Find this 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; Contract Pharmacy;
- In five appealed cases related to rebate models:
- In five cases, the appellant filed its brief.
- In three cases, the plaintiff-appellants filed a reply in support of their emergency motion to dismiss the cross-appeals.
- In one case challenging a state law in Tennessee, the defendant filed a response in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, and the plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss; and in a second case, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss.
- In a case challenging a South Dakota bill, amici filed a brief in support of the government’s motion to dismiss.
- In two cases challenging Nebraska’s state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court granted amici’s motion for leave to submit a brief of amicus curiae and, in a second case, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss.
- In one case challenging Missouri’s state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court dismissed without prejudice plaintiff’s complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, movant’s motion to intervene, and dismissed as moot defendant’s and movant’s motion to dismiss.
- A trade association representing drug manufacturer filed a complaint in Hawaii to challenge a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements.
- In a case challenging a Colorado state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
- In a case challenging an Oklahoma state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendant filed a response in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.
