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 challenging a South Dakota law, the court granted the South Dakota state government’s motion to dismiss.
- Three separate drug manufacturers filed complaints against the Illinois Attorney General to challenge an Illinois state law governing contract pharmacy arrangement.
- A 340B covered entity filed a complaint against a drug manufacturer to challenge 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.
- In a case brought by a drug manufacturer seeking judgment on its interpretation of the definition of “patient”, the manufacturer filed a memorandum in opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss and an opposition to motion to intervene, and the proposed intervenors filed a reply in support of their joint motion to intervene.
- In four separate cases brought by 340B covered entities against a group of pharmacy benefit managers and their vertically-integrated pharmacies alleging a breach of contract and violation of state laws, the group of pharmacy benefit managers filed motions to dismiss in each case.
- In a case brought by a 340B covered entity against the federal government to challenge the Exclusion Rule, the court granted the covered entity’s motion for summary judgment.
- In [four] appealed cases challenging the federal government’s decision not to approve a drug manufacturer’s rebate model, the D.C. Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s opinion denying the manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment and granting the federal government’s cross motion for summary judgment.
- In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging an Oregon state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, plaintiff filed a combined opposition to defendants’ and intervenor’s motions for summary judgment and reply in support of its own motion for summary judgment.
- In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Maine state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine issued an order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.
- In a case by a covered entity against an insurance company alleging breach of contract, the parties stipulated to dismiss the action with prejudice.
- In four cases brought by drug manufacturers challenging a Utah state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the Utah state government filed a memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss.
- In two appealed cases brought by drug manufacturers challenging a Tennessee state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff-appellants filed their reply briefs.
- In a consolidated case brought by a drug manufacturer and a trade association for drug manufacturers challenging a Hawaii state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion to compel discovery from a nonparty third party administrator; the court granted in part and denied in part a third-party motion to quash; and the court held in abeyance the plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery from two nonparties.
- In three cases brought by drug manufacturers challenging a Missouri state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, amici filed a brief in support of appellant and rehearing en banc, in a second case plaintiffs and defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to amended motions to dismiss and a reply memorandum in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss, respectively, and, in a third case, defendants, plaintiffs, and amici filed separate briefs in support of motions for summary judgment.
