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, a subscription product from McDermott+.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy

• In a case challenging proposed state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and suggestion in support of the motion.
• In 5 cases challenging proposed state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements:
  • The plaintiff filed a motion to compel compliance with a subpoena and a putative intervenor filed a reply in support of its motion to intervene;
  • The plaintiff filed a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court;
  • Defendants filed omnibus memorandums in support of their motions to dismiss PhRMA’s claims and opposing PhRMA and AbbVie’s preliminary injunction motions in three related cases. In one of those three cases, defendants additionally filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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, a subscription product from McDermott+.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy

• A drug manufacturer filed suit against the Kansas attorney general to challenge a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements.
• A 340B Covered Entity filed suit against HRSA to challenge HRSA’s authorization of an audit request by a drug manufacturer.
• In six separate cases challenging state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements:
  1. 1. A defendant filed a motion to dismiss and a notice of related cases;
     2. A defendant filed a motion to dismiss and a notice of related cases;
     3. A plaintiff filed an opposition to a putative intervenor’s motion to intervene; a putative intervenor filed a motion for leave to file a reply in support of its motion to intervene; four respondents filed a joint motion to quash subpoenas seeking non-party discovery; and a plaintiff filed a motion to compel compliance with a subpoena;
     4. Defendants filed a reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint.
     5. A group of five amici filed [...]
        
        Continue Reading

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, a subscription product from McDermott+.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy; Other

• A drug manufacturer filed suit against the Kansas attorney general to challenge a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements.
• In an appealed qui tam action arguing that private parties can bring suits to enforce the 340B Statute, the appellant-relator filed its opening brief, and four amicis filed briefs in support of the appellant-relator.
• In four cases challenging separate state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements:
  1. The defendants filed a reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, and the plaintiff filed a response to defendants’ motion to consolidate this case with three other similarly situated cases;
  2. The defendants filed a memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint;
  3. The parties filed a joint motion to stay proceedings; and
  4. The defendant filed a motion to stay proceedings.

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, a subscription product from McDermott+.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy; Other

• In a case challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel compliance with third-party subpoenas and a covered entity moved to intervene as a defendant.
• In a case challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed a memorandum in support of its motion for preliminary injunctive relief and in opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss.
• In a case challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a memorandum of law in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
• In an appealed qui tam action alleging that various drug manufacturers failed to charge accurate ceiling prices to 340B Covered Entities, the plaintiff-realtor filed its opening brief.
• In a case challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendant filed its answer to the plaintiff’s complaint and the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
• A drug [...]
  
  Continue Reading