{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice","value":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice"},{"name":"K\u0026S Talent Partner","value":"K\u0026S Talent Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer"},{"name":"Chairman","value":"Chairman"},{"name":"Senior Counsel","value":"Senior Counsel"},{"name":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations","value":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations"},{"name":"Counsel","value":"Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Associate","value":"Senior Associate"},{"name":"Associate","value":"Associate"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Revenue Officer","value":"Chief Revenue Officer"},{"name":"Chief Recruiting Officer","value":"Chief Recruiting Officer"},{"name":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer","value":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Law Clerk","value":"Law Clerk"},{"name":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"}],"schools":[{"name":"(Commercial Law), in front of Monash University, Australia","value":3045},{"name":"Aberystwyth University","value":3004},{"name":"Albany Law School","value":2118},{"name":"American University Washington College of Law","value":3042},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Ave Maria School of Law","value":2892},{"name":"Baylor University School of Law","value":181},{"name":"Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law","value":2619},{"name":"Binghamton University","value":3002},{"name":"Boston College Law School","value":245},{"name":"Boston University School of Law","value":247},{"name":"BPP Law School Leeds","value":2642},{"name":"BPP Law School London","value":2782},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Cairo University, Law School","value":2962},{"name":"California Western School of Law","value":315},{"name":"Capital University Law School","value":327},{"name":"Case Western Reserve University School of Law","value":345},{"name":"Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law","value":2235},{"name":"Chapman University School of Law","value":377},{"name":"Charleston School of Law","value":2910},{"name":"City Law School, London","value":2998},{"name":"City Law School","value":2857},{"name":"Clark University","value":3006},{"name":"Cleveland-Marshall College of Law","value":426},{"name":"Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs","value":3008},{"name":"Columbia University School of Law","value":485},{"name":"Columbia University","value":3126},{"name":"Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America","value":3010},{"name":"Columbus School of Law","value":350},{"name":"Concord Law School of Kaplan University","value":1026},{"name":"Cornell Law School","value":512},{"name":"Creighton University School of Law","value":518},{"name":"Creighton University","value":3025},{"name":"Cumberland School of Law","value":1759},{"name":"CUNY School of Law","value":2893},{"name":"David A. Clarke School of Law","value":2399},{"name":"Deakin University School of Law","value":2907},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"Dickinson School of Law","value":2719},{"name":"Drake University Law School","value":609},{"name":"Duke University School of Law","value":613},{"name":"Duquesne University School of Law","value":614},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Emory University School of Law","value":659},{"name":"ESADE Business and Law School – Universidad Ramon Llull","value":3215},{"name":"Fachseminare von Fürstenberg","value":2918},{"name":"Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille","value":3055},{"name":"Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb","value":2983},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":3039},{"name":"Federal University of Rio de Janeiro","value":3022},{"name":"Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul School of Law (Brazil)","value":3062},{"name":"Florida A\u0026M University College of Law","value":699},{"name":"Florida Coastal School of Law","value":2894},{"name":"Florida International College of Law","value":707},{"name":"Florida State University College of Law","value":720},{"name":"Fordham University School of Law","value":722},{"name":"Franklin Pierce Law Center","value":734},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"George Mason University School of Law","value":752},{"name":"George Washington University Law School","value":753},{"name":"Georgetown University Law Center","value":755},{"name":"Georgia State University College of Law","value":761},{"name":"Ghent Law School","value":2793},{"name":"Golden Gate University School of Law","value":770},{"name":"Gonzaga University School of Law","value":772},{"name":"Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva","value":2997},{"name":"Hamline University School of Law","value":811},{"name":"Harvard Law School","value":824},{"name":"Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law","value":2994},{"name":"Hofstra University School of Law","value":858},{"name":"Howard University School of Law","value":872},{"name":"Huazhong University of Science and Technology","value":3016},{"name":"Humboldt University of Berlin","value":3012},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":2711},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":890},{"name":"International Association of Privacy Professionals","value":3009},{"name":"J. Reuben Clark Law School","value":262},{"name":"Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center","value":2084},{"name":"James Cook University of North Queensland","value":3034},{"name":"Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, France","value":2938},{"name":"Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health","value":2992},{"name":"Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Rechtswissenschaft (Germany)","value":3063},{"name":"Kansas City School of Law","value":2247},{"name":"Keio University","value":2968},{"name":"Kent College of Law","value":883},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Levin College of Law","value":2189},{"name":"Lewis and Clark Law School","value":1089},{"name":"Liberty University School of Law","value":1094},{"name":"Lincoln College of Law","value":2253},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"Loyola Law School","value":2895},{"name":"Loyola University Chicago School of Law","value":1135},{"name":"Loyola University New Orleans College of Law","value":1136},{"name":"Marquette University Law School","value":1176},{"name":"McGeorge School of Law","value":2402},{"name":"McGill University","value":2659},{"name":"Melbourne Law School","value":2899},{"name":"Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law","value":1221},{"name":"Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology","value":2996},{"name":"Michael E. Moritz College of Law","value":2728},{"name":"Michigan State University College of Law","value":1245},{"name":"Mississippi College School of Law","value":1285},{"name":"Moscow State University","value":2815},{"name":"National and Kapodistrian University of Athens","value":3032},{"name":"National Law University Jodhpur","value":3020},{"name":"National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law","value":2662},{"name":"New England School of Law","value":2886},{"name":"New York Law School","value":1403},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":1406},{"name":"Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law","value":323},{"name":"North Carolina Central University School of Law","value":1417},{"name":"Northeastern University School of Law","value":1430},{"name":"Northern Illinois University College of Law","value":1432},{"name":"Northwestern Pritzker School of Law","value":1451},{"name":"Notre Dame Law School","value":2278},{"name":"Ohio Northern University Law School","value":3036},{"name":"Oklahoma City University School of Law","value":1487},{"name":"Osgoode Hall Law School","value":3124},{"name":"Pace University School of Law","value":1516},{"name":"Panteion University","value":3033},{"name":"Paul M. Hebert Law Center","value":2713},{"name":"Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law","value":1562},{"name":"Pepperdine University School of Law","value":1570},{"name":"Pettit College of Law","value":1473},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile","value":3203},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru","value":3011},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Javeriana","value":3013},{"name":"Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo","value":3095},{"name":"Prince Sultan University College of Law","value":3167},{"name":"Queens College, Cambridge","value":3003},{"name":"Quinnipiac University School of Law","value":1626},{"name":"Ralph R. Papitto School of Law","value":1686},{"name":"Regent University School of Law","value":1649},{"name":"Rice University","value":3043},{"name":"Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg","value":3049},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law-Newark","value":1699},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law","value":1697},{"name":"S.J. Quinney College of Law","value":2408},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":1732},{"name":"Salmon P. Chase College of Law","value":1433},{"name":"Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law","value":103},{"name":"Santa Clara University School of Law","value":1771},{"name":"Seattle University School of Law","value":1787},{"name":"Seton Hall University School of Law","value":1790},{"name":"Shepard Broad Law Center","value":1460},{"name":"South Texas College of Law","value":2721},{"name":"Southern Illinois University School of Law","value":1849},{"name":"Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law","value":1852},{"name":"Southern University Law Center","value":1857},{"name":"Southwestern Law School","value":1876},{"name":"St. John's University School of Law","value":2724},{"name":"St. Mary's University School of Law","value":1896},{"name":"St. Thomas University School of Law","value":1746},{"name":"Stanford Law School","value":1904},{"name":"Stetson University College of Law","value":1910},{"name":"Sturm College of Law","value":2184},{"name":"Suffolk University Law School","value":1921},{"name":"Syracuse University College of Law","value":1956},{"name":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","value":1974},{"name":"Texas A\u0026M School of Law","value":1980},{"name":"Texas Tech University School of Law","value":1994},{"name":"Texas Wesleyan University School of Law","value":1996},{"name":"The College of Law Australia","value":3091},{"name":"The College of Law, London","value":2935},{"name":"The John Marshall Law School","value":2034},{"name":"The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School","value":2896},{"name":"The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law","value":2990},{"name":"The University of Akron School of Law","value":2143},{"name":"The University of Alabama School of Law","value":2045},{"name":"The University of Birmingham, U.K.","value":2796},{"name":"The University of Iowa College of Law","value":2206},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Tulsa College of Law","value":2407},{"name":"Thomas Jefferson School of Law","value":685},{"name":"Thomas M. Cooley Law School","value":2729},{"name":"Thurgood Marshall School of Law","value":1992},{"name":"Tianjin University of Commerce","value":2995},{"name":"Tulane University Law School","value":2113},{"name":"UC Davis School of Law","value":2160},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Panamericana","value":2904},{"name":"Universidad Torcuato di Tella","value":3035},{"name":"Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito","value":3028},{"name":"Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie","value":2977},{"name":"Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi","value":3135},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University of Alberta Faculty of Law","value":3088},{"name":"University of Amsterdam","value":2980},{"name":"University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law","value":2149},{"name":"University of Arkansas School of Law","value":2154},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of California College of the Law","value":3196},{"name":"University of California Hastings College of Law","value":2158},{"name":"University of California Irvine School of Law","value":2161},{"name":"University of California, Berkeley, School of Law","value":2159},{"name":"University of California, Davis","value":3019},{"name":"University of Cambridge, U.K","value":2991},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Central Florida","value":3027},{"name":"University of Chester Law School","value":3005},{"name":"University of Chicago Law School","value":2174},{"name":"University of Chicago","value":3038},{"name":"University of Cincinnati College of Law","value":2175},{"name":"University of Colorado School of Law","value":2177},{"name":"University of Connecticut School of Law","value":2180},{"name":"University of Dayton School of Law","value":2182},{"name":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law","value":2185},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Houston Law Center","value":2197},{"name":"University of Hull","value":3040},{"name":"University of Idaho College of Law","value":2201},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kentucky College of Law","value":2210},{"name":"University of La Verne College of Law","value":2211},{"name":"University of Law, London","value":2999},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law","value":2214},{"name":"University of Maine School of Law","value":2391},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2224},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":2237},{"name":"University of Minnesota Law School","value":2243},{"name":"University of Mississippi School of Law","value":2244},{"name":"University of Missouri School of Law","value":2246},{"name":"University of Montana School of Law","value":2048},{"name":"University of Nebraska College of Law","value":2744},{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law","value":2262},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law School","value":2282},{"name":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law","value":2354},{"name":"University of Richmond School of Law","value":2370},{"name":"University of San Diego School of Law","value":2377},{"name":"University of San Francisco School of Law","value":2378},{"name":"University of South Carolina School of Law","value":2750},{"name":"University of South Dakota School of Law","value":2387},{"name":"University of Southern California Gould School of Law","value":3051},{"name":"University of St. Thomas School of Law","value":2751},{"name":"University of Sydney Law School","value":3031},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wyoming College of Law","value":2429},{"name":"University of Zürich","value":3037},{"name":"University Paris Dauphine","value":2976},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":3052},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":"Activist Defense","value":72},{"name":"Capital Markets","value":26},{"name":"Construction and Procurement","value":40},{"name":"Corporate Governance","value":27},{"name":"Emerging Companies and Venture Capital","value":80},{"name":"Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation","value":28},{"name":"Energy and Infrastructure Projects","value":35},{"name":"Financial Restructuring","value":10},{"name":"Fund Finance","value":134},{"name":"Global Human Capital and Compliance ","value":121},{"name":"Investment Funds and Asset Management","value":78},{"name":"Leveraged Finance","value":29},{"name":"Mergers and Acquisitions (M\u0026A)","value":32},{"name":"Middle East and Islamic Finance and Investment","value":31},{"name":"Private Equity","value":33},{"name":"Public Companies","value":126},{"name":"Real Estate","value":36},{"name":"Structured Finance and Securitization","value":82},{"name":"Tax","value":37},{"name":"Technology Transactions","value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":"Antitrust","value":1},{"name":"Data, Privacy and Security","value":6},{"name":"Environmental, Health and Safety","value":71},{"name":"FDA and Life Sciences","value":21},{"name":"Government Advocacy and Public Policy","value":23},{"name":"Government Contracts","value":116},{"name":"Healthcare","value":24},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":135},{"name":"International Trade","value":25},{"name":"National Security and Corporate Espionage","value":110},{"name":"Securities Enforcement and Regulation","value":20},{"name":"Special Matters and Government Investigations","value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":"Antitrust ","value":129},{"name":"Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law","value":2},{"name":"Bankruptcy and Insolvency Litigation","value":38},{"name":"Class Action Defense","value":3},{"name":"Commercial Litigation","value":5},{"name":"Corporate and Securities Litigation","value":19},{"name":"E-Discovery","value":7},{"name":"Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes","value":4},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":136},{"name":"Intellectual Property","value":13},{"name":"International Arbitration and Litigation","value":14},{"name":"Labor and Employment","value":15},{"name":"Product Liability","value":17},{"name":"Professional Liability","value":18},{"name":"Toxic \u0026 Environmental Torts","value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning","value":133},{"name":"Automotive, Transportation and Mobility","value":106},{"name":"Buy American","value":124},{"name":"Crisis Management","value":111},{"name":"Doing Business in Latin America","value":132},{"name":"Energy Transition","value":131},{"name":"Energy","value":102},{"name":"Environmental Agenda","value":125},{"name":"Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)","value":127},{"name":"Financial Services","value":107},{"name":"Focus on Women's Health","value":112},{"name":"Food and Beverage","value":105},{"name":"Higher Education","value":109},{"name":"Life Sciences and Healthcare","value":103},{"name":"Russia/Ukraine","value":128},{"name":"Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)","value":123},{"name":"Technology","value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":"28","capability_id":null,"extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"R","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":445429,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6187,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eA partner in our Finance and Restructuring practice, David Ridenour represents financial institutions as issuers, underwriters, borrowers, lenders, sellers and purchasers in a variety of sophisticated asset-backed securitization and structured lending transactions. \u0026nbsp;In particular, he is an industry leader\u0026nbsp;in the digital infrastructure space, where he serves as issuer\u0026rsquo;s counsel for some of the largest and most active 144A and 4(a)(2) issuance platforms in the market.