Ian Simmons is a partner in O’Melveny’s Washington, DC office and a member of the Antitrust and Competition Practice. An alumnus of the US Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Ian has over twenty years of experience in antitrust litigation, with a particular emphasis on cartel class actions and matters involving intellectual property. Ian was named one of Law 360’s “2011 MVPs of the Year—Competition Practice.”
Ian has been lead counsel in over 30 multi-district litigation (MDL) antitrust proceedings. He is currently lead counsel for Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics of America in antitrust actions involving Cathode Ray Tubes and Optical Disk Drives and Lithium Batteries. He also is lead counsel for Asiana Airlines, Inc. in two MDL actions involving direct and indirect purchaser classes of air passengers and air cargo services. He also represents Marriott International in an antitrust MDL involving online travel company booking.
Ian has argued before the US Court of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits and the highest courts in New York and South Dakota and has tried seven cases to verdict.
Illustrative Professional Experience
Samsung Electronics. In re Optical Disk Drive Antitrust Litig. ___ F.R.D. ____ (N.D. Cal. 2014). Ian argued on behalf of all defendants in opposition to class certification by the direct purchasers; the motion for class certification was denied, only the second time that has happened in a civil case where a guilty plea was entered. The indirect purchaser motion for class certification also was denied.
Asiana Airlines. In what it called “a matter of first impression,” the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in April 2011 held that the Airline Deregulation Act preempts state antitrust claims against foreign air passenger carriers. See In re Korean Airlines, Co. Ltd. Antitrust Litigation, 642 F.3d. 685 (9th Cir. 2011). This appeal, argued by Ian, affirmed the district court. 567 F. Supp. 2d 1213 (C.D. Cal. 2008). In October 2012, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion reaching the same conclusion in connection with foreign air cargo carriers; Ian argued the appeal on behalf of 30 airlines. See In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, 697 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2012).
Marriott International. Ian represented Marriott International in a series of putative class actions alleging resale price maintenance. The consolidated MDL complaint was dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
Apollo Global Management. Ian represented Apollo Global Management in a putative class action alleging a market allocation in the alleged LBO market. Apollo’s motion for summary judgment was granted.
SK hynix. Ian was counsel to SK hynix in In re Dynamic Random Access Memory Litigation, 546 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008) (FTAIA bars foreign claims).
Honeywell International Inc. Ian was counsel to Honeywell International Inc. in an antitrust class action involving a putative class of indirect purchasers of Honeywell thermostats.
Chemtura Corporation (formerly Crompton Corporation). Ian was lead counsel for Chemtura in over 70 federal and state actions alleging price fixing and in federal MDL actions alleging conspiracies involving five different products and five separate time periods.
Sperry v. Crompton Corp., 863 N.E. 2d 1012, 8 N.Y. 3d 204 (2007). Ian prevailed in New York’s Highest Court, in what Global Competition Review termed “a landmark ruling,” holding that treble damages class actions are not cognizable under New York’s antitrust statute, the Donnelly Act.
In re Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litigation, 504 F. Supp. 2d 777 (N.D. Cal. 2007). The District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction foreign claims that did not satisfy the FTAIA’s “domestic injury” exception.
In re NBR Antitrust Litigation, 2006 WL 3147328 (3d Cir. 2006). Ian secured a reversal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in an antitrust/arbitration case.
Frankenfeld v. Crompton, 697 N.W.2d 378 (S.D. 2005). South Dakota Supreme Court reversing denial of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and rejecting argument that the mere allegation of a nationwide price fixing conspiracy was sufficient to confer jurisdiction.
CIGNA. Gibbs Properties, et al. v. CIGNA Corp., 196 F.R.D. 430 (M.D. Fla. 1999). Ian defended CIGNA in a major RICO case in which class certification was denied.
