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 seasoned litigators, with over 30 years of experience handling IP and technology litigation in a wide variety of industries, including computer hardware and software, telecommunications, electronics, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals. Brett helps both established and emerging 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 the best outcome.

Brett is routinely recognized among the most skilled IP litigators in the country. He was named a 2021 Top Intellectual Property Lawyer in California by the Daily Journal, the same publication that listed his trial victory for client Allergan, Inc. as a Top Verdict of 2012. Brett has been named a “Super Lawyer” in Intellectual Property Litigation for fourteen consecutive years (2007-2020) in a survey conducted by Law & Politics Media Inc., and he has been described as “a skilled and very practical patent litigator” and a “notable trade secret lawyer” by Legal 500.


Honors & Awards

  • Named to the "500 Leading Litigators in America" list for Intellectual Property & Technology Litigation by Lawdragon (2022)
  • 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, and 2020-2021
  • 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 Court, Northern, Eastern, Southern, and Central Districts of California, Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the District of Colorado
  • US Court of Appeals, Federal, Second, Third, and Ninth 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)


  • “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 is lead trial counsel for Par Pharmaceutical in a federal trade secrets and unfair competition case pending in the District of New Jersey. After conducting expedited discovery on the misappropriation claims, Brett and his team obtained a major victory when the court issued a preliminary injunction barring the defendant, a competing pharmaceutical company, from launching its version of Par’s most profitable product (the cardiopulmonary drug Vasostrict®). The injunction is effective through conclusion of the trial in the case, and the case remains in active litigation.  
  • Brett also represents Par in defending a separate case alleging federal antitrust claims involving Vasostrict®. After substantial discovery, Par moved for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims, and recently obtained an order in which Par was fully vindicated and all claims dismissed. Brett and his team continue to represent Par in the pending appeal of that decision.
  • Brett currently leads a team representing Resideo Technologies, a former subsidiary of Honeywell, in defense of patent infringement claims brought in the Eastern District of Texas involving network-enabled home security systems and related technology for real-time monitoring.
  • Brett represents Hulu, LLC, a leading video streaming service, 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 has successfully obtained dismissal of most of the original patents-in-suit, and is currently engaged in pretrial proceedings relating to the remaining patents.
  • Brett is lead counsel for a major consumer electronics company in parallel district court litigation and inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) 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. That court then summarily affirmed the PTAB.
  • 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.