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.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy; Other

• In an appealed qui tam action alleging that various drug manufacturers failed to charge accurate ceiling prices to 340B Covered Entities, the appellees filed an answering brief.
• In nine cases challenging proposed state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Mississippi, Louisiana, Minnesota, West Virginia and Missouri:
  • LA: The plaintiff filed an appeal.
  • MN: The defendant in two related cases filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss.
  • WV: The defendant in three cases filed notices of supplemental authority
  • MO:
    • In one case, three amici filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief with the court, defendants filed a memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss, two intervenors filed a verified motion to intervene and suggestions in support, and plaintiffs filed a response to defendant’s motion to dismiss.
    • In another case, plaintiffs filed a response to defendant’s motion to transfer.
  • MS: The defendant filed a reply in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.