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. 

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy; Other

• In a case brought by a 340B covered entity to challenge the Exclusion Rule, the defendant filed its response to the covered entity plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
• In a case by a covered entity against a drug manufacturer alleging breach of contract, the court granted the covered entity’s motion to remand back to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Tennessee state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendant filed a reply supporting review of the order denying a stay of discovery.
• In a case brought by a trade association for drug manufacturers challenging an Oregon state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendants filed a reply supporting summary judgment.
• In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging an Oregon state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendants filed a reply supporting summary judgment.
• In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Rhode Island state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendants‑appellees filed a brief requesting affirmance of the denial of a preliminary injunction.