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; Rebate Model

• In two cases challenging a North Dakota state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendants filed a reply.
• A 340B Covered Entity filed a complaint against the government to challenge a Medicare reimbursement rule.
• A drug manufacturer filed a complaint to challenge a New Mexico state law governing contract pharmacy arrangement.
• In a case challenging a Mississippi state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment.
• In a case challenging the government’s rebate model pilot program, the court voluntarily dismissed the appeal.
• In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging an Oklahoma state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendant filed a reply to the response to motion.
• In a case brought by a trade association of drug manufacturers challenging a Maine state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

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; Rebate Model

• In a case challenging a Vermont law, the government moved to file an amicus brief.
• In a case challenging a North Dakota state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed a response to the court’s order to show cause concerning consolidation.
• In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging an Oklahoma state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendant filed a motion for protective order and to stay discovery and the plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to the defendant’s renewed motion to stay discovery and for protective order.
• In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Hawaii state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed a brief in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction.
• In a case brought by a trade association of drug manufacturers challenging an Oregon state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendants moved for summary judgment.
• In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging an [...]
  
  Continue Reading

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 [...]
    
    Continue Reading