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 three 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 covered entity plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss in each case.
- In an appealed case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Missouri state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, defendant-appellees and intervenors-appellees filed responses in opposition to en banc review.
- In a case challenging defendants’ alleged diversion of 340B savings, plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss.
- In three cases brought by a drug manufacturer challenging an Illinois state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court granted a motion to reassign cases as related for all further proceedings.
- In a case brought by a trade association for drug manufacturers challenging an Illinois state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court granted a motion to reassign cases as related for all further proceedings and the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
- In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Colorado state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice and closed the case.
- In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a New Mexico state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendant’s filed a response to the plaintiff’s notice of supplemental authority.
- In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Utah state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendant filed a response to the plaintiff’s notice of supplemental authority.
- In three cases brought by drug manufacturers challenging a Utah state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendant filed a notice of supplemental authority.
- In two cases brought by drug manufacturers challenging an Oregon state law governing contract pharmacy arrangement, Oregon Primary Care Association filed a reply in support of its cross-motion for summary judgement.
- In two cases brought by drug manufacturers challenging an Oregon state law governing contract pharmacy arrangement, defendants filed a reply in support of their motion for summary judgement.
