defining a relevant market as a single-drug market. See, e.g., Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 482, 112 S.Ct. 2072, 119 L.Ed.2d 265 (1992) (“This Court’s prior cases support the proposition that in some instances one brand of a product can constitute a separate market.”); Geneva Pharms. Tech. Corp. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 386 F.3d 485, 496-500 (2d Cir. 2004) (defining the relevant market as the generic versions of a particular drug, excluding the branded version of the drug); In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig., 352 F.Supp.2d 1279, 1319 n.40 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (defining a relevant market as a branded drug and its generic counterpart); In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 105 F.Supp.2d 618, 680-81 (E.D. Mich. 2000), aff'd, 332 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2003) (<HOLDING>); Nexium I, 968 F.Supp.2d at 388 (holding a
holding that proof of relevant market is essential under  2 holding that a drug manufacturer failed to establish irreparable harm because its claim that it would lose between fifty and seventy percent of its market share upon the introduction of the competing drug on the market was based on mere speculation holding that provisions of generic drug enforcement act debarring convicted felons from participating in generic drug industry are remedial and not punitive holding that changes in the baseball card market between 1965 and 1980 foreclosed any argument that a definition of the relevant market by the federal trade commission could preclude relitigation of the market definition issue holding a branded drug and its generic version to be a plausible relevant market