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; Antitrust; Rebate Model
- In an appealed case challenging a West Virginia law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, amici filed amicus briefs in support of the plaintiff-appellee.
- A group of drug manufacturers filed a suit against the Utah Attorney General and Insurance Commissioner to challenge a Utah law restricting manufacturers’ ability to restrict contract pharmacy arrangements.
- In an antitrust class action case, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
- In two cases challenging a Minnesota law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court granted the government’s motion to dismiss.
- In a case by a drug manufacturer challenging an Arkansas state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the intervenor defendant filed a reply brief in response to the drug manufacturer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
- In six cases against the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) related to rebate models:
- In three cases, the plaintiffs filed a joint brief in opposition to Intervenor-defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment and reply in support of summary judgment.
- In three cases, the plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment and reply in support of summary judgment.
- In one case, the plaintiff filed a reply memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment and in opposition to the government’s cross-motion for summary judgment. In the same case, amici filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief in support of the government.
- In one case, the government filed a cross motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. In the same case, amici filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief in support of the government.
