Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amgen Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

IN RE: AFLIBERCEPT PATENT
LITIGATION MDL No. 1:24-MD-3103

This Document Relates to:
Nos. 1:24-cv-39
1:25-cv-74

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING AMGEN’S MOTION FOR
SUGGESTION OF REMAND [ECF NO. 765]

Pending before the Court is Defendant Amgen Inc.’s (“Amgen”)
Motion for Suggestion of Remand of the Actions Against Amgen to
the Transferor Court (U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California) (“Amgen’s Motion”) [ECF No. 765]. The Court
convened for oral argument on May 27, 2026. ECF No. 865. The
motion is fully briefed and ripe for decision. For the reasons
set forth herein, the motion is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
On April 11, 2024, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) consolidated six patent
infringement actions concerning Regeneron’s biologic Eylea into
this multidistrict litigation (“MDL”). JPML Transfer Order (ECF
No. 1). Only one of those actions had been filed outside of this
district, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc., C.A. No.
2:24-cv-264 (C.D. Cal.). On July 17, 2025, the JPML consolidated
and transferred another case between Regeneron and Amgen from the
Case 1:25-cv-00074-TSK-JPM Document 334 Filed 08/11/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

IN RE: AFLIBERCEPT PATENT LITIGATION 1:24-MD-3103
2
Central District of California (“C.D. Cal.”) to this MDL. JPML
Conditional Transfer Order (ECF No. 577). All other actions in
this MDL have since been settled.
Amgen now moves this Court to suggest that the JPML remand
both actions to the C.D. Cal., where both actions will ultimately
be tried, given the lack of other defendants, the nature of the
issues yet to be addressed by this Court, and the fact that the
C.D. Cal. is equally well-suited to address those issues. Amgen’s
Motion at 11-12.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The JPML “will remand an action or actions prior to the
completion of coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
only upon a showing of good cause. In re South Central States
Bakery Prods. Antitrust Litig., 462 F.Supp. 388, 390 (J.P.M.L.
1978). “Generally, the decision to remand turns on the question of
whether the case will benefit from further coordinated proceedings
as part of the MDL.” Hamer v. LivaNova Deutschland GmbH, 994 F.3d
173, 181 (3d Cir. 2021) (citing In re Air Crash Disaster at
Tenerife, Canary Islands on March 27, 1977, 461 F. Supp. 671, 672-
73)); In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Prods. Liab. Litig., No.
2:18-MN-2873-RMG, 2025 WL 4072664, at *2 (D.S.C. June 24, 2025),
reconsideration denied, No. 2:18-MN-2873-RMG, 2025 WL 4072671
(D.S.C. Oct. 14, 2025).
III. DISCUSSION
Case 1:25-cv-00074-TSK-JPM Document 334 Filed 08/11/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

IN RE: AFLIBERCEPT PATENT LITIGATION 1:24-MD-3103
3
Amgen argues that “as a result [of the settlement of other
cases] there is no longer a need for coordination.” Id. at 6.
However, “coordinated” in this context does not imply
contemporaneous defendants. See Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 34, (1998) (“While it is
certainly true that the instant case was not ‘consolidated’ with
any other for the purpose literally of litigating identical issues
on common evidence, it is fair to say that proceedings to resolve
pretrial matters were ‘coordinated’ with the conduct of earlier
cases sharing the common core of the Lincoln Savings debacle, if
only by being brought before judges in a district where much of
the evidence was to be found and overlapping issues had been
considered.”).
Moreover, many similarly situated district courts have denied
this same argument. See In re Integrated Res., Inc., 1995 WL
234975, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 1995) (“[T]he mere fact that
all other cases in a consolidated litigation have been terminated
does not constitute ‘good cause’. . . .”); In re Maxim Integrated
Prods., Inc., 2015 WL 1757779, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 17, 2015); see
also Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523
U.S. 26, 34 (1998) (holding that coordinated case need only share
“common core” with earlier cases in multi-district litigation); In
re WellPoint, Inc., No. MDL092074PSGFFMX, 2015 WL 12744266, at *2
(C.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2015) (“Even if the Court agreed that there
Case 1:25-cv-00074-TSK-JPM Document 334 Filed 08/11/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

IN RE: AFLIBERCEPT PATENT LITIGATION 1:24-MD-3103
4
were no common issues that warrant consolidation, it would still
decline to suggest remand because it promotes efficiency to keep
the New Jersey Action in the MDL. As Defendant points out, ‘the
Court has already examined in detail the core allegations, legal
framework, and evidence that will be central to summary judgment’
and has issued over 180 pages of substantive orders. [See Hildes
v. Arthur Andersen LLP, No. 08-CV-0008 BEN RBB, 2014 WL 1571330,
at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2014)].”).
Even if Amgen remained the sole defendant until the conclusion
of pretrial proceedings, this would not affect this Court’s
familiarity with this case. As another district court found:
I think it is fair to conclude that I have a working
familiarity with the facts, issues, and problems involved.
While it would be easy on me, as well as for me, to transfer
the cases back to their transferor districts on the completion
of pretrial discovery, such transfers would be an abdication
of responsibility on my part and would constitute, in this
era of congested calendars and long delays of trials, an
affront to the orderly and expeditious administration of
justice.

In re Multidistrict Civ. Actions Involving Air Crash Disaster
Near Hanover, N. H., on Oct. 25, 1968, 342 F. Supp. 907, 908
(D.N.H. 1971).
Second, Amgen argues that the remaining issues in this matter
are complex and unfamiliar to this Court. Amgen’s Motion at 7-9.
Specifically, Amgen argues that this Court has only directly
addressed one of the six remaining patents in this case, and that
this Court has not addressed Amgen’s process of manufacturing the
Case 1:25-cv-00074-TSK-JPM Document 334 Filed 08/11/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

IN RE: AFLIBERCEPT PATENT LITIGATION 1:24-MD-3103
5
allegedly infringing product in this case, Pavblu. Id. Amgen
also referred to antitrust and inequitable conduct issued which
have since been stricken or dismissed from this case. Id.
As at least one other district court has noted, “this
situation is inherent in any MDL proceeding” and Amgen’s argument
could thus be made at any stage of any MDL and therefore cannot
constitute good cause. Maxim, 2015 WL 1757779, at *5.
Finally, Amgen argues that California would be a more just
and efficient forum for the remainder of pretrial proceedings.
Amgen’s Motion at 9-11. Like Amgen’s argument regarding remaining
issues, this argument works no better now than when this case was
originally consolidated. While the Central District of California
is indeed an experienced patent forum, this Court cannot rely on
this fact alone to abdicate its responsibility for this MDL and to
ignore its own greater familiarity with the particular patents at
issue.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Amgen’s Motion for Suggestion of
Remand of the Actions Against Amgen to the Transferor Court [ECF
No. 765] is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit copies of this Order to
counsel of record.

Case 1:25-cv-00074-TSK-JPM Document 334 Filed 08/11/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

IN RE: AFLIBERCEPT PATENT LITIGATION 1:24-MD-3103
6
DATED: August 11, 2026

____________________________
THOMAS S. KLEEH, CHIEF JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Case 1:25-cv-00074-TSK-JPM Document 334 Filed 08/11/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>