Brett J. Williamson


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.


Brett Williamson is one of O’Melveny’s most experienced  litigators.  He leads IP cases for clients in a wide variety of industries, including computer hardware and software, telecommunications and media, electronics, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices. For over 30 years, Brett has helped technology companies solve their most critical legal challenges through a practical approach that prioritizes fundamental “big picture” advice over procedural tactics that can obscure the client’s ultimate business goals, while maintaining the sharp adversarial edge required to ensure winning outcomes.

Brett is routinely recognized among the most skilled IP litigators in the country. He has been named a Top Intellectual Property Lawyer in California multiple times by the Daily Journal, the same publication that listed his trial victory for client Allergan, Inc. as a Top Verdict of 2012.  In 2023, Brett was selected as a member of Lawdragon’s inaugural 500 Leading Litigators in America, and he has been described as “a skilled and very practical patent litigator” and a “notable trade secret lawyer” by Legal 500.


Honors & Awards

  • Recognized by Best Lawyers® for Litigation - Intellectual Property in Newport Beach, CA (2023)
  • Named to the “500 Leading Litigators in America” list for Intellectual Property & Technology Litigation by Lawdragon® (2023)
  • Recognized by IAM Patent 1000 (2022)
  • Recognized by The Legal 500 US for Trade Secrets (2019-2021) and Patents: Litigation (2020-2021)
  • Named a Top Intellectual Property Lawyer in California by the Daily Journal in 2015, 2018, 2020, and 2021
  • Named a “Super Lawyer” in surveys conducted by Law & Politics Media Inc. and published in Los Angeles magazine (2007-2020) 
  • Trial victory for client Allergan, Inc., named as a Top Verdict of 2012 in California by the Daily Journal


Bar Admissions

  • California
  • District of Columbia
  • New York

Court Admissions

  • US District Courts for the Northern, Eastern, Southern, and Central Districts of California, the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the District of Columbia, and the District of Colorado
  • US Courts of Appeals, for the Federal, Second, Third, Ninth, and DC Circuits
  • US Supreme Court


  • University of Southern California, J.D., 1989: Order of the Coif; Articles Editor, Southern California Law Review
  • University of California, Irvine, B.A., 1986: cum laude

Professional Activities


  • American Bar Association
  • Federal Circuit Bar Association
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)
  • Howard T. Markey Intellectual Property Inn of Court (President, 2016-2017)
  • Orange County Bar Association; Association of Business Trial Lawyers (ABTL), Orange County Chapter

Board of Directors

  • Public Law Center of Orange County
  • University of California, Irvine— Center for the Study of Democracy

Lawyer Representative

  • Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference (2009-2012


  • “Enhanced Infringement Damages in a Post-Seagate World,” Daily Journal, co-author (June 17, 2016)
  • “Rethinking Seagate At The Supreme Court” Law360 (March 17, 2016)
  • “Is The Seagate Test For Willful Infringement Here To Stay?” Law360 (April 7, 2015)
  • “Maintaining the Standard of Proof on Invalidity,” Law360 (February 9, 2011)
  • “IP in a downturn,” IP Review, co-author (Summer 2009)
  • “Post-Seagate: Advice of Counsel in Patent Defense,” Intellectual Property Litigation, co-author (Fall 2008)
  • “Struggle for Ownership,” The Recorder (April 11, 2007) (discussing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. case)
  • “Remedying Injury to Goodwill and Reputation: Beacon Mutual and 'Public Confusion' Under the Lanham Act,” Intellectual Property Litigation, American Bar Association (Winter 2005)


  • “Where Does Willfulness Go From Here?,” University of California, Irvine IP Law Symposium (February 2020)
  • “Making a Federal Case Out of Trade Secrets Misappropriation,” Orange County Bar Association IP Section Institute (October 2016)
  • “The Future of Medical Diagnostic and Treatment Patents,” O’Melveny Corporate Counsel Seminar (September 2010)
  • “Improving Patent Adjudication Through ADR and Court Reform: International Mediation and Arbitration of Patent Cases,” Thomas Jefferson School of Law Patent Law Symposium (April 3, 2009)
  • “Patents and The Real-World: How Recent Supreme Court Cases and Proposed Legislation Will Impact You and Your Business,” O’Melveny & Myers LLP Special Patent Law Presentation (Sept. 18 and 20, 2007)
  • Brett represents pioneering streaming platform Hulu, LLC, in defense of patent infringement litigation in the Central District of California involving technology for delivering multimedia content using a network of distributed servers. Brett's team successfully obtained dismissal of most of the original patents-in-suit on both noninfrigement and invalidity grounds, including rulings affirmed by the Federal Circuit in an appeal argued by Brett, and is currently engaged in pretrial proceedings relating to the remaining patent claim.
  • Brett also leads the representation of Hulu and fellow media companies fuboTV and World Wrestling Entertainment in defending patent claims brought in the Western District of Texas, the Central District of California, and the District of Delaware by the owner of patents directed to the automated use of dynamic advertising over streaming systems. The related cases have involved a successful petition for writ of mandate issued by the Federal Circuit to compel transfer from the plaintiff’s chosen Texas forum, and final written decisions in favor of Brett’s clients by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) canceling all challenged claims of seven asserted patents in inter partes review (IPR) and Covered Business Method proceedings, which are now being appealed by the plaintiff.
  • As lead trial counsel for Par Pharmaceutical in a federal trade secrets and unfair competition case in the District of New Jersey, Brett obtained a major victory when the court issued an injunction barring the defendant, a competing pharmaceutical company, from launching its version of Par's most profitable product (the cardiopulmonary drug Vasostrict®). In support of the injunction order, the court cited evidence of deliberate copying and subsequent destruction of Par’s proprietary information that was uncovered by Brett’s team during expedited discovery.
  • Brett also led the representation of Par in defending a separate case alleging federal antitrust claims involving Vasostrict®. After substantial discovery, Par moved for and was granted summary judgment on plaintiff's claims, in an order that was affirmed by the Fourth Circuit.  He continues to represent Par and its parent company Endo in multiple patent and antitrust matters, including cases involving pre-filled syringes for critical care, the antipsychotic drug Seroquel®, and the narcolepsy treatment Xyrem®. 
  • Brett served as lead counsel for a major consumer electronics company in parallel district court litigation and IPR proceedings involving power supply identification technology. He obtained a final written decision from the PTAB finding unpatentable all claims of a patent being asserted against the client in the district court, and then argued the appeal from that decision at the Federal Circuit, which summarily affirmed the PTAB.
  • As lead counsel for Therabody, Inc., the maker of Theragun™ percussive massage therapy devices, Brett is enforcing a large portfolio of utility and design patents against copycat manufacturers.  In one case pending in the Southern District of New York, the Court recently handed Brett’s team two significant victories on behalf of Therabody, denying motions for summary judgment of non-infringement and to dismiss claims of willfulness. 
  • Brett represented Google against plaintiff ART+COM InnovationPool (ACI) in a five-day jury trial in the District of Delaware involving Google Earth products, conducting all direct and cross examination of the technical expert witnesses on infringement and validity. After only an hour of deliberation, the jury found that none of the accused Google Earth products infringe and that Google had proven by clear and convincing evidence that all asserted claims were anticipated or obvious, and thus invalid. The verdict put to rest claims seeking US$106 million or more in alleged damages.