HEALTH & LIFE SCIENCES NEWS

This Week in 340B: October 20 – 26, 2026

by Emily Jane Cook, Matthew David and Kelsey Reinhardt | Oct 28, 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: Rebate Model; Other

In a case challenging the 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program, a group of amici filed an amicus curiae brief, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to a motion to intervene and the court granted the motion to intervene.
In a case by a covered entity against a drug manufacturer alleging that the covered entity is being wrongly denied access to 340B pricing, the drug manufacturer filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss and a group of amici filed an amici curiae brief in opposition to the drug manufacturer’s motion to dismiss.
In a case by a covered entity against a drug manufacturer challenging the manufacturer’s policy of requiring the submission of detailed claims-level data as a condition of continuing to purchase covered outpatient drugs at the 340B ceiling price, an amicus curiae brief was filed in opposition to the covered entity’s motion for preliminary injunction.

This Week in 340B: October 13 – 19, 2026

by Emily Jane Cook, Reuben Bank, Abygail Hoey, Deepika Raj and Nadine Tejadilla | Oct 21, 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 challenging HRSA’s denial of a hospital’s request for retroactive 340B Disproportionate Share Hospital status, the federal government filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss.
In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed an appeal of the court’s order denying preliminary injunction.
In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the state government filed a reply in support of the state government’s motion to amend the court’s dismissal order.
In a case brought against a drug manufacturer under state law causes of action alleging the drug manufacturer is abusing its market power by denying plaintiff access to discounted pricing and violations against state consumer protection laws, the plaintiff filed a motion in opposition of the defendant drug manufacturer’s motion to dismiss.
In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Hawaii state law governing contract [...]

Continue Reading

This Week in 340B: October 6 – 12, 2026

by Emily Jane Cook, Reuben Bank, Matthew David, Margaret Houtz, Kelsey Reinhardt and Nadine Tejadilla | Oct 15, 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; Rebate Model; Other

A trade association of covered entities filed a complaint against the government, arguing that the implementation of the revised rebate model pilot program is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed an opposition to the state government’s motion to amend.
In a case by a covered entity against a drug manufacturer challenging the manufacturer’s policy of requiring the submission of detailed claims-level data as a condition of continuing to purchase covered outpatient drugs at the 340B ceiling price, the drug manufacturer filed a surreply in opposition to the covered entity plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.
In a case challenging HRSA’s denial of a hospital’s request for retroactive 340B Disproportionate Share Hospital status, the plaintiff filed an opposition to the federal government’s motion to dismiss and reply in support of its motion for preliminary injunction.
In [...]

Continue Reading

This Week in 340B: September 29 – October 5, 2026

by Emily Jane Cook, Reuben Bank, Matthew David, Margaret Houtz, Jae Hyun Lee, Sydney Merritt Martinez, Kelsey Reinhardt and Nadine Tejadilla | Oct 7, 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 qui tam action arguing that private parties can bring suits to enforce the 340B Statute, a group of states as plaintiffs filed a notice of opposition to the dismissal of certain claims on the basis of the public disclosure bar.
In a case challenging HRSA’s denial of a hospital’s request for retroactive 340B Disproportionate Share Hospital status, the federal government filed a motion to dismiss.
In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Vermont state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and granted the state government’s partial motion to dismiss, and the state government filed a motion to amend the court’s order.
In a case brought by a trade association challenging a Mississippi state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendant filed a response.
In a case brought by a covered entity against the government, a non-party filed a reply in support of its motion to intervene.
In [...]

Continue Reading

This Week in 340B: September 22 – 28, 2026

by Emily Jane Cook, Matthew David, Margaret Houtz, Sydney Merritt Martinez, Deepika Raj and Kelsey Reinhardt | Sep 30, 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; Rebate Model; Other

In two cases brought by drug manufacturers challenging a Missouri state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court granted intervenors’ motion to intervene and, in a second case, issued a formal mandate.
In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Colorado state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
In a consolidated case brought by a drug manufacturer and trade association for drug manufacturers challenging a Hawaii state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendant filed a memorandum in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and counter motion for summary judgment.
In a case brought by a covered entity against the government, the plaintiff filed an opposition to the non-party’s motion to intervene.
In five cases brought by drug manufacturers and a trade association for drug manufacturers challenging an Illinois state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiffs filed a joint reply brief in support of motions for preliminary [...]

Continue Reading