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 by a covered entity against an insurance company alleging breach of contract, the insurance company filed an amended answer and counterclaims to the covered entity’s complaint.
• In a case brought by a 340B Covered Entity against the government to challenge the government’s policy regarding GPO arrangements, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal pursuant to their settlement agreement.
• In one appealed case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Tennessee state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff-appellants filed their opening brief, and in a second, similarly appealed case, the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff-appellants.
• In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Colorado state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
• In two cases brought by a drug manufacturer challenging an Oregon state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, defendants filed a motion for summary judgement and opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary [...]
  
  Continue Reading

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 against HRSA challenging its certification of a group of entities as 340B-eligible, the federal government and intervenor-defendant each filed a reply in support of the federal government’s motion for summary judgment.
• In a case challenging the government’s rebate model pilot program, the plaintiff-appellees filed a brief regarding the district court’s denial of a motion to intervene filed by a group of drug manufacturers and a trade association of trade manufacturers.
• In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging an Oregon state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, intervenor Oregon Primary Care Association filed a reply in support of its cross-motion for summary judgment.
• In a case brought by a drug manufacturer against the federal government, the intervenor-defendant filed a summary judgement reply brief and the defendant filed a reply in further support of the defendants’ motion for summary judgement.
• In a consolidated case brought by a drug manufacturer and trade association for drug manufacturers challenging a Hawaii state [...]
  
  Continue Reading

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 trade association of drug manufacturers challenging an Oregon state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, intervenor Oregon Primary Care Association filed a reply in support of its cross-motion for summary judgment.
• In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a New Mexico state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.
• In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Hawaii state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed a stipulated motion to hold the case in abeyance. On May 29, 2026, the court granted the motion.
• In an appealed case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Tennessee state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff-appellant filed a brief.
• In a case challenging a state law in Maryland, the court granted an order to rehear the case en banc.
• In a case brought by 340B covered entities against a group of pharmacy benefit managers and their [...]
  
  Continue Reading

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 against HRSA challenging its certification of a group of entities as 340B-eligible, plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for summary judgment.
• In a consolidated case brought by a drug manufacturer and a trade association for drug manufacturers challenging a Hawaii state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiffs filed a response to a third-party motion to quash.
• In a case brought by a drug manufacturer against the federal government, the plaintiff filed a reply in support of a motion for summary judgment and in opposition to the defendants’ and intervenor’s cross-motions for summary judgment.
• In a consolidated case brought by drug manufacturers and a trade association for drug manufacturers challenging a Washington state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiffs filed replies in support of their preliminary injunctions, and a group of amici filed an amici curiae brief.
• In three separate complaints, 340B covered entities sued a group of pharmacy benefit managers and their vertically-integrated [...]
  
  Continue Reading

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

• In one case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a New Mexico state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed a notice of supplemental authority.
• In one case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Utah law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the state government filed a motion to dismiss.
• In one case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Washington state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the state filed an opposition to the drug manufacturer’s motion for preliminary injunction.
• In one case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Mississippi state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing en banc.
• In two cases brought by a drug manufacturer challenging an Oregon law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgement.