Board of Governors Professor of Law
Michael A. Carrier
Rutgers Law School
217 N 5th St
Camden, NJ 08102

Michael A. Carrier is a leading authority in antitrust and intellectual property law with expertise in the pharmaceutical, high-technology, and music industries. He is a highly sought-after media expert and has frequently been cited by courts. He is a co-author of the leading IP/antitrust treatise and the author of more than 140 articles and book chapters.

  • Biography
  • Publications
  • Courses Taught
  • Expertise

Michael A. Carrier is a leading authority in antitrust and intellectual property law with expertise in the pharmaceutical, high-technology, sports, and music industries. He has been quoted more than 2000 times in media outlets including ABC, Bloomberg, CBS, Chicago Tribune,, CNN, Consumer Reports, C-SPAN, Economist, ESPN, Financial Times, Forbes, Fortune, Fox News, Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, Nature, NBC News, New York Times, NPR, PBS, Philadelphia Inquirer, San Francisco Chronicle, Sports Illustrated, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post.

Professor Carrier is a co-author of the leading IP/antitrust treatise, IP and Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles Applied to Intellectual Property Law (3d ed. 2017, with Hovenkamp, Janis, Lemley, and Leslie). He also is the author of Innovation for the 21st Century: Harnessing the Power of Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law (Oxford University Press 2009, paperback 2011) and the editor of Critical Concepts in Intellectual Property Law: Competition (Edward Elgar Publishing 2011).

He has written more than 140 book chapters and law review articles in leading journals including the Stanford Law Review, Michigan Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Cornell Law Review, Duke Law Journal, Vanderbilt Law Review, Minnesota Law Review, Iowa Law Review, Notre Dame Law Review, Boston University Law Review, Illinois Law Review, Emory Law Journal, and Wisconsin Law Review, as well as online journals at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Chicago, Columbia, Michigan, NYU, Penn, Northwestern, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

Professor Carrier’s scholarship has been cited in opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court, California Supreme Court, D.C. Circuit, Second Circuit, Third Circuit, Fourth Circuit, Tenth Circuit, district courts, International Trade Commission, and Federal Trade Commission, as well as in congressional hearings, government officials’ speeches, and congressional and government agency reports.

Carrier has testified before the House Energy & Commerce Committee (3x), Senate Judiciary Committee (2x), House Judiciary Committee, FDA, FTC, and National Academies, and has given talks to the Canadian Competition Bureau, U.S. Department of Justice, and state attorneys general.

He is a Contributing Editor of the Antitrust Law Journal; member of the Board of Advisors of the American Antitrust Institute; former policy volunteer on the 2020 Biden-Harris campaign; former participant on the ABA Antitrust 2016 Presidential Task Force; past chair of the Executive Committee of the Antitrust and Economic Regulation section of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS); and has written and submitted amicus briefs on behalf of antitrust/consumer organizations and hundreds of professors in the U.S. and California Supreme Courts and Federal, First, Second, Third, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits.

Professor Carrier is a summa cum laude graduate of Yale University and a cum laude graduate of Michigan Law School, where he was Book Review Editor of the law review. Before entering academia, he clerked for the Honorable John D. Butzner, Jr. on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and litigated antitrust, civil, intellectual property, and sports cases at Covington & Burling, in Washington, D.C.



IP and Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles Applied to Intellectual Property Law (3d ed. 2017 and annual updates, with Hovenkamp, Janis, Lemley, and Leslie), available here

Innovation for the 21st Century: Harnessing the Power of Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law, Oxford, available for purchase here

* Blog symposium on the book available here

Critical Concepts in Intellectual Property Law: Competition, Edward Elgar Publishing (editor, 2011), available here

Book chapters:

Intellectual Property, Global Dictionary of Competition Law (2021) (solicited)

Four Innovation Myths, Albert Foer Liber Amicorum, Concurrences (2020) (symposium), available here

  • Nominated for one of top antitrust articles of 2020

Product Hopping: The U.S. Approach, in EU Law of Competition and Trade in the Pharmaceutical Sector (Pablo Figueroa & Alejandro Perez editors, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019)

U.S. Intellectual Property and Competition Law, in The Interplay between Competition Law and Intellectual Property - An International Perspective (Gabriella Muscolo & Marina Tavassi editors, Kluwer, 2018) 

Introduction to Part II, in The Cambridge Handbook of Technical Standardization Law (Jorge Contreras editor, Cambridge University Press, 2017)

Drug Patent Settlements, in Cambridge University Press Antitrust Intellectual Property and High Tech Handbook (D. Daniel Sokol editor, Cambridge University Press, 2016)

