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 35 multi-district litigation (MDL) antitrust proceedings and has achieved precedent-setting results. With 31 years of experience in antitrust litigation, Ian is one of a few lawyers listed in the Commercial Litigation Global Leader and Competition Thought Leader Who’s Who Legal directories and in Chambers. He is an alumnus of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division.

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 (twice), Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth (twice) and Tenth 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. He is currently lead counsel for BH Management Inc. in In re: Realpage, Inc., Rental Software Antitrust Litigation (No. II), and he is currently co-lead counsel to Google in In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.) and State of Utah et al. v. Google LLC et al. (N.D. Cal.), landmark antitrust cases.

An expert in the doctrine at the intersection of intellectual property and antitrust law, including FRAND and the law of Standard Setting Organizations, Ian represented Samsung as an amicus in Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) v. Qualcomm, a filing whose content made its way into the District Court opinion denying Qualcomm’s motion to dismiss. In 2020, Ian represented 46 of the Nation’s top antitrust scholars in a Ninth Circuit amicus brief in support of the FTC in its Qualcomm appeal. Ian currently represents the Fair Standards Alliance in matters involving standard essential patents and he moderated a panel on the antitrust analysis of standard essential patents at the 2021 American Bar Association Spring Meeting in Washington D.C.


Honors & Awards

  • Recognized by Chambers USA for Antitrust (2014-2023)
  • Recognized by Who's Who Legal as a Thought Leader in Competition (2021-2023)
  • Recommended by Who’s Who Legal for Commercial Litigation (2020, 2021, 2023)
  • Benchmark Litigation, National Practice Area Star - Antitrust & Competition, Local Litigation Star (2019-2023), and Benchmark Litigation Star (2022)
  • Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America for Antitrust Litigation and Intellectual Property (2022-2023)
  • Recommended by The Legal 500 US for Civil Litigation/Class Actions: Defense and Cartel (2022)
  • Recognized by LMG Life Sciences for Antitrust Practitioner of the Year (2021)
  • Recognized by Best Lawyers® for Litigation - Antitrust in Washington, DC (2022-2023); Ian has been listed in Best Lawyers® since 2010
  • Recognized by The Legal 500 US for Antitrust Law (2008, 2012-2014, 2017-2021) and Mergers & Acquisitions (2020-2021)
  • “Super Lawyer” for Antitrust, Washington DC Super Lawyers magazine (2013-2020)
  • Recognized by Who's Who Legal as an Expert in Competition (2018)
  • 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)


Bar Admissions

  • District of Columbia
  • Pennsylvania

Court Admissions

  • US Supreme Court
  • US Court of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, 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


  • “Roundtable Discussion on Women in Antitrust” (co-authors Judge Diane Wood, Roberta “Bobbi” Liebenberg, Doha Mekki, Martha Samuelson, Eleanor Fox, and Barbara Sicalides), American Bar Association Antitrust Magazine (Spring 2023)
  • “Thou Art Weighed In The Balance–And Found Wanting? Evidence in Government Merger and Monopolization Litigation” (co-authors James A. Keyte and Brian P. Quinn), 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 Scott Schaeffer, Brian P. Quinn and Eric Rodriguez), American Bar Association Antitrust Magazine (Summer 2021)
  • “FTC v. Qualcomm and the Potential Implications for Section 2” (co-authors Scott Schaeffer and 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 Magazine (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

  • “Trying a Section 2 Case: Best Practices,” American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law 71st Annual Spring Meeting (March 2023)
  • “Economic Analysis of High-Tech Industries,” Yale University (November 16, 2022)
  • “Antitrust and SEPs: What’s Next?,” American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law 70th Annual Spring Meeting (April 2022)
  • "High Technology Deals: Are New Standards Warranted," American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law 69th Annual Spring Meeting (March 2021) (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 2023)
  • Panelist, “The Brussels Effect? A practical outlook on global convergence and divergence in digital platform regulation after the EU’s Digital Markets Act,” Stanford Law School (March 2023)
  • Panelist, “Dealing with Tech Platforms in a Globalized World,” NYU Antitrust and 21st Century Bigness Symposium (February 24, 2023)
  • Panelist, “Issues Arising from Class Actions Involving International Cartels,” National Conference on Class Actions 2022 (November 10, 2022)
  • Panelist, "Unilateral conduct vis-à-vis investigation on different jurisdiction," Penn Law Antitrust Association (PLAA) Conference (October 2021)
  • 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)
  • Google. Ian is defending Google in four antitrust cases pitting the company against a game developer, putative classes of consumers and app developers, and 36 state attorneys general. Plaintiffs accuse Google of engaging in unlawful monopolization by restricting the distribution of third-party app stores, deterring Android users from “side-loading” apps downloaded from the Internet, and “tying” app distribution to developers’ use of Google Pay Billing. The complaints claim that Google makes it difficult to buy apps outside the Google Play Store, and blocks competing app stores from its marketplace while preventing them from advertising on Google properties. Trial is scheduled in September 2022. In re: Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:21-md-02981-JD (N.D. Cal.); Epic Games, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 3:20-cv-05671-JD (N.D. Cal.); In re Google Play Consumer Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:20-cv-05761-JD (N.D. Cal.); In re Google Play Developer Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:20-cv-05792-JD (N.D. Cal.); State of Utah et. al. v. Google LLC et. al., No. 3:21-cv-05227-JD (N.D. Cal.).
  • Novartis. Ian is counsel to Novartis Pharma AG, Novartis Technology LLC, and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Novartis Pharma AG, et al., 1:21-cv-01066-DNH-CFH (N.D.N.Y), a Walker Process monopolization action relating to a patent covering a method for treatment of ophthalmic conditions. In 2022, Ian secured the dismissal of the complaint and the matter is now on appeal. Regeneron Pharms., Inc. v. Novartis Pharma AG, 582 F. Supp. 3d 26 (N.D.N.Y. 2022).
  • 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 dismissal was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, 28 F.4th 42 (9th Cir. 2022). Ian argued on behalf of Samsung, Micron and SK Hynix, Inc.
  • 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 and the court granted it with prejudice, dismissing the case. United Am. Corp. v. Bitmain, Inc., 530 F. Supp. 3d 1241, 1249 (S.D. Fla. 2021).
  • American Airlines. US Airways Inc v. Sabre (S.D.N.Y. April-May 2022):  Six week jury trial in which trial team secured a successful jury verdict against Sabre finding that Sabre illegally maintained its monopoly power in the Sabre distribution market; this landmark case is the first two sided market case to be tried to a jury.
  • 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).
  • 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.

In the News

O’Melveny Antitrust & Competition Lawyers Appointed to Leadership Roles

September 8, 2023

Law360: Dozens Of Real Estate Cos. Want Out Of RealPage MDL

July 10, 2023

Law360: Gun Control Groups Ask High Court To Review Bump Stocks

May 9, 2023

Concurrences: Antitrust Writing Awards: Business Articles

March 29, 2023

NYU Law: Antitrust and 21st Century Bigness: Dealing with Tech Platforms in a Globalized World

January 25, 2023

American Bar Association: Roundtable Discussion on Women in Antitrust

January 13, 2023

Law360: Plaintiff Firms Spar Over RealPage Consolidation Bid In Wash.

December 22, 2022

American Bar Association: Thou Art Weighed In The Balance–And Found Wanting? Evidence in Government Merger and Monopolization Litigation

December 22, 2022

Law360: Match Can’t Avoid Google’s Breach Claims In Play Store MDL

September 6, 2022

Law360: Google Fights App Users’ Class Cert. Bid In Antitrust Row

June 27, 2022

Law360: Google Settles Play Store Suit With App Developers

May 27, 2022

Law360: Epic’s Bandcamp Won’t Have To Use Google Billing, For Now

May 20, 2022

Law360: Full 9th Circ. Won’t Review Antitrust Suit Against Chipmakers

May 17, 2022

AmLaw Litigation Daily: Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout Outs

March 11, 2022

Global Competition Review: GCR 100 2022

December 10, 2021

Press Releases


Alerts and Publications

Antitrust Enforcement: A Vigorous Expansion of Competition Law

February 13, 2023

The Start of Something Big? Delaware Chancery Court Takes Up Merits of Dispute Over Standard-Essential Patent Licenses and FRAND

February 3, 2023

Insights 2023

January 31, 2023

Antitrust & Life Sciences Year in Review: 2022

December 15, 2022

Making History: Six Strategic Trials in a Blockbuster Year of Antitrust Litigation

December 13, 2022

Eleventh Circuit Holds That a Franchisor and Its Franchisees May Violate Sherman Act by Entering Into No-Hire Agreements

September 12, 2022

DOJ Breathes New Life into Section 2 Criminal Enforcement

March 8, 2022

FTC Announces New 2022 HSR Reporting Thresholds and Renews Call to Congress for Additional Funding

January 25, 2022

Biden’s Build Back Better Act Aims to Strengthen the FTC’s Privacy and Data Security Stance, But Enforcement Options Remain Limited by Supreme Court Precedent

November 29, 2021