Research

Professor Ellen P. Goodman

Goodman Scholarship

Goodman Public Communication

 

Professor Michael Carrier

  • Rescuing Antitrust’s Role in Patent Holdup, 168 University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online 238 (2021), available here
  • Don’t Die! How Biosimilar Disparagement Violates Antitrust Law, 115 Northwestern University Law Review Online 119 (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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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, Market Exclusivity, and Transparency in the Pharmaceutical Industry (with Michael S. Sinha and Greg D. Curfman, 319 JAMA 2271 (2018), available here
  • Biologics: The New Antitrust Frontier (with Carl J. Minniti III), 2018 University of Illinois Law Review 1 (2018), available here
  • Five Actions to Stop Citizen Petition Abuse, 118 Columbia Law Review Online 81 (2018), available here
  • 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)
  • Sharing, Samples, and Generics: An Antitrust Framework, 103 Cornell Law Review 1 (2017), available here
  • Five Solutions to the REMS Patent Problem (with Brenna Sooy), 97 Boston University Law Review 1661 (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
  • 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
  • Citizen Petitions: Long, Late-Filed, and At-Last Denied (with Carl J. Minniti III), 66 American University Law Review 305 (2016), available here
  • Product Hopping: A New Framework (with Steve Shadowen), 92 Notre Dame Law Review 167 (2016), available here
  • Pharmaceutical Antitrust: What the Trump Administration Can Do, Concurrences: Competition Law Review 63 (No. 4, 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
  • 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
  • Eight Reasons Why “No-Authorized-Generic” Promises Constitute Payment, 67 Rutgers University Law Review 697 (2015) (symposium), available here
  • After Actavis: Seven Ways Forward, 67 Rutgers University Law Review 543 (2015) (symposium)
  • 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
  • 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
  • Pharmaceutical Antitrust Complexity, Competition Policy International (Vol. 10, No. 2, 2014) (symposium), available here
  • What You Need to Know About Standard Essential Patents, Competition Policy International (Vol. 8, No. 2, 2014), available here
  • Limelight v. Akamai: Limiting Induced Infringement, 2014 Wisconsin Law Review online 1, 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Citizen Petitions: An Empirical Study (with D. Wander), 34 Cardozo Law Review 249 (2012), available here
  • 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
  • A Tort-Based Causation Framework for Antitrust Analysis, 77 Antitrust Law Journal 991 (2011) (symposium), available here.
  • 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
  • A Real-World Analysis of Pharmaceutical Settlements: The Missing Dimension of Product-Hopping, 62 Florida Law Review 1009 (2010), available here
  • 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
  • The Pirate Bay, Grokster, and Google, 15 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 7 (2010) (solicited), available here
  • Unsettling Drug Patent Settlements: A Framework for Presumptive Illegality, 108 Michigan Law Review 37 (2009), available here
  • 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
  • Of Trinko, Tea Leaves, and Intellectual Property, 31 Journal of Corporation Law 357 (2006) (symposium), available here
  • Vote Counting, Technology, and Unintended Consequences, 79 St. John’s Law Review 645 (2005), available here
  • 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
  • Unraveling the Patent-Antitrust Paradox, 150 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 761 (2002), available here
  • The Real Rule of Reason: Bridging the Disconnect, 1999 Brigham Young University Law Review 1265 (1999), available here

 

Testimony