For plaintiff firms evaluating Paragard intake, the litigation has entered an important period. Thousands of cases remain pending in federal court, the first federal bellwether has reached a verdict, and the next bellwether is not scheduled until April 2027.
As of September 1, 2026, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation reported 4,185 pending actions in In re: Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2974, with 4,503 total historical actions. The litigation remains centralized before Judge Leigh Martin May in the Northern District of Georgia.
The court describes the litigation as involving allegations that Paragard can break during removal and cause complications and injuries, including additional surgery, infertility, and pain. Those allegations remain contested.
The first federal bellwether concluded on February 3, 2026, with a defense verdict for Teva. According to Teva’s July 2026 SEC filing, the MDL court subsequently entered an order scheduling the second bellwether trial to begin on April 12, 2027.
For firms evaluating continued Paragard intake, that timeline places greater importance on understanding the individual circumstances behind each potential case rather than relying primarily on overall litigation volume.
The First Bellwether Is Important, but It Is Still One Case
Teva’s victory in the first bellwether gives firms a significant trial result to evaluate. It does not, however, adjudicate the thousands of other individual cases currently pending in MDL 2974.
That distinction matters for intake planning.
The verdict provides one data point involving one plaintiff’s circumstances, evidence, claims, and trial presentation. Until another federal jury evaluates a different Paragard case, firms have limited additional trial data showing how different injuries, warnings, causation evidence, medical histories, or other facts may be received at trial.
For firms continuing to evaluate potential Paragard clients, this makes careful individual review particularly important.
Intake Should Start With the Alleged Failure Mechanism
The court’s description of the MDL focuses on allegations of Paragard breaking during removal.
Earlier bellwether-selection rules likewise required the selected plaintiff to have received a Paragard IUD, to allege breakage upon removal, and to have a substantially complete Plaintiff Fact Sheet.
Those requirements applied to the bellwether-selection process. They should not be treated as a universal legal eligibility standard for every person seeking an attorney’s evaluation of a potential Paragard claim.
They do, however, illustrate why detailed intake matters.
Knowing that someone previously used Paragard provides relatively little information for an attorney evaluating a potential claim. Intake should instead establish the individual’s experience with the device, the circumstances surrounding attempted removal, whether breakage or retained components were documented, subsequent medical treatment, and the chronology of relevant events.
Before increasing campaign volume, intake teams should be prepared to consistently capture information such as:
- Implantation and removal dates
- Circumstances surrounding removal
- Medical documentation concerning alleged breakage or retained fragments
- Subsequent procedures or medical treatment
- Relevant healthcare providers and records
- A clear timeline of the individual’s experience
The purpose of this screening is not simply to generate more completed forms. It is to give attorneys enough reliable information to evaluate each person’s circumstances and determine whether representation may be appropriate under the firm’s current criteria.
Product Timeline Should Be Captured Early
Chronology is also important because of Paragard’s ownership history.
Teva states that it divested Paragard to CooperSurgical in 2017, and the federal litigation involves defendants associated with different periods of the product’s history.
That makes dates more than administrative details.
For intake teams, the date of implantation, date of removal, healthcare providers involved, available device records, and sequence of alleged complications should be captured in structured fields whenever possible rather than left solely in free-form call notes.
Consistent documentation helps attorneys evaluate each potential client’s circumstances as the litigation develops.
The Longer Bellwether Timeline Makes Careful Screening More Important
With the second federal bellwether scheduled for April 12, 2027, firms face several additional months without another federal jury result.
During that period, firms may continue receiving inquiries from individuals who experienced complications they believe are associated with Paragard. But firms considering significant intake expansion may be committing acquisition, intake, medical-record, and case-development resources before another bellwether provides additional trial information.
That does not mean firms should automatically stop intake.
It means firms should have a process for evaluating both campaign performance and the quality and completeness of information being collected for attorney review.
