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.

An accomplished antitrust lawyer, Brian Quinn steers clients through the most challenging civil and criminal antitrust matters. Brian approaches antitrust litigation and counseling holistically—he draws on his in-depth experience in trials, appeals, grand-jury investigations, class-action litigation, and agency advocacy to create leverage for his clients. And clients turn to Brian when the stakes are high, the case raises issues of first impression, or antitrust arguments play a critical role in business disputes. In recognition of his abilities, Law360 named Brian a “Rising Star” in antitrust law in 2023.

Brian also regularly advises clients on licensing disputes involving standard-essential patents and draws on that same experience to represent clients in patent cases and Section 337 investigations before the US International Trade Commission. For example, Brian advised Samsung in a dispute with chipmaker Qualcomm, Inc. over its standard-essential patent licensing practices, counseled a major automaker on FRAND issues and licensing strategy in negotiations with a “patent privateer.”

Brian was a key member of the trial team that won an acquittal for the former CEO of chicken producer Pilgrim’s Pride after prosecutors in the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice unsuccessfully sought to prove criminal antitrust violations in an unprecedented three separate trials. Over the course of six months at trial, Brian prepared jury addresses, cross examined government witnesses, drafted and argued trial motions, and developed strategies to defeat important elements of the government’s case. 

Similarly, Brian helped client Samsung Electronics overcome class-action antitrust claims alleging that it conspired with other manufacturers of Dynamic Random-Access Memory to restrict output. Brian persuaded the trial judge to dismiss the claims with prejudice, and his briefing before the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit resulted in a unanimous panel decision affirming the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims.


Honors & Awards

  • Named a “Rising Star” in Antitrust by Law360 (2023)
  • Recommended by The Legal 500 US for Cartel (2023)
  • Named to the “Ones to Watch” list for Antitrust Law by Best Lawyers® (2023, 2024)
  • Winner, Best Antitrust Business Article by Readers’ Choice, Concurrence’s 2023 Antitrust Writing Awards


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


  • “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)
  • “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)
  • “FTC v. Qualcomm and the Potential Implications for Section 2,” 18 Monopoly Matters 4, ABA Antitrust Section Unilateral Conduct Committee (Nov. 23, 2020)
  • “The Hold-Up Tug-of-War—Paradigm Shifts in the Application of Antitrust to Industry Standards,” Competition (December 11, 2018)


  • ABA Section of Antitrust Law

District Court

  • Jayson Penn. United States v. Jayson Penn et al., No. 1:20-cr-00152-PAB (D. Colo.). Successfully defended the former CEO of Pilgrim’s Pride against criminal charges of Sherman Act Section 1 price-fixing violations in back-to-back-to-back trials in the District of Colorado.
  • National Beef Packing Company, LLC. Brown et al. v. JBS USA Food Co. et al., No. 1:22-cv-02946 (D. Colo.). Counsel in an antitrust class action alleging no-poach and wage-fixing agreements in the meatpacking industry.
  • Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc. Kucharski-Berger v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc., No, 19-cv-00770 (Johnson Cnty., KS). Counsel in an antitrust class action alleging conspiracies to raise the price of therapeutic pet food and to monopolize pet-food markets.
  • Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. In re Dynamic Random-Access Memory (DRAM) Indirect Purchaser Litig., No. 4:18-cv-02518-JSW (N.D. Cal.) | In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Direct Purchaser Litig., No. 4:18-cv-03805 (N.D. Cal.). Principal author of joint briefing on motions to dismiss class action antitrust conspiracy claims. District judge dismissed cases with prejudice. Jones v. Micron Tech. et al., 400 F. Supp. 3d 897 (2019). Principal author of joint answering brief in support of affirmance. U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal with prejudice in unanimous opinion. In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litig., --- F.4th ----, 2022 WL 665236 (9th Cir. 2022).
  • US Airways, Inc. US Airways, Inc., for American Airlines, Inc. as Successor and Real Party in Interest v. Sabre Holdings Corporation et al., No. 1:11-cv-02725-LGS (S.D.N.Y.). Planned and led defensive and offensive deposition and trial preparation for expert economic liability witnesses, taking into account developments in the law and economics of two-sided platforms.
  •, Roger Ver, Shammah Chancellor, and Jason Cox. United American Corp. v. Bitmain, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-25106-KMW-CMM (S.D. Fla.). Principal author of joint briefing on motions to dismiss Sherman Act and state-law claims of first impression alleging conspiracy between cryptocurrency miners, exchanges, and software developers. Argued each motion. Court dismissed claims with prejudice in a published opinion after granting leave to amend. United Am. Corp. v. Bitmain, Inc., 530 F. Supp. 3d 1241 (S.D. Fla. 2021). Plaintiff did not appeal.
  • C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Access Systems, Inc. AngioDynamics, Inc. v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al., No. 1:17-cv-00598-BKS-CFH (N.D.N.Y.) | North Brevard County Hospital District v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al., No. 1:20-cv-00363-TJM-CFH (N.D.N.Y.). Principal author of briefing in support of motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s antitrust tying claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act that reduced scope of proposed damages. Drafted closing arguments at trial. Jury returned a no-liability verdict in favor of client.
  • Samsung Bioepis. In re Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litig., No. 1:19-cv-01873 (N.D. Ill.). Co-authored briefing in support of motion to dismiss Sherman Act Sections 1 and 2 claims premised on AbbVie’s Adalimumab patent “thicket” and patent licensing agreements with biosimilar manufacturers. Court dismissed complaint with prejudice. In re Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litig., 465 F. Supp. 3d 811 (N.D. Ill. 2020).
  • Falls Church Medical Center, LLC, Virginia League for Planned Parenthood, Whole Woman’s Health Alliance. Falls Church Medical Center, LLC et al v. Oliver et al., No. 3:18-cv-00428-HEH (E.D. Va.). In constitutional reproductive rights litigation, led strategy on economic proof at trial. Took direct and rebuttal examination of plaintiffs’ expert economist, and assisted with cross examination of defendants’ expert economist. Briefed and argued motions to exclude testimony of expert economists. Defended deposition of plaintiffs’ economist, and led preparation of expert economic reports. Court invalidated state regulations as unconstitutional after eight-day bench trial. Falls Church Med. Ctr., LLC v. Oliver, 412 F. Supp. 3d 668 (E.D. Va. 2019).
  • Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. In re Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litig., Case No. 3:10-md-02143-RS (N.D. Cal.). Co-authored briefing in support of motions for summary judgment, motion to decertify class of indirect purchaser plaintiffs, and motions to exclude testimony of plaintiffs’ liability experts. District court granted summary judgment on class antitrust conspiracy claims and alleged damages of $1 billion before trebling.
  • Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK (N.D. Cal.). Co-authored amicus brief in opposition to Qualcomm Inc.’s unsuccessful motion to dismiss.
  • John Doe. JLM v. Smith et al., No. 5:17-cv-00028-EKD (W.D. Va.). Researched, drafted, and filed first-of-its-kind juvenile petition for habeas corpus seeking release or repatriation of unaccompanied minor child held indefinitely in custody of Office of Refugee Resettlement. Secured client’s requested repatriation to home country.

Press Releases

In the News

Rising Star: O’Melveny’s Brian P. Quinn

July 7, 2023

Law360: Law360 Names 2023’s Top Attorneys Under 40

June 19, 2023

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