Federal District Court Denies Untimely Jurisdiction Challenge in Generic Drug Price-Fixing Case

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.