The Need for Clarification on Product Hopping: Open Questions after Namenda and Doryx
Posted by Social Science Research Network
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.
Featured News
T-Mobile Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Sprint Merger After Appeal Denied
May 16, 2024 by
CPI
Google Faces Backlash Over Introduction of AI-Generated Summaries in Searches
May 16, 2024 by
CPI
CMA Launches Phase 2 Probe into AlphaTheta’s Acquisition of Serato
May 16, 2024 by
CPI
NFL Executive Escapes Testifying in High-Stakes Trial Over Televised Games
May 16, 2024 by
CPI
EU Consumers Lodge Complaint Against Chinese Retailer Temu Over Content Rules Breach
May 16, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Ecosystems
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Mapping Antitrust onto Digital Ecosystems
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Ecosystems and Competition Law: A Law and Political Economy Approach
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Ecosystem Theories of Harm: What is Beyond the Buzzword?
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Open Ecosystems: Benefits, Challenges, and Implications for Antitrust
May 9, 2024 by
CPI