This special issue of This Week in 340B covers December 16, 2025 – January 5, 2026. 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 North Dakota state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements:
- Plaintiffs filed responses to summary judgment motions;
- The courts ordered the parties to show cause as to why the cases should not be consolidated; and
- The defendants filed a response agreeing to consolidation.
- In a case brought by a 340B Covered Entity alleging breach of contract by an insurer, the insurer filed a motion to dismiss.
- In a case challenging the government’s rebate model pilot program:
- Defendant filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction;
- Plaintiff filed an omnibus opposition to a number of motions to intervene filed by proposed intervenors;
- Proposed intervenors filed a brief in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction;
- Proposed intervenors filed a reply in support of their motions to intervene;
- Plaintiff filed a reply in support of its motion for preliminary injunction;
- The court defined proposed intervenors’ motions to intervene and granted them leave to proceed as amici curiae;
- The court granted plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction;
- Defendant filed a notice of appeal from the court’s granting of the preliminary injunction; and
- Proposed intervenors filed a notice of appeal from the court’s denial of their motions to intervene.
- In one case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Maine state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements:
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss; and
- Amici Curiae filed a brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss.
- In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Colorado state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements:
- The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction;
- The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; and
- Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss.
- In one case by a trade association of drug manufacturers challenging a Rhode Island state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements:
- The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island entered judgment in favor of defendants; and
- Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- In one case brought by a trade association for drug manufacturers challenging an Oklahoma state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendant filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
- In a case against HRSA challenging its certification of a group of entities as 340B-eligible, an intervenor filed a reply in support of its motion to intervene.
- In two cases challenging a South Dakota state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and defendant filed a motion to dismiss, along with a brief in support of defendant’s motion to dismiss.
- In a case challenging a Vermont state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the government filed an opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and a motion to dismiss, amici filed a brief in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, and the court granted an unopposed motion for leave to file an amicus brief.
- In a case challenging a Missouri state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, various non-parties and intervenors opposed plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with third-party subpoenas and plaintiffs filed reply suggestions in support of its motion to compel compliance with third party subpoenas.
- In a consolidated case challenging a Nebraska state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