Pharmaceutical Antitrust Law in the United States, in The Pharmaceutical Sector Between Patent Law and Competition Law: An International Perspective (Giovanni Pitruzzella & Gabriella Muscolo editors, Kluwer Law International, 2016)

Antitrust and Climate Change, in Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Climate Change (Josh Sarnoff editor, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016)

Antitrust Treatment of Intellectual Property Rights, in Research Handbook on Comparative Competition Law (Arlen Duke et al editors, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016)

Limiting Copyright Through Property, in Concepts of Property in Intellectual Property Law (Helena Howe editor, Cambridge University Press, 2013)

The Recess Appointments Clause, entry in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution (2nd ed. 2013)

Competition Law and Enforcement in the Pharmaceutical Industry, in International Research Handbook on Competition Law (Ariel Ezrachi editor, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2012)

Standard-Setting Analysis Under U.S. Law, in Intellectual Property and Competition Law: New Frontiers (Ariel Ezrachi and Steve Anderman eds., Oxford University Press 2010)

The Propertization of Copyright, in Intellectual Property and Information Wealth (Praeger, 2006)

The Recess Appointments Clause, in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution (2005)


Why is FRAND Hard?, 2023 Utah L. Rev. 931 (2023), available here

Patenting Strategies on Inhaler Delivery Devices (with Brandon J. Demkowicz, S. Sean Tu, Aaron S. Kesselheim, & William B. Feldman), CHEST (Feb. 2023), available here

Prior Bad Acts and Merger Review (with Gwendolyn J. Lindsay Cooley), 111 Georgetown Law Journal Online 106 (2022), available here

How the Federal Trade Commission Can Use Section 5 To Strengthen the Right to Repair, 37 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1145 (2022) (symposium), available here

  • Nominated for one of top antitrust articles of 2022

The Right to Repair, Competition, and Intellectual Property, Landslide Magazine (ABA Intellectual Property Section publication) (2022), available here

Back to 2012: The Seventh Circuit’s Reliance on Pre-Actavis Law in Dismissing Patent-Thicket Claims, Competition Policy International (Nov. 2022), available here

The Neglected Concern of Firm Size in Pharmaceutical Mergers (with Patricia Danzon), 84 Antitrust Law Journal 487 (2022), available here

  • Top Academic Antitrust article (Merger category) of 2022

Pharmaceutical Settlements and Judicial Error, Competition Policy International (May 2022), available here 

The US District Court for the Southern District of New York Imposes Lifetime Ban Against Pharmaceutical Executive and Requires $65 Million Payment for Antitrust Violation (Martin Shkreli), e-Competitions (No. 105456, Mar. 2022), available here

A Simple Solution to the Problem of “Product Hopping,” Harvard Health Policy Review, Dec. 2021, available here

  • Nominated for one of top antitrust articles of 2022

Patient and Payer Incentives to Use Patented Brand-Name Drugs vs Authorized Generic Drugs in Medicare Part D (with Stacie B. Dusetzina, Ameet Sarpatwari, Richard A. Hansen, Nancy L. Keating, and Haiden A. Huskamp), 181 JAMA Internal Medicine 1605 (Oct. 2021)

  • Cited in Policy Statement of the Federal Trade Commission on Rebates and Fees in Exchange for Excluding Lower-Cost Drug Products (2022)

An Antitrust Framework for False Advertising (with Rebecca Tushnet), 106 Iowa Law Review 1841 (2021), available here

  • Winner of American Antitrust Institute’s Jerry S. Cohen Award for best 2021 Antitrust Article on Monopolization
  • Nominated for one of top antitrust articles of 2020

Why The New Administration Should Bury the New Madison Approach, CPI Antitrust Chronicle (2021) (symposium), available here

The Alston Case: Why the NCAA Does Not Deserve Antitrust Immunity and Should Not Succeed Under a Rule-of-Reason Analysis (with Chris Sagers), 29 George Mason Law Review 1461 (2021), available here

  • Nominated for one of top antitrust articles of 2021

Pharmaceutical Antitrust Enforcement in the United States and Chile (with Fernando Araya), 8 Journal of Law and the Biosciences 1 (2021), available here  

Rescuing Antitrust’s Role in Patent Holdup, 168 University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online 238 (2021), available here

Pharmaceutical Antitrust: What the Biden Administration Can Do, Concurrences (2021)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Reverses a Judgment that Upheld “Skinny Labels” and Allowed the Generic To Launch on Uses Not Covered by a Patent (GlaxoSmithKline/Teva), e-Competitions (No. 98366, Dec. 2020)

