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.


The Co-Chair of the Firm’s Antitrust and Competition Practice, Ian Simmons has been lead counsel in more than 32 multi-district litigation (MDL) antitrust proceedings and has achieved precedent-setting results. With 29 years of experience in antitrust litigation, Ian is one of a few lawyers listed in both the Litigation and Competition Who’s Who Legal directories. 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 has 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. Ian has tried seven cases to verdict and has taken more than 30 expert economist depositions.

An alumnus of the US Department of Justice Antitrust Division, Ian’s career has been highlighted by several “firsts:” he was trial counsel in the first jury trial price fixing case to attack a wholly foreign conspiracy; he argued and won in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in what it called “a case of first impression” on the preemption of state antitrust laws; he is counsel to Bitcoin.com and Roger Ver in the first antitrust case involving crypto currency; and he is counsel to Samsung Bioepis in the first “pay for delay” case involving biosimilars. In 2019, the National Law Journal, in recognizing the DC office as litigation department of the year, singled out the $3 billion summary judgment victory for Samsung Electronics. Ian’s results have been recognized by Law360, which named Ian an MVP of the Year in Competition.


Honors & Awards

  • Recognized by Global Competition Review in “Who’s Who Legal: Thought Leaders – Competition 2021”
  • Recognized by Best Lawyers® 2022 for Litigation - Antitrust in Washington, DC; Ian has been listed in Best Lawyers® since 2010.
  • Benchmark Litigation, National Practice Area Star - Antitrust & Competition, Local Litigation Star (2019-2020)
  • Chambers USA for Antitrust (2014-2021)
  • “Super Lawyer” for Antitrust, Washington DC Super Lawyers magazine (2013-2020)
  • Recommended in Competition; Litigation by Who’s Who Legal (2018-2020)
  • National Law Journal, Antitrust Trailblazer (2017)
  • Shortlisted for “Litigator of the Year” at the 2015 Global Competition Review awards
  • Global Competition Review for Antitrust (2017)
  • Global Competition Review: Cartel Defense of the year, UK Air Cargo (2018)
  • “2011 MVP of the Year - Competition Practice,” Law360
  • Practical Law Company’s (PLC) Which lawyer? Global 50 Firms (2011)
  • Recognized by The Legal 500 US for Antitrust Law (2008, 2012-2014, 2017-2021) and Mergers & Acquisitions (2020-2021)


Bar Admissions

  • District of Columbia
  • Pennsylvania

Court Admissions

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


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

Professional Activities


  • Honorable Gustave Diamond, Chief Judge, US District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania


  • “FTC v. Qualcomm and the Potential Implications for Section 2” (co-authors Scott Schaeffer, Brian Quinn), American Bar Association’s Monopoly Matters (November 2020)
  • “Necessity as the Mother of Invention? Streamlining the Evaluation of Competitor Collaborations” (co-authors George Bashour, Arnd H. Klein and Celeste Saravia), American Bar Association Antitrust, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Summer 2020)
  • “The EC Communication on SEPs: Convergence, Divergence, or Silence?,” (co-authors Benjamin Hendricks and Philippe Nogues) American Bar Association Antitrust Magazine (Summer 2018)
  • “Price Discrimination Markets in Merger Cases: Practical Guidance from FTC v. Sysco,” (co-authors Sergei Zaslavsky and Lindsey Freeman), American Bar Association Antitrust Magazine (Fall 2016)
  • FTC v. Sysco: ‘Price Discrimination’ Markets and The Rule of Law,” (co-author Ted Hassi), American Bar Association Antitrust Magazine (Fall/Winter 2015)
  • “Where to Draw the Line: Should the FTAIA’s Domestic Effects Test Apply in Criminal Prosecutions?” (co-authors Benjamin G. Bradshaw and Stephen McIntyre), American Bar Association Antitrust Magazine (Summer 2015)
  • “The Continuing Relevance of Patent Validity in Reverse- Payment Litigation,” (co-authors Kenneth R. O’Rourke and Stephen McIntyre), Concurrences (Spring 2014)
  • “Viewing FTC v. Actavis Through the Lens of Clayton Act Section 4” (co-authors Kenneth R. O’Rourke and Scott Schaeffer), American Bar Association Antitrust Magazine (Fall 2013)
  • “Reflections on Cartel Enforcement,” (co-author Kenneth R. O'Rourke), American Bar Association 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)
  • “The Third Circuit Joins the Majority with In Re Hydrogen Peroxide,” (co-author Alexander Okuliar), Class Action Watch (April 2009)
  • “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)
  • “Downstream Discovery In Antitrust Class Actions,” (co-authors Laila Haider and John Johnson), The Antitrust Practitioner, Vol. 4 (July 2006)
  • “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

  • “Honest Broker or Advocate:  Effective Expert Testimony,” American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law 68th Annual Spring Meeting (March 2020)
  • “Antitrust ‘Markman’ Hearings: Cartel Class Certification Battles,” American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law 67th Annual Spring Meeting (March 2019)
  • “Update on Antitrust in Asia,” American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law 66th Annual Spring Meeting (April 2018)
  • “Herding Cartel Cases - Reconciling and Resolving Multiple Proceedings,” American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law 65th Annual Spring Meeting (March 2017)
  • “Presenting Economic Evidence in Merger Trials,” American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law 64th Annual Spring Meeting (April 2016)
  • “Winning or Losing Class Certification post-Comcast,” American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law 62nd Annual Spring Meeting (March 2014) (moderator)
  • “Forging Expert Testimony to Prevail,” American Bar Association 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, “Expert Witness Depositions,” Practising Law Institute’s Fundamentals of Taking and Defending Depositions (March 2020)
  • Panelist, “Expert Witness Depositions,” Practising Law Institute’s Fundamentals of Taking and Defending Depositions (March 2019)
  • 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 Section of Antitrust Law 57th Annual 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,” American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law 55th Annual 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)
  • Bitcoin.com. Ian is counsel to Bitcoin.com in United American Corp. v. Bitmain, Inc. et al. (S.D. Fla. 2018), the first antitrust case involving crypto currency. In January 2020, the Complaint was dismissed without prejudice; a renewed motion to dismiss has been filed.
  • 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. In December 2017, the Northern District of California granted O'Melveny's motions for summary judgment, capping off over eight years of work in this matter, including a Department of Justice investigation that ended without any charges against Samsung or any of its former employees. The plaintiffs were seeking $3 billion in trebled damages.
  • Samsung Bioepis. Ian is counsel to Samsung Bioepis in the first “pay for delay” case involving biosimilars, In re Humira Antitrust Litigation. In late June 2020, in a 73 page opinion, the Court dismissed the complaint; an appeal has been taken. In re Humira Antitrust, 465 F. Supp.3d 811, (N.D. Ill. 2020).
  • Samsung Electronics and Samsung Semiconductor. Ian is lead counsel for Samsung Electronics and Samsung Semiconductor in a case alleging price fixing on the part of DRAM manufacturers. In 2019 the case was dismissed without prejudice. Jones v. Micron Technology Inc., 400 F. Supp.3d 897 (N.D. Cal. 2019). The motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint is pending.
  • American Airlines/US Airways. Ian represents US Airways in US Airways v. SABRE Inc. (S.D.N.Y.), a cutting edge case involving two-sided markets and challenging SABRE’s MFN provisions.
  • Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm, Inc. In the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Ian represented 40 of the nation’s top antitrust scholars in support of the Federal Trade Commission and affirmance in this landmark monopolization case involving the antitrust analysis of standard essential patents.


Press Releases

Alerts and Publications

Antitrust Magazine: The Future of the Past: Taking Stock of SEP Policy at the Outset of the Biden Administration

August 9, 2021

Prompted by Sweeping Executive Order on Competition, New Leadership at US Antitrust Agencies to Launch Review of Merger Guidelines; Similar Initiatives in Europe and China May Signal Greater Convergence in Enforcement Across Jurisdictions

July 26, 2021

Unanimous Supreme Court Affirms Injunction Barring NCAA Rules that Limit Education-Related Compensation to Student Athletes

June 30, 2021

Supreme Court Holds That FTC Cannot Sue for Monetary Relief: AMG Capital Management v. FTC

April 26, 2021

European Commission Extends Reach Over Non-Reportable Transactions

April 6, 2021

CDA Section 230: Its Past, Present, and Future

February 12, 2021

Senator Klobuchar Unveils Broad New Proposed Antitrust Legislation

February 8, 2021

FTC Adjusts New 2021 HSR Reporting Thresholds Downward

February 3, 2021

EU Commission Publishes Text of EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment

January 27, 2021

The Department of Justice Antitrust Division Brings First-Ever Criminal No-Poach Case

January 22, 2021

Germany Strengthens Antitrust Enforcement Powers to Rein in Big Tech

January 19, 2021

China Expands National Security Review of Foreign Investments

January 12, 2021

European Commission Plan to Reform Europe’s Digital Space - Part 2 - Draft Digital Services Act

December 23, 2020

European Commission Plan to Reform Europe’s Digital Space - Part 1 - Draft Digital Markets Act

December 21, 2020

The Department of Justice Antitrust Division Brings First-Ever Criminal Labor Market Collusion Case

December 17, 2020

New Guidelines Clarify When Antitrust Division Will Consider Using Arbitration

December 1, 2020

American Bar Association’s “Monopoly Matters”: FTC v. Qualcomm and the Potential Implications for Section 2

November 23, 2020

The UK National Security and Investment Bill: Strengthening scrutiny of investment in the UK and introducing the UK’s first mandatory notification regime

November 20, 2020

China Publishes “Unreliable Entities” Rules Targeting Foreign Enterprises

September 22, 2020

DOJ Issues Letter Encouraging IEEE to Change Policy on Standard Essential Patents

September 18, 2020

Hong Kong Competition Tribunal Approves First Cartel Settlement

August 13, 2020

ABA’s Antitrust Magazine: Necessity as the Mother of Invention? Streamlining the Evaluation of Competitor Collaborations

August 10, 2020

Congress Reauthorizes ACPERA and Repeals Sunset Provision

July 17, 2020

DOJ’s Prosecution of Generic Drug Companies Continues as it Announces Price-Fixing Charges Against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

July 2, 2020

The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority Targets Big Tech

July 2, 2020

DOJ and FTC Issue New Vertical Merger Guidelines

July 1, 2020

Germany’s Federal Cartel Office Calls for the EU Court of Justice’s Guidance on Important Patent Licensing Issues

June 25, 2020

Germany’s Supreme Court Sides with National Antitrust Enforcer in Facebook Abuse of Dominance Case

June 23, 2020

May Price Gouging Update

June 4, 2020

Updates on Recent US Merger Control Developments - May 2020

May 22, 2020

New Proposed Legislation in California Increases Antitrust Scrutiny in M&A and Other Activities in the Healthcare Industry

May 19, 2020

COVID-19 Antitrust M&A Considerations

May 7, 2020

Collusion in the Healthcare Industry: DOJ Charges Oncology Group for its Participation in a Criminal Antitrust Conspiracy

May 6, 2020

Price Gouging Update—April 2020

April 30, 2020

Gun-Jumping Concerns for Pending Transactions When There Is No Such Thing as “Ordinary Course of Business”

April 27, 2020

The Failing Firm Merger Defense in Times of Economic Turmoil: Past Lessons and the COVID-19 Crisis

April 23, 2020

Antitrust Agencies Watch for Labor Market Collusion in the Healthcare Industry

April 20, 2020

DOJ and FTC on Alert for Anticompetitive Conduct in Labor Markets for COVID-19 Essential Workers

April 15, 2020

Nationwide Shortages Open New Frontiers in Fight Against COVID-19-Related Price Gouging

April 14, 2020

Hong Kong Competition Commission Consults on Proposed Commitments Offered by Online Travel Agents to Remove Parity Clauses from Agreements with Accommodation Providers

April 9, 2020

China Adopts Antitrust Enforcement Policy to Fight COVID-19 and Spur Economic Recovery

April 8, 2020

Antitrust Implications of the President’s Invocation of the Defense Production Act

April 2, 2020

Department of Health and Human Services Triggers Price Gouging and Hoarding Provisions of Defense Production Act

April 1, 2020

Hong Kong Competition Commission Issues Statement on the Application of the Competition Rules to Cooperation Agreements Between Companies Responding to the COVID-19 Pandemic

March 30, 2020

Competitor Collaborations and Communications in Time of Crisis: Practical Guidance

March 26, 2020

Antitrust Agencies Provide Guidance for Competitor Collaborations in Healthcare Sector as COVID-19 Outbreak Deepens

March 25, 2020

European Antitrust in the Time of COVID-19

March 25, 2020

Antitrust Enforcers to be Active Monitoring Marketplace Activity Related to COVID-19

March 20, 2020

FTC Announces New 2020 HSR Reporting Thresholds

January 28, 2020

In the News

Law.com: Miami Cryptocurrency Antitrust Case Could Provide Blueprint for Other Litigation

April 6, 2021

Law360: DOJ Antitrust Alum Rejoins O’Melveny As Partner

February 22, 2021

Law360: Fintech Group of the Year - O’Melveny

December 14, 2020

MLex Market Insight: Samsung, Micron, Hynix See Off US Memory Chip Price-fixing Lawsuit

November 24, 2020

Law360: Profs Ask 9th Circ. To Take New Look At FTC’s Qualcomm Suit

October 5, 2020

MLex Market Insight: US Federal Judge Poses Questions on Antitrust Injury, Market Definition in First Cryptocurrency Antitrust Suit

September 30, 2020

Law360: DOJ Takes ‘Strained’ Approach To CDA Antitrust Immunity

June 23, 2020

The AmLaw Litigation Daily: O’Melveny Named Litigator of the Week Runner Up

June 12, 2020

Law360: AbbVie Beats Antitrust Challenge To Humira ‘Patent Thicket’

June 8, 2020

The National Law Journal: How AbbVie and Humira Avoided ‘Pay for Delay’ Finding

June 8, 2020

Law360: Crypto Co. Slams Dismissal Bids In Bitcoin Cash Antitrust Suit

April 27, 2020

Global Competition Review: The Tipline for 27 January 2020

January 27, 2020

Competition Policy International: US: First Antitrust Trial involving Cryptocurrency Starts Next Week

January 23, 2020

Law360: Prof. Calls Qualcomm 5G National Security Fears Baseless

November 27, 2019