Alongside cost per lead, firms can examine deeper measures such as:
- Percentage of inquiries meeting the firm’s current screening criteria
- Attorney review and acceptance rates
- Signed-client rates
- Medical-record completion
- Common reasons potential cases are declined
- Time from initial inquiry to attorney review
- Cost associated with acquiring clients whose circumstances meet the firm’s current criteria
These measures provide more useful information about whether an intake campaign is connecting the firm with individuals it may be able to represent effectively.
Intake Strategy Should Follow the Litigation
Paragard also illustrates why mass tort intake should remain connected to current litigation developments.
Trial schedules, rulings, case-selection procedures, and other developments can affect what information attorneys need when evaluating potential clients.
Firms considering continued or expanded Paragard intake should therefore monitor:
- Federal scheduling orders
- Bellwether developments
- Dispositive and expert rulings
- Appellate developments affecting the litigation
- Changes to case-selection procedures
- Monthly MDL inventory
That information should flow back into the intake process.
When litigation developments place greater importance on particular facts, intake questions may need to become more specific. When additional documentation becomes important to evaluating a potential claim, records-collection procedures may need adjustment. When the trial calendar changes, acquisition strategy and expectations may also need to be revisited.
The Question Is Not Simply Whether to Expand
As of September 1, 2026, the JPML reported 4,185 pending actions in the Paragard MDL.
But the number of pending cases alone does not answer the question facing firms considering additional intake.
A more useful question is:
If we expand intake, can we consistently identify individuals whose circumstances align with our current case criteria and gather enough information for meaningful attorney review?
With the second federal bellwether scheduled for April 2027, firms will have a longer period before another federal jury provides an additional trial data point.
During that period, careful screening and individual evaluation become particularly important.
For firms continuing to pursue Paragard matters, intake should focus on understanding each person’s experience, documenting the relevant medical and product history, identifying potential issues early, and giving attorneys the information necessary to make informed representation decisions.
Ultimately, successful Paragard intake should not be measured simply by how many inquiries a campaign produces.
It should also be measured by whether the process gives each potential client an appropriate, informed evaluation while helping the firm identify matters that align with its current litigation strategy.
How SmashOrbit Legal Supports More Informed Paragard Intake
As Paragard litigation continues to develop, plaintiff firms may need to refine their intake criteria alongside new court rulings, bellwether results, and case-specific considerations.
At SmashOrbit Legal, we help plaintiff firms translate litigation developments into thoughtful acquisition and intake strategies, including qualification criteria designed to capture the product history, medical information, and case-specific details attorneys need for further review.
The goal is not simply to generate inquiries. It is to help firms build intake processes that collect meaningful information while recognizing the individual circumstances behind every potential case.
With the next federal bellwether scheduled for April 2027, staying connected to litigation developments and adapting intake accordingly may be especially important.
As the litigation develops, intake criteria should develop with it.
Receive SmashOrbit Legal Insider Updates →
Sources
- U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation — Pending MDL Reports, September 1, 2026
Supports the September 2026 Paragard MDL inventory and identifies MDL No. 2974. JPML
JPML Pending MDL Reports - Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. — Form 10-Q, July 29, 2026
Supports the February 3, 2026 defense verdict, Teva’s 2017 divestiture of Paragard to Cooper Surgical, and the second bellwether trial date of April 12, 2027. SEC
Teva Form 10-Q — SEC - U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia — Paragard MDL No. 2974
Supports the description of the litigation as involving allegations that Paragard can break during removal and allegedly result in complications and injuries. The court identifies Judge Leigh Martin May as presiding. Guam District Court
Official Paragard MDL Page - U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia — Case Management Order on Certain Aspects of Bellwether Process
Supports the article’s discussion of historical bellwether eligibility requirements, including Paragard placement, alleged breakage upon removal, and a substantially complete Plaintiff Fact Sheet. Guam District Court
Paragard Bellwether Case Management Order