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

1. In nine cases challenging proposed state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements in West Virginia, Missouri, Kansas, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals:
   1. MO: In one case, the proposed intervenors filed a motion to dismiss. In a second case, plaintiff filed suggestions in support of proposed intervenor’s motion to intervene.
   2. KS: Amici filed a motion to file an amicus brief.
   3. WV: Defendants in four separate cases filed identical motions to consolidate cases, along with supporting memoranda.
   4. Fifth Circuit: Defendants in two separate cases filed reply briefs.

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, a subscription product from McDermott+.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy; Other

• In an appealed action alleging that various drug manufacturers failed to charge accurate ceiling prices to 340B Covered Entities, the 340B Covered Entity plaintiff filed its reply brief.
• In seven cases challenging a proposed state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements:
  • LA: The plaintiff filed an appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
  • MO: The defendants filed a motion to transfer in one case and a motion to dismiss in a separate case. In a third case, amici filed a brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss and opposition to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.
  • AR: The court denied the intervenor’s motion to dismiss.
  • MN: In two cases, a group of amici filed an amici curiae brief in support of the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

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, a subscription product from McDermott+.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy

• In four DC district court cases challenging HRSA’s position on contract pharmacy arrangements, the court entered its final judgment.
• In seven cases challenging a proposed state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in West Virginia, Maryland, Minnesota, and Missouri:
  • WV: Defendants filed amended answers to complaints.
  • MD: The plaintiff filed a memorandum opposing defendants’ motion to dismiss.
  • MN: The defendant filed a motion to dismiss and the court scheduled a hearing on the motion to dismiss.
  • MO: Amici filed an amicus brief in support of defendant’s motion to dismiss in one case. In a second case, proposed intervenors filed a motion in support of its motion to intervene in the case. In the same case, defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.