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 injunction.
- In two appealed cases challenging the 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program, the First Circuit vacated the district court’s order denying intervention by a group of manufacturers and dismissed their appeal.
- In a qui tam action arguing that private parties can bring suits to enforce the 340B Statute, a defendant was dismissed from the case without prejudice.
- 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 motion to dismiss and an amicus brief was filed in support of the drug manufacturer’s motion to dismiss.