Don’t Die! How Biosimilar Disparagement Violates Antitrust Law, 115 Northwestern University Law Review Online 119 (2020), available here

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Dismisses Antitrust Case Challenging Patent Thicket (Humira), e-Competitions (No. 96364, Sept. 2020), available here

Pay-for-Delay: Who Does the Generic Industry Lobby Represent?, CPI Antitrust Chronicle (May 2020), available here

Playing Both Sides? Branded Sales, Generic Drugs, and Merger Policy (with Mark A. Lemley & Shawn Miller), 71 Hastings Law Journal 307 (2020), available here

  • Nominated for one of top antitrust articles of 2019

Three Challenges for Pharmaceutical Antitrust, 59 Santa Clara Law Review 613 (2020) (symposium), available here

Big Tech, Antitrust, and Breakup, Georgetown Journal of International Affairs (January 2020), available here 

Why Absolutist Conceptions of Property Do Not Support the Antitrust Abandonment of Standards, 57 Houston Law Review 265 (2019) (symposium), available here

  • Nominated for one of top antitrust articles of 2019

Higher Drug Prices from Anticompetitive Conduct: Three Case Studies, 39 The Journal of Legal Medicine 151 (2019) (symposium)

Why the NCAA’s No-Transfer Rule Is No Good (with Marc Edelman), The University of Chicago Law Review Online (2019), available here

College Athletics: The Chink in the Seventh Circuit’s “Law and Economics” Armor (with Marc Edelman), 117 Michigan Law Review Online 90 (2019), available here

Don’t Ditch Antitrust’s Role in Product Hopping: A Response to Pace and Adam (with Steve D. Shadowen), 33 ANTITRUST 72 (2019), available here

FTC Reverses Administrative Law Judge Decision, Finding Section 5 Violation for Reverse-Payment Settlement (Impax), e-Competitions (No. 90331, May 2019), available here

The Four-Step Rule of Reason, 33 ANTITRUST 50 (2019), available here

A Non-Coercive Approach to Product Hopping (with Steve D. Shadowen), 33 ANTITRUST 102 (2018), available here

Antitrust in the Pharmaceutical Sector, e-Competitions (No. 88026, Oct. 2018), available here

Antitrust, Market Exclusivity, and Transparency in the Pharmaceutical Industry (with Michael S. Sinha and Greg D. Curfman), 319 JAMA 2271 (2018), available here

  • Nominated for one of top antitrust articles of 2018

Biologics: The New Antitrust Frontier (with Carl J. Minniti III), 2018 University of Illinois Law Review 1 (2018), available here

  • Subject of 8-article symposium and featured in Inside Health Policy article

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Sets Student-Athletes’ Antitrust Case for Trial, e-Competitions (No. 87066, May 2018), available here

Five Actions to Stop Citizen Petition Abuse, 118 Columbia Law Review Online 81 (2018), available here

  • Served as basis in 118th Congress for:
    • Time-limit provision in S. 1067 (Ensuring Timely Access to Generics Act of 2023), passed by Senate HELP Committee in 21-0 vote
  • Served as basis in 117th Congress for:
    • Time-limit provision in S. 562 (Ensuring Timely Access to Generics Act), passed by Senate HELP Committee in 13-9 vote
  • Served as basis in 116th Congress for:
    • H.R. 2387 (STOP GAMES Act of 2019), unanimously approved by House Energy & Commerce’s Health Subcommittee
    • S. 660 (Efficiency and Transparency in Petitions Act, introduced by Sen. Braun (R-IL))
    • Time-limit provision in S. 1895 (Lower Health Care Costs Act, passed by Senate HELP Committee in 20-3 vote)

The Curious Case of Wellbutrin: How the Third Circuit Mistook Itself for the Supreme Court, 103 Cornell Law Review Online 137 (2018), available here

William Howard Taft Lecture: The Rule of Reason in the Post-Actavis World, 2018 Columbia Business Law Review 26 (2018)

Solving the Product Hopping Conundrum Through Safe Harbors and a No-Economic-Sense Test (with Steve Shadowen), 28 Research in Law and Economics 89 (2018)

Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies: An Antitrust Framework, Competition Law Insight (2018)

Antitrust’s Hidden Hook in Drug Price Increases, Competition: The Journal of the Antitrust, UCL and Privacy Section of the California Lawyers Association 45 (2018)

Drug Patent Settlements Around the World, 62 Antitrust Bulletin 770 (2017)

Sharing, Samples, and Generics: An Antitrust Framework, 103 Cornell Law Review 1 (2017), available here

  • Winner of American Antitrust Institute’s Jerry S. Cohen Award for best 2017 Antitrust and Healthcare Article; cited in Bloomberg BNA article
  • Cited in House Energy & Commerce Committee Report for CREATES Act, 116th 1st Sess.

Five Solutions to the REMS Patent Problem (with Brenna Sooy), 97 Boston University Law Review 1661 (2017), available here

  • Recommendations supported by California Attorney General in comments to FDA

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Applies an Appropriate Post-Actavis Pleading Standard (Lipitor), e-Competitions (No. 84937, Oct. 2017), available here

Using Antitrust Law to Challenge Turing's Daraprim Price Increase (with Nicole Levidow and Aaron S. Kesselheim), 31 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1379 (2017), available here

  • Bloomberg Opinion called article “blueprint” for FTC/NY lawsuit against Martin Shkreli, which resulted in $65 million damages award and ban from industry for life

The Untold EpiPen Story: How Mylan Hiked Prices by Blocking Rivals (with Carl J. Minniti III), 102 Cornell Law Review Online 53 (2017), available here

  • Focus of Law360 story, discussed on health care blogs, and featured in class action lawsuit filed against Mylan’s EpiPen

Product Hopping, 23 Journal of Commercial Biotechnology 82 (2017)

Citizen Petitions: Long, Late-Filed, and At-Last Denied (with Carl J. Minniti III), 66 American University Law Review 305 (2016), available here

  • Top Academic Antitrust article (IP category) of 2016
  • Cited in Atlantic,, Law360, NBC News, Reuters, healthcare blogs, Senator Cassidy's press release for Ensuring Timely Access to Generics Act, and FTC's comment on FDA's Citizen Petition Guidance

Product Hopping: A New Framework (with Steve Shadowen), 92 Notre Dame Law Review 167 (2016), available here

  • Featured in NBC10 investigative report and Consumer Reports
  • Served as basis of S. 1416, The Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act of 2019, co-sponsored by Senators Cornyn (R-TX) and Blumenthal (D-CT) and unanimously approved by Senate Judiciary Committee in June 2019

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission Issues Report on Patent Assertion Entities, e-Competitions Bulletin (No. 82367, Dec. 2016), available here

Pharmaceutical Antitrust: What the Trump Administration Can Do, Concurrences: Competition Law Review 63 (No. 4, 2016), available here

The U.S. Court of Appeals for Third Circuit Offers Misguided Analysis of Product Hopping, e-Competitions (No. 81744, Oct. 2016), available here

Why the Supreme Court Should Deny Certiorari in King Drug, CPI Antitrust Chronicle (Sept. 2016), available here

Pleading Standards: The Hidden Threat to Actavis, 91 N.Y.U. L. Rev. Online 31 (2016), available here

Why “Large and Unjustified Payment” Is Not a Threshold Under Actavis, 91 Washington Law Review 109 (2016) (symposium), available here

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Concludes that a Reverse Payment Need Not Be in Cash (Loestrin), e-Competitions (No. 78533, Mar. 2016), available here

Strategies that Delay or Prevent the Timely Availability of Affordable Generic Drugs in the United States (with Gregory H. Jones, Richard T. Silver, & Hagop Kantarjian), 127 Blood (journal published by the American Society of Hematology) 1398 (2016), available here

The “Equity of the Statute” and Copyright Law: Three Critiques, 163 U. Pa. L. Rev. Online 377 (2015) (response to Shyamkrishna Balganesh & Gideon Parchomovsky, Equity’s Unstated Domain: The Role of Equity in Shaping Copyright Law, 163 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1859 (2015)), available here

How Not to Apply the Rule of Reason: The O’Bannon Case, 114 Michigan Law Review First Impressions 73 (2015), available here

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Concludes that the Actavis Ruling Applies to Non-Cash Payments (Lamictal), e-Competitions (No. 75208, Aug. 2015), available here

Eight Reasons Why “No-Authorized-Generic” Promises Constitute Payment, 67 Rutgers University Law Review 697 (2015) (symposium), available here

  • Cited in In re: Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litigation, 2015 WL 4717286 (D. Mass. Aug. 7, 2015)

After Actavis: Seven Ways Forward, 67 Rutgers University Law Review 543 (2015) (symposium)

  • Cited in In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation, 2017 WL 5885664 (D. Conn. Nov. 29, 2017)

The California Supreme Court Cements Vigorous Scrutiny of Reverse-Payment Settlements (Cipro), e-Competitions (No. 73830, June 2015), available here

U.S. Court Upholds Antitrust Action Against Patent Troll, e-Competitions (No. 73428, May 2015), available here

  • Nominated for one of top antitrust articles of 2015

What Does State Law Say About Drug Patent Settlements? The California Supreme Court’s Cipro Case, Antitrust Health Care Chronicle (April 2015), available here

O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association: Why the Ninth Circuit Should Not Block the Floodgates of Change in College Athletics (with Chris Sagers) (response to Marc Edelman, The District Court Decision in O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association: A Small Step Forward for College-Athletes, and a Gateway for Far Grander Change, 71 Washington and Lee Law Review Online 299 (2015)) (symposium), available here

A U.S. Court Sends Second Reverse Payment Case to Trial (Cephalon), e-Competitions (No. 71871, Jan. 2015), available here

How Not To Apply Actavis, 109 Northwestern University Law Review Online 113 (2015), available here

No, RIAA, It’s Not the End of the World for Musicians, 83 UMKC Law Review 287 (2014) (symposium), available here

Payment After Actavis, 100 Iowa Law Review 7 (2014), available here

  • Cited in In re Cipro Cases I & II, 61 Cal.4th 116 (Cal. 2015)
  • Cited in King Drug Co. of Florence, Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 791 F.3d 388 (3d Cir. 2015)
  • Cited in In re: Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litigation, 2015 WL 4717286 (D. Mass. Aug. 7, 2015)                                

Pharmaceutical Antitrust Complexity, Competition Policy International (Vol. 10, No. 2, 2014) (symposium), available here

U.S. Court Issues Concerning Ruling on Drug Patent Settlements (Loestrin), e-Competitions (No. 69705, Oct. 2014), available here

What You Need to Know About Standard Essential Patents, Competition Policy International (Vol. 8, No. 2, 2014), available here

U.S. Court Finds that an Athletics Association’s Rules Restricting Payments to Student-Athletes Violate Antitrust Laws (O’Bannon v. NCAA), e-Competitions (No. 68725, Sept. 2014), available here

Apple v. Motorola: Five Lessons for Judges in Admitting Expert Testimony, 14 Bloomberg BNA Expert Evidence Report, May 2014

Limelight v. Akamai: Limiting Induced Infringement, 2014 Wisconsin Law Review online 1, available here

A US Court Issues Formalistic Ruling on Reverse-Payment Settlements After 'Actavis' (GlaxoSmithKline/Teva Pharmaceuticals/Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company/King Drug Company), e-Competitions (No. 63588, Feb. 2014), available here

Only “Scraping” the Surface: The Copyright Hole in the FTC’s Google Settlement, 46 University of British Columbia Law Review 759 (2014) (symposium), available here

A Response to Chief Justice Roberts: Why Antitrust Must Play A Role in the Analysis of Drug Patent Settlements, 15 Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology 31 (2014) (symposium), available here

A U.S. Court Issues Second Ruling Determining RAND Rate for Standard Essential Patent (Innovatio), e-Competitions (No. 58558, Nov. 2013), available here

Five Arguments Laid to Rest After Actavis, 13 Antitrust Source 1 (2013), available here

Google and Antitrust: Five Approaches to an Evolving Issue, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology Occasional Paper Series (July 2013), available here

  • Nominated for one of top antitrust articles of 2013

U.S. Supreme Court Issues First Ruling on Antitrust Legality of Reverse-Payment Drug Patent Settlements (FTC v. Actavis), e-Competitions (No. 53120, July 2013), available here

Copyright and Innovation: Responses to Marks, Masnick, and Picker, 2013 Wisconsin Law Review Online 46, available here

Increasing Innovation Through Copyright Common Sense and Better Government Policy, 62 Emory Law Journal 983 (2013) (symposium), available here

A U.S. Court Issues First Analysis of an Appropriate Royalty that a Patentee Could Obtain after Promising to License its Patent on Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory (RAND) Terms (Microsoft v Motorola), e-Competitions (No. 51802, May 2013-I), available here

Roundtable on Reverse-Payment Settlements, ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Antitrust Health Care Chronicle (March 2013), available here

Patent Assertion Entities: Six Actions the Antitrust Agencies Can Take, Competition Policy International: Antitrust Chronicle (Vol. 1 No. 2, 2013), available here

SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, TPP: An Alphabet Soup of Innovation-Stifling Copyright Legislation and Agreements, 11 Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 21 (2013) (symposium), available here

Copyright and Innovation: The Untold Story, 2012 Wisconsin Law Review 891, available here

