Litigation Details for In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation (N.D. Ohio 2022)

In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation (N.D. Ohio 2022)

Docket		Date Filed	2022-11-04
Court	District Court, N.D. Ohio	Date Terminated
Cause	28:1446 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury	Assigned To	Dan A. Polster
Jury Demand	Both	Referred To
Parties	MEDICINE CENTER PHARMACY; MEDISCA, INC.; RITE AID HEADQUARTERS CORPORATION
Patents	10,006,924; 10,010,575; 10,022,264; 10,023,560; 10,124,000; 10,155,002; 10,174,017; 10,183,002; 10,183,004; 10,183,006; 10,183,012; 10,220,023; 10,792,279; 11,007,198; 11,020,388; 11,027,031; 11,141,457; 11,458,041; 11,541,002; 11,844,858; 12,005,042; 12,005,141; 12,168,022; 12,194,016; 12,194,035; 12,246,006; 12,280,024; 12,337,002; 6,028,222; 6,106,864; 6,200,604; 6,417,175; 6,488,963; 6,545,040; 6,602,911; 6,649,180; 6,667,050; 6,893,662; 6,906,055; 6,913,768; 6,958,326; 6,992,218; 7,030,149; 7,163,931; 7,192,938; 7,304,036; 7,320,969; 7,320,976; 7,371,727; 7,410,957; 7,419,973; 7,642,258; 7,645,459; 7,645,460; 7,668,730; 7,704,947; 7,704,984; 7,718,634; 7,741,358; 7,745,409; 7,765,106; 7,765,107; 7,790,199; 7,803,838; 7,829,121; 7,834,020; 7,838,552; 7,851,482; 7,888,342; 7,895,059; 7,947,739; 7,994,220; 8,008,338; 8,022,054; 8,022,082; 8,022,106; 8,022,228; 8,038,988; 8,039,009; 8,058,291; 8,080,526; 8,101,593; 8,110,553; 8,133,890; 8,168,209; 8,173,708; 8,193,195; 8,207,215; 8,217,083; 8,236,804; 8,242,294; 8,246,989; 8,263,054; 8,273,795; 8,283,379; 8,293,794; 8,309,060; 8,309,122; 8,329,216; 8,329,752; 8,338,485; 8,338,486; 8,344,011; 8,354,409; 8,362,002; 8,362,085; 8,367,649; 8,377,982; 8,436,051; 8,457,988; 8,461,140; 8,481,598; 8,486,972; 8,486,973; 8,541,466; 8,546,367; 8,580,858; 8,589,182; 8,598,233; 8,629,111; 8,632,760; 8,633,162; 8,642,556; 8,648,048; 8,653,058; 8,664,215; 8,673,921; 8,685,930; 8,731,963; 8,748,425; 8,748,573; 8,758,733; 8,772,306; 8,802,628; 8,808,737; 8,808,741; 8,846,100; 8,865,937; 8,871,779; 8,883,770; 8,894,987; 8,894,988; 8,906,950; 8,906,962; 8,926,953; 8,933,030; 8,946,281; 8,986,715; 9,010,323; 9,050,302; 9,056,052; 9,056,057; 9,060,976; 9,073,933; 9,173,857; 9,175,017; 9,216,183; 9,226,931; 9,248,191; 9,302,009; 9,399,012; 9,399,025; 9,457,023; 9,486,426; 9,492,389; 9,492,391; 9,492,392; 9,492,393; 9,517,219; 9,522,155; 9,522,919; 9,555,001; 9,579,270; 9,636,349; 9,694,008; 9,708,371; 9,770,453; 9,907,801; 9,907,802; 9,949,986; RE43,879
Attorneys	Jill G. Okun; Lisa M. Saltzburg; Patricia E. Daehnke
Firms	Bass Berry & Sims; Brinker & Doyen, L.L.P.; Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber LLP
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation (N.D. Ohio 2022)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2022-11-04				External link to document
2022-11-04	1717	Exhibit s to Chalos Declaration	infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,028,222 ("the '222 patent") and 6,992,218 ("the '…concerning ten patents covering Inomax (i.e., five patents expiring in 2029 and five patents expiring in…in the five patents expiring in 2031 are patentable. '222 and '218 Patent Litigation:… such investigation. Patent/Antitrust Litigation Inomax Patent Litigation: Praxair Distribution…this group of patents and the PTAB ruled in July 2016 that one claim of this patent survived review	External link to document
2022-11-04	1812	Exhibit 16 - Chalos Dec.:MNK 2016 10Q	infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,028,222 ("the '222 patent") and 6,992,218 ("the '…concerning ten patents covering Inomax (i.e., five patents expiring in 2029 and five patents expiring in…in the five patents expiring in 2031 are patentable. '222 and '218 Patent Litigation:… such investigation. Patent/Antitrust Litigation Inomax Patent Litigation: Praxair Distribution…this group of patents and the PTAB ruled in July 2016 that one claim of this patent survived review	External link to document
2022-11-04	1823	Exhibits 1-37 [redacted] to the Egler Declaration	Warner Chilcott’s U.S. Patent No. 6,893,662, expiring in November 2021 (the “‘662 Patent”), is invalid and/…) U.S. Patent No. 5,541,170 (the “‘170 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,541,171 (the “‘171 Patent”), formulation…Chilcott’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,645,459 (the “‘459 Patent”) and 7,645,460 (the “‘460 Patent”), two formulation…infringement of the ‘459 Patent and ‘460 Patent. On August 21, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office…to the Company U.S. Patent No. 8,246,989 (the “‘989 Patent”), a formulation patent expiring in January	External link to document
2022-11-04	1930	Exhibit 7 - OxyContin Label	Purdue Pharma L.P. U.S. Patent Numbers 6,488,963; 7,129,248; 8,309,060; 8,808,741; 8,821,929…overdose, priorities are the reestablishment of a patent and protected airway and institution	External link to document

