Ian Simmons

Partner

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.

pdf

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. 

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), 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 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.

VIEW MORE

Honors & Awards

  • Recommended by The Legal 500 US for Cartel (2022)
  • Benchmark Litigation, Benchmark Litigation Star (2022)
  • Recognized by LMG Life Sciences for Antitrust Practitioner of the Year (2021)
  • Recognized by Who's Who Legal in "Thought Leaders - Competition 2022" and "Competition 2021"
  • Recognized by Who's Who Legal in "Commercial Litigation 2020 and 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 (2019-2022)
  • Recognized by Chambers USA for Antitrust (2014-2022)
  • 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)
  • 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)

Admissions

Bar Admissions

  • District of Columbia
  • Pennsylvania

Court Admissions

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

Education

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

Professional Activities

Clerkships

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

Author

  • “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

  • “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)

Speaker

  • 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., 1:20-cv-05502-AJN (S.D.N.Y.), a Walker Process monopolization action relating to a patent covering a method for treatment of ophthalmic conditions.
  • 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).
  • 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.
VIEW MORE

Alerts and Publications

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

九月 12, 2022

DOJ Breathes New Life into Section 2 Criminal Enforcement

三月 8, 2022

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

一月 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

十一月 29, 2021

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

八月 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

七月 26, 2021

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

六月 30, 2021

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

四月 26, 2021

European Commission Extends Reach Over Non-Reportable Transactions

四月 6, 2021

CDA Section 230: Its Past, Present, and Future

二月 12, 2021

Senator Klobuchar Unveils Broad New Proposed Antitrust Legislation

二月 8, 2021

FTC Adjusts New 2021 HSR Reporting Thresholds Downward

二月 3, 2021

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

一月 27, 2021

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

一月 22, 2021

Germany Strengthens Antitrust Enforcement Powers to Rein in Big Tech

一月 19, 2021

China Expands National Security Review of Foreign Investments

一月 12, 2021

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

十二月 23, 2020

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

十二月 21, 2020

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

十二月 17, 2020

New Guidelines Clarify When Antitrust Division Will Consider Using Arbitration

十二月 1, 2020

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

十一月 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

十一月 20, 2020

In the News

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

九月 6, 2022

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

六月 27, 2022

Law360: Google Settles Play Store Suit With App Developers

五月 27, 2022

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

五月 20, 2022

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

五月 17, 2022

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

三月 11, 2022

Global Competition Review: GCR 100 2022

十二月 10, 2021

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

四月 6, 2021

Law360: DOJ Antitrust Alum Rejoins O’Melveny As Partner

二月 22, 2021

Law360: Fintech Group of the Year - O’Melveny

十二月 14, 2020

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

十一月 24, 2020

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

十月 5, 2020

Press Releases

Events