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 two cases against HRSA challenging its certification of a group of entities as 340B-eligible, the court ordered that the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.
- In a case brought by drug manufacturers challenging a Missouri state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, defendants, plaintiffs, and intervenors each filed separate suggestions in opposition of motions for summary judgment in response to motions for summary judgment filed by other parties to the lawsuit.
- In an appealed case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a North Dakota state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court granted appellants’ motion for stay.
- One drug manufacturer and a trade association for drug manufacturers filed complaints against the Illinois Attorney General to challenge an Illinois state law governing contract pharmacy arrangement.
- In four separate cases brought by drug manufacturers challenging an Illinois state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, each of the drug manufacturer plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
- In a case brought by a drug manufacturer seeking judgment on its interpretation of the definition of “patient”, the proposed intervenors filed a reply in support of their motion to intervene.
