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 a qui tam action arguing that private parties can bring suits to enforce the 340B Statute, a group of states as plaintiffs filed a notice of opposition to the dismissal of certain claims on the basis of the public disclosure bar.
- In a case challenging HRSA’s denial of a hospital’s request for retroactive 340B Disproportionate Share Hospital status, the federal government filed a motion to dismiss.
- In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Vermont state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and granted the state government’s partial motion to dismiss, and the state government filed a motion to amend the court’s order.
- In a case brought by a trade association challenging a Mississippi state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendant filed a response.
- In a case brought by a covered entity against the government, a non-party filed a reply in support of its motion to intervene.
- In a case brought by a drug manufacturer seeking judgment on its interpretation of the definition of “patient”, the plaintiff filed a reply in opposition to the intervenors’ motion to dismiss.
- In a case by a covered entity against a drug manufacturer alleging that the covered entity is being wrongly denied access to 340B pricing, two amicus curiae briefs were filed in support of the drug manufacturer’s motion to dismiss.
- In a case by a drug manufacturer challenging an Arkansas state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court denied the drug manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment.
