Ian Simmons


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.


As co-chair of the Firm’s Antitrust and Competition Practice, Ian Simmons has been lead counsel in more than 30 multi-district litigation (MDL) antitrust proceedings and has achieved precedent-setting results. In addition to his extensive experience with cartel cases, Ian litigates matters involving intellectual property issues, including the competitive implications of standard essential patents and FRAND obligations. He pays particular attention to global economic pressures that may affect his clients and has taken more than 30 depositions of economists.

An alumnus of the US Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Ian has utilized his prosecutorial skills and argued before the US Court of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits and the highest courts in New York and South Dakota and has tried seven cases to verdict. His efforts were recognized by Law360, which named Ian an MVP of the Year in Competition in 2011.


Honors & Awards

  • Shortlisted for “Litigator of the Year” at the 2015 Global Competition Review awards
  • Chambers USA for Antitrust (2014, 2015)
  • “2011 MVP of the Year - Competition Practice,” Law360
  • The Best Lawyers in America for Antitrust Law (2010-2016)
  • “Super Lawyer” for Antitrust, Washington DC Super Lawyers magazine (2013-2015)
  • Practical Law Company’s (PLC) Which lawyer? Global 50 Firms (2011)
  • Legal 500 US for Antitrust Law (2008, 2012-2014)


Bar Admissions

  • District of Columbia
  • Pennsylvania

Court Admissions

  • US Court of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuits


  • University of Pennsylvania, J.D., 1991
  • Yale University, M.A., 1988
  • McGill University, B.A., 1986

Professional Activities


  • Honorable Gustave Diamond, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania


  • FTC v. Sysco: ‘Price Discrimination’ Markets and The Rule of Law,” (co-author Ian Simmons and Ted Hassi) ABA Antitrust Magazine (Fall/Winter 2015)
  • “Where to Draw the Line: Should the FTAIA’s Domestic Effects Test Apply in Criminal Prosecutions?” (co-author Benjamin G. Bradshaw and Stephen McIntyre) ABA Antitrust Magazine (Summer 2015)
  • “The Continuing Relevance of Patent Validity in Reverse- Payment Litigation,” (co-author Kenneth O’Rourke and Stephen McIntyre) Concurrences (Spring 2014)
  • “Viewing FTC v. Actavis Through the Lens of Clayton Act Section 4” (co-author Kenneth R. O’Rourke and Scott Schaeffer) ABA Antitrust Magazine (Fall 2013)
  • “Reflections on Cartel Enforcement,” (co-author Kenneth R. O'Rourke) ABA Antitrust Magazine - 25th Anniversary Edition (December 2012)
  • “Everyone Is Entitled to His Own Opinion…Reflections on the Cross-Examination of Expert Witnesses,” 25 Antitrust 3 (Summer 2011)
  • “Towards Convergence: The Volume of ‘Affected’ Commerce Under the US Sentencing Guidelines and ‘Impact’ Analysis Under the Clayton Act,” (co-authors Julia Schiller and Angela Thaler Wilks), George Mason Law Review (Summer 2011)
  • “Survival of the Fittest - Aspen Skiing,” (co-authors Dylan Brown and Bo Pearl), Law360 (April 2011)
  • “Proof of Common Impact in Antitrust Litigation: The Value of Regression Analysis,” (co-authors Pierre Cremieux and Edward A. Snyder), George Mason Law Review (Summer 2010)
  • “Joint Ventures and the Sherman Act: The Problem Revealed by American Needle and How Best to Address It,” (co-authors Thomas Brown, Katherine Robison), The CPI Antitrust Journal, (March 2010 (2))
  • “One Hundred Years of (Attempted) Solitude: Navigating the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act,” 24 Antitrust 2 (Spring 2010)
  • “Rigorous Analysis in Antitrust Class Certification Rulings: Recent Advances on the Front Line,” (co-author Alexander P. Okuliar), 23 Antitrust 1 (Fall 2008)
  • “Private Enforcement of the U.S. Antitrust Laws Through Class Actions,” (co-author Alexander P. Okuliar), The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Competition Litigation 2009
  • “Without Presumptions: Rigorous Analysis in Class Certification Proceedings,” (co-authors Alexander P. Okuliar and Nilam A. Sanghvi), 21 Antitrust 3 (Summer 2007)
  • “Muddy Waters? Navigating the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act,” (co-authors Frank Goldman and Scott M. Hammack), Antitrust Report, Issue 2 (2006)
  • “The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 and State Law Antitrust Actions,” (co-author Charles E. Borden), 20 Antitrust 1 (Fall 2005)
  • “The New Meets the Old: The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 and State Law Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Actions,” (co-author Charles E. Borden) The Antitrust Practitioner, Vol. 2 (May 2005)
  • “Safer than a Known Way? A Critique of the FTC’s Report on Competition and Patent Law and Policy,” (co-authors Professor Janusz A. Ordover and David A. Applebaum), 18 Antitrust 39 (Spring 2004)
  • “I Know It When I See It: Defining and Demonstrating Blocking Patents,” (co-authors Patrick Lynch and Theodore H. Frank), 16 Antitrust 48 (Summer 2002)
  • “A Dialogue Between The Antitrust Division and Defense Counsel: The Nippon Paper Trial – Judicial Rejection of Foreign Price Fixing: What Does it Mean for the Future?,” Antitrust Law Criminal Practice and Procedure Committee, No. 30 (February 2001)
  • “The Advent of Per Se ‘Plus’: United States v. Nippon Paper and the Limitations of Sherman Act Criminal Enforcement Against Foreign Conspiracies,” 14 Antitrust 26 (Fall 1999)

Speaker and Moderator

  • “Presenting Economic Evidence in Merger Trials,” American Bar Association Spring Meeting (April 2016)
  • “Winning or Losing Class Certification post-Comcast,” ABA’s Section of Antitrust Law 62nd Annual Spring Meeting (March 2014) (moderator)
  • “Forging Expert Testimony to Prevail,” ABA’s Section of Antitrust Law 60th Annual Spring Meeting (March 2012)
  • “George Mason Law Review 13th Annual Symposium on Antitrust Law: Two Watersheds: The New Case Law of Bundles, Rebates and Class Certification,” Washington, DC (February, 2010)
  • “EU Antitrust Litigation and Class Actions: Where is Europe Going and What Can We Learn From The US Experience?” London, UK, (April, 2008)


  • Panelist, “Significant Legislative and Regulatory Developments,” 30th Anniversary Institute for Corporate Counsel (December 2011)
  • Panelist, “Antitrust Nuts & Bolts – How to Avoid Antitrust Litigation,” WMACCA Litigation Forum (October 2011)
  • Panelist, “U.S. Antitrust Law and Global Claims: Navigating The Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act,” American Bar Association Antitrust Spring Meeting (2009)
  • Faculty Member, “The Antitrust Litigation Course,” American Bar Association, Philadelphia, PA, (2007)
  • Panelist, “Class Certification: Is There A Trend Towards More Rigorous Analysis,” ABA Antitrust Spring Meeting (2007)
  • “Class Action Fairness Act: One Year Later Emerging Issues and Strategies,” New York, NY, (2006)
  • “Alternative Dispute Resolution and Competition: The Interface Between ADR and Competition Law,” IBC UK Conferences, London, UK, (2005)

Associate Editor

  • Antitrust Magazine (2010-Present)
  • Samsung Electronics. In re Optical Disk Drive Antitrust Litig. 303 F.R.D. 311 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Ian argued on behalf of all defendants in opposition to class certification by the direct purchasers; the motion for class certification was denied, only the second time that has happened in a civil case where a guilty plea was entered. The indirect purchaser motion for class certification also was denied.
  • Asiana Airlines. In what it called “a matter of first impression,” the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in April 2011 held that the Airline Deregulation Act preempts state antitrust claims against foreign air passenger carriers. See In re Korean Airlines, Co. Ltd. Antitrust Litigation, 642 F.3d. 685 (9th Cir. 2011). This appeal, argued by Ian, affirmed the district court. 567 F. Supp. 2d 1213 (C.D. Cal. 2008). In October 2012, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion reaching the same conclusion in connection with foreign air cargo carriers; Ian argued the appeal on behalf of 30 airlines. See In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, 697 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2012).
  • Marriott International. Ian represented Marriott International in a series of putative class actions alleging resale price maintenance. The consolidated MDL complaint was dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. See In re Online Travel Company Hotel Booking Antitrust Litig., 997 F. Supp.2d 526 (N.D. Tex. 2014).
  • Apollo Global Management. Ian represented Apollo Global Management in a putative class action alleging a market allocation in the alleged LBO market. Apollo’s motion for summary judgment was granted.
  • SK hynix. Ian was counsel to SK hynix in In re Dynamic Random Access Memory Litigation, 546 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008) (FTAIA bars foreign claims).