Understanding and Un-Tying Product Hopping Litigation, Part II: A Reply to Carrier and Shadowen
1 min read
In the Fall 2018 issue of Antitrust magazine, Michael A. Carrier and Steve D. Shadowen respond to Jack Pace and Kevin Adam's Summer 2018 article, Doryx, Namenda, and Coercion: Understanding and Un-Tying Product-Hopping Litigation. While Carrier and Shadowen agree with Pace and Adam’s conclusion that the "hard switch"/"soft switch" distinction in product hopping cases, relied on by several antitrust plaintiffs and the Second Circuit in Namenda, is unprincipled, both sides disagree over what to do about that. In the article below, Pace and Adam reiterate the conclusions of their earlier analysis and describe some of the substantive and practical problems of the Carrier-Shadowen test.
Click here to download a full PDF version of Understanding and Un-Tying Product Hopping Litigation, Part II: A Reply to Carrier and Shadowen.
This article was first published in American Bar Association's Antitrust, Vol. 33, No. 2, Spring 2019.
This publication is provided for your convenience and does not constitute legal advice. This publication is protected by copyright.
