fixing Allegations See more »
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
Attorney Advertising.
©
A&O Shearman
Written by:
A&O Shearman Contact + Follow more less
PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA
- ✔ Increased readership
- ✔ Actionable analytics
- ✔ Ongoing writing guidance Join more than 70,000 authors publishing their insights on JD Supra
Published In:
Antitrust Conspiracies + Follow Antitrust Litigation + Follow Conspiracies + Follow Drug Pricing + Follow Generic Drugs + Follow Healthcare + Follow Motion to Dismiss + Follow Multidistrict Litigation + Follow Personal Jurisdiction + Follow Pharmaceutical Industry + Follow Price-Fixing + Follow Remand + Follow State Attorneys General + Follow Antitrust & Trade Regulation + Follow Civil Procedure + Follow Consumer Protection + Follow Health + Follow Science, Computers & Technology + Follow more less
A&O Shearman on:
"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"
Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra: Sign Up Log in ** By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.* - hide - hide
Parties
Related changes
Get daily alerts for JD Supra Healthcare
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Source
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from A&O Shearman.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when JD Supra Healthcare publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.