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid also advises lenders and borrowers with respect to senior and mezzanine credit facilities involving unsecured consumer loans, small business loans, mortgage and home equity loans and energy efficiency and solar loans, as well as advising both sellers and purchasers in forward flow purchase arrangements. David has years of experience working on both SEC publicly-registered and privately-negotiated securitization platforms totaling more than $100 billion in issuance value, secured by credit card receivables, franchise loans, timeshare receivables, mortgage servicing rights, automobile loans and leases, equipment loans and leases, mortgage-backed securities and trade receivables.\u003cbr /\u003eChambers USA has ranked David as a Band 4 leading lawyer and noted that he is particularly renowned for his strengths in digital infrastructure ABS mandates. Legal500 similarly highlights David as a key lawyer and emphasizes his prominent work involving cellular towers, fiber networks, and data center securitizations. Additionally, David is a frequent speaker at industry events as an expert in the digital infrastructure space.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"david-ridenour","email":"dridenour@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAligned Energy\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Advised Aligned on the issuance of $1.35 billion of securitized notes. Largest inaugural data center securitization and first-ever green bond data center securitization.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStack Infrastructure \u0026ndash;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eHave advised Stack on the issuance of over $1.70 billion of securitized notes. Most recent trade established a record-setting rate for the data center space.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSabey Data Centers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Have advised Sabey on the issuance of $975 million of securitized notes. Sabey obtained the first-ever A+ rating for a data center securitization.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompass Data Centers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Have advised Compass on the issuance of over $850 million of securitized notes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLandmark\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Have advised the Landmark and is affiliates on the issuance of $400 million of securitized notes.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":75,"guid":"75.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":82,"guid":"82.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":26,"guid":"26.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Ridenour","nick_name":"David","clerkships":[],"first_name":"David","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[{"id":2237,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2005-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"L.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"\"...extremely responsive and dependable, and stand ready to act for the large volume of transaction work at my company.\"","detail":"Legal 500, 2025"},{"title":"\"David is incredibly smart and commercial.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2025"},{"title":"\"David is a thought leader and trusted counselor.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2025"},{"title":"\"David has been a great resource for our company and a partner to us on our transactions.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2025"},{"title":"Top ranked - Band 4 lawyer, Capital Markets: Securitization: ABS-USA-Nationwide","detail":"Chambers USA 2025"},{"title":"Named Leading Lawyers in America","detail":"Leading Lawyers in America, 2024"},{"title":"Top ranked - Band 4 lawyer, Capital Markets: Securitization: ABS-USA-Nationwide","detail":"Chambers USA 2024"},{"title":"Rising Star","detail":"IFLR"},{"title":"Recognized","detail":"Legal 500"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-ridenour-623aab45/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eA partner in our Finance and Restructuring practice, David Ridenour represents financial institutions as issuers, underwriters, borrowers, lenders, sellers and purchasers in a variety of sophisticated asset-backed securitization and structured lending transactions. \u0026nbsp;In particular, he is an industry leader\u0026nbsp;in the digital infrastructure space, where he serves as issuer\u0026rsquo;s counsel for some of the largest and most active 144A and 4(a)(2) issuance platforms in the market.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid also advises lenders and borrowers with respect to senior and mezzanine credit facilities involving unsecured consumer loans, small business loans, mortgage and home equity loans and energy efficiency and solar loans, as well as advising both sellers and purchasers in forward flow purchase arrangements. David has years of experience working on both SEC publicly-registered and privately-negotiated securitization platforms totaling more than $100 billion in issuance value, secured by credit card receivables, franchise loans, timeshare receivables, mortgage servicing rights, automobile loans and leases, equipment loans and leases, mortgage-backed securities and trade receivables.\u003cbr /\u003eChambers USA has ranked David as a Band 4 leading lawyer and noted that he is particularly renowned for his strengths in digital infrastructure ABS mandates. Legal500 similarly highlights David as a key lawyer and emphasizes his prominent work involving cellular towers, fiber networks, and data center securitizations. Additionally, David is a frequent speaker at industry events as an expert in the digital infrastructure space.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAligned Energy\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Advised Aligned on the issuance of $1.35 billion of securitized notes. Largest inaugural data center securitization and first-ever green bond data center securitization.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStack Infrastructure \u0026ndash;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eHave advised Stack on the issuance of over $1.70 billion of securitized notes. Most recent trade established a record-setting rate for the data center space.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSabey Data Centers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Have advised Sabey on the issuance of $975 million of securitized notes. Sabey obtained the first-ever A+ rating for a data center securitization.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompass Data Centers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Have advised Compass on the issuance of over $850 million of securitized notes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLandmark\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Have advised the Landmark and is affiliates on the issuance of $400 million of securitized notes.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"\"...extremely responsive and dependable, and stand ready to act for the large volume of transaction work at my company.\"","detail":"Legal 500, 2025"},{"title":"\"David is incredibly smart and commercial.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2025"},{"title":"\"David is a thought leader and trusted counselor.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2025"},{"title":"\"David has been a great resource for our company and a partner to us on our transactions.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2025"},{"title":"Top ranked - Band 4 lawyer, Capital Markets: Securitization: ABS-USA-Nationwide","detail":"Chambers USA 2025"},{"title":"Named Leading Lawyers in America","detail":"Leading Lawyers in America, 2024"},{"title":"Top ranked - Band 4 lawyer, Capital Markets: Securitization: ABS-USA-Nationwide","detail":"Chambers USA 2024"},{"title":"Rising Star","detail":"IFLR"},{"title":"Recognized","detail":"Legal 500"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9357}]},"capability_group_id":1},"created_at":"2026-01-30T22:02:18.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-30T22:02:18.000Z","searchable_text":"Ridenour{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"...extremely responsive and dependable, and stand ready to act for the large volume of transaction work at my company.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"David is incredibly smart and commercial.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"David is a thought leader and trusted counselor.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"David has been a great resource for our company and a partner to us on our transactions.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top ranked - Band 4 lawyer, Capital Markets: Securitization: ABS-USA-Nationwide\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Leading Lawyers in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Leading Lawyers in America, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top ranked - Band 4 lawyer, Capital Markets: Securitization: ABS-USA-Nationwide\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IFLR\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}Aligned Energy – Advised Aligned on the issuance of $1.35 billion of securitized notes. Largest inaugural data center securitization and first-ever green bond data center securitization.{{ FIELD }}Stack Infrastructure – Have advised Stack on the issuance of over $1.70 billion of securitized notes. Most recent trade established a record-setting rate for the data center space.{{ FIELD }}Sabey Data Centers – Have advised Sabey on the issuance of $975 million of securitized notes. Sabey obtained the first-ever A+ rating for a data center securitization.{{ FIELD }}Compass Data Centers – Have advised Compass on the issuance of over $850 million of securitized notes.{{ FIELD }}Landmark – Have advised the Landmark and is affiliates on the issuance of $400 million of securitized notes.{{ FIELD }}A partner in our Finance and Restructuring practice, David Ridenour represents financial institutions as issuers, underwriters, borrowers, lenders, sellers and purchasers in a variety of sophisticated asset-backed securitization and structured lending transactions.  In particular, he is an industry leader in the digital infrastructure space, where he serves as issuer’s counsel for some of the largest and most active 144A and 4(a)(2) issuance platforms in the market.\nDavid also advises lenders and borrowers with respect to senior and mezzanine credit facilities involving unsecured consumer loans, small business loans, mortgage and home equity loans and energy efficiency and solar loans, as well as advising both sellers and purchasers in forward flow purchase arrangements. David has years of experience working on both SEC publicly-registered and privately-negotiated securitization platforms totaling more than $100 billion in issuance value, secured by credit card receivables, franchise loans, timeshare receivables, mortgage servicing rights, automobile loans and leases, equipment loans and leases, mortgage-backed securities and trade receivables.Chambers USA has ranked David as a Band 4 leading lawyer and noted that he is particularly renowned for his strengths in digital infrastructure ABS mandates. Legal500 similarly highlights David as a key lawyer and emphasizes his prominent work involving cellular towers, fiber networks, and data center securitizations. Additionally, David is a frequent speaker at industry events as an expert in the digital infrastructure space.  Partner \"...extremely responsive and dependable, and stand ready to act for the large volume of transaction work at my company.\" Legal 500, 2025 \"David is incredibly smart and commercial.\" Chambers USA 2025 \"David is a thought leader and trusted counselor.\" Chambers USA 2025 \"David has been a great resource for our company and a partner to us on our transactions.\" Chambers USA 2025 Top ranked - Band 4 lawyer, Capital Markets: Securitization: ABS-USA-Nationwide Chambers USA 2025 Named Leading Lawyers in America Leading Lawyers in America, 2024 Top ranked - Band 4 lawyer, Capital Markets: Securitization: ABS-USA-Nationwide Chambers USA 2024 Rising Star IFLR Recognized Legal 500 University of Nebraska at Lincoln Lincoln College of Law University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School District of Columbia Texas Virginia Aligned Energy – Advised Aligned on the issuance of $1.35 billion of securitized notes. Largest inaugural data center securitization and first-ever green bond data center securitization. Stack Infrastructure – Have advised Stack on the issuance of over $1.70 billion of securitized notes. Most recent trade established a record-setting rate for the data center space. Sabey Data Centers – Have advised Sabey on the issuance of $975 million of securitized notes. Sabey obtained the first-ever A+ rating for a data center securitization. Compass Data Centers – Have advised Compass on the issuance of over $850 million of securitized notes. Landmark – Have advised the Landmark and is affiliates on the issuance of $400 million of securitized notes.","searchable_name":"David L. Ridenour","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":435809,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6591,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSean Royall serves as the firm\u0026rsquo;s Global Practice Head for Antitrust and Consumer Protection. He has spent his entire career handling complex litigation matters and government investigations and is among the country\u0026rsquo;s most experienced and highly regarded antitrust lawyers. He focuses broadly on antitrust and consumer protection litigation, government investigations, and counseling, and is a highly experienced courtroom litigator with a stellar track record for winning high-stakes cases. Sean is equally effective navigating complex government investigations and advising clients on the details of a wide range of strategic antitrust and consumer protection issues.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSean previously served at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as the Deputy Director of the FTC\u0026rsquo;s Bureau of Competition. His antitrust career, both in government and private practice, has included work on many major mergers and acquisitions, as well as lead roles in complex litigation matters that often intersect with other areas of law, including patent law, various federal regulatory regimes, consumer protection, and privacy. Sean has deep experience representing clients across a range of industries, including biopharma, healthcare, e-commerce, telecom, financial services, energy, transportation, software, and semiconductors. In addition\u0026nbsp;to his work on U.S. antitrust and consumer protection matters, Sean has worked and advised on many similar cases and investigations in Europe and other parts of the world.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile\u0026nbsp;in government, Sean\u0026nbsp;was the lead trial lawyer in the FTC\u0026rsquo;s landmark monopolization suit against computer chip maker Rambus Inc., a novel case that established new legal standards applicable to patent disclosure within industry standard-setting consortiums. More recently, Sean played an important role on the trial team for AT\u0026amp;T in the company\u0026rsquo;s victory over the Department of Justice\u0026rsquo;s antitrust challenge to AT\u0026amp;T\u0026rsquo;s US$85 billion acquisition of Time Warner. In addition to his trial experience, Sean has successfully argued appeals in courts around the country.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSean also has a nationally prominent reputation for his work in the consumer protection area, where he has particularly deep experience handling FTC investigations and associated litigation focused on advertising, marketing, privacy, and data security issues. In 2018-19, for example, Sean served as lead counsel for Facebook in connection with the FTC\u0026rsquo;s extensive privacy-related investigation and subsequent settlement. He brings to this area of his practice deep knowledge of applicable law and agency practice, as well as the skills of an accomplished litigator.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor well more than a decade, Sean has been given a Band 1 ranking by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(2007-2025)\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ewhich has described him as \u0026ldquo;top of the field,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;a star in the antitrust world both in counseling and litigation,\u0026rdquo; and an \u0026ldquo;extremely talented lawyer and exceptional litigator.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSean\u0026rsquo;s other recognitions include being ranked in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers Global\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for Antitrust \u0026ndash; USA (2020-2023); endorsed as \u0026ldquo;Highly Recommended (Texas)\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGlobal Competition Review\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2025); named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Star\u0026rdquo; for Intellectual Property, Competition/Antitrust, Appellate, and Commercial work by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2023). He is named by \u003cem\u003eLexology\u003c/em\u003e as a \"Competition Thought Leader\" (2025);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;The Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as \u0026ldquo;Antitrust Lawyer of the Year\u0026rdquo; (2015, 2018); and \u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as \u0026ldquo;Litigation: Antitrust Lawyer of the Year\u0026rdquo; (2019). He has also been named to the \u0026ldquo;All-Star List\u0026rdquo; by BTI Services (2017) and deemed a \u0026ldquo;National Antitrust MVP\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2015); a \u0026ldquo;Mergers and Acquisitions and Antitrust Trailblazer\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2015); and a \u0026ldquo;Life Sciences Star\u0026rdquo; in Antitrust (2022) and Competition and Antitrust (2018\u0026ndash;2019) by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLMG Life Sciences\u003c/em\u003e. For the fourth year in a row, Sean was also named by \u003cem\u003eLawdragon \u003c/em\u003eas one of the \"500 Leading Litigators in America.