HEALTH & LIFE SCIENCES NEWS

This Week in 340B: August 11 – 17, 2026

by Emily Jane Cook, Matthew David, Jae Hyun Lee, Sydney Merritt Martinez, Deepika Raj, Kelsey Reinhardt and Nadine Tejadilla | Aug 20, 2026 | 340B

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 two cases against HRSA challenging its certification of a group of entities as 340B-eligible, the court ordered that the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.
In a case brought by drug manufacturers challenging a Missouri state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, defendants, plaintiffs, and intervenors each filed separate suggestions in opposition of motions for summary judgment in response to motions for summary judgment filed by other parties to the lawsuit.
In an appealed case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a North Dakota state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court granted appellants’ motion for stay.
One drug manufacturer and a trade association for drug manufacturers filed complaints against the Illinois Attorney General to challenge an Illinois state law governing contract pharmacy arrangement.
In four separate cases brought by drug manufacturers challenging an Illinois state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, each of the drug manufacturer plaintiffs filed a motion for [...]

Continue Reading

This Week in 340B: July 27 – August 10, 2026

by Emily Jane Cook, Reuben Bank, Matthew David, Abygail Hoey, Margaret Houtz, Jae Hyun Lee, Sydney Merritt Martinez, Deepika Raj, Kelsey Reinhardt and Nadine Tejadilla | Aug 12, 2026 | 340B

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 two cases challenging a South Dakota law, the court granted the South Dakota state government’s motion to dismiss.
Three separate drug manufacturers filed complaints against the Illinois Attorney General to challenge an Illinois state law governing contract pharmacy arrangement.
A 340B covered entity filed a complaint against a drug manufacturer to challenge 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.
In a case brought by a drug manufacturer seeking judgment on its interpretation of the definition of “patient”, the manufacturer filed a memorandum in opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss and an opposition to motion to intervene, and the proposed intervenors filed a reply in support of their joint motion to intervene.
In four separate cases brought by 340B covered entities against a group of pharmacy benefit managers and their vertically-integrated pharmacies alleging a breach of contract and violation of [...]

Continue Reading

This Week in 340B: July 14 – July 20, 2026

by Emily Jane Cook, Matthew David, Abygail Hoey, Margaret Houtz, Deepika Raj and Kelsey Reinhardt | Jul 22, 2026 | 340B

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 three cases brought by drug manufacturers challenging a Missouri state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, a plaintiff filed a petition to the Eighth Circuit for a rehearing en banc, intervenors filed a second motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, and, in a separate case, plaintiff, intervenors, and defendants each filed motions for summary judgment.
In two cases brought by covered entities against an insurance company alleging breach of contract, the covered entity voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice.
In one appealed case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Tennessee state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, a group of amici filed an amicus brief on behalf of defendant-appellee.
In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging an Oregon state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, a group of amici filed an amicus brief in support of defendants’ motion for summary judgement.
In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging an Oregon state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, [...]

Continue Reading

This Week in 340B: July 7 – July 13, 2026

by Emily Jane Cook, Margaret Houtz, Sydney Merritt Martinez and Deepika Raj | Jul 15, 2026 | 340B

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 a consolidated case brought by a drug manufacturer and a trade association for drug manufacturers challenging a Hawaii state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, two nonparties filed memoranda in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery.
In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Missouri state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendant filed an amended motion to dismiss.
In an appealed case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Tennessee state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendant-appellee filed a response brief.

This Week in 340B: June 30 – July 6, 2026

by Emily Jane Cook, Margaret Houtz, Jae Hyun Lee, Deepika Raj and Kelsey Reinhardt | Jul 10, 2026 | 340B

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 qui tam action arguing that private parties can bring suits to enforce the 340B Statute, the defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended complaint, and two individual defendants filed supplemental memorandums in support of defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss.
In three consolidated cases brought by a trade association and drug manufacturers challenging a Louisiana state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court entered its judgment.
In an appealed case challenging the 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program, the appellants filed a reply brief.
A covered entity filed a complaint against a drug manufacturer alleging that the covered entity is being denied access to 340B pricing due to data reporting requirements of the manufacturer.
In an appealed case challenging the district court’s denial of a drug manufacturer’s motion for a preliminary injunction, the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling.