Price Chart

Executive Summary

Novo Nordisk suffered a series of adverse rulings in the Griffin Health Services product liability case on July 24, 2026. The court denied Novo Nordisk's motions to preclude the plaintiff's expert witness (Dr. Goldhaber), denied its motion to strike that expert, denied its second motion for summary judgment (finding it duplicative and in violation of court orders), and granted summary judgment only on the narrow indemnification count while denying it on all other claims—including design defect, failure to warn, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation. The case now proceeds to trial on the core product liability claims, creating material litigation risk for Novo Nordisk's insulin pen franchise in the U.S. market.

Court Ruling Details

Key Facts

• The court denied Novo Nordisk's motion to preclude the plaintiff's expert witness, Dr. Goldhaber, finding him qualified to testify on warnings.
• The court denied Novo Nordisk's motion to strike Dr. Goldhaber's report and for renewal of summary judgment, calling it an untimely motion to reconsider.
• The court granted summary judgment only on the indemnification count (Count Five), but denied it on all other claims: design defect, failure to warn, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of implied warranty.
• The court denied Novo Nordisk's second motion for summary judgment as duplicative and in violation of the court's scheduling order, and criticized Novo Nordisk's counsel for misleading and unsupported statements.
• The court found material issues of fact exist regarding whether Novo Nordisk provided adequate warnings on its insulin pens and training to hospital staff.
• The court noted that the FDA required Novo Nordisk to add 'For Single Patient Use Only' warning labels to its insulin pens in February 2015, nearly a year after the pen-sharing incident at Griffin Hospital was discovered.
• The court highlighted that Novo Nordisk was aware of pen-sharing risks as early as 2008 (published study), 2009 (FDA alert), and 2012 (CDC reminder), and a class action lawsuit was filed in 2013, yet it did not add warning labels until the FDA required them in 2015.

Financial Impact

The case proceeds to trial on product liability claims involving Novo Nordisk's insulin pens. The court noted potential for punitive damages under Connecticut law if the jury finds reckless disregard. No damages amount is stated in the rulings.

Risk Factors

• Trial on product liability claims with potential for punitive damages under Connecticut law
• Adverse jury verdict could set precedent for similar cases against Novo Nordisk
• Reputational damage from findings that Novo Nordisk knew about pen-sharing risks for years without acting
• Court's criticism of Novo Nordisk's counsel suggests unfavorable judicial attitude
• Potential for discovery of additional damaging evidence as case proceeds to trial

Market Snapshot

Investment Themes

Documents Analyzed

This report is based on 4 court opinions from CourtListener.

US Market Status