Source: https://www.omm.com/professionals/ian-t-simmons/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 07:19:52+00:00

Document:
The 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 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.
Chambers USA regularly ranks Ian for his work in antitrust litigation, and notes his “fine reputation for his multijurisdictional cartel defense work” and reports that clients describe him as “outstanding and incredibly skilled,” commend his “detail-oriented work,” and praise his “encyclopedic knowledge.” Ian is consistently recognized for his work in antitrust by Legal 500, which labels him a “star of the antitrust bar” along with O’Melveny’s team as “top-drawer,” and by Global Competition Review who recently lauded him for his Samsung victory against Qualcomm in 2017, and shortlisted him for “Litigator of the Year” at the 2015 Global Competition Review awards. Who’s Who Legal highlights Ian’s “superb attention to detail, excellence in written and oral advocacy and subtle judgement on strategy,” noting that peers and clients consider him “a super smart litigator with great instincts.” Ian has also been named a 2017 Antitrust Trailblazer by the National Law Journal, a leading lawyer by Who's Who Legal: Litigation in 2017, and a competition expert by Who's Who Legal: Competition in 2018.
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 FTC v. Qualcomm, a filing whose content made its way into the District Court opinion denying Qualcomm’s motion to dismiss. He defeated class certification on a multi-billion-dollar price fixing claim involving Optical Disk Drives in the Northern District of California against Samsung and other major technology companies and obtained a highly significant victory for Asiana Airlines Inc. in long-running antitrust litigation, which extinguished hundreds of millions of dollars of potential exposure. Ian also represented Marriott International in an antitrust MDL involving online travel company booking; the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
A five time moderator or panelist at the American Bar Association Antitrust Spring meeting, and author of over 20 peer review articles, Ian is a Member of the Editorial Board of the American Bar Association Antitrust Magazine.
Recognized by Best Lawyers® 2019 for Litigation - Antitrust in Washington, DC; Ian has been listed in Best Lawyers® since 2010.
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.
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).
Honeywell International Inc. Ian was counsel to Honeywell International Inc. in an antitrust class action involving a putative class of indirect purchasers of Honeywell thermostats.
Chemtura Corporation (formerly Crompton Corporation). Ian was lead counsel for Chemtura in over 70 federal and state actions alleging price fixing and in federal MDL actions alleging conspiracies involving five different products and five separate time periods.
Sperry v. Crompton Corp., 863 N.E. 2d 1012, 8 N.Y. 3d 204 (2007). Ian prevailed in New York’s Highest Court, in what Global Competition Review termed “a landmark ruling,” holding that treble damages class actions are not cognizable under New York’s antitrust statute, the Donnelly Act.
In re Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litigation, 504 F. Supp. 2d 777 (N.D. Cal. 2007). The District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction foreign claims that did not satisfy the FTAIA’s “domestic injury” exception.
In re NBR Antitrust Litigation, 2006 WL 3147328 (3d Cir. 2006). Ian secured a reversal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in an antitrust/arbitration case.
Frankenfeld v. Crompton, 697 N.W.2d 378 (S.D. 2005). South Dakota Supreme Court reversing denial of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and rejecting argument that the mere allegation of a nationwide price fixing conspiracy was sufficient to confer jurisdiction.
CIGNA. Gibbs Properties, et al. v. CIGNA Corp., 196 F.R.D. 430 (M.D. Fla. 1999). Ian defended CIGNA in a major RICO case in which class certification was denied.
Nippon Paper Indus. United States v. Nippon Paper Indus, Co., Ltd., 62 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D. Mass. 1999). Ian defended NPI in a six-week criminal price fixing jury trial. This case was the first time that a federal grand jury indicted a company for its alleged involvement in a wholly foreign conspiracy. After the jury deadlocked, in a landmark ruling, the district court granted NPI’s motion for judgment of acquittal.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.