Litigation Summary and Analysis for In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation | 1:17-md-02804

Last updated: July 31, 2025

---

Introduction

The multidistrict litigation (MDL) titled In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation (1:17-md-02804) represents one of the most significant legal battles in U.S. history against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacy chains. Initiated to address the rampant opioid epidemic, this MDL consolidates thousands of lawsuits from states, counties, cities, and tribal nations alleging significant roles in fueling the national public health crisis through deceptive marketing, insufficient distribution controls, and lax oversight.

---

Background of the Litigation

Launched in 2017, the MDL stems from widespread allegations that major pharmaceutical companies, including Purdue Pharma, Johnson & Johnson, Cephalon, Endo Pharmaceuticals, and distributors such as McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen, engaged in unlawful practices. These practices supposedly included misrepresentation about addiction risks, aggressive marketing strategies, and failure to monitor suspicious opioid distributions, leading to unprecedented levels of addiction, overdose, and societal harm.

The central claims revolve around negligence, public nuisance, violation of consumer protection laws, and racketeering (RICO) statutes. The plaintiffs argue that these entities prioritized profit over public health, resulting in a crisis that burdened healthcare systems, law enforcement, and social services nationwide.

---

Procedural Posture and Key Developments

The litigation was initially centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio but was later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Ohio as part of MDL consolidation. Several notable milestones include:

• Early Settlement Negotiations: Since 2019, extensive negotiations occurred aiming for global settlement agreements with opioid manufacturers and distributors. These efforts aimed to fund treatment, prevention, and remediation programs.

• Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of Purdue Pharma: Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy, filed in 2019, significantly impacted the MDL. The company sought to resolve claims through a bankruptcy plan that would establish a trust for opioid treatment and prevention—but faced opposition and legal challenges, leaving some uncertainty over the settlement's scope.

• Bellwether Trials: Payoff for courts and parties has been through “bellwether” trials, intended to assess damages and inform settlement negotiations. The first of these was scheduled but delayed due to complex negotiations and bankruptcy proceedings.

• Settlement Framework & Agreements: The proposed settlement frameworks include multi-billion-dollar payouts from manufacturers and distributors, extensive funding for treatment, and implementation of distribution improvements. An overarching goal has been to stem the flow of illicit opioids and compensate communities impacted.

---

Legal and Financial Implications

Legal liabilities extend across multiple levels:

• Product liability, involving claims that companies misrepresented addiction risks.
• Public nuisance charges allege that their practices created a public health menace.
• RICO racketeering claims allege organized efforts to conceal opioid risks and flood markets.

Financial obligations are projected to span billions of dollars:

• Purdue Pharma’s proposed settlement aimed at $4.5 billion, most of which would go to state and local governments.
• Distributors like McKesson, Cardinal, and AmerisourceBergen have agreed to substantial settlements, often coupled with reforms in distribution practices.

The litigation has revealed significant disclosure risks for involved companies, potential damages awards, and the intricate interplay between bankruptcy proceedings and civil liability.

---

Strategic and Industry Analysis

This MDL has catalyzed reforms within the pharmaceutical and distribution sectors:

• Enhanced Due Diligence: Companies are increasingly adopting stricter audit and monitoring protocols.
• Legal Risk Management: Firms are reassessing liability exposure exposed by these proceedings, emphasizing transparency and compliance.
• Public Relations and Corporate Responsibility: Companies are investing in community outreach and opioid stewardship programs, recognizing the reputational risks.

Furthermore, the litigation has heightened regulatory scrutiny, prompting the FDA and DEA to tighten oversight of opioid manufacturing and distribution practices.

---

Challenges and Future Outlook

Key challenges include:

• Complexity of Settlement Negotiations: Achieving a uniform agreement that satisfies all jurisdictions remains difficult, especially with opposing stakeholders.
• Bankruptcy Risks: Purdue’s bankruptcy has delayed final resolutions, creating uncertainties around claim payouts.
• Evolving Litigation Strategies: State and local governments continue to pursue individual and consolidated claims, potentially expanding legal exposures.

Future developments are likely to involve further settlement agreements, legislative reforms, and potential judicial rulings that will shape the scope and scale of liability and remediation.

---

Impact on Industry and Public Policy

This litigation underscores systemic issues in pharmaceutical regulation, distribution, and marketing. It has prompted:

• Enhanced regulatory oversight and legislative efforts to curb opioid distribution.
• Shift towards alternative pain management strategies, emphasizing non-addictive therapies.
• Increased transparency in pharmaceutical marketing practices.

The case serves as a precedent for holding companies accountable for public health crises, influencing industry conduct and policy frameworks nationwide.

---

Key Takeaways

• Major opioid manufacturers and distributors face extensive civil liabilities totaling billions of dollars through ongoing MDL proceedings.
• The litigation has shifted towards establishing comprehensive settlement frameworks aimed at funding addiction treatment and prevention.
• Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy introduces complexities in claim resolution, highlighting the intersection of bankruptcy law and mass tort liabilities.
• Increased regulatory scrutiny and reforms are reshaping industry practices, emphasizing transparency and responsible distribution.
• Future legal outcomes will influence national policies on opioid prescribing, marketing, and corporate accountability.

---

FAQs

1. What is the main objective of the In Re: Nationwide Prescription Opiate Litigation?
To seek accountability from pharmaceutical companies and distributors for their roles in fueling the opioid epidemic and to establish funding for treatment, prevention, and remediation efforts.

2. How does Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy affect this MDL?
Purdue’s bankruptcy complicates the litigation, as many claims are addressed through the bankruptcy plan, which establishes a trust for beneficiaries. It also raises concerns about fulfilling all liabilities outside of bankruptcy proceedings.

3. What types of claims are involved in this MDL?
Claims include product liability, public nuisance, violation of consumer protection laws, and civil racketeering under RICO statutes.

4. Are there any finalized settlements?
Some distributions have occurred in the form of negotiated agreements with individual companies, but a comprehensive nationwide settlement is still under negotiation, affected by bankruptcy proceedings and legal disputes.

5. What impact does this litigation have on the pharmaceutical industry?
It has prompted tighter distribution controls, increased regulatory oversight, and a shift toward corporate responsibility and transparency. It also signals heightened legal risks for companies involved in similar practices.

---

Sources

1. MDL Courts, In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, Case No. 1:17-md-02804.
2. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, "Transfer Order."
3. Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy Plan, Official Documents, 2019.
4. Legal analysis, Bloomberg Law, “Opioid Litigation and Settlements,” 2022.
5. Health Policy Review, CDC Reports, “The Growing Opioid Crisis,” 2021.

---

Disclaimer: This analysis is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance, consult qualified counsel.