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 1:24-cv-00039-TSK-JPM Document 544 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 1:24-cv-00039-TSK-JPM Document 544 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 1:24-cv-00039-TSK-JPM Document 544 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 1:24-cv-00039-TSK-JPM Document 544 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 1:24-cv-00039-TSK-JPM Document 544 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 1:24-cv-00039-TSK-JPM Document 544 Filed 08/11/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>