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 case brought by a drug manufacturer seeking judgment on its interpretation of the definition of “patient”, the intervenor-defendants filed a joint reply in support of motion to dismiss and the plaintiff filed a motion to strike or, in the alternative, for leave to file a surreply in opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
- The parties involved in an action brought by the State of Arkansas against a group of drug manufacturers alleging that the manufacturers’ restrictive 340B policies violate state law filed a joint motion to remove the case to federal court.
- In two cases brought by drug manufacturers challenging a Utah state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiffs filed responses to the defendant’s notice of supplemental authority.
- In a combined case brought by drug manufacturers challenging a New Mexico state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court granted American Hospital Association’s, 340B Health’s, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists’ motions for leave to file amicus curia briefs and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
- In a qui tam action arguing that private parties can bring suits to enforce the 340B Statute, the plaintiff-relators dismissed a defendant from the complaint.
- In two cases brought by drug manufacturers challenging a Missouri state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, plaintiff filed reply suggestions in support of summary judgment and, in a second case, amici filed a brief in support of appellees and opposing en banc review.
- In five cases brought by drug manufacturers and a trade association for drug manufacturers challenging an Illinois state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, amicus parties filed a motion to file an amicus brief and the motion was granted.
