340B litigation Archives | Page 2 of 12 | HEALTH & LIFE SCIENCES NEWS

This Week in 340B: Holiday Season Overview

by Emily Jane Cook, Jae Hyun Lee, Kelsey Reinhardt, Abygail Hoey and Deepika Raj | Jan 7, 2026 | 340B

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

This Week in 340B: October 7 –13, 2025

by Emily Jane Cook, Reuben Bank, Matthew David, Jae Hyun Lee, Deepika Raj and Kelsey Reinhardt | Oct 16, 2025 | 340B

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.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy; Other

In one case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a North Dakota state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendants filed their answer.
In one case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Missouri state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff-appellant filed their reply brief.
In one case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging an Oklahoma state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
In one case brought by a trade association of drug manufacturers challenging a Rhode Island state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
In one case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Maine state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court granted the parties’ motion to stay pending resolution of the plaintiff’s appeal.
In one case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Colorado state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, a group of amici filed a supplemental amicus curiae brief in support [...]

Continue Reading

This Week in 340B: September 30 – October 6, 2025

by Emily Jane Cook, Reuben Bank, Matthew David and Kelsey Reinhardt | Oct 8, 2025 | 340B

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.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy

In four cases challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Utah, two plaintiffs filed a response to the government’s notice of supplemental authority, one plaintiff filed a notice of supplemental authority, and one defendant filed a notice of supplemental authority in support of their motion to dismiss.
In a case by a drug manufacturer challenging an Arkansas state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court denied the intervenor-defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
A trade association for drug manufacturers filed a cases in Oregon and a case in Rhode Island to challenge state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements.
A drug manufacturer filed a case in Maine and a case in Oklahoma to challenge state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements.
In one case by a drug manufacturer challenging a Colorado state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
In one case by a trade association for drug manufacturers challenging a Colorado state law [...]

Continue Reading

This Week in 340B: September 23 – 29, 2025

by Emily Jane Cook, Reuben Bank, Matthew David, Jae Hyun Lee, Deepika Raj and Kelsey Reinhardt | Oct 1, 2025 | 340B

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.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy; HRSA Audit Process; Other

In two cases challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Nebraska, the defendant filed a supplemental reply to plaintiff’s response in opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss.
In a case challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Missouri, amici filed a supplemental brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss, defendants filed a reply memorandum in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss, and proposed intervenors filed reply suggestions in support of proposed intervenors’ motion to intervene.
In three cases challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Maine, one plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction and in two cases, the court denied each plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and each plaintiff appealed the decision.
In one case challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Colorado, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss.
In one case challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Rhode Island, the plaintiff filed [...]

Continue Reading

This Week in 340B: September 16 – 22, 2025

by Emily Jane Cook, Reuben Bank, Matthew David, Margaret Houtz, Deepika Raj and Kelsey Reinhardt | Sep 24, 2025 | 340B

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.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy; Other; HRSA Audit Process

In two cases challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Missouri, the parties filed an unopposed motion to stay proceedings, which the court granted, and plaintiffs filed memoranda in opposition to proposed intervenors’ motion to intervene and in opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss.
In one case challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Nebraska, the plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss.
In three cases challenging a Utah state law, the defendants filed a notice of supplemental authority in support of their motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs filed response to the notices of supplemental authority.
In four cases challenging HRSA’s audit process, the appellate court denied the plaintiff-appellants’ emergency motions for stay or injunction pending appeal.
In a case challenging a state law in Tennessee, the plaintiff filed a reply in support of its first amended complaint.
In a case by a drug manufacturer against the government, [...]

Continue Reading

This Week in 340B: September 9 – 15, 2025

by Emily Jane Cook, Reuben Bank, Matthew David, Margaret Houtz, Deepika Raj, Kelsey Reinhardt and Nadine Tejadilla | Sep 17, 2025 | 340B

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.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy; HRSA Audit Process; Other

In a case challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Tennessee, the defendant filed a response in opposition to the plaintiff’s amended complaint.
In a case challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Utah, the defendant filed a notice of supplemental authority.
In four cases challenging the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) audit process, the defendant filed an opposition to the plaintiffs’ emergency motions for stay or injunction pending appeal, and the plaintiffs filed a joint reply to the opposition.
In two cases challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Nebraska, plaintiffs filed a response to defendant’s supplemental brief.
In one case challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Missouri, amici filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental amicus brief in support of defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
In a case by a covered entity against an insurance company alleging breach of contract, the [...]

Continue Reading

This Week in 340B: September 2 – 8, 2025

by Emily Jane Cook, Reuben Bank, Matthew David and Deepika Raj | Sep 11, 2025 | 340B

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.

Issues at Stake: HRSA Audit Process; Contract Pharmacy; Other

In three cases challenging the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) audit process, the plaintiff-appellants filed a motion to stay the lower court’s order granting the government’s motion to dismiss pending appeal.
In two cases challenging a Nebraska law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, defendants filed a brief in opposition to the amended complaint.
In one case challenging a Missouri law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s first amended complaint, proposed intervenors filed a motion to intervene, and intervenors filed a brief in support of their motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended complaint.
In a case challenging an Arkansas state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the drug manufacturer filed a brief in support of its motion for summary judgment.
In a case by a covered entity against an insurance company alleging breach of contract, the court denied in part and granted in part the insurance company’s motion to dismiss.

This Week in 340B: August 26 – September 1, 2025

by Emily Jane Cook, Reuben Bank, Jae Hyun Lee, Margaret Houtz, Deepika Raj and Kelsey Reinhardt | Sep 3, 2025 | 340B

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.

Issues at Stake: Rebate Model; Contract Pharmacy

In six appealed cases related to rebate models, plaintiff-appellants filed their reply briefs.
In a case challenging a Tennessee state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint and the defendant filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss.
In a case challenging a Utah bill governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendant filed a response to the plaintiff’s notice of supplemental authority.
In a case challenging a Missouri state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, amici filed an amicus brief in support of the defendants.
In a case challenging a Hawaii state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed a reply brief to its motion for preliminary injunction.
A drug manufacturer filed two separate lawsuits in Hawaii and Tennessee to challenge state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements.

This Week in 340B: August 19 – 25, 2025

by Emily Jane Cook, Reuben Bank, Matthew David, Deepika Raj and Kelsey Reinhardt | Aug 27, 2025 | 340B

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.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy; Other

In one case challenging a Utah bill, the plaintiff filed a notice of supplemental authority and the government filed a response to the notice of supplemental authority.
In two cases challenging a Nebraska bill, the court granted the government’s unopposed motion to consolidate the cases. In one case, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
In one case challenging a Missouri bill, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief.
In a case challenging an Arkansas state law, the drug manufacturer filed a sealed motion for summary judgment.
In a case by a covered entity against an insurance company alleging breach of contract, the insurance company filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
In four cases challenging Oregon, Maine, and Oklahoma state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements:
- Oklahoma: In one case, the defendant filed a response in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and in another case, the plaintiff filed [...]
  
  Continue Reading

This Week in 340B: August 12 – 18, 2025

by Emily Jane Cook and Kelsey Reinhardt | Aug 21, 2025 | Uncategorized

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.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy

In three cases challenging Oklahoma, Colorado, and Maine state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements:
- Oklahoma: The defendant filed a response in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.
- Colorado: The plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
- Maine: The plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
Two drug manufacturers filed two separate complaints in Maine and South Dakota to challenge state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements.

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS