With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: 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
B: holding that proof of relevant market is essential under  2
C: holding that provisions of generic drug enforcement act debarring convicted felons from participating in generic drug industry are remedial and not punitive
D: holding a branded drug and its generic version to be a plausible relevant market
D.