Find this 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 one case by a trade association of drug manufacturers challenging a Maine state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed a reply in support of its motion for preliminary injunction.
- In one case by a trade association of drug manufacturers challenging a Rhode Island state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendant filed a memorandum in objection to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.
- In one case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Hawaii state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendant filed a reply memorandum in support of the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
- In one case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Colorado state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
- In one case brought by a trade association for drug manufacturers challenging a Colorado state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendants filed a reply to response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
- In one case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Colorado state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendants filed a response to motion for preliminary injunction and amicus parties filed an amici curiae brief in support of defendants’ response in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.
- In one case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging an Oklahoma state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and enjoined the Attorney General from enforcing 36 O.S. §§ 5403, 5404(B) against plaintiffs while these cases are pending.
- In one case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging an Oklahoma state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, dismissing defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and enjoined the Attorney General from enforcing 36 O.S. §§ 5403, 5404(B) against plaintiffs while these cases are pending.
- In one case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging an Oklahoma state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendant filed an answer to the complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and enjoined the Attorney General from enforcing 36 O.S. §§ 5403, 5404(B) against plaintiffs while these cases are pending.
- In three cases brought by drug manufacturers challenging a Utah state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiffs filed notices of supplemental authority, and in one of those cases the government filed a response to the notice of supplemental authority.
- In one case by a covered entity against an insurance company alleging breach of contract, the insurance company filed an answer to the covered entity’s complaint.
- In one case by a drug manufacturer challenging an Arkansas state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the intervenor-defendant filed a sealed reply in support of summary judgment and reply in support of statement of undisputed facts
- A drug manufacturer filed suit in Oregon and Vermont to challenge state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements.
- A trade association for drug manufacturers field suit in Oklahoma to challenge a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements.
