In re: Zantac (Ranitidine) Litigation

── In re: Zantac (Ranitidine) Litigation ── Court: Superior Court of Delaware Date: April 14, 2026 Category: General IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) General Zantac Litigation In re: Zantac (Ranitidine) Litigation ) ) C.A. No.: N22C-09-101 ZAN Submitted: March 27, 2026 Decided: April 13, 2026 OPINION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED John J. Snidow, Esquire, (argued) Keller Postman, Washington, D.C., pro hac vice Attorneys for Plaintiffs. Raeann Warner, Esquire, Collins, Price, Warner Woloshin, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Plaintiffs. Bernard G. Conaway, Esquire, Conaway Legal, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Plaintiffs. Patrick C. Gallagher, Esquire, Jacobs and Crumplar, PA, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Plaintiffs. Joseph J. Rhoades, Esquire and Stephen T. Morrow, Esquire, Rhoades and Morrow, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Plaintiff. Andrew T. Bayman, Esquire, (argued) King & Spaulding, Atlanta, GA., Attorney for Defendants. Nancy Shane Rappaport, Esquire, DLA Piper US LLP, Wilmington, Delaware and Ilana H. Eisenstein, Esquire, DLA Piper US LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Attorney for Attorneys for Defendants Sanofi US Services Inc., Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, and Chattem, Inc. Joseph Naylor, Esquire, Swartz Campbell, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corporation. Sean T. O’Kelly, Esquire and Gerard M. O’Rourke, Esquire, O’Kelly & O’Rourke, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Patheon Manufacturing Services LLC. Daniel J. Brown, Esquire, McCarter & English, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Pfizer, Inc. Colleen Shields, Esquire and Patrick M. Brannigan, Esquire, Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, LLC, Attorneys for GlaxoSmithKline, LLC. Jones, J. 2  On July 10, 2025, the Delaware Supreme Court issued a decision reversing this Court’s May 31, 2024, decision which denied Defendants’ Daubert challenges to Plaintiffs’ proposed general causation experts. 1 The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court had “erred in adopting a standard that favored or presumed the admissibility of expert testimony.”2 The Supreme Court also ruled that for a general causation opinion to be admissible, “a general causation expert’s conclusion must reliably bridge the gap by scientifically linking the disease-causing agent to the product at issue.”3 In other words, “ultimately an expert offering an opinion regarding general causation for a product must opine as to the product itself.” 4 Following the Supreme Court decision, Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the Court to Modify Case Management Order Number 7 to allow Plaintiffs to supplement their expert reports. Contemporaneously, Defendants moved for summary judgment maintaining that the Supreme Court decision in this case mandates that all of Plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed. On December 1, 2025, this Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to supplement. In the December 1, 2025 decision, this Court asked the parties to provide supplemental briefing on which Plaintiffs were bound by the Court’s December 1, 2025 opinion and to complete the briefing on the Defendants’ Motion for summary judgment. Briefing has been 1 In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Litig., 342 A.3d 1131 (Del. 2025). 2 Id. at 1134. 3 Id. at 1153 (citing In re Asbestos Litig., 911 A.2d 1176, 1202 (Del. Super. Ct. 2006)). 4 Id. at 1154. 3 completed. This is Court’s decision on which Plaintiffs are bound by the December 1, 2025 decision and on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. I first turn to the question of which Plaintiffs are bound by the Court’s December 1, 2025 decision. Plaintiffs maintain that the Court’s decision ap