A PYMNTS Company

The Need for Clarification on Product Hopping: Open Questions after Namenda and Doryx

By  |  July 19, 2017

Posted by Social Science Research Network

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    The Need for Clarification on Product Hopping: Open Questions after Namenda and Doryx

    By Lindsey M. Edwards (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati)

    Abstract:     Several tensions exist between the Second Circuit’s decision in Namenda and the Third Circuit’s decision in Doryx, leaving unanswered a number of questions about product hopping. This paper examines those tensions and potential consequences of failing to reconcile them. Part I defines product hopping and explains some of the ways it can be manifested. Part II provides an overview of the regulatory environment in which product hopping occurs. Part III summarizes the Namenda and Doryx opinions. Part IV examines the tensions between those opinions and discusses some of the open questions about product hopping left for the antitrust bar to decipher. Part V concludes.

    Continue Reading…