Фармацевтические компании и производители лекарств обжалуют законы штатов о контрактных аптеках в рамках судебных разбирательств по программе 340B

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 an appealed case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a North Dakota state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the appellee filed its brief. - In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a New Mexico state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed a notice of supplemental authority. - In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Utah state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed a notice of supplemental authority. - In a qui tam action arguing that private parties can bring suits to enforce the 340B Statute, the plaintiff-relators filed an opposition brief to defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. - In an appealed case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Missouri state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, defendant-appellees and amici filed briefs in opposition to en banc review. - A 340B covered entity sued a group of pharmacy benefit managers and their vertically-integrated pharmacies, alleging a breach of contract and violation of state laws. - In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging an Illinois state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. - In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Mississippi state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.