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.

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 seven cases challenging a proposed state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Arkansas, Missouri, Maryland, and West Virginia:
  • AR: The plaintiff filed an opposition to the intervenor’s motion to dismiss.
  • MO: The plaintiff filed a response in opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss and a response in opposition to defendant’s motion to transfer venue. In the same case, a group of three amici filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s motion to dismiss and opposition to plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
  • MD: The defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint.
  • WV: In two cases, defendants filed answers to plaintiff’s complaints, and plaintiffs filed replies in support of their motions for preliminary injunctions. In a third case, defendants filed an answer to plaintiff’s complaint. In a fourth case, plaintiff filed a combined memorandum in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction and in opposition to [...]
    
    Continue Reading

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 seven cases challenging proposed state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements:
  • The plaintiff filed an opposition to the respondents’ motion to quash its subpoenas; the court granted a purported intervenor’s motion to intervene; the intervenor filed a motion to dismiss; the intervenor filed an answer in intervention to the plaintiff’s amended complaint; and a respondent filed an additional motion to quash a subpoena issued by the plaintiff.
  • Defendants filed omnibus memorandums in support of their motions to dismiss PhRMA’s claims and opposing PhRMA and AbbVie’s preliminary injunction motions in three related cases. In one of those three cases, defendants additionally filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
  • The plaintiff filed an amended complaint and a reply memorandum in support of its motion for preliminary injunction.
  • The plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a surreply in response to defendants’ reply in support of their motion to dismiss, and defendants filed a [...]
    
    Continue Reading

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 a case challenging proposed state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and suggestion in support of the motion.
• In 5 cases challenging proposed state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements:
  • The plaintiff filed a motion to compel compliance with a subpoena and a putative intervenor filed a reply in support of its motion to intervene;
  • The plaintiff filed a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court;
  • Defendants filed omnibus memorandums in support of their motions to dismiss PhRMA’s claims and opposing PhRMA and AbbVie’s preliminary injunction motions in three related cases. In one of those three cases, defendants additionally filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

• A drug manufacturer filed suit against the Kansas attorney general to challenge a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements.
• A 340B Covered Entity filed suit against HRSA to challenge HRSA’s authorization of an audit request by a drug manufacturer.
• In six separate cases challenging state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements:
  1. 1. A defendant filed a motion to dismiss and a notice of related cases;
     2. A defendant filed a motion to dismiss and a notice of related cases;
     3. A plaintiff filed an opposition to a putative intervenor’s motion to intervene; a putative intervenor filed a motion for leave to file a reply in support of its motion to intervene; four respondents filed a joint motion to quash subpoenas seeking non-party discovery; and a plaintiff filed a motion to compel compliance with a subpoena;
     4. Defendants filed a reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint.
     5. A group of five amici filed [...]
        
        Continue Reading

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

• A drug manufacturer filed suit against the Kansas attorney general to challenge a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements.
• In an appealed qui tam action arguing that private parties can bring suits to enforce the 340B Statute, the appellant-relator filed its opening brief, and four amicis filed briefs in support of the appellant-relator.
• In four cases challenging separate state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements:
  1. The defendants filed a reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, and the plaintiff filed a response to defendants’ motion to consolidate this case with three other similarly situated cases;
  2. The defendants filed a memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint;
  3. The parties filed a joint motion to stay proceedings; and
  4. The defendant filed a motion to stay proceedings.