/>iFind 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.
Issues at Stake: Other; Rebate Model; Antitrust; Contract Pharmacy; GPO Prohibition
- In a case by a covered entity against the government, the court denied the covered entity’s motion for preliminary injunction.
- In four appealed case against the government related to rebate models, the appellants filed an emergency motion to dismiss the cross appeals by intervenor-defendants, and four amicus curiae briefs were filed in support of the appellants.
- In a case challenging a state Medicaid 340B carve-out plan, the court entered a stipulation of discontinuance without prejudice.
- In one case against the government related to rebate models, the court issued its opinion which the plaintiff appealed, five amicus curiae briefs were filed in support of the plaintiff and two amicus briefs were filed in support of the defendants.
- In an antitrust class action case, the defendant filed a reply memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint.
- In one case challenging a state law in Tennessee, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, and in a second case, amici filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the defendant.
- Two drug manufacturers each filed a complaint to challenge Oklahoma state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements.
- In a case challenging the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) policy limiting the circumstances in which covered entities can use their group purchasing arrangements to purchase non-340B drugs, the defendant filed a reply in further support of their motion for summary judgment.
