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 28 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 taken more than 30 expert economist depositions.

An alumnus of the US Department of Justice Antitrust Division, Ian uses his prosecutorial skills to maximize his clients’ interests. 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. His efforts were recognized by Law360, which named Ian an MVP of the Year in Competition in 2011.


Honors & Awards

  • Recognized by Best Lawyers® 2020 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 (2014-2019)
  • Who’s Who Legal: Competition (2018)
  • Who’s Who Legal: Litigation (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
  • “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, 2017-2019)


Bar Admissions

  • District of Columbia
  • Pennsylvania

Court Admissions

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


  • "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

  • “Antirust ‘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, “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.
  • 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 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. This result was featured in the May 30, 2019 National Law Journal article announcing O’Melveny DC as a General Litigation winner.
  • 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.