All Defendants Are Now Served and the Clock Is Running
All named defendants in this federal lawsuit have now been formally served with process. With service complete, the case has entered its adversarial phase, and each defendant is now on their own response clock under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
This matters because deadlines are not collective. They are individual.
For Sanofi-Aventis U.S., the response deadline is January 20, 2026.
That date matters.
⸻
January 20 Is Sanofi’s Deadline — Not a Shell’s
For the past year, the dispute has been fragmented across forums, with DRVM LLC positioned as the visible party while upstream entities remained insulated.
That structure no longer applies.
The Court has already ruled that only DRVM belongs in arbitration. No other defendant was compelled, stayed, or shielded. This federal lawsuit proceeds independently of arbitration, and Sanofi is now directly before the Court.
There is no shell entity left to answer in its place.
Service Dates and Response Deadlines
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC
• Date Served: December 31, 2025
• Rule 12 Response Deadline: January 20, 2026
AMJ Services, LLC
• Date Served: December 31, 2025
• Rule 12 Response Deadline: January 20, 2026
Steven S. Dickert (as Trustee of Basil Management Trust)
• Date Served: January 3, 2026
• Rule 12 Response Deadline: January 24, 2026
Chattem, Inc.
• Date Served: January 5, 2026
• Rule 12 Response Deadline: January 26, 2026
Quten Research Institute, LLC
• Date Served: January 5, 2026
• Rule 12 Response Deadline: January 26, 2026
By January 20, Sanofi must:
• File an answer, or
• File a Rule 12 motion addressing the claims on the public record
There is no procedural substitute and no closed-door forum available here.
⸻
This Is Not a Petition to Compel Arbitration
This case is not a petition to compel arbitration, and it is not a procedural maneuver.
Those filings were narrow by design — limited to jurisdictional questions and constrained by arbitration doctrine. They did not permit full briefing, discovery, or factual development.
This lawsuit is different.
This is the substantive federal action — the case that took nearly a year to reach after navigating procedural barriers, jurisdictional detours, and compelled arbitration mechanics.
Now:
• All defendants are properly before the Court
• All claims are live
• All responses must be made publicly and on the record
⸻
No More Closed-Door Litigation
For much of the past year, arguments were made in confined forums — arbitration submissions, threshold motions, administrative proceedings.
That phase is over.
This lawsuit requires defendants to take their positions in federal court, subject to judicial scrutiny, public filings, and the ordinary rules of civil litigation.
Defendants can no longer litigate indirectly or behind procedural shields; any aggressive defense must now be asserted openly, on the record, in federal court.
⸻
What Comes Next
Each defendant’s response deadline now runs based on their own service date. For Sanofi-Aventis U.S., that deadline is January 20.
By then, the company must publicly state its position — on jurisdiction, on liability, and on the claims alleged.
This is the moment the case moves from procedural groundwork to substantive accountability. Year one is complete. Time for year two.