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: ADR Rule; Medicare Payment; Contract Pharmacy; Other

• In a case concerning the ADR Rule, the parties filed a joint status report.
• In a breach of contract claim filed by a 340B Covered Entity against several related party Medicare Advantage plans, the court set trial for April 2026.
• In an antitrust case filed by a Covered Entity against a group of drug manufacturers, the manufacturers filed a joint brief of defendant-appellees.
• In a breach of contract claim filed by a complainant, the court issued a formal mandate for final judgment.
• In 12 cases challenging a proposed state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in West Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, and Kansas:
  1. WV: Defendants in three cases filed notices of supplemental authority. In one of those cases, plaintiffs filed a response.
  2. MD: Defendants filed a memorandum opposing plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery.
  3. MS: Plaintiffs in each of two cases filed their opening briefs in the Fifth Circuit Court.
  4. MO: Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss. In a separate case, defendants filed a motion to transfer venue.
  5. KS: Four drug manufacturers filed separate responses to the court’s order to show cause to consolidate the four cases. Each drug manufacturer did not oppose consolidation for administrative purposes only and each requested the right to retain separate complaints and the right to brief and argue separately.