Michael A. Carrier
Board of Governors Professor of Law
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 120 articles and book chapters.
![a man with glasses smiling](/sites/default/files/styles/3x4_one_third_full_default_1x/public/2024-06/Michael%20A.%20Carrier.jpg?h=b0990abe&itok=pMKnLAAK)
Biography
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, CNBC.com, 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.
Publications
Books:
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)
Articles:
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, CNBC.com, 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