Eli Lilly & Co. v. Cochran

5 Citing cases

  1. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.

    570 F. Supp. 3d 129 (D.N.J. 2021)   Cited 9 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Lacking an opportunity to engage in the comment process, Lilly's rights and interests [were] violated." Eli Lilly & Co. v. Cochran , 526 F.Supp.3d 393, 407 (S.D. Ind. 2021). The court went on to enjoin HHS from implementing or enforcing the ADR Rule during the pendency of that case and as between those parties.

  2. LSP Transmission Holdings II, LLC v. Huston

    1:24-cv-01722-TWP-MG (S.D. Ind. Dec. 6, 2024)

    These remaining factors merge when, as here, the government is a defendant. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Cochran, 526 F.Supp.3d 393, 409 (S.D. Ind. 2021).

  3. Tsahas v. Cmty. Found. of Nw. Ind.

    2:21 CV 279 (N.D. Ind. Jul. 25, 2023)

    A provider may either receive a discount under § 340B or Indiana Medicaid, but not both. 42 U.S.C. § 256b(a)(5)(A); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Cochran, 526 F.Supp.3d 393, 398 (S.D. Ind. 2021). While the MDRP is certainly related to the 340B Program (a drug manufacturer must participate in the 340B Program in order to participate in the MDRP, 42 U.S.C. § 1396r-8(a)(5)), the MDRP is a separate statute and functions differently from § 340B. The 340B Program establishes ceiling prices for drugs sold to providers, and the MDRP requires manufacturers to provide a rebate to the States.

  4. AstraZeneca Pharm. v. Becerra

    C. A. 21-27-LPS (D. Del. Feb. 16, 2022)   Cited 1 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Other drug manufacturers filed similar suits in other district courts. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Cochran, No. 1:21-cv-00081-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind.); Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 3:21-cv-00634-FLW-LHG (D.N.J.); Novo Nordisk Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 3:21-cv-00806-FLW-LHG (D.N.J.); Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Espinosa, No. 21-cv-14979-DLF (D.D.C.); United Therapeutics Corp. v. Espinosa, No. 21-cv-1686-DLF (D.D.C.). A trade association representing multiple drug manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, brought another own suit against the government.

  5. AstraZeneca Pharm. LP v. Becerra

    543 F. Supp. 3d 47 (D. Del. 2021)   Cited 9 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Astra, Santa Clara County sued pharmaceutical companies participating in the Section 340B program for overcharges on covered drugs.

    The administrative record contains no indication that the government ever grappled with these practical problems with the ADR process. See generallyEli Lilly & Co. v. Cochran , 526 F.Supp.3d 393, 404–08, 410 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 16, 2021) (preliminarily enjoining government from enforcing ADR Rule against drug manufacturer given likelihood that ADR Rule is procedurally defective). C. AstraZeneca's Challenge Is Not Time-Barred