Brian P. Quinn


Thank you for your interest. Before you communicate with one of our attorneys, please note: Any comments our attorneys share with you are general information and not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship will exist between you or your business and O’Melveny or any of its attorneys unless conflicts have been cleared, our management has given its approval, and an engagement letter has been signed. Meanwhile, you agree: we have no duty to advise you or provide you with legal assistance; you will not divulge any confidences or send any confidential or sensitive information to our attorneys (we are not in a position to keep it confidential and might be required to convey it to our clients); and, you may not use this contact to attempt to disqualify O’Melveny from representing other clients adverse to you or your business. By clicking "accept" you acknowledge receipt and agree to all of the terms of this paragraph and our Disclaimer.

A member of the firm’s Antitrust and Competition Practice Group, Brian Quinn represents clients in a broad range of commercial and criminal matters. Brian focuses his practice on complex antitrust litigation and regulatory defense, and his experience spans a broad spectrum of industries including automobiles, agriculture, digital currencies, telecommunications, home appliances, consumer electronics, building materials, financial services, defense contracting, consumer goods, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, and transportation services. Brian has particular expertise at the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property law, and regularly counsels clients on the antitrust implications of FRAND commitments and other aspects of the standards-development process.

Brian has represented clients at every stage of litigation. He has briefed and argued dispositive motions in federal district court; first-chaired the depositions of fact and expert witnesses; briefed and argued Daubert motions and motions in limine; examined fact and expert witnesses at trial; and briefed and argued cases in support of clients in the U.S. Courts of Appeals.

Previously, Brian was a key member of the team that helped Samsung secure a favorable settlement from Qualcomm, Inc. to resolve concerns over the latter’s standard-essential patent (SEP) licensing practices. Currently, Brian is counseling a major automaker on FRAND issues and licensing strategy in negotiations with wireless SEP holders, a retention that builds on Brian’s past experience representing putative SEP licensees. Brian recently co-authored an article in the American Bar Association’s Antitrust magazine that focuses on developments in the U.S. regulatory approach to SEP licensing. And Brian maintains an active SEP amicus practice, representing some of the country’s foremost experts in antitrust law and economics and the Fair Standards Alliance in cases involving SEPs.


Honors & Awards

  • Recognized in Best Lawyers® "Ones to Watch" list for Antitrust Law (2023)


Bar Admissions

  • District of Columbia
  • Virginia

Court Admissions

  • US District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Virginia, and Colorado
  • District of Columbia Court of Appeals
  • US Courts of Appeals for the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits
  • Supreme Court of Virginia


  • Stanford University, J.D.: Senior Online Editor, Stanford Law Review
  • Stanford University, B.A., American History

Professional Activities


  • “The Future of the Past: Taking Stock of SEP Policy at the Outset of the Biden Administration,” (co-authors Ian Simmons, Scott Schaeffer, and Eric Rodriguez), American Bar Association Antitrust Magazine Volume 35, No. 3 (Summer 2021).
  • Brief of Fair Standards Alliance a.s.b.l. as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant and Reversal, Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Avanci, LLC et al., No. 20-11032 (5th Cir. Feb. 16, 2021), Doc. 00515745468.
  • “FTC v. Qualcomm and the Potential Implications for Section 2,” 18 Monopoly Matters 4, ABA Antitrust Section Unilateral Conduct Committee (Nov. 23, 2020)
  • Brief of 46 Amici Curiae Law and Economics Scholars in Support of Petition for Rehearing En Banc, Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 19-16122 (9th Cir. Nov. 27, 2019), Dkt. 257.
  • Brief of Amici Curiae Law and Economics Scholars in Support of Appellee and Affirmance, Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 19-16122 (9th Cir. Nov. 27, 2019), Dkt. 153.
  • “The Hold-Up Tug-of-War—Paradigm Shifts in the Application of Antitrust to Industry Standards,” Competition (December 11, 2018)
  • "Thou Art Weighed In The Balance-And Found Wanting? Evidence in Government Merger and Monopolization Litigation" (co-authors Ian Simmons and James Keyte), American Bar Association Antitrust Magazine Volume 37, No. 1 (Fall 2022).


  • ABA Section of Antitrust Law

Press Releases

In the News

Concurrences: Antitrust Writing Awards: Business Articles

March 29, 2023

American Bar Association: Thou Art Weighed In The Balance–And Found Wanting? Evidence in Government Merger and Monopolization Litigation

December 22, 2022 US Chicken Price-Fixing—Not Guilty

July 11, 2022

Law360: 5 Chicken Execs Acquitted In Denver Antitrust Trial

July 7, 2022

Law360: Full 9th Circ. Won’t Review Antitrust Suit Against Chipmakers

May 17, 2022

Global Competition Review: Judge Questions Purpose and Policy Behind Third Broiler Chicken Trial

April 21, 2022

Global Competition Review: DOJ Trims Down Broiler Chicken Case

April 1, 2022

Law360: Despite 2 Mistrials, DOJ Won’t Say Chicken Case Is Done

March 31, 2022

Global Competition Review: Judge Declares Second Mistrial in Broiler Chicken Case

March 30, 2022

Law360: Poultry Execs Get 2nd Mistrial In Feds’ Price-Fixing Case

March 30, 2022

Law360: Poultry Execs Move For Acquittal Amid Price Fixing Retrial

March 23, 2022

AmLaw Litigation Daily: Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout Outs

March 11, 2022

Law360: DOJ Gears Up For Chicken Price-Fixing Retrial

February 18, 2022

Alerts and Publications