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSean has written extensively on a wide range of topics relevant to, among other things, antitrust law and policy, consumer protection, privacy, FTC process and remedies, class action antitrust litigation, pharmaceutical antitrust, and standard setting. Sean previously served as Editorial Chair of the ABA\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAntitrust Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, and as an editor of the ABA\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAntitrust\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;magazine and of the Von Kalinowski treatise on\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAntitrust Laws and Trade Regulation\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthor, \u0026ldquo;A Google Breakup Would Serve Progressive Aims and Punish Business,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eBloomberg Law\u003c/em\u003e, October 5, 2023.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthor, \u0026ldquo;The FTC\u0026rsquo;s Punctuated Equilibrium,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eABA Antitrust Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, September 2023.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthor, \u0026ldquo;The FTC\u0026rsquo;s COPPA Conundrum: Ambiguities in the Rule and a Dearth of Authoritative Guidance Leave the Agency Vulnerable to Legal Challenges\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Antitrust Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, September 9, 2022.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthor, \u0026ldquo;Antitrust and Consumer Protection at Last Converge,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCorporate Counsel\u003c/em\u003e, April 27, 2022.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQuoted in, \u0026ldquo;CFPB May Fill Enforcement Gap After FTC\u0026rsquo;s High Court Loss,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e, May 6, 2021.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQuoted in, \u0026ldquo;By the Numbers: 5 Practices That Could Drive Big Law in 2021,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBloomberg Law\u003c/em\u003e, December 23, 2020.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQuoted in, \u0026ldquo;\u0026lsquo;Hipster Antitrust\u0026rsquo; Comes for Joe Biden,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNew York Times\u003c/em\u003e, November 13, 2020.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;A Watershed Moment? What Comes Next for the FTC in the Wake of AMG,\u0026rdquo;\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;ABA Antitrust Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, August 9, 2020.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;The Intersection of Antitrust and the False Claims Act,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHeadnotes\u003c/em\u003e, Dallas Bar Association, June 2020.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Unpacking the New FTC/DOJ Draft Vertical Merger Guidelines,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWLF Legal Pulse\u003c/em\u003e, March 9, 2020.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Seventh Circuit Sets Up Potential Supreme Court Review of FTC Monetary Relief Authority,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Antitrust Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, December 12, 2019.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Next Stop, Supreme Court? Seventh Circuit Goes Its Own Way on FTC\u0026rsquo;s Authority to Obtain Monetary Relief,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWLF Legal Pulse\u003c/em\u003e, September 3, 2019.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Taking Stock of FTC Cybersecurity Enforcement After the Equifax Settlement,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWLF Legal Pulse\u003c/em\u003e, August 7, 2019.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Ninth Circuit Judges Call for En Banc Review of FTC\u0026rsquo;s Authority to Obtain Monetary Relief,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWLF Legal Pulse\u003c/em\u003e, January 15, 2019.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCo-author, \u0026ldquo;Lessons from FTC\u0026rsquo;s Loss in, and Subsequent Abandonment of, DirecTV Advertising Case,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWLF Legal Pulse\u003c/em\u003e, October 23, 2018.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCo-author, \u0026ldquo;Are Disgorgement\u0026rsquo;s Days Numbered?\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eKokesh v. SEC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;May Foreshadow Curtailment of the FTC\u0026rsquo;s Authority to Obtain Monetary Relief,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Antitrust Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, Spring 2018.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Will\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eKokesh v. FTC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Put a Kink in the Federal Trade Commission\u0026rsquo;s Disgorgement Hose?\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWLF Legal Pulse\u003c/em\u003e, July 10, 2017.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Antitrust Scrutiny of Pharmaceutical Product Hopping,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Antitrust Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, Fall 2013.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;When Mergers Become a Private Matter: An Updated Antitrust Primer,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Antitrust Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, Spring 2012.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Evaluating Mergers Between Potential Competitors Under the New Horizontal Merger Guidelines,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Antitrust Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, Fall 2010.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;The Complexities of Litigating Generic Drug Exclusion Claims in the Antitrust Class Action Context,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Antitrust Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, Spring 2010.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Change?: Merger Enforcement in the New Administration,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Advocate\u003c/em\u003e, Summer 2009.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Deterring \u0026lsquo;Patent Ambush\u0026rsquo; in Standard Setting: Lessons from Rambus and Qualcomm,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Antitrust Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, Summer 2009.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;The FTC\u0026rsquo;s N-Data Consent Order: A Missed Opportunity to Clarify Antitrust in Standard Setting,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Antitrust Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, Summer 2008.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Avoiding the Scarlet \u0026lsquo;S\u0026rsquo;: The Modern Challenges of Document Preservation and Destruction,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e, June 2005.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;The Art of Destruction,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e, September 2004.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Standard Setting and Exclusionary Conduct: The Role of Antitrust in Policing Unilateral Abuses of a Standard-Setting Process,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAntitrust\u003c/em\u003e, 2004.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Administrative Litigation at the FTC: Past, Present, and Future,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAntitrust Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 2003.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Noerr Immunity for Sponsoring Litigation: From Burlington Northern to Baltimore Scrap,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAntitrust\u003c/em\u003e, 2001.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Coping with the Antitrust Risks of Technological Integration,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAntitrust Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 2000.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Disaggregation\u0026nbsp;of Antitrust Damages,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAntitrust Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 1997.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Post-Chicago Economics,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAntitrust Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 1995.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","slug":"sean-royall","email":"sroyall@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLitigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Namenda Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(S.D.N.Y.) \u0026ndash; Represented Forest Labs. and affiliates in this still-ongoing indirect purchaser antitrust class action involving allegations of \u0026ldquo;product hopping\u0026rdquo; and a challenged \u0026ldquo;reverse payment\u0026rdquo; patent settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Restasis Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.N.Y.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead counsel for Allergan in this consolidated MDL antitrust class action involving complex patent- and FDA-related monopolization claims predicated on allegations of delayed entry of generic drugs. Cases settled favorably for defendants after class certification and summary judgment briefing and arguments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. ex rel. Silbersher v. Allergan\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Cal.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead counsel for Allergan in this False Claims Act litigation in which a private relator sought to assert claims of alleged fraud against the government predicated on a patent-related theory and assertions of delayed generic drug entry.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re JUUL Labs., Inc. Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Cal.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead antitrust counsel in this still-ongoing consolidated MDL antitrust class action challenging an allegedly unlawful agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. AT\u0026amp;T\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(C.D. Cal.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead antitrust counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in this suit in which DOJ asserted that AT\u0026amp;T\u0026rsquo;s DirecTV unit engaged in improper coordination and information sharing relating to pay TV distributors\u0026rsquo; negotiations with the provider of sports-related television content; case settled on highly favorable terms after full briefing of AT\u0026amp;T\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFTC v. Lending Club\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Cal.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead counsel for Lending Club in this suit in which the FTC asserted multiple consumer protection-based claims relating to Lending Club\u0026rsquo;s marketing and advertising practices and privacy-related compliance; argued summary and obtained partial victories; case settled favorably.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. AT\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D.D.C. \u0026amp; D.C. Cir.) \u0026ndash; Played an important role on the trial team in this landmark case in which AT\u0026amp;T defeated a DOJ antitrust challenge to the company\u0026rsquo;s US$85 billion acquisition of Time Warner, an outcome that was later affirmed on appeal in the D.C. Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSureShot v. Topgolf\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(S.D. Tex. \u0026amp; 5th Cir.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead counsel for Topgolf in this antitrust suit asserting monopolization claims; obtained full dismissal of all claims by district court and unanimous affirmance.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCipla v. Amgen\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del. \u0026amp; 3d Cir.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead counsel for Amgen in this monopolization suit brought by a generic drug competitor; argued preliminary injunction motion and participated in later interlocutory appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eShire v. Allergan\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. N.J.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead counsel for Allergan in this competitor monopolization suit involving alleged bundling and exclusive dealing practices; argued successful motion to dismiss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHartig v. Allergan\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del. \u0026amp; 3d Cir.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead counsel for Allergan in this putative antitrust class action asserting that Allergan delayed generic entry through alleged \u0026ldquo;product hopping\u0026rdquo;; argued successful motion to dismiss and later defended that ruling through oral argument before the Third Circuit; case was settled on highly favorable terms after remand to district court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eApotex v. Allergan\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead counsel for Allergan in this competitor monopolization suit predicated on claims of unlawful \u0026ldquo;product hopping\u0026rdquo;; obtained highly favorable settlement after the close of fact and expert discovery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmphastar v. Sanofi-Aventis\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(C.D. Cal.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead counsel for Sanofi in this competitor monopolization suit asserting patent- and FDA-related antitrust claims; successfully argued for dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. ex rel. Amphastar v. Sanofi-Aventis\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(C.D. Cal \u0026amp; 9th Cir.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead counsel for Sanofi in this suit in which a competing generic drug company, having had its own antitrust claims dismissed, sought to assert related False Claims Act claims as a purported relator; case was fully dismissed by the district court and the outcome was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFTC v. Commerce Planet\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(9th Cir.) \u0026ndash; Represented former Commerce Planet CEO in this FTC consumer protection suit in which the client, represented by prior counsel, was subjected to a judgment with significant personal liability.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStanwood v. Mary Kay Cosmetics\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(C.D. Cal.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead counsel for Mary Kay in this putative class action case alleging fraud and unfair competition relating to the company\u0026rsquo;s prior participation in industry pledge not to conduct animal-based testing; obtained full dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAvery Dennison v. 3M Corp.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Minn.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead antitrust counsel for 3M in this competitor suit alleging that 3M monopolized markets through wrongful patent-related conduct in the context of industry standard-setting activities; case settled on highly favorable terms following the close of fact and expert discovery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D. Pa.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead counsel for Biovail in this antitrust class action alleging patent-related monopolization and conspiracy claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTodd v. Exxon, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(S.D.N.Y.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead antitrust counsel for Phillips Petroleum in this putative antitrust class action alleging conspiracy claims based on asserted improper sharing of salary and benefits information.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNeon Systems v. BMC Software\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Tex. Civ.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead antitrust counsel for BMC Software in this competitor suit alleging that BMC had monopolized markets through unlawful pricing and bundling practices; case settled favorably shortly before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAtlantic Coast Airlines v. Mesa Airlines\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D.D.C.) \u0026ndash; Served as trial counsel for Atlantic Coast Airlines in this successful antitrust action obtaining a preliminary injunction barring United Airlines and Mesa Airlines from proceeding with a contemplated business arrangement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eContinental Forge v. Sempra Energy\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Sup. Ct. Cal.) \u0026ndash; Represented Sempra Energy and affiliates in this suit alleging antitrust conspiracy claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLonghorn Partners Pipeline Co. v. Holly Corp.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented Holly Corp. in this antitrust suit alleging monopolization of West Texas petroleum pipelines.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. AMR Corp.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Kansas) \u0026ndash; Represented American Airlines and parent AMR in this government antitrust suit alleging predatory pricing; case resolved through summary judgment for defendants.*\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLitton Systems v. Honeywell\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(C.D. Cal. \u0026amp; 9th Cir.) \u0026ndash; Represented Honeywell in this competitor monopolization suit alleging that Honeywell improperly excluded competition in the market for commercial avionics systems; successfully argued motion for directed verdict on majority of claims at issue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eContinental Airlines v. American Airlines\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(S.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash;Represented American Airlines in this suit alleging improper predatory pricing relating to American\u0026rsquo;s introduction of a new fare structure; obtained favorable jury verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGovernment Investigations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKurbo/WW Inc. \u0026ndash; Lead counsel for WW International and affiliate Kurbo in connection with FTC privacy (COPPA) investigation and settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eGoogle/Fitbit \u0026ndash; Counsel for Fitbit in connection with DOJ investigation of Google\u0026rsquo;s successful US$2.1 billion acquisition of Fitbit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAT\u0026amp;T/Time Warner \u0026ndash; Counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in connection with DOJ investigation of the company\u0026rsquo;s successful US$85 billion acquisition of Time Warner.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAT\u0026amp;T/DirecTV \u0026ndash; Counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in connection with DOJ investigation of the company\u0026rsquo;s successful US$48 billion acquisition of DirecTV.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFacebook \u0026ndash; Lead counsel for Facebook in connection with FTC investigation relating to compliance with prior 2012 consent order prescribing certain privacy-related standards and practices; also lead counsel for the company in connection with the prior 2012 FTC privacy investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBazaarvoice \u0026ndash; Lead counsel for Bazaarvoice relating to DOJ antitrust and order compliance investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTicketmaster/LiveNation \u0026ndash; Lead counsel for Ticketmaster in connection with DOJ investigation of the company\u0026rsquo;s US$2.5 billion acquisition of LiveNation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWilliams Cos. \u0026ndash; Lead antitrust counsel for Williams in connection with proposed US$38 billion acquisition by Energy Transfer Equity LP.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeon Max/Max Studios \u0026ndash; Lead counsel for Max Studios in connection with FTC investigation of asserted violations of prior FTC consent order imposing restrictions on advertising of textile content of retail garments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eValueClick \u0026ndash; Lead counsel for ValueClick in connection with FTC consumer protection claims involving various privacy and online advertising issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAllergan \u0026ndash; Lead counsel for Allergan in connection with FTC investigation of the company\u0026rsquo;s successful US$3.2 billion acquisition of Inamed Corp.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWatson Wyatt \u0026ndash; Lead counsel for Watson Wyatt in connection with DOJ investigation of the company\u0026rsquo;s successful US$3.5 billion acquisition of Towers Perrin.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eUnited Defense \u0026ndash; Lead counsel for United Defense in DOJ investigation of BAe\u0026rsquo;s successful US$4.2 billion acquisition of UDI.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAncestry.com \u0026ndash; Lead counsel for Ancestry.com in connection with FTC investigation of the company\u0026rsquo;s successful acquisition of Archive.com.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEndocare \u0026ndash; Lead counsel for Endocare in connection with FTC investigation of proposed merger with Galil Medical.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDiedrichCoffee \u0026ndash; Lead counsel for Diedrich in FTC investigation of successful merger with Green Mountain Coffee Roasters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eNumerous other representations as lead counsel in non-public government investigations, including many FTC consumer protection matters, where successful results leading to closures of the investigations caused them to remain non-public matters.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1147,"guid":"1147.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1141,"guid":"1141.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":23,"guid":"23.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":14,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":15,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":16,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":765,"guid":"765.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":18,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":19,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":20,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Royall","nick_name":"M. Sean","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Patrick E. Higginbotham, U.S Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit","years_held":"1990 - 1991"}],"first_name":"M. Sean","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2174,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude, Law Review","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1990-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked Band 1 for Antitrust, Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2007–2023"},{"title":"Top ranked for Antitrust USA","detail":"Chambers Global, 2020–2023"},{"title":"Named a “Litigation Star” for Intellectual Property, Competition/Antitrust, Appellate, and Commercial work","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023"},{"title":"Named “Highly Recommended (Texas)”","detail":"Global Competition Review, 2022"},{"title":"Named “Life Sciences Star” in Antitrust (2022) and Competition and Antitrust (2018–2019)","detail":"LMG Life Sciences"},{"title":"Named as one of “500 Leading Litigators in America”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2022 and 2024"},{"title":"Listed","detail":"Who’s Who Legal in Competition, 2021"},{"title":"Named “Litigation: Antitrust Lawyer of the Year”","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2019"},{"title":"Named “Antitrust Lawyer of the Year”","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2015 and 2018"},{"title":"Listed in “All-Star List”","detail":"BTI Services, 2017"},{"title":"Named “Mergers and Acquisitions and Antitrust Trailblazer”","detail":"National Law Journal, 2015"},{"title":"Named “National Antitrust MVP”","detail":"Law360, 2015"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/sean-royall-16964b232/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSean Royall serves as the firm\u0026rsquo;s Global Practice Head for Antitrust and Consumer Protection. He has spent his entire career handling complex litigation matters and government investigations and is among the country\u0026rsquo;s most experienced and highly regarded antitrust lawyers. He focuses broadly on antitrust and consumer protection litigation, government investigations, and counseling, and is a highly experienced courtroom litigator with a stellar track record for winning high-stakes cases. Sean is equally effective navigating complex government investigations and advising clients on the details of a wide range of strategic antitrust and consumer protection issues.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSean previously served at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as the Deputy Director of the FTC\u0026rsquo;s Bureau of Competition. His antitrust career, both in government and private practice, has included work on many major mergers and acquisitions, as well as lead roles in complex litigation matters that often intersect with other areas of law, including patent law, various federal regulatory regimes, consumer protection, and privacy. Sean has deep experience representing clients across a range of industries, including biopharma, healthcare, e-commerce, telecom, financial services, energy, transportation, software, and semiconductors. In addition\u0026nbsp;to his work on U.S. antitrust and consumer protection matters, Sean has worked and advised on many similar cases and investigations in Europe and other parts of the world.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile\u0026nbsp;in government, Sean\u0026nbsp;was the lead trial lawyer in the FTC\u0026rsquo;s landmark monopolization suit against computer chip maker Rambus Inc., a novel case that established new legal standards applicable to patent disclosure within industry standard-setting consortiums. More recently, Sean played an important role on the trial team for AT\u0026amp;T in the company\u0026rsquo;s victory over the Department of Justice\u0026rsquo;s antitrust challenge to AT\u0026amp;T\u0026rsquo;s US$85 billion acquisition of Time Warner. In addition to his trial experience, Sean has successfully argued appeals in courts around the country.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSean also has a nationally prominent reputation for his work in the consumer protection area, where he has particularly deep experience handling FTC investigations and associated litigation focused on advertising, marketing, privacy, and data security issues. In 2018-19, for example, Sean served as lead counsel for Facebook in connection with the FTC\u0026rsquo;s extensive privacy-related investigation and subsequent settlement. He brings to this area of his practice deep knowledge of applicable law and agency practice, as well as the skills of an accomplished litigator.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor well more than a decade, Sean has been given a Band 1 ranking by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(2007-2025)\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ewhich has described him as \u0026ldquo;top of the field,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;a star in the antitrust world both in counseling and litigation,\u0026rdquo; and an \u0026ldquo;extremely talented lawyer and exceptional litigator.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSean\u0026rsquo;s other recognitions include being ranked in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers Global\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for Antitrust \u0026ndash; USA (2020-2023); endorsed as \u0026ldquo;Highly Recommended (Texas)\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGlobal Competition Review\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2025); named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Star\u0026rdquo; for Intellectual Property, Competition/Antitrust, Appellate, and Commercial work by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2023). He is named by \u003cem\u003eLexology\u003c/em\u003e as a \"Competition Thought Leader\" (2025);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;The Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as \u0026ldquo;Antitrust Lawyer of the Year\u0026rdquo; (2015, 2018); and \u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as \u0026ldquo;Litigation: Antitrust Lawyer of the Year\u0026rdquo; (2019). He has also been named to the \u0026ldquo;All-Star List\u0026rdquo; by BTI Services (2017) and deemed a \u0026ldquo;National Antitrust MVP\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2015); a \u0026ldquo;Mergers and Acquisitions and Antitrust Trailblazer\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2015); and a \u0026ldquo;Life Sciences Star\u0026rdquo; in Antitrust (2022) and Competition and Antitrust (2018\u0026ndash;2019) by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLMG Life Sciences\u003c/em\u003e. For the fourth year in a row, Sean was also named by \u003cem\u003eLawdragon \u003c/em\u003eas one of the \"500 Leading Litigators in America.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSean has written extensively on a wide range of topics relevant to, among other things, antitrust law and policy, consumer protection, privacy, FTC process and remedies, class action antitrust litigation, pharmaceutical antitrust, and standard setting. Sean previously served as Editorial Chair of the ABA\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAntitrust Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, and as an editor of the ABA\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAntitrust\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;magazine and of the Von Kalinowski treatise on\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAntitrust Laws and Trade Regulation\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthor, \u0026ldquo;A Google Breakup Would Serve Progressive Aims and Punish Business,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eBloomberg Law\u003c/em\u003e, October 5, 2023.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthor, \u0026ldquo;The FTC\u0026rsquo;s Punctuated Equilibrium,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eABA Antitrust Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, September 2023.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthor, \u0026ldquo;The FTC\u0026rsquo;s COPPA Conundrum: Ambiguities in the Rule and a Dearth of Authoritative Guidance Leave the Agency Vulnerable to Legal Challenges\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Antitrust Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, September 9, 2022.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthor, \u0026ldquo;Antitrust and Consumer Protection at Last Converge,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCorporate Counsel\u003c/em\u003e, April 27, 2022.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQuoted in, \u0026ldquo;CFPB May Fill Enforcement Gap After FTC\u0026rsquo;s High Court Loss,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e, May 6, 2021.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQuoted in, \u0026ldquo;By the Numbers: 5 Practices That Could Drive Big Law in 2021,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBloomberg Law\u003c/em\u003e, December 23, 2020.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQuoted in, \u0026ldquo;\u0026lsquo;Hipster Antitrust\u0026rsquo; Comes for Joe Biden,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNew York Times\u003c/em\u003e, November 13, 2020.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;A Watershed Moment? What Comes Next for the FTC in the Wake of AMG,\u0026rdquo;\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;ABA Antitrust Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, August 9, 2020.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;The Intersection of Antitrust and the False Claims Act,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHeadnotes\u003c/em\u003e, Dallas Bar Association, June 2020.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Unpacking the New FTC/DOJ Draft Vertical Merger Guidelines,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWLF Legal Pulse\u003c/em\u003e, March 9, 2020.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Seventh Circuit Sets Up Potential Supreme Court Review of FTC Monetary Relief Authority,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Antitrust Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, December 12, 2019.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Next Stop, Supreme Court? Seventh Circuit Goes Its Own Way on FTC\u0026rsquo;s Authority to Obtain Monetary Relief,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWLF Legal Pulse\u003c/em\u003e, September 3, 2019.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Taking Stock of FTC Cybersecurity Enforcement After the Equifax Settlement,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWLF Legal Pulse\u003c/em\u003e, August 7, 2019.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Ninth Circuit Judges Call for En Banc Review of FTC\u0026rsquo;s Authority to Obtain Monetary Relief,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWLF Legal Pulse\u003c/em\u003e, January 15, 2019.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCo-author, \u0026ldquo;Lessons from FTC\u0026rsquo;s Loss in, and Subsequent Abandonment of, DirecTV Advertising Case,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWLF Legal Pulse\u003c/em\u003e, October 23, 2018.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCo-author, \u0026ldquo;Are Disgorgement\u0026rsquo;s Days Numbered?\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eKokesh v. SEC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;May Foreshadow Curtailment of the FTC\u0026rsquo;s Authority to Obtain Monetary Relief,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Antitrust Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, Spring 2018.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Will\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eKokesh v. FTC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Put a Kink in the Federal Trade Commission\u0026rsquo;s Disgorgement Hose?\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWLF Legal Pulse\u003c/em\u003e, July 10, 2017.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Antitrust Scrutiny of Pharmaceutical Product Hopping,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Antitrust Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, Fall 2013.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;When Mergers Become a Private Matter: An Updated Antitrust Primer,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Antitrust Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, Spring 2012.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Evaluating Mergers Between Potential Competitors Under the New Horizontal Merger Guidelines,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Antitrust Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, Fall 2010.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;The Complexities of Litigating Generic Drug Exclusion Claims in the Antitrust Class Action Context,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Antitrust Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, Spring 2010.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Change?: Merger Enforcement in the New Administration,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Advocate\u003c/em\u003e, Summer 2009.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Deterring \u0026lsquo;Patent Ambush\u0026rsquo; in Standard Setting: Lessons from Rambus and Qualcomm,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Antitrust Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, Summer 2009.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;The FTC\u0026rsquo;s N-Data Consent Order: A Missed Opportunity to Clarify Antitrust in Standard Setting,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Antitrust Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, Summer 2008.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Avoiding the Scarlet \u0026lsquo;S\u0026rsquo;: The Modern Challenges of Document Preservation and Destruction,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e, June 2005.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;The Art of Destruction,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e, September 2004.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Standard Setting and Exclusionary Conduct: The Role of Antitrust in Policing Unilateral Abuses of a Standard-Setting Process,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAntitrust\u003c/em\u003e, 2004.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Administrative Litigation at the FTC: Past, Present, and Future,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAntitrust Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 2003.