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 a case challenging the 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program, two separate amicus curiae briefs were filed.
- In a case brought by a drug manufacturer against the government, a non-party filed a response to the defendants’ opposition to motion to intervene.
- 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 reply memorandum in support of their counter motion for summary judgment.
- In a case by a drug manufacturer challenging an Arkansas state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the drug manufacturer appealed the court’s judgment to the Eighth Circuit.
- In a qui tam action arguing that private parties can bring suits to enforce the 340B Statute, the plaintiff dismissed a defendant from the complaint.
- In a case challenging HRSA’s denial of a hospital’s request for retroactive 340B Disproportionate Share Hospital status, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and the federal government’s motion to dismiss.
- In a case by a covered entity against a drug manufacturer challenging the manufacturer’s policy of requiring the submission of detailed claims-level data as a condition of continuing to purchase covered outpatient drugs at the 340B ceiling price, an amicus curiae brief was filed in opposition to the covered entity’s motion for preliminary injunction.
