Michael A.  Carrier

Michael A. Carrier

Distinguished Professor

Contact Information

Law Office: 629
V: (856) 225-6380
F: (856) 225-6516

Areas of Expertise

Courses Recently Taught


Michael A. Carrier is a leading authority in antitrust and intellectual property law with expertise in the pharmaceutical, high-technology, and music industries. He has been quoted hundreds of times in media outlets including ABC News, Bloomberg, CBS News, Chicago Tribune, CNBC.com, CNNMoney, ESPN, Financial Times, Forbes, Fortune, Fox News, Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, Nature, NBC News, New York Times, NPR, Philadelphia Inquirer, San Francisco Chronicle, Seattle Times, 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 (2d ed. 2009, and annual supplements, 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 80 book chapters and law review articles in leading journals including the Stanford Law Review, Michigan Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Duke Law Journal, Vanderbilt Law Review, Minnesota Law Review, Iowa Law Review, Notre Dame Law Review, Emory Law Journal, and Wisconsin Law Review, as well as online journals at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, 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, 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 U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee (Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights) and National Academies (Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy), and given talks to the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, and state attorneys general.

He is a member of the Board of Advisors of the American Antitrust Institute; is a 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, and Third 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.



IP and Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles Applied to Intellectual Property Law (2d ed. 2009, and annual supplements, 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:

The Intersection of IP and Competition Law, in Intersections of Antitrust: Policy and Regulation (Jonathan Galloway editor, Oxford University Press, forthcoming 2016)

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, forthcoming 2016)

Drug Patent Settlements, in Cambridge University Press Antitrust Intellectual Property and High Tech Handbook (D. Daniel Sokol editor, Cambridge University Press, forthcoming 2016)

Introduction to Part II, in The Cambridge Handbook of Technical Standardization Law (Jorge Contreras editor, Cambridge University Press, forthcoming 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, forthcoming 2016)

Product Hopping, in Patent Strategy for Companies in the Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Industries (Joanna Brougher editor, Science Publishers, forthcoming 2016)

Antitrust and Climate Change, in Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Climate Change (Josh Sarnoff editor, Edward Elgar Publishing, forthcoming 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)


Product Hopping: A New Framework (with Steve Shadowen), 91 Notre Dame Law Review __ (forthcoming 2016), available here

Pleading Standards: The Hidden Threat to Actavis, 91 N.Y.U. L. Rev. Online __ (forthcoming 2016), available here

Using Antitrust Law to Challenge Turing's Daraprim Price Increase (with Nicole Levidow and Aaron S. Kesselheim), 30 Berkeley Technology Law Journal __ (forthcoming 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

Drug Antitrust Issues With Daraprim And Beyond, Law 360 (Oct. 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)

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

The D.C. Circuit’s Excessively High Causation Standard in Rambus (2010), 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.

Refusals to License Intellectual Property After Trinko, 55 DePaul Law Review 1191 (2006) (symposium), available here.

Vote Counting, Technology, and Unintended Consequences, 79 St. John's Law Review 645 (2005), available here.

Does a Patent Automatically Demonstrate Market Power for Purposes of the Antitrust Tying Offense?, American Bar Association series, Preview of U.S. Supreme Court Cases (2005)

Review of IP and Antitrust (Hovenkamp, Janis & Lemley eds.), 28 World Competition Law and Economics Review 277 (2005) (solicited)

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.

* Also published in The Antitrust Source (March 2002) (solicited)

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.

All Aboard the Congressional Fast Track: From Trade to Beyond, 29 George Washington Journal of International Law & Economics 687 (1996)

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: Law and the Inner Self, 93 Michigan Law Review 1894 (1995)

When Is the Senate in Recess for Purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause?, 92 Michigan Law Review 2204 (1994), available here.

Short pieces

The NCAA's Exploitation of Student-Athletes, Sports Law Blog (March 2016)

The Daraprim Price Hike and a Role for Antitrust (with Aaron Kesselheim), Health Affairs Blog (October 2015)

Third Circuit Lamictal Ruling: "Payment" Broader than Cash, IP Watchdog (June 2015)

Aereo and Innovation: A Sobering Lesson from Music, Disruptive Competition Project (DisCo) (July 2014)

Why Actavis Is Not Limited to Cash: Professors Brief in Lamictal, IP Watchdog (May 2014)

No Statutory Damages for Secondary Liability, Disruptive Competition Project (DisCo) (January 2014)

Copyright’s Blind Spot: The Innovation Asymmetry, Disruptive Competition Project (DisCo) (December 2013)

Actavis and “Large and Unjustified” Payments, SCOTUSblog (July 2013)

It’s Settled: Pay-for-Delay Challenges Had a Big Week, infojustice.org (June 2013)

The Supreme Court’s Actavis Decision, Or Why Pay-for-Delay Litigation Just Got More Active, IP Watchdog (June 2013)

Classic Antitrust/IP Scholarship, WrittenDescription (June 2013)

Op-ed: Antitrust Regulators Ponder Patent Trolls—But They Need To Act, arstechnica (April 2013)

Supreme Court Agrees To Tackle Drug Patent Settlements, IP Watchdog (December 2012)

Reverse Payment Home Run for Pharma Antitrust Enforcement, IP Watchdog (July 2012)

Review of Creation without Restraint: Promoting Liberty and Rivalry in Innovation, Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog (March 2012)

Why Innovation is Under Attack, TechDirt (May 2011)

Hatch-Waxman at the Supreme Court: Supporting Cert. in Cipro, IP Watchdog (January 2011)

The Proposed New Copyright Crime of “Aiding and Abetting,” OUP blog (Oxford) (October 2010)

After Cipro, OUP blog (Oxford) (April 2010)

Guest Post: Fostering Innovation in China and the U.S. for the 21st Century, China Law Blog (January 2010)

Guest Post: Innovation for the 21st Century, Spicy IP (December 2009)

BitTorrent: Under Attack but Needed for Innovation, TorrentFreak (August 2009)

BitTorrent: Legal Nightmare or Future Business Model?, OUP blog (Oxford) (April 2009)

The Rambus Certiorari Petition: Causation, Competition, and Standard-Setting Organizations, PatentlyO (January 2009)

Video Rental Company Redbox Sues Universal Studios, DRM Watch (November 2008)

Back to Top