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Noerr Immunity for Sponsoring Litigation: From Burlington Northern to Baltimore Scrap,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAntitrust\u003c/em\u003e, 2001.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Coping with the Antitrust Risks of Technological Integration,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAntitrust Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 2000.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Disaggregation\u0026nbsp;of Antitrust Damages,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAntitrust Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 1997.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Post-Chicago Economics,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAntitrust Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 1995.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLitigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Namenda Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(S.D.N.Y.) \u0026ndash; Represented Forest Labs. and affiliates in this still-ongoing indirect purchaser antitrust class action involving allegations of \u0026ldquo;product hopping\u0026rdquo; and a challenged \u0026ldquo;reverse payment\u0026rdquo; patent settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Restasis Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.N.Y.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead counsel for Allergan in this consolidated MDL antitrust class action involving complex patent- and FDA-related monopolization claims predicated on allegations of delayed entry of generic drugs. Cases settled favorably for defendants after class certification and summary judgment briefing and arguments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. ex rel. Silbersher v. Allergan\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Cal.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead counsel for Allergan in this False Claims Act litigation in which a private relator sought to assert claims of alleged fraud against the government predicated on a patent-related theory and assertions of delayed generic drug entry.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re JUUL Labs., Inc. Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Cal.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead antitrust counsel in this still-ongoing consolidated MDL antitrust class action challenging an allegedly unlawful agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. AT\u0026amp;T\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(C.D. Cal.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead antitrust counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in this suit in which DOJ asserted that AT\u0026amp;T\u0026rsquo;s DirecTV unit engaged in improper coordination and information sharing relating to pay TV distributors\u0026rsquo; negotiations with the provider of sports-related television content; case settled on highly favorable terms after full briefing of AT\u0026amp;T\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFTC v. Lending Club\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Cal.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead counsel for Lending Club in this suit in which the FTC asserted multiple consumer protection-based claims relating to Lending Club\u0026rsquo;s marketing and advertising practices and privacy-related compliance; argued summary and obtained partial victories; case settled favorably.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. AT\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D.D.C. \u0026amp; D.C. Cir.) \u0026ndash; Played an important role on the trial team in this landmark case in which AT\u0026amp;T defeated a DOJ antitrust challenge to the company\u0026rsquo;s US$85 billion acquisition of Time Warner, an outcome that was later affirmed on appeal in the D.C. Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSureShot v. Topgolf\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(S.D. Tex. \u0026amp; 5th Cir.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead counsel for Topgolf in this antitrust suit asserting monopolization claims; obtained full dismissal of all claims by district court and unanimous affirmance.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCipla v. Amgen\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del. \u0026amp; 3d Cir.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead counsel for Amgen in this monopolization suit brought by a generic drug competitor; argued preliminary injunction motion and participated in later interlocutory appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eShire v. Allergan\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. N.J.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead counsel for Allergan in this competitor monopolization suit involving alleged bundling and exclusive dealing practices; argued successful motion to dismiss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHartig v. Allergan\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del. \u0026amp; 3d Cir.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead counsel for Allergan in this putative antitrust class action asserting that Allergan delayed generic entry through alleged \u0026ldquo;product hopping\u0026rdquo;; argued successful motion to dismiss and later defended that ruling through oral argument before the Third Circuit; case was settled on highly favorable terms after remand to district court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eApotex v. Allergan\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead counsel for Allergan in this competitor monopolization suit predicated on claims of unlawful \u0026ldquo;product hopping\u0026rdquo;; obtained highly favorable settlement after the close of fact and expert discovery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmphastar v. Sanofi-Aventis\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(C.D. Cal.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead counsel for Sanofi in this competitor monopolization suit asserting patent- and FDA-related antitrust claims; successfully argued for dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. ex rel. Amphastar v. Sanofi-Aventis\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(C.D. Cal \u0026amp; 9th Cir.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead counsel for Sanofi in this suit in which a competing generic drug company, having had its own antitrust claims dismissed, sought to assert related False Claims Act claims as a purported relator; case was fully dismissed by the district court and the outcome was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFTC v. Commerce Planet\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(9th Cir.) \u0026ndash; Represented former Commerce Planet CEO in this FTC consumer protection suit in which the client, represented by prior counsel, was subjected to a judgment with significant personal liability.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStanwood v. Mary Kay Cosmetics\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(C.D. Cal.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead counsel for Mary Kay in this putative class action case alleging fraud and unfair competition relating to the company\u0026rsquo;s prior participation in industry pledge not to conduct animal-based testing; obtained full dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAvery Dennison v. 3M Corp.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Minn.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead antitrust counsel for 3M in this competitor suit alleging that 3M monopolized markets through wrongful patent-related conduct in the context of industry standard-setting activities; case settled on highly favorable terms following the close of fact and expert discovery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D. Pa.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead counsel for Biovail in this antitrust class action alleging patent-related monopolization and conspiracy claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTodd v. Exxon, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(S.D.N.Y.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead antitrust counsel for Phillips Petroleum in this putative antitrust class action alleging conspiracy claims based on asserted improper sharing of salary and benefits information.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNeon Systems v. BMC Software\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Tex. Civ.) \u0026ndash; Served as lead antitrust counsel for BMC Software in this competitor suit alleging that BMC had monopolized markets through unlawful pricing and bundling practices; case settled favorably shortly before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAtlantic Coast Airlines v. Mesa Airlines\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D.D.C.) \u0026ndash; Served as trial counsel for Atlantic Coast Airlines in this successful antitrust action obtaining a preliminary injunction barring United Airlines and Mesa Airlines from proceeding with a contemplated business arrangement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eContinental Forge v. Sempra Energy\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Sup. Ct. Cal.) \u0026ndash; Represented Sempra Energy and affiliates in this suit alleging antitrust conspiracy claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLonghorn Partners Pipeline Co. v. Holly Corp.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented Holly Corp. in this antitrust suit alleging monopolization of West Texas petroleum pipelines.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. AMR Corp.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Kansas) \u0026ndash; Represented American Airlines and parent AMR in this government antitrust suit alleging predatory pricing; case resolved through summary judgment for defendants.*\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLitton Systems v. Honeywell\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(C.D. Cal. \u0026amp; 9th Cir.) \u0026ndash; Represented Honeywell in this competitor monopolization suit alleging that Honeywell improperly excluded competition in the market for commercial avionics systems; successfully argued motion for directed verdict on majority of claims at issue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eContinental Airlines v. American Airlines\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(S.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash;Represented American Airlines in this suit alleging improper predatory pricing relating to American\u0026rsquo;s introduction of a new fare structure; obtained favorable jury verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGovernment Investigations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKurbo/WW Inc. \u0026ndash; Lead counsel for WW International and affiliate Kurbo in connection with FTC privacy (COPPA) investigation and settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eGoogle/Fitbit \u0026ndash; Counsel for Fitbit in connection with DOJ investigation of Google\u0026rsquo;s successful US$2.1 billion acquisition of Fitbit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAT\u0026amp;T/Time Warner \u0026ndash; Counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in connection with DOJ investigation of the company\u0026rsquo;s successful US$85 billion acquisition of Time Warner.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAT\u0026amp;T/DirecTV \u0026ndash; Counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in connection with DOJ investigation of the company\u0026rsquo;s successful US$48 billion acquisition of DirecTV.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFacebook \u0026ndash; Lead counsel for Facebook in connection with FTC investigation relating to compliance with prior 2012 consent order prescribing certain privacy-related standards and practices; also lead counsel for the company in connection with the prior 2012 FTC privacy investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBazaarvoice \u0026ndash; Lead counsel for Bazaarvoice relating to DOJ antitrust and order compliance investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTicketmaster/LiveNation \u0026ndash; Lead counsel for Ticketmaster in connection with DOJ investigation of the company\u0026rsquo;s US$2.5 billion acquisition of LiveNation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWilliams Cos. \u0026ndash; Lead antitrust counsel for Williams in connection with proposed US$38 billion acquisition by Energy Transfer Equity LP.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeon Max/Max Studios \u0026ndash; Lead counsel for Max Studios in connection with FTC investigation of asserted violations of prior FTC consent order imposing restrictions on advertising of textile content of retail garments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eValueClick \u0026ndash; Lead counsel for ValueClick in connection with FTC consumer protection claims involving various privacy and online advertising issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAllergan \u0026ndash; Lead counsel for Allergan in connection with FTC investigation of the company\u0026rsquo;s successful US$3.2 billion acquisition of Inamed Corp.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWatson Wyatt \u0026ndash; Lead counsel for Watson Wyatt in connection with DOJ investigation of the company\u0026rsquo;s successful US$3.5 billion acquisition of Towers Perrin.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eUnited Defense \u0026ndash; Lead counsel for United Defense in DOJ investigation of BAe\u0026rsquo;s successful US$4.2 billion acquisition of UDI.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAncestry.com \u0026ndash; Lead counsel for Ancestry.com in connection with FTC investigation of the company\u0026rsquo;s successful acquisition of Archive.com.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEndocare \u0026ndash; Lead counsel for Endocare in connection with FTC investigation of proposed merger with Galil Medical.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDiedrichCoffee \u0026ndash; Lead counsel for Diedrich in FTC investigation of successful merger with Green Mountain Coffee Roasters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eNumerous other representations as lead counsel in non-public government investigations, including many FTC consumer protection matters, where successful results leading to closures of the investigations caused them to remain non-public matters.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked Band 1 for Antitrust, Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2007–2023"},{"title":"Top ranked for Antitrust USA","detail":"Chambers Global, 2020–2023"},{"title":"Named a “Litigation Star” for Intellectual Property, Competition/Antitrust, Appellate, and Commercial work","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023"},{"title":"Named “Highly Recommended (Texas)”","detail":"Global Competition Review, 2022"},{"title":"Named “Life Sciences Star” in Antitrust (2022) and Competition and Antitrust (2018–2019)","detail":"LMG Life Sciences"},{"title":"Named as one of “500 Leading Litigators in America”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2022 and 2024"},{"title":"Listed","detail":"Who’s Who Legal in Competition, 2021"},{"title":"Named “Litigation: Antitrust Lawyer of the Year”","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2019"},{"title":"Named “Antitrust Lawyer of the Year”","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2015 and 2018"},{"title":"Listed in “All-Star List”","detail":"BTI Services, 2017"},{"title":"Named “Mergers and Acquisitions and Antitrust Trailblazer”","detail":"National Law Journal, 2015"},{"title":"Named “National Antitrust MVP”","detail":"Law360, 2015"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11010}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-08-27T18:44:30.000Z","updated_at":"2025-08-27T18:44:30.000Z","searchable_text":"Royall{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked Band 1 for Antitrust, Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2007–2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top ranked for Antitrust USA\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2020–2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a “Litigation Star” for Intellectual Property, Competition/Antitrust, Appellate, and Commercial work\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named “Highly Recommended (Texas)”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Global Competition Review, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named “Life Sciences Star” in Antitrust (2022) and Competition and Antitrust (2018–2019)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LMG Life Sciences\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named as one of “500 Leading Litigators in America”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2022 and 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who’s Who Legal in Competition, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named “Litigation: Antitrust Lawyer of the Year”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named “Antitrust Lawyer of the Year”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America, 2015 and 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed in “All-Star List”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BTI Services, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named “Mergers and Acquisitions and Antitrust Trailblazer”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"National Law Journal, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named “National Antitrust MVP”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}Litigation\nIn re Namenda Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation (S.D.N.Y.) – Represented Forest Labs. and affiliates in this still-ongoing indirect purchaser antitrust class action involving allegations of “product hopping” and a challenged “reverse payment” patent settlement.{{ FIELD }}In re Restasis Antitrust Litigation (E.D.N.Y.) – Served as lead counsel for Allergan in this consolidated MDL antitrust class action involving complex patent- and FDA-related monopolization claims predicated on allegations of delayed entry of generic drugs. Cases settled favorably for defendants after class certification and summary judgment briefing and arguments.{{ FIELD }}U.S. ex rel. Silbersher v. Allergan (N.D. Cal.) – Served as lead counsel for Allergan in this False Claims Act litigation in which a private relator sought to assert claims of alleged fraud against the government predicated on a patent-related theory and assertions of delayed generic drug entry.{{ FIELD }}In re JUUL Labs., Inc. Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.) – Served as lead antitrust counsel in this still-ongoing consolidated MDL antitrust class action challenging an allegedly unlawful agreement.{{ FIELD }}U.S. v. AT\u0026amp;T (C.D. Cal.) – Served as lead antitrust counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in this suit in which DOJ asserted that AT\u0026amp;T’s DirecTV unit engaged in improper coordination and information sharing relating to pay TV distributors’ negotiations with the provider of sports-related television content; case settled on highly favorable terms after full briefing of AT\u0026amp;T’s motion to dismiss.{{ FIELD }}FTC v. Lending Club (N.D. Cal.) – Served as lead counsel for Lending Club in this suit in which the FTC asserted multiple consumer protection-based claims relating to Lending Club’s marketing and advertising practices and privacy-related compliance; argued summary and obtained partial victories; case settled favorably.{{ FIELD }}U.S. v. AT\u0026amp;T (D.D.C. \u0026amp; D.C. Cir.) – Played an important role on the trial team in this landmark case in which AT\u0026amp;T defeated a DOJ antitrust challenge to the company’s US$85 billion acquisition of Time Warner, an outcome that was later affirmed on appeal in the D.C. Circuit.{{ FIELD }}SureShot v. Topgolf (S.D. Tex. \u0026amp; 5th Cir.) – Served as lead counsel for Topgolf in this antitrust suit asserting monopolization claims; obtained full dismissal of all claims by district court and unanimous affirmance.{{ FIELD }}Cipla v. Amgen (D. Del. \u0026amp; 3d Cir.) – Served as lead counsel for Amgen in this monopolization suit brought by a generic drug competitor; argued preliminary injunction motion and participated in later interlocutory appeal.{{ FIELD }}Shire v. Allergan (D. N.J.) – Served as lead counsel for Allergan in this competitor monopolization suit involving alleged bundling and exclusive dealing practices; argued successful motion to dismiss.{{ FIELD }}Hartig v. Allergan (D. Del. \u0026amp; 3d Cir.) – Served as lead counsel for Allergan in this putative antitrust class action asserting that Allergan delayed generic entry through alleged “product hopping”; argued successful motion to dismiss and later defended that ruling through oral argument before the Third Circuit; case was settled on highly favorable terms after remand to district court.{{ FIELD }}Apotex v. Allergan (D. Del.) – Served as lead counsel for Allergan in this competitor monopolization suit predicated on claims of unlawful “product hopping”; obtained highly favorable settlement after the close of fact and expert discovery.{{ FIELD }}Amphastar v. Sanofi-Aventis (C.D. Cal.) – Served as lead counsel for Sanofi in this competitor monopolization suit asserting patent- and FDA-related antitrust claims; successfully argued for dismissal of all claims.{{ FIELD }}U.S. ex rel. Amphastar v. Sanofi-Aventis (C.D. Cal \u0026amp; 9th Cir.) – Served as lead counsel for Sanofi in this suit in which a competing generic drug company, having had its own antitrust claims dismissed, sought to assert related False Claims Act claims as a purported relator; case was fully dismissed by the district court and the outcome was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit.{{ FIELD }}FTC v. Commerce Planet (9th Cir.) – Represented former Commerce Planet CEO in this FTC consumer protection suit in which the client, represented by prior counsel, was subjected to a judgment with significant personal liability.{{ FIELD }}Stanwood v. Mary Kay Cosmetics (C.D. Cal.) – Served as lead counsel for Mary Kay in this putative class action case alleging fraud and unfair competition relating to the company’s prior participation in industry pledge not to conduct animal-based testing; obtained full dismissal of all claims.{{ FIELD }}Avery Dennison v. 3M Corp. (D. Minn.) – Served as lead antitrust counsel for 3M in this competitor suit alleging that 3M monopolized markets through wrongful patent-related conduct in the context of industry standard-setting activities; case settled on highly favorable terms following the close of fact and expert discovery.{{ FIELD }}In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.) – Served as lead counsel for Biovail in this antitrust class action alleging patent-related monopolization and conspiracy claims.{{ FIELD }}Todd v. Exxon, et al. (S.D.N.Y.) – Served as lead antitrust counsel for Phillips Petroleum in this putative antitrust class action alleging conspiracy claims based on asserted improper sharing of salary and benefits information.{{ FIELD }}Neon Systems v. BMC Software (Tex. Civ.) – Served as lead antitrust counsel for BMC Software in this competitor suit alleging that BMC had monopolized markets through unlawful pricing and bundling practices; case settled favorably shortly before trial.{{ FIELD }}Atlantic Coast Airlines v. Mesa Airlines (D.D.C.) – Served as trial counsel for Atlantic Coast Airlines in this successful antitrust action obtaining a preliminary injunction barring United Airlines and Mesa Airlines from proceeding with a contemplated business arrangement.{{ FIELD }}Continental Forge v. Sempra Energy (Sup. Ct. Cal.) – Represented Sempra Energy and affiliates in this suit alleging antitrust conspiracy claims.{{ FIELD }}Longhorn Partners Pipeline Co. v. Holly Corp. (W.D. Tex.) – Represented Holly Corp. in this antitrust suit alleging monopolization of West Texas petroleum pipelines.{{ FIELD }}U.S. v. AMR Corp. (D. Kansas) – Represented American Airlines and parent AMR in this government antitrust suit alleging predatory pricing; case resolved through summary judgment for defendants.*{{ FIELD }}Litton Systems v. Honeywell (C.D. Cal. \u0026amp; 9th Cir.) – Represented Honeywell in this competitor monopolization suit alleging that Honeywell improperly excluded competition in the market for commercial avionics systems; successfully argued motion for directed verdict on majority of claims at issue.{{ FIELD }}Continental Airlines v. American Airlines (S.D. Tex.) –Represented American Airlines in this suit alleging improper predatory pricing relating to American’s introduction of a new fare structure; obtained favorable jury verdict.{{ FIELD }}Government Investigations\nKurbo/WW Inc. – Lead counsel for WW International and affiliate Kurbo in connection with FTC privacy (COPPA) investigation and settlement.{{ FIELD }}Google/Fitbit – Counsel for Fitbit in connection with DOJ investigation of Google’s successful US$2.1 billion acquisition of Fitbit.{{ FIELD }}AT\u0026amp;T/Time Warner – Counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in connection with DOJ investigation of the company’s successful US$85 billion acquisition of Time Warner.{{ FIELD }}AT\u0026amp;T/DirecTV – Counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in connection with DOJ investigation of the company’s successful US$48 billion acquisition of DirecTV.{{ FIELD }}Facebook – Lead counsel for Facebook in connection with FTC investigation relating to compliance with prior 2012 consent order prescribing certain privacy-related standards and practices; also lead counsel for the company in connection with the prior 2012 FTC privacy investigation.{{ FIELD }}Bazaarvoice – Lead counsel for Bazaarvoice relating to DOJ antitrust and order compliance investigations.{{ FIELD }}Ticketmaster/LiveNation – Lead counsel for Ticketmaster in connection with DOJ investigation of the company’s US$2.5 billion acquisition of LiveNation.{{ FIELD }}Williams Cos. – Lead antitrust counsel for Williams in connection with proposed US$38 billion acquisition by Energy Transfer Equity LP.{{ FIELD }}Leon Max/Max Studios – Lead counsel for Max Studios in connection with FTC investigation of asserted violations of prior FTC consent order imposing restrictions on advertising of textile content of retail garments.{{ FIELD }}ValueClick – Lead counsel for ValueClick in connection with FTC consumer protection claims involving various privacy and online advertising issues.{{ FIELD }}Allergan – Lead counsel for Allergan in connection with FTC investigation of the company’s successful US$3.2 billion acquisition of Inamed Corp.{{ FIELD }}Watson Wyatt – Lead counsel for Watson Wyatt in connection with DOJ investigation of the company’s successful US$3.5 billion acquisition of Towers Perrin.{{ FIELD }}United Defense – Lead counsel for United Defense in DOJ investigation of BAe’s successful US$4.2 billion acquisition of UDI.{{ FIELD }}Ancestry.com – Lead counsel for Ancestry.com in connection with FTC investigation of the company’s successful acquisition of Archive.com.{{ FIELD }}Endocare – Lead counsel for Endocare in connection with FTC investigation of proposed merger with Galil Medical.{{ FIELD }}DiedrichCoffee – Lead counsel for Diedrich in FTC investigation of successful merger with Green Mountain Coffee Roasters.{{ FIELD }}Numerous other representations as lead counsel in non-public government investigations, including many FTC consumer protection matters, where successful results leading to closures of the investigations caused them to remain non-public matters.{{ FIELD }}Sean Royall serves as the firm’s Global Practice Head for Antitrust and Consumer Protection. He has spent his entire career handling complex litigation matters and government investigations and is among the country’s most experienced and highly regarded antitrust lawyers. He focuses broadly on antitrust and consumer protection litigation, government investigations, and counseling, and is a highly experienced courtroom litigator with a stellar track record for winning high-stakes cases. Sean is equally effective navigating complex government investigations and advising clients on the details of a wide range of strategic antitrust and consumer protection issues.\nSean previously served at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as the Deputy Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. His antitrust career, both in government and private practice, has included work on many major mergers and acquisitions, as well as lead roles in complex litigation matters that often intersect with other areas of law, including patent law, various federal regulatory regimes, consumer protection, and privacy. Sean has deep experience representing clients across a range of industries, including biopharma, healthcare, e-commerce, telecom, financial services, energy, transportation, software, and semiconductors. In addition to his work on U.S. antitrust and consumer protection matters, Sean has worked and advised on many similar cases and investigations in Europe and other parts of the world.\nWhile in government, Sean was the lead trial lawyer in the FTC’s landmark monopolization suit against computer chip maker Rambus Inc., a novel case that established new legal standards applicable to patent disclosure within industry standard-setting consortiums. More recently, Sean played an important role on the trial team for AT\u0026amp;T in the company’s victory over the Department of Justice’s antitrust challenge to AT\u0026amp;T’s US$85 billion acquisition of Time Warner. In addition to his trial experience, Sean has successfully argued appeals in courts around the country.\nSean also has a nationally prominent reputation for his work in the consumer protection area, where he has particularly deep experience handling FTC investigations and associated litigation focused on advertising, marketing, privacy, and data security issues. In 2018-19, for example, Sean served as lead counsel for Facebook in connection with the FTC’s extensive privacy-related investigation and subsequent settlement. He brings to this area of his practice deep knowledge of applicable law and agency practice, as well as the skills of an accomplished litigator. \nFor well more than a decade, Sean has been given a Band 1 ranking by Chambers USA (2007-2025), which has described him as “top of the field,” “a star in the antitrust world both in counseling and litigation,” and an “extremely talented lawyer and exceptional litigator.”\nSean’s other recognitions include being ranked in Chambers Global for Antitrust – USA (2020-2023); endorsed as “Highly Recommended (Texas)” by Global Competition Review (2025); named a “Litigation Star” for Intellectual Property, Competition/Antitrust, Appellate, and Commercial work by Benchmark Litigation (2023). He is named by Lexology as a \"Competition Thought Leader\" (2025);  The Best Lawyers in America as “Antitrust Lawyer of the Year” (2015, 2018); and The Best Lawyers in America as “Litigation: Antitrust Lawyer of the Year” (2019). He has also been named to the “All-Star List” by BTI Services (2017) and deemed a “National Antitrust MVP” by Law360 (2015); a “Mergers and Acquisitions and Antitrust Trailblazer” by National Law Journal (2015); and a “Life Sciences Star” in Antitrust (2022) and Competition and Antitrust (2018–2019) by LMG Life Sciences. For the fourth year in a row, Sean was also named by Lawdragon as one of the \"500 Leading Litigators in America.\"\nPublications\nSean has written extensively on a wide range of topics relevant to, among other things, antitrust law and policy, consumer protection, privacy, FTC process and remedies, class action antitrust litigation, pharmaceutical antitrust, and standard setting. Sean previously served as Editorial Chair of the ABA’s Antitrust Law Journal, and as an editor of the ABA’s Antitrust magazine and of the Von Kalinowski treatise on Antitrust Laws and Trade Regulation.\n\nAuthor, “A Google Breakup Would Serve Progressive Aims and Punish Business,” Bloomberg Law, October 5, 2023.\nAuthor, “The FTC’s Punctuated Equilibrium,” ABA Antitrust Magazine, September 2023.\nAuthor, “The FTC’s COPPA Conundrum: Ambiguities in the Rule and a Dearth of Authoritative Guidance Leave the Agency Vulnerable to Legal Challenges” ABA Antitrust Magazine, September 9, 2022.\nAuthor, “Antitrust and Consumer Protection at Last Converge,” Corporate Counsel, April 27, 2022.\nQuoted in, “CFPB May Fill Enforcement Gap After FTC’s High Court Loss,” Law360, May 6, 2021.\nQuoted in, “By the Numbers: 5 Practices That Could Drive Big Law in 2021,” Bloomberg Law, December 23, 2020.\nQuoted in, “‘Hipster Antitrust’ Comes for Joe Biden,” New York Times, November 13, 2020.\n“A Watershed Moment? What Comes Next for the FTC in the Wake of AMG,” ABA Antitrust Magazine, August 9, 2020.\n“The Intersection of Antitrust and the False Claims Act,” Headnotes, Dallas Bar Association, June 2020.\n“Unpacking the New FTC/DOJ Draft Vertical Merger Guidelines,” WLF Legal Pulse, March 9, 2020.\n“Seventh Circuit Sets Up Potential Supreme Court Review of FTC Monetary Relief Authority,” ABA Antitrust Magazine, December 12, 2019.\n“Next Stop, Supreme Court? Seventh Circuit Goes Its Own Way on FTC’s Authority to Obtain Monetary Relief,” WLF Legal Pulse, September 3, 2019.\n“Taking Stock of FTC Cybersecurity Enforcement After the Equifax Settlement,” WLF Legal Pulse, August 7, 2019.\n“Ninth Circuit Judges Call for En Banc Review of FTC’s Authority to Obtain Monetary Relief,” WLF Legal Pulse, January 15, 2019.\nCo-author, “Lessons from FTC’s Loss in, and Subsequent Abandonment of, DirecTV Advertising Case,” WLF Legal Pulse, October 23, 2018.\nCo-author, “Are Disgorgement’s Days Numbered? Kokesh v. SEC May Foreshadow Curtailment of the FTC’s Authority to Obtain Monetary Relief,” ABA Antitrust Magazine, Spring 2018.\n“Will Kokesh v. FTC Put a Kink in the Federal Trade Commission’s Disgorgement Hose?” WLF Legal Pulse, July 10, 2017.\n“Antitrust Scrutiny of Pharmaceutical Product Hopping,” ABA Antitrust Magazine, Fall 2013.\n“When Mergers Become a Private Matter: An Updated Antitrust Primer,” ABA Antitrust Magazine, Spring 2012.\n“Evaluating Mergers Between Potential Competitors Under the New Horizontal Merger Guidelines,” ABA Antitrust Magazine, Fall 2010.\n“The Complexities of Litigating Generic Drug Exclusion Claims in the Antitrust Class Action Context,” ABA Antitrust Magazine, Spring 2010.\n“Change?: Merger Enforcement in the New Administration,” The Advocate, Summer 2009.\n“Deterring ‘Patent Ambush’ in Standard Setting: Lessons from Rambus and Qualcomm,” ABA Antitrust Magazine, Summer 2009.\n“The FTC’s N-Data Consent Order: A Missed Opportunity to Clarify Antitrust in Standard Setting,” ABA Antitrust Magazine, Summer 2008.\n“Avoiding the Scarlet ‘S’: The Modern Challenges of Document Preservation and Destruction,” The American Lawyer, June 2005.\n“The Art of Destruction,” The American Lawyer, September 2004.\n“Standard Setting and Exclusionary Conduct: The Role of Antitrust in Policing Unilateral Abuses of a Standard-Setting Process,” Antitrust, 2004.\n“Administrative Litigation at the FTC: Past, Present, and Future,” Antitrust Law Journal, 2003.\n“Noerr Immunity for Sponsoring Litigation: From Burlington Northern to Baltimore Scrap,” Antitrust, 2001.\n“Coping with the Antitrust Risks of Technological Integration,” Antitrust Law Journal, 2000.\n“Disaggregation of Antitrust Damages,” Antitrust Law Journal, 1997.\n“Post-Chicago Economics,” Antitrust Law Journal, 1995.\n Partner Ranked Band 1 for Antitrust, Texas Chambers USA, 2007–2023 Top ranked for Antitrust USA Chambers Global, 2020–2023 Named a “Litigation Star” for Intellectual Property, Competition/Antitrust, Appellate, and Commercial work Benchmark Litigation, 2023 Named “Highly Recommended (Texas)” Global Competition Review, 2022 Named “Life Sciences Star” in Antitrust (2022) and Competition and Antitrust (2018–2019) LMG Life Sciences Named as one of “500 Leading Litigators in America” Lawdragon, 2022 and 2024 Listed Who’s Who Legal in Competition, 2021 Named “Litigation: Antitrust Lawyer of the Year” The Best Lawyers in America, 2019 Named “Antitrust Lawyer of the Year” The Best Lawyers in America, 2015 and 2018 Listed in “All-Star List” BTI Services, 2017 Named “Mergers and Acquisitions and Antitrust Trailblazer” National Law Journal, 2015 Named “National Antitrust MVP” Law360, 2015 Texas A\u0026amp;M University Texas A\u0026amp;M School of Law University of Chicago University of Chicago Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas District of Columbia Texas Senior Courts of England and Wales Current Practicing Certificate in Victoria (Australia) Judicial Clerk, Patrick E. Higginbotham, U.S Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit Litigation\nIn re Namenda Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation (S.D.N.Y.) – Represented Forest Labs. and affiliates in this still-ongoing indirect purchaser antitrust class action involving allegations of “product hopping” and a challenged “reverse payment” patent settlement. In re Restasis Antitrust Litigation (E.D.N.Y.) – Served as lead counsel for Allergan in this consolidated MDL antitrust class action involving complex patent- and FDA-related monopolization claims predicated on allegations of delayed entry of generic drugs. Cases settled favorably for defendants after class certification and summary judgment briefing and arguments. U.S. ex rel. Silbersher v. Allergan (N.D. Cal.) – Served as lead counsel for Allergan in this False Claims Act litigation in which a private relator sought to assert claims of alleged fraud against the government predicated on a patent-related theory and assertions of delayed generic drug entry. In re JUUL Labs., Inc. Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.) – Served as lead antitrust counsel in this still-ongoing consolidated MDL antitrust class action challenging an allegedly unlawful agreement. U.S. v. AT\u0026amp;T (C.D. Cal.) – Served as lead antitrust counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in this suit in which DOJ asserted that AT\u0026amp;T’s DirecTV unit engaged in improper coordination and information sharing relating to pay TV distributors’ negotiations with the provider of sports-related television content; case settled on highly favorable terms after full briefing of AT\u0026amp;T’s motion to dismiss. FTC v. Lending Club (N.D. Cal.) – Served as lead counsel for Lending Club in this suit in which the FTC asserted multiple consumer protection-based claims relating to Lending Club’s marketing and advertising practices and privacy-related compliance; argued summary and obtained partial victories; case settled favorably. U.S. v. AT\u0026amp;T (D.D.C. \u0026amp; D.C. Cir.) – Played an important role on the trial team in this landmark case in which AT\u0026amp;T defeated a DOJ antitrust challenge to the company’s US$85 billion acquisition of Time Warner, an outcome that was later affirmed on appeal in the D.C. Circuit. SureShot v. Topgolf (S.D. Tex. \u0026amp; 5th Cir.) – Served as lead counsel for Topgolf in this antitrust suit asserting monopolization claims; obtained full dismissal of all claims by district court and unanimous affirmance. Cipla v. Amgen (D. Del. \u0026amp; 3d Cir.) – Served as lead counsel for Amgen in this monopolization suit brought by a generic drug competitor; argued preliminary injunction motion and participated in later interlocutory appeal. Shire v. Allergan (D. N.J.) – Served as lead counsel for Allergan in this competitor monopolization suit involving alleged bundling and exclusive dealing practices; argued successful motion to dismiss. Hartig v. Allergan (D. Del. \u0026amp; 3d Cir.) – Served as lead counsel for Allergan in this putative antitrust class action asserting that Allergan delayed generic entry through alleged “product hopping”; argued successful motion to dismiss and later defended that ruling through oral argument before the Third Circuit; case was settled on highly favorable terms after remand to district court. Apotex v. Allergan (D. Del.) – Served as lead counsel for Allergan in this competitor monopolization suit predicated on claims of unlawful “product hopping”; obtained highly favorable settlement after the close of fact and expert discovery. Amphastar v. Sanofi-Aventis (C.D. Cal.) – Served as lead counsel for Sanofi in this competitor monopolization suit asserting patent- and FDA-related antitrust claims; successfully argued for dismissal of all claims. U.S. ex rel. Amphastar v. Sanofi-Aventis (C.D. Cal \u0026amp; 9th Cir.) – Served as lead counsel for Sanofi in this suit in which a competing generic drug company, having had its own antitrust claims dismissed, sought to assert related False Claims Act claims as a purported relator; case was fully dismissed by the district court and the outcome was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. FTC v. Commerce Planet (9th Cir.) – Represented former Commerce Planet CEO in this FTC consumer protection suit in which the client, represented by prior counsel, was subjected to a judgment with significant personal liability. Stanwood v. Mary Kay Cosmetics (C.D. Cal.) – Served as lead counsel for Mary Kay in this putative class action case alleging fraud and unfair competition relating to the company’s prior participation in industry pledge not to conduct animal-based testing; obtained full dismissal of all claims. Avery Dennison v. 3M Corp. (D. Minn.) – Served as lead antitrust counsel for 3M in this competitor suit alleging that 3M monopolized markets through wrongful patent-related conduct in the context of industry standard-setting activities; case settled on highly favorable terms following the close of fact and expert discovery. In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.) – Served as lead counsel for Biovail in this antitrust class action alleging patent-related monopolization and conspiracy claims. Todd v. Exxon, et al. (S.D.N.Y.) – Served as lead antitrust counsel for Phillips Petroleum in this putative antitrust class action alleging conspiracy claims based on asserted improper sharing of salary and benefits information. Neon Systems v. BMC Software (Tex. Civ.) – Served as lead antitrust counsel for BMC Software in this competitor suit alleging that BMC had monopolized markets through unlawful pricing and bundling practices; case settled favorably shortly before trial. Atlantic Coast Airlines v. Mesa Airlines (D.D.C.) – Served as trial counsel for Atlantic Coast Airlines in this successful antitrust action obtaining a preliminary injunction barring United Airlines and Mesa Airlines from proceeding with a contemplated business arrangement. Continental Forge v. Sempra Energy (Sup. Ct. Cal.) – Represented Sempra Energy and affiliates in this suit alleging antitrust conspiracy claims. Longhorn Partners Pipeline Co. v. Holly Corp. (W.D. Tex.) – Represented Holly Corp. in this antitrust suit alleging monopolization of West Texas petroleum pipelines. U.S. v. AMR Corp. (D. Kansas) – Represented American Airlines and parent AMR in this government antitrust suit alleging predatory pricing; case resolved through summary judgment for defendants.* Litton Systems v. Honeywell (C.D. Cal. \u0026amp; 9th Cir.) – Represented Honeywell in this competitor monopolization suit alleging that Honeywell improperly excluded competition in the market for commercial avionics systems; successfully argued motion for directed verdict on majority of claims at issue. Continental Airlines v. American Airlines (S.D. Tex.) –Represented American Airlines in this suit alleging improper predatory pricing relating to American’s introduction of a new fare structure; obtained favorable jury verdict. Government Investigations\nKurbo/WW Inc. – Lead counsel for WW International and affiliate Kurbo in connection with FTC privacy (COPPA) investigation and settlement. Google/Fitbit – Counsel for Fitbit in connection with DOJ investigation of Google’s successful US$2.1 billion acquisition of Fitbit. AT\u0026amp;T/Time Warner – Counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in connection with DOJ investigation of the company’s successful US$85 billion acquisition of Time Warner. AT\u0026amp;T/DirecTV – Counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in connection with DOJ investigation of the company’s successful US$48 billion acquisition of DirecTV. Facebook – Lead counsel for Facebook in connection with FTC investigation relating to compliance with prior 2012 consent order prescribing certain privacy-related standards and practices; also lead counsel for the company in connection with the prior 2012 FTC privacy investigation. Bazaarvoice – Lead counsel for Bazaarvoice relating to DOJ antitrust and order compliance investigations. Ticketmaster/LiveNation – Lead counsel for Ticketmaster in connection with DOJ investigation of the company’s US$2.5 billion acquisition of LiveNation. Williams Cos. – Lead antitrust counsel for Williams in connection with proposed US$38 billion acquisition by Energy Transfer Equity LP. Leon Max/Max Studios – Lead counsel for Max Studios in connection with FTC investigation of asserted violations of prior FTC consent order imposing restrictions on advertising of textile content of retail garments. ValueClick – Lead counsel for ValueClick in connection with FTC consumer protection claims involving various privacy and online advertising issues. Allergan – Lead counsel for Allergan in connection with FTC investigation of the company’s successful US$3.2 billion acquisition of Inamed Corp. Watson Wyatt – Lead counsel for Watson Wyatt in connection with DOJ investigation of the company’s successful US$3.5 billion acquisition of Towers Perrin. United Defense – Lead counsel for United Defense in DOJ investigation of BAe’s successful US$4.2 billion acquisition of UDI. Ancestry.com – Lead counsel for Ancestry.com in connection with FTC investigation of the company’s successful acquisition of Archive.com. Endocare – Lead counsel for Endocare in connection with FTC investigation of proposed merger with Galil Medical. DiedrichCoffee – Lead counsel for Diedrich in FTC investigation of successful merger with Green Mountain Coffee Roasters. Numerous other representations as lead counsel in non-public government investigations, including many FTC consumer protection matters, where successful results leading to closures of the investigations caused them to remain non-public matters.","searchable_name":"M. Sean Royall","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":427342,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6790,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKyle is a capable and\u0026nbsp;flexible\u0026nbsp;litigator who represents\u0026nbsp;clients in a variety of complex commercial disputes. He frequently works on matters that go to final arbitration hearings or to trial. His experience includes high-stakes contract disputes, construction disputes, and M\u0026amp;A litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKyle has experience in\u0026nbsp;international and domestic arbitration proceedings,\u0026nbsp;in federal courts across the United States, and in the Delaware Court of Chancery. He has represented clients in the financial services, technology, and energy sectors, among others.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Kyle clerked for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and\u0026nbsp;the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, and practiced litigation and arbitration in the Dallas office of another global law firm.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"michael-reynolds","email":"kreynolds@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor financial institution\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;seeking more than $400 million in damages from a contractual counterparty in ongoing arbitration proceedings\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an arbitration hearing against a contractor concerning the construction of a micro-fuel handling facility in the Caribbean\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor financial institution\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an arbitration hearing to recover unpaid loans, resulting in a $20 million award in favor of the client\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the sellers of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ecompliant cloud technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Delaware Chancery Court litigation over disputes resulting from the sale\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Reynolds","nick_name":"Kyle","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Sidney A. Fitzwater, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas","years_held":"2018 - 2019"},{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Chief Judge Ed Carnes, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","years_held":"2019 - 2020"}],"first_name":"Michael","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[{"id":824,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Magna Cum Laude","is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"Kyle","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":75,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKyle is a capable and\u0026nbsp;flexible\u0026nbsp;litigator who represents\u0026nbsp;clients in a variety of complex commercial disputes. He frequently works on matters that go to final arbitration hearings or to trial. His experience includes high-stakes contract disputes, construction disputes, and M\u0026amp;A litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKyle has experience in\u0026nbsp;international and domestic arbitration proceedings,\u0026nbsp;in federal courts across the United States, and in the Delaware Court of Chancery. He has represented clients in the financial services, technology, and energy sectors, among others.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Kyle clerked for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and\u0026nbsp;the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, and practiced litigation and arbitration in the Dallas office of another global law firm.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor financial institution\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;seeking more than $400 million in damages from a contractual counterparty in ongoing arbitration proceedings\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an arbitration hearing against a contractor concerning the construction of a micro-fuel handling facility in the Caribbean\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor financial institution\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an arbitration hearing to recover unpaid loans, resulting in a $20 million award in favor of the client\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the sellers of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ecompliant cloud technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Delaware Chancery Court litigation over disputes resulting from the sale\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11969}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:59:51.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:59:51.000Z","searchable_text":"Reynolds{{ FIELD }}Representing a major financial institution seeking more than $400 million in damages from a contractual counterparty in ongoing arbitration proceedings{{ FIELD }}Represented a major energy company in an arbitration hearing against a contractor concerning the construction of a micro-fuel handling facility in the Caribbean{{ FIELD }}Represented a major financial institution in an arbitration hearing to recover unpaid loans, resulting in a $20 million award in favor of the client{{ FIELD }}Represented the sellers of a compliant cloud technology company in Delaware Chancery Court litigation over disputes resulting from the sale{{ FIELD }}Kyle is a capable and flexible litigator who represents clients in a variety of complex commercial disputes. He frequently works on matters that go to final arbitration hearings or to trial. His experience includes high-stakes contract disputes, construction disputes, and M\u0026amp;A litigation.\nKyle has experience in international and domestic arbitration proceedings, in federal courts across the United States, and in the Delaware Court of Chancery. He has represented clients in the financial services, technology, and energy sectors, among others.\nPrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Kyle clerked for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, and practiced litigation and arbitration in the Dallas office of another global law firm. Senior Associate The University of Texas at Dallas  Harvard University Harvard Law School Texas Judicial Clerk, Sidney A. Fitzwater, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Judicial Clerk, Chief Judge Ed Carnes, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Representing a major financial institution seeking more than $400 million in damages from a contractual counterparty in ongoing arbitration proceedings Represented a major energy company in an arbitration hearing against a contractor concerning the construction of a micro-fuel handling facility in the Caribbean Represented a major financial institution in an arbitration hearing to recover unpaid loans, resulting in a $20 million award in favor of the client Represented the sellers of a compliant cloud technology company in Delaware Chancery Court litigation over disputes resulting from the sale","searchable_name":"Michael Kyle Reynolds (Kyle)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":447586,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7331,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTracea represents clients in high-stakes commercial disputes, including patent infringement and trade secret litigation, in federal courts and the ITC. With an electrical and computer engineering background and experience as a federal judicial clerk, she is particularly effective in matters involving complex technical issues and requiring a trial-ready approach. Appreciating that complex litigation is often won through both oral and written advocacy, Tracea excels in shaping the written record through depositions, critical briefing, and dispositive motions practice.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTracea is a litigation attorney who represents clients in complex business disputes, including high-stakes patent infringement, trade secret, and commercial litigation matters before federal district courts, the Court of Federal Claims, and the International Trade Commission. She also has experience representing clients in a variety of pro bono matters, including employment litigation disputes. Tracea leverages her experience as a former federal judicial law clerk and her love for trial advocacy to passionately represent her clients from pre-litigation through case disposition. She is experienced in drafting substantive briefs, taking and defending witnesses at depositions, arguing in federal court in relation to Markman proceedings and other motion practices, preparing witnesses to give trial testimony, and examining witnesses at trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining the firm, Tracea practiced at an international law firm and was a judicial clerk for the Honorable Robert W. Schroeder III in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the Honorable Jimmie V. Reyna in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Before law school, she worked as a patent agent, drafting and prosecuting patent applications related to a wide range of technologies, primarily in the electrical, computer, and mechanical technology fields\u0026mdash;including software, e-commerce, aerospace, medical devices, appliance and tooling technologies, and business method patents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTracea received her B.S. in computer and electrical engineering from North Carolina State University. She received her J.D. from Wake Forest University School of Law, where she was a member of the Order of Barristers National Honor Society and the Moot Court Board. During law school, Tracea received the Outstanding Student Award from the National Association of Women Lawyers\u0026mdash;an award presented to a law student who contributed to the advancement of women in society and promoted issues and concerns of women in the legal profession. Tracea also won multiple trial advocacy competitions at the national level and received the Robert Goldberg Award in Trial Advocacy\u0026mdash;an award given to the student who showcased the highest aptitude and ethics in trial advocacy at Wake Forest Law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"tracea-rice","email":"trice@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1240,"guid":"1240.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Rice","nick_name":"Tracea","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Hon. Robert W. Schroeder III, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas","years_held":"2022 - 2023"},{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Hon. Jimmie V. Reyna, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","years_held":"2024 - 2025"}],"first_name":"Tracea","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2471,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":null},"order":0,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America, Intellectual Property","detail":"Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America, 2025"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":75,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTracea represents clients in high-stakes commercial disputes, including patent infringement and trade secret litigation, in federal courts and the ITC. With an electrical and computer engineering background and experience as a federal judicial clerk, she is particularly effective in matters involving complex technical issues and requiring a trial-ready approach. Appreciating that complex litigation is often won through both oral and written advocacy, Tracea excels in shaping the written record through depositions, critical briefing, and dispositive motions practice.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTracea is a litigation attorney who represents clients in complex business disputes, including high-stakes patent infringement, trade secret, and commercial litigation matters before federal district courts, the Court of Federal Claims, and the International Trade Commission. She also has experience representing clients in a variety of pro bono matters, including employment litigation disputes. Tracea leverages her experience as a former federal judicial law clerk and her love for trial advocacy to passionately represent her clients from pre-litigation through case disposition. She is experienced in drafting substantive briefs, taking and defending witnesses at depositions, arguing in federal court in relation to Markman proceedings and other motion practices, preparing witnesses to give trial testimony, and examining witnesses at trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining the firm, Tracea practiced at an international law firm and was a judicial clerk for the Honorable Robert W. Schroeder III in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the Honorable Jimmie V. Reyna in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Before law school, she worked as a patent agent, drafting and prosecuting patent applications related to a wide range of technologies, primarily in the electrical, computer, and mechanical technology fields\u0026mdash;including software, e-commerce, aerospace, medical devices, appliance and tooling technologies, and business method patents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTracea received her B.S. in computer and electrical engineering from North Carolina State University. She received her J.D. from Wake Forest University School of Law, where she was a member of the Order of Barristers National Honor Society and the Moot Court Board. During law school, Tracea received the Outstanding Student Award from the National Association of Women Lawyers\u0026mdash;an award presented to a law student who contributed to the advancement of women in society and promoted issues and concerns of women in the legal profession. Tracea also won multiple trial advocacy competitions at the national level and received the Robert Goldberg Award in Trial Advocacy\u0026mdash;an award given to the student who showcased the highest aptitude and ethics in trial advocacy at Wake Forest Law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America, Intellectual Property","detail":"Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America, 2025"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13468}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-04-16T15:14:01.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-16T15:14:01.000Z","searchable_text":"Rice{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America, Intellectual Property\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}Tracea represents clients in high-stakes commercial disputes, including patent infringement and trade secret litigation, in federal courts and the ITC. With an electrical and computer engineering background and experience as a federal judicial clerk, she is particularly effective in matters involving complex technical issues and requiring a trial-ready approach. Appreciating that complex litigation is often won through both oral and written advocacy, Tracea excels in shaping the written record through depositions, critical briefing, and dispositive motions practice. \nTracea is a litigation attorney who represents clients in complex business disputes, including high-stakes patent infringement, trade secret, and commercial litigation matters before federal district courts, the Court of Federal Claims, and the International Trade Commission. She also has experience representing clients in a variety of pro bono matters, including employment litigation disputes. Tracea leverages her experience as a former federal judicial law clerk and her love for trial advocacy to passionately represent her clients from pre-litigation through case disposition. She is experienced in drafting substantive briefs, taking and defending witnesses at depositions, arguing in federal court in relation to Markman proceedings and other motion practices, preparing witnesses to give trial testimony, and examining witnesses at trial.\nPrior to joining the firm, Tracea practiced at an international law firm and was a judicial clerk for the Honorable Robert W. Schroeder III in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the Honorable Jimmie V. Reyna in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Before law school, she worked as a patent agent, drafting and prosecuting patent applications related to a wide range of technologies, primarily in the electrical, computer, and mechanical technology fields—including software, e-commerce, aerospace, medical devices, appliance and tooling technologies, and business method patents.\nTracea received her B.S. in computer and electrical engineering from North Carolina State University. She received her J.D. from Wake Forest University School of Law, where she was a member of the Order of Barristers National Honor Society and the Moot Court Board. During law school, Tracea received the Outstanding Student Award from the National Association of Women Lawyers—an award presented to a law student who contributed to the advancement of women in society and promoted issues and concerns of women in the legal profession. Tracea also won multiple trial advocacy competitions at the national level and received the Robert Goldberg Award in Trial Advocacy—an award given to the student who showcased the highest aptitude and ethics in trial advocacy at Wake Forest Law.\n  Senior Associate Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America, Intellectual Property Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America, 2025 Wake Forest University Wake Forest University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas Virginia Judicial Clerk, Hon. Robert W. Schroeder III, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Judicial Clerk, Hon. Jimmie V. Reyna, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","searchable_name":"Tracea Rice","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":446985,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7324,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMatthew Reilly is a litigation associate and Registered Patent Attorney\u0026nbsp;who brings nearly seven years of hands-on engineering experience to his legal practice. Matthew defends clients in patent litigation across technology-intensive industries\u0026mdash;including automotive, aviation, semiconductor, medical device, and oil and gas\u0026mdash;leveraging real-world engineering insight to deliver technically informed counsel.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatthew Reilly is a litigation associate and a Registered Patent Attorney with nearly seven years of hands-on engineering experience. Before attending law school, Matthew served in various engineering roles at multiple companies in the medical device industry, where he led cross-functional teams in developing complex products. His deep technical background\u0026mdash;including expertise in mechanical engineering design, product development, regulatory strategy, and cross-functional team leadership\u0026mdash;gives Matthew a unique ability to understand clients' products,\u0026nbsp;challenges, and legal landscape from the inside out.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatthew earned his Juris Doctor magna cum laude from Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law and served as an Associate Editor of the Pepperdine Law Review. He also holds a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering summa cum laude from Baylor University. Matthew is licensed to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and is admitted to the Texas State Bar and the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Northern Districts of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatthew has defended clients in patent litigation across a range of technology-intensive industries, including automotive, aviation, semiconductor, medical device, and oil and gas. Matthew's combination of legal credentials and real-world engineering experience positions him to provide clients with sophisticated, technically informed patent litigation counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"matthew-reilly","email":"mreilly@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":5185}]},"expertise":[{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1472,"guid":"1472.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Reilly","nick_name":"Matthew","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Matthew","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":1570,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude \u0026 Order of the Coif","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2025-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMatthew Reilly is a litigation associate and Registered Patent Attorney\u0026nbsp;who brings nearly seven years of hands-on engineering experience to his legal practice. Matthew defends clients in patent litigation across technology-intensive industries\u0026mdash;including automotive, aviation, semiconductor, medical device, and oil and gas\u0026mdash;leveraging real-world engineering insight to deliver technically informed counsel.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatthew Reilly is a litigation associate and a Registered Patent Attorney with nearly seven years of hands-on engineering experience. Before attending law school, Matthew served in various engineering roles at multiple companies in the medical device industry, where he led cross-functional teams in developing complex products. His deep technical background\u0026mdash;including expertise in mechanical engineering design, product development, regulatory strategy, and cross-functional team leadership\u0026mdash;gives Matthew a unique ability to understand clients' products,\u0026nbsp;challenges, and legal landscape from the inside out.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatthew earned his Juris Doctor magna cum laude from Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law and served as an Associate Editor of the Pepperdine Law Review. He also holds a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering summa cum laude from Baylor University. Matthew is licensed to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and is admitted to the Texas State Bar and the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Northern Districts of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatthew has defended clients in patent litigation across a range of technology-intensive industries, including automotive, aviation, semiconductor, medical device, and oil and gas. Matthew's combination of legal credentials and real-world engineering experience positions him to provide clients with sophisticated, technically informed patent litigation counsel.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13426}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-24T14:01:02.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-24T14:01:02.000Z","searchable_text":"Reilly{{ FIELD }}Matthew Reilly is a litigation associate and Registered Patent Attorney who brings nearly seven years of hands-on engineering experience to his legal practice. Matthew defends clients in patent litigation across technology-intensive industries—including automotive, aviation, semiconductor, medical device, and oil and gas—leveraging real-world engineering insight to deliver technically informed counsel. \nMatthew Reilly is a litigation associate and a Registered Patent Attorney with nearly seven years of hands-on engineering experience. Before attending law school, Matthew served in various engineering roles at multiple companies in the medical device industry, where he led cross-functional teams in developing complex products. His deep technical background—including expertise in mechanical engineering design, product development, regulatory strategy, and cross-functional team leadership—gives Matthew a unique ability to understand clients' products, challenges, and legal landscape from the inside out.\nMatthew earned his Juris Doctor magna cum laude from Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law and served as an Associate Editor of the Pepperdine Law Review. He also holds a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering summa cum laude from Baylor University. Matthew is licensed to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and is admitted to the Texas State Bar and the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Northern Districts of Texas.\nMatthew has defended clients in patent litigation across a range of technology-intensive industries, including automotive, aviation, semiconductor, medical device, and oil and gas. Matthew's combination of legal credentials and real-world engineering experience positions him to provide clients with sophisticated, technically informed patent litigation counsel. Matthew Reilly lawyer Associate Baylor University Baylor University School of Law Pepperdine University Pepperdine University School of Law U.S. Patent and Trademark Office U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Texas","searchable_name":"Matthew Reilly","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":447802,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7326,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSamuel is an intellectual property lawyer. He draws on his engineering industry experience to help clients navigate complex, high-stakes disputes involving advanced technologies. Samuel has experience at every stage of district court litigation, including claim construction, fact and expert discovery, summary judgment, and trial. He also has experience with pre-suit diligence and \u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003e review proceedings.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore joining the firm, Samuel served as a law clerk to the Honorable Roy S. Payne of the Eastern District of Texas. In that role, he was deeply involved in dozens of \u003cem\u003eMarkman\u003c/em\u003e hearings and supported multiple trials, providing him with valuable insight into how courts evaluate complex patent disputes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEarlier in his career, Samuel practiced at a boutique intellectual property firm where he prepared and prosecuted domestic and international patent applications spanning technologies such as oil and gas, semiconductors, biomedical devices, power generation and storage, electronics, and computer software.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"samuel-riebe","email":"sriebe@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHalliburton v. U.S. Well Services\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented USWS in patent infringement case against Halliburton involving hydraulic fracturing technology. Case resolved on favorable terms to USWS.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Riebe","nick_name":"Samuel","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas","years_held":"2022 - 2023"}],"first_name":"Samuel","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":345,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":null},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSamuel is an intellectual property lawyer. He draws on his engineering industry experience to help clients navigate complex, high-stakes disputes involving advanced technologies. Samuel has experience at every stage of district court litigation, including claim construction, fact and expert discovery, summary judgment, and trial. He also has experience with pre-suit diligence and \u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003e review proceedings.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore joining the firm, Samuel served as a law clerk to the Honorable Roy S. Payne of the Eastern District of Texas. In that role, he was deeply involved in dozens of \u003cem\u003eMarkman\u003c/em\u003e hearings and supported multiple trials, providing him with valuable insight into how courts evaluate complex patent disputes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEarlier in his career, Samuel practiced at a boutique intellectual property firm where he prepared and prosecuted domestic and international patent applications spanning technologies such as oil and gas, semiconductors, biomedical devices, power generation and storage, electronics, and computer software.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHalliburton v. U.S. Well Services\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented USWS in patent infringement case against Halliburton involving hydraulic fracturing technology. Case resolved on favorable terms to USWS.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13416}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-04-23T22:07:41.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-23T22:07:41.000Z","searchable_text":"Riebe{{ FIELD }}Halliburton v. U.S. Well Services (W.D. Tex.) – represented USWS in patent infringement case against Halliburton involