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

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.

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 an appealed case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a North Dakota state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, a group of amici filed an amicus curiae brief.
• In five cases brought by drug manufacturers challenging a Utah state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiffs files opposition briefs to the state government’s motions to dismiss.
• In a case brought by a drug manufacturer seeking judgment on its interpretation of the definition of “patient”, a group of proposed intervenors filed a motion to intervene.
• In an appealed case challenging the 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program, a group of manufacturers filed a reply brief regarding the denial of their motion to intervene.
• In one appealed case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Tennessee state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendant-appellee filed a response brief.
• In a case brought by a group of 340B covered entities, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York issued a [...]
  
  Continue Reading