HEALTH & LIFE SCIENCES NEWS

This Week in 340B: March 31 – April 6, 2026

by Emily Jane Cook, Abygail Hoey, Margaret Houtz, Jae Hyun Lee, Sydney Merritt Martinez and Deepika Raj | Apr 8, 2026 | 340B

Find the week’s updates on 340B litigation to help you stay in the know on how 340B cases are developing across the country. Each week we comb through the dockets of more than 50 340B cases to provide you with a quick summary of relevant updates from the prior week in this industry-shaping body of litigation. Get more details on these 340B cases and all other material 340B cases pending in federal and state courts with the 340B Litigation Tracker.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy

In three consolidated cases brought by a trade association for drug manufacturers challenging a Louisiana state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the United States filed an Amicus Curiae brief in support of plaintiff appellant.
In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Tennessee state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff appealed the court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss, denying the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary Injunction as moot, and dismissing the case for failure to state a claim.
In two cases challenging an Oregon state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, Intervenor Oregon Primary Care Association filed a cross-motion and response for summary judgment.
In two cases challenging a Rhode Island state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the American Hospital Association, 340B Health, Health Association of Rhode Island, and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists filed an amicus brief in the First Circuit in support of defendant appellee.
In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Rhode Island [...]

Continue Reading

This Week in 340B: March 24 – March 30, 2026

by Emily Jane Cook, Reuben Bank, Margaret Houtz and Kelsey Reinhardt | Apr 1, 2026 | 340B

Find the week’s updates on 340B litigation to help you stay in the know on how 340B cases are developing across the country. Each week we comb through the dockets of more than 50 340B cases to provide you with a quick summary of relevant updates from the prior week in this industry-shaping body of litigation. Get more details on these 340B cases and all other material 340B cases pending in federal and state courts with the 340B Litigation Tracker.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy

Drug manufacturers filed two separate suits to challenge a Washington state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements.
In one case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Tennessee state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff appealed the court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
In a second case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Tennessee state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, denied the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary Injunction as moot, and dismissed the case for failure to state a claim, and the plaintiff filed an appeal.
In four cases brought by drug manufacturers challenging a Utah law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiffs filed responses to the court’s order to show cause.

This Week in 340B: March 17 – March 23, 2026

by Emily Jane Cook, Reuben Bank, Abygail Hoey, Margaret Houtz, Sydney Merritt Martinez, Kelsey Reinhardt and Nadine Tejadilla | Mar 25, 2026 | 340B

Find the week’s updates on 340B litigation to help you stay in the know on how 340B cases are developing across the country. Each week we comb through the dockets of more than 50 340B cases to provide you with a quick summary of relevant updates from the prior week in this industry-shaping body of litigation. Get more details on these 340B cases and all other material 340B cases pending in federal and state courts with the 340B Litigation Tracker.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy; Child Sites; Other

In a case against HRSA challenging its certification of a group of entities as 340B-eligible, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment.
In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a New Mexico state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the government filed an answer to the plaintiff’s complaint.
In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a New Mexico state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority.
In an appealed qui tam action alleging that various drug manufacturers failed to charge accurate ceiling prices to 340B Covered Entities, the appellate court issued an opinion reversing the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim and remanding the case for further proceedings.
In a case brought by a trade association for drug manufacturers challenging a Colorado state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court issued an order denying the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and the plaintiff filed a notice [...]

Continue Reading

This Week in 340B: March 10 – March 16, 2026

by Emily Jane Cook, Matthew David, Abygail Hoey, Margaret Houtz and Kelsey Reinhardt | Mar 18, 2026 | 340B

Find the week’s updates on 340B litigation to help you stay in the know on how 340B cases are developing across the country. Each week we comb through the dockets of more than 50 340B cases to provide you with a quick summary of relevant updates from the prior week in this industry-shaping body of litigation. Get more details on these 340B cases and all other material 340B cases pending in federal and state courts with the 340B Litigation Tracker.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy; Other

In a case brought by a 340B covered entity to challenge the Exclusion Rule, the defendant filed its response to the covered entity plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
In a case by a covered entity against a drug manufacturer alleging breach of contract, the court granted the covered entity’s motion to remand back to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Tennessee state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendant filed a reply supporting review of the order denying a stay of discovery.
In a case brought by a trade association for drug manufacturers challenging an Oregon state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendants filed a reply supporting summary judgment.
In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging an Oregon state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendants filed a reply supporting summary judgment.
In a [...]

Continue Reading

This Week in 340B: March 3 – March 9, 2026

by Emily Jane Cook, Abygail Hoey, Margaret Houtz, Sydney Merritt Martinez, Kelsey Reinhardt and Nadine Tejadilla | Mar 11, 2026 | 340B

Find the week’s updates on 340B litigation to help you stay in the know on how 340B cases are developing across the country. Each week we comb through the dockets of more than 50 340B cases to provide you with a quick summary of relevant updates from the prior week in this industry-shaping body of litigation. Get more details on these 340B cases and all other material 340B cases pending in federal and state courts with the 340B Litigation Tracker.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy; Anti-Trust; Child Sites

In a case challenging a proposed West Virginia state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, plaintiffs-appellees filed a response in opposition to the government’s motion to strike.
In an anti-trust class action case, the court issued an order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
In a case against the government filed by a group of 340B covered entities seeking relief from the government’s change in its policy on child sites, the court granted the covered entity plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied the government’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Hawaii state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court issued a stipulation and order withdrawing the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
In a case brought by a trade association for drug manufacturers challenging a Maine state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the United States filed an Amicus Curiae brief in support of plaintiff appellant.