Nippon Paper Indus. United States v. Nippon Paper Indus, Co., Ltd., 62 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D. Mass. 1999). Ian defended NPI in a six-week criminal price fixing jury trial. This case was first time that a federal grand jury indicted a company for its alleged involvement in a wholly foreign conspiracy. After the jury deadlocked, in a landmark ruling, the district court granted NPI’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
Law Clerk, Honorable Gustave Diamond, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania
Admitted to Practice, Court of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuits
Honors, Chambers USA for Antitrust (2014); “2011 MVP of the Year - Competition Practice,” Law 360; The Best Lawyers in America for Antitrust Law (2010-2015); “Super Lawyer” for Antitrust, Washington DC Super Lawyers Magazine (2013-15); Practical Law Company’s (PLC) Which lawyer? Global 50 Firms (2011); Legal 500 US for Antitrust Law (2008, 2012-2014)
Author, “The Continuing Relevance of Patent Validity in Reverse-Payment Litigation,” (co-author Kenneth O’Rourke and Stephen McIntyre) Concurrences (Spring 2014); “Viewing FTC v. Actavis Through the Lens of Clayton Act Section 4” (co-author Kenneth R. O’Rourke and Scott Schaeffer) ABA Antitrust Magazine (Fall 2013); “Reflections on Cartel Enforcement,” (co-author Kenneth R. O'Rourke) ABA Antitrust Magazine - 25th Anniversary Edition (December 2012); “Everyone Is Entitled to His Own Opinion…Reflections on the Cross-Examination of Expert Witnesses,” 25 Antitrust 3 (Summer 2011); “Towards Convergence: The Volume of ‘Affected’ Commerce Under the US Sentencing Guidelines and ‘Impact’ Analysis Under the Clayton Act,” (co-authors Julia Schiller and Angela Thaler Wilks), George Mason Law Review (Summer 2011); “Survival of the Fittest - Aspen Skiing,” (co-authors Dylan Brown and Bo Pearl), Law 360 (April 2011); “Proof of Common Impact in Antitrust Litigation: The Value of Regression Analysis,” (co-authors Pierre Cremieux and Edward A. Snyder), George Mason Law Review (Summer 2010); “Joint Ventures and the Sherman Act: The Problem Revealed by American Needle and How Best to Address It,” (co-authors Thomas Brown, Katherine Robison), The CPI Antitrust Journal, (March 2010 (2)); “One Hundred Years of (Attempted) Solitude: Navigating the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act,” 24 Antitrust 2 (Spring 2010); “Rigorous Analysis in Antitrust Class Certification Rulings: Recent Advances on the Front Line,” (co-author Alexander P. Okuliar), 23 Antitrust 1 (Fall 2008); “Private Enforcement of the U.S. Antitrust Laws Through Class Actions,” (co-author Alexander P. Okuliar), The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Competition Litigation 2009; “Without Presumptions: Rigorous Analysis in Class Certification Proceedings,” (co-authors Alexander P. Okuliar and Nilam A. Sanghvi), 21 Antitrust 3 (Summer 2007); “Muddy Waters? Navigating the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act,” (co-authors Frank Goldman and Scott M. Hammack), Antitrust Report, Issue 2 (2006); “The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 and State Law Antitrust Actions,” (co-author Charles E. Borden), 20 Antitrust 1 (Fall 2005); “The New Meets the Old: The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 and State Law Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Actions,” (co-author Charles E. Borden); The Antitrust Practitioner, Vol. 2 (May 2005); “Safer than a Known Way? A Critique of the FTC’s Report on Competition and Patent Law and Policy,” (co-authors Professor Janusz A. Ordover and David A. Applebaum), 18 Antitrust 39 (Spring 2004); “I Know It When I See It: Defining and Demonstrating Blocking Patents,” (co-authors Patrick Lynch and Theodore H. Frank), 16 Antitrust 48 (Summer 2002); “A Dialogue Between The Antitrust Division and Defense Counsel: The Nippon Paper Trial – Judicial Rejection of Foreign Price Fixing: What Does it Mean for the Future?,” Antitrust Law Criminal Practice and Procedure Committee, No. 30 (February 2001); “The Advent of Per Se ‘Plus’: United States v. Nippon Paper and the Limitations of Sherman Act Criminal Enforcement Against Foreign Conspiracies,” 14 Antitrust 26 (Fall 1999)
Speaker and Moderator, “Winning or Losing Class Certification post-Comcast,” ABA’s Section of Antitrust Law 62nd Annual Spring Meeting (March 2014) (moderator); “Forging Expert Testimony to Prevail,” ABA’s Section of Antitrust Law 60th Annual Spring Meeting (March 2012); “George Mason Law Review 13th Annual Symposium on Antitrust Law: Two Watersheds: The New Case Law of Bundles, Rebates and Class Certification,” Washington, DC (February, 2010); “EU Antitrust Litigation and Class Actions: Where is Europe Going and What Can We Learn From The US Experience?” London, UK, (April, 2008)
Speaker, Panelist, “Significant Legislative and Regulatory Developments,” 30th Anniversary Institute for Corporate Counsel (December 2011); Panelist, “Antitrust Nuts & Bolts – How to Avoid Antitrust Litigation,” WMACCA Litigation Forum (October 2011); Panelist, “U.S. Antitrust Law and Global Claims: Navigating The Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act,” American Bar Association Antitrust Spring Meeting (2009); Faculty Member, “The Antitrust Litigation Course,” American Bar Association, Philadelphia, PA, (2007); Panelist, “Class Certification: Is There A Trend Towards More Rigorous Analysis,” ABA Antitrust Spring Meeting (2007); “Class Action Fairness Act: One Year Later Emerging Issues and Strategies,” New York, NY, (2006); “Alternative Dispute Resolution and Competition: The Interface Between ADR and Competition Law,” IBC UK Conferences, London, UK, (2005)
Associate Editor, Antitrust Magazine (2010-Present)