  • Republished in Intellectual Property and Innovation (Shubha Ghosh editor, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017)
  • Subject of online symposium involving Steen Marks, Mike Masnick, and Randal Picker
  • Discussed in Billboard magazine, NY Times blog, Boing Boing, and more than 50 music, arts, law, and technology websites

Citizen Petitions: An Empirical Study (with D. Wander), 34 Cardozo Law Review 249 (2012), available here

  • Cited in Cerveny v. Aventis, Inc., 855 F.3d 1091 (10th Cir. 2017)
  • Cited in In re Actos End–Payor Antitrust Litigation, 848 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2017)
  • Cited in Apotex Inc. v. Acorda Therapeutics, Inc., 823 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2016)

Why the “Scope of the Patent” Test Cannot Solve the Drug Settlement Problem, 16 Stanford Technology Law Review 1 (2012), available here

A Roadmap to the Smartphone Patent Wars and FRAND Licensing, Competition Policy International: Antitrust Chronicle (Vol. 4 No. 2, 2012) (solicited), available here

  • Nominated for one of top antitrust articles of 2012

A Tort-Based Causation Framework for Antitrust Analysis, 77 Antitrust Law Journal 991 (2011) (symposium), available here.

  • Nominated for one of top antitrust articles of 2011
  • Cited in Jetaway Aviation, LLC v. Board of County Commissioners, 754 F.3d 824 (10th Cir. 2014)

Post-Grant Opposition: A Proposal and a Comparison to the America Invents Act, 45 U.C. Davis Law Review 103 (2011), available here

An Antitrust Framework for Climate Change, 9 Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 513 (2011), available here

Provigil: A Case Study of Anticompetitive Behavior, 3 Hastings Science Technology & Law Journal 441 (2011) (symposium), available here

2025: Reverse-Payment Settlements Unleashed, 2 Competition Policy International Antitrust Journal (2010) (symposium)

A Real-World Analysis of Pharmaceutical Settlements: The Missing Dimension of Product-Hopping, 62 Florida Law Review 1009 (2010), available here

  • Cited in New York ex rel. Schneiderman v. Actavis PLC, 787 F.3d 638 (2d Cir. 2015)

Innovation for the 21st Century: A Response to Seven Critics, 61 Alabama Law Review 597 (2010) (symposium), available here

Solving the Drug Settlement Problem: The Legislative Approach, 40 Rutgers Law Journal 83 (2010) (symposium), available here 

  • Cited in Statement of the Federal Trade Commission, FTC v. Cephalon, Inc. (May 28, 2015) ($1.2 billion settlement with Cephalon and Teva)
  • Cited in In re Loestrin 24 Fe Antitrust Litigation, 2014 WL 4368924 (D.R.I. Sept. 4, 2014)

The Pirate Bay, Grokster, and Google, 15 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 7 (2010) (solicited), available here

The D.C. Circuit’s Excessively High Causation Standard in Rambus (2010), available here

Unsettling Drug Patent Settlements: A Framework for Presumptive Illegality, 108 Michigan Law Review 37 (2009), available here

  • Cited in In re Cipro Cases I & II, 61 Cal.4th 116 (Cal. 2015)

The Rule of Reason in the 21st Century, 16 George Mason Law Review 827 (2009) (symposium), available here

Two Puzzles Resolved: Of the Schumpeter-Arrow Stalemate and Pharmaceutical Innovation Markets, 93 Iowa Law Review 393 (2008), available here

Why Modularity Does Not (and Should Not) Explain Intellectual Property, 116 Yale Law Journal Pocket Part 95 (2007) (solicited), available here

Against Cyberproperty, 22 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1485 (2007) (with Greg Lastowka), available here

Pictures at the New Economy Exhibition: Why the Antitrust Modernization Commission Got it (Mostly) Right, 38 Rutgers Law Journal 473 (2007) (symposium), available here

  • Reprinted in Patents vs. Competition: A Legal Debate (ICFAI University Press, India, 2008)

Of Trinko, Tea Leaves, and Intellectual Property, 31 Journal of Corporation Law 357 (2006) (symposium), available here

  • Reprinted in Intellectual Property and Licensing Issues (P.L. Jayanthi Reddy editor, ICFAI University Press, India, 2009)

Refusals to License Intellectual Property After Trinko, 55 DePaul Law Review 1191 (2006) (symposium), available here 

  • Republished as Odbijanje davanja licence za intelektualno vlasništvo nakon predmeta Trinko, translated by Zeljko Mrsic, Nov-um (2008) [Croatian] 

Vote Counting, Technology, and Unintended Consequences, 79 St. John's Law Review 645 (2005), available here 

Does a Patent Automatically Demonstrate Market Power for Purposes of the Antitrust Tying Offense?, American Bar Association series, Preview of U.S. Supreme Court Cases (2005) 

Review of IP and Antitrust (Hovenkamp, Janis & Lemley eds.), 28 World Competition Law and Economics Review 277 (2005) (solicited) 

Cabining Intellectual Property Through a Property Paradigm, 54 Duke Law Journal 1 (2004), available here

Resolving the Patent-Antitrust Paradox Through Tripartite Innovation, 56 Vanderbilt Law Review 1047 (2003), available here

Why Antitrust Should Defer to the Intellectual Property Rules of Standard Setting Organizations: A Commentary on Teece & Sherry, 87 Minnesota Law Review 2019 (2003), available here 

Antitrust After the Interception: Of a Heroic Returner and Myriad Paths, 55 Stanford Law Review 287 (2002) [Review of Richard Posner, Antitrust Law (2d ed. 2001)], available here

  • Also published in The Antitrust Source (March 2002) (solicited)

Unraveling the Patent-Antitrust Paradox, 150 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 761 (2002), available here

  • Cited in Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) (Stevens, J., concurring)
  • Cited in Asahi Glass v. Pentech Pharmaceuticals, 289 F. Supp. 2d 986 (N.D. Ill. 2003)

The Real Rule of Reason: Bridging the Disconnect, 1999 Brigham Young University Law Review 1265 (1999), available here 

All Aboard the Congressional Fast Track: From Trade to Beyond, 29 George Washington Journal of International Law & Economics 687 (1996) 

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: Law and the Inner Self, 93 Michigan Law Review 1894 (1995) 

When Is the Senate in Recess for Purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause?, 92 Michigan Law Review 2204 (1994), available here

  • Cited in NLRB v. Enterprise Leasing Co. Southeast, LLC, 2013 WL 3722388 (4th Cir. July 17, 2013).
  • Cited in NLRB v. New Vista Nursing & Rehabilitation, 2013 WL 2099742 (3d Cir. May 16, 2013)
  • Cited in Canning v. NLRB, 2013 WL 276024 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 25, 2013)
  • Cited in Swan v. Clinton, 100 F.3d 973 (D.C. Cir. 1996)
  • Cited in Nippon Steel Corp. v. U.S. ITC, 239 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (ITC 2002)

Short pieces

Why the Antitrust Agencies Should Consider Prior Bad Acts in Merger Review (with Gwendolyn J. Lindsay Cooley), ProMarket (March 2023)

Even Avanci’s Supporters Don’t Defend its Litigation Funding Scheme (with Alex Moss), Patent Progress (Dec. 2022)

Protect the Supply Chain from Patent Trolls Before It’s Too Late (with Alex Moss), Bloomberg Law (Nov. 2022)

A Right to Repair (Letter to the Editor), Philadelphia Inquirer (Nov. 2022)

Op-Ed: Prevent a Legal Catch-22 that Could Push Thousands of Generic Drugs off the Market (with Charles Duan & S. Sean Tu), Los Angeles Times (Sept. 2022)

4 Ways Kanter Should Clean Up DOJ Antitrust Holdups, Law360 (Nov. 2021)

Why the FTC Should Consider Size in Drug Mergers (with Patricia M. Danzon), ProMarket (July 2021)

How Standard-Setting Orgs Can Curb Patent Litigation (with Brian Scarpelli), Law360 (June 2021)

  • Top Academic Antitrust article (Business Article, IP category) of 2022
  • Cited in SEPs, Antitrust, and the FTC: Remarks of Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter

Helping Consumers Afford Prescription Drugs: An Antitrust Agenda for the New Congress, Health Affairs Blog (Jan. 2021)

How Biosimilar Disparagement Violates Antitrust Law, Bloomberg Law (Nov. 2020)

Why Do Courts Err in Pharmaceutical Antitrust Cases?, Concurrentialiste Journal of Antitrust Law (Aug. 2020)

How Biologics Cos. Disparage Biosimilars And How To Stop It, Law360 (Aug. 2020)

  • Nominated for one of top antitrust articles of 2019

Just Security blog symposium, 11 Top Antitrust Experts Alarmed by Whistleblower Complaint Against A.G. Barr—and Office of Professional Responsibility’s Opinion (June 2020)

New Statement on Standard-Essential Patents Relies on Omissions, Strawmen, Generalities, Bloomberg Law (Jan. 2020)

4-Part Series in Biosimilar Development on 2019 Events and 2020 Predictions (Dec. 2019 to Jan. 2020)

Solving the “Parking” Problem in the Drug Monopoly Game, The Hill (Dec. 2019)

The Fifth Circuit Must Preserve the Patent-Antitrust Balance by Upholding Actavis, IP Watchdog (Dec. 2019)

Answer to Iancu’s SEP Policy Call is in Plain Sight, Law360 (Oct. 2019)

  • Nominated for one of top antitrust articles of 2019

The Industry that Cries Wolf: Pharma and Innovation (with Genevieve Tung), STAT (Sept. 2019)

Responding to Delrahim on IP, Global Competition Review (Feb. 2019)

Challenging Deceptive Drug Pricing, Jurist (Nov. 2018)

DOJ Giving Cover to Monopolizing Firms that Breach Antitrust Rules, The Hill (Oct. 2018)

A Six-Step Solution to the PBM Problem, Health Affairs Blog (Aug. 2018)

FTC v. Actavis: Where We Stand After 5 Years, IP Watchdog (June 2018)

NCAA Business Model Under Fire, Sports Law Blog (Apr. 2018)

How Big Pharma Sandbags Generic Competition, Wall Street Journal Opinion (Nov. 2017)

Featured in Q&A: Will we see more drug makers file antitrust lawsuits against rivals?, STAT (Oct. 2017)

Featured in Q&A: Drug Industry May Face New Areas of Antitrust Scrutiny, Bloomberg BNA (Apr. 2017)

Hate High Drug Prices? Blame Greedy Companies and Our Politicians (with Kantarjian), The Hill (Feb. 2017)

The Business of Amateurs: Suffering Student-Athletes and a Thriving NCAA, Sports Law Blog (Aug. 2016)

A Simple Way to Lower Drug Prices, IP Watchdog (June 2016)

  • Discussed in Lincoln Journal Star and Rapid City Journal editorials

The NCAA's Exploitation of Student-Athletes, Sports Law Blog (March 2016)

The Daraprim Price Hike and a Role for Antitrust (with Aaron Kesselheim), Health Affairs Blog (October 2015)

Drug Antitrust Issues With Daraprim And Beyond, Law 360 (Oct. 2015)

Third Circuit Lamictal Ruling: "Payment" Broader than Cash, IP Watchdog (June 2015)

Aereo and Innovation: A Sobering Lesson from Music, Disruptive Competition Project (DisCo) (July 2014)

Why Actavis Is Not Limited to Cash: Professors Brief in Lamictal, IP Watchdog (May 2014)

No Statutory Damages for Secondary Liability, Disruptive Competition Project (DisCo) (January 2014)

Copyright’s Blind Spot: The Innovation Asymmetry, Disruptive Competition Project (DisCo) (December 2013)

Actavis and “Large and Unjustified” Payments, SCOTUSblog (July 2013)

It’s Settled: Pay-for-Delay Challenges Had a Big Week, (June 2013)

The Supreme Court’s Actavis Decision, Or Why Pay-for-Delay Litigation Just Got More Active, IP Watchdog (June 2013)

Classic Antitrust/IP Scholarship, WrittenDescription (June 2013)

Op-ed: Antitrust Regulators Ponder Patent Trolls—But They Need To Act, Arstechnica (April 2013)

Supreme Court Agrees To Tackle Drug Patent Settlements, IP Watchdog (December 2012)

Reverse Payment Home Run for Pharma Antitrust Enforcement, IP Watchdog (July 2012)

Review of Creation without Restraint: Promoting Liberty and Rivalry in Innovation, Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog (March 2012)

Why Innovation is Under Attack, TechDirt (May 2011)

Hatch-Waxman at the Supreme Court: Supporting Cert. in Cipro, IP Watchdog (January 2011)

The Proposed New Copyright Crime of “Aiding and Abetting,” OUP blog (Oxford) (October 2010)

After Cipro, OUP blog (Oxford) (April 2010)

Guest Post: Fostering Innovation in China and the U.S. for the 21st Century, China Law Blog (January 2010)

Guest Post: Innovation for the 21st Century, Spicy IP (December 2009)

BitTorrent: Under Attack but Needed for Innovation, TorrentFreak (August 2009)

BitTorrent: Legal Nightmare or Future Business Model?, OUP blog (Oxford) (April 2009)

The Rambus Certiorari Petition: Causation, Competition, and Standard-Setting Organizations, PatentlyO (January 2009)

Video Rental Company Redbox Sues Universal Studios, DRM Watch (November 2008)

  • Antitrust
  • Copyright Law
  • Intellectual Property
  • Patent Law
  • Property