Brian P. Quinn
Associate
Disclaimer
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; taken the direct and rebuttal examinations of an expert economist 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 won summary judgment for Samsung after eight years of litigation in multi-district and class action proceedings, defeating antitrust conspiracy claims seeking more than $1 billion in actual damages and $3 billion in trebled damages. American Lawyer selected that victory as a finalist for its “Global Litigation/Dispute Resolution of the Year” award in 2018. More recently, Brian served as the principal drafter of a successful motion to dismiss class-action antitrust conspiracy claims alleging that Samsung and other manufacturers of Dynamic Random-Access Memory conspired to restrict output.
Brian maintains an active pro bono practice. He has litigated habeas corpus cases on behalf of pro bono clients in federal district courts, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits, and in the United States Supreme Court. Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit appointed Brian to brief and argue an appeal on behalf of a pro bono client. Brian convinced the court to vacate his client’s sentence and order a remand to cure a sentencing defect attributable to the ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Feldman, ––– Fed. App’x ––––, 2019 WL 6492488, at *2 (4th Cir. Dec. 3, 2019).
Prior to joining O’Melveny, Brian served in the White House from 2010 through 2012 and at the Office of the US Trade Representative from 2012 through 2013.
Admissions
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
Education
- Stanford University, J.D.: Senior Online Editor, Stanford Law Review
- Stanford University, B.A., American History
Professional Activities
Author
- 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)
Member
- ABA Section of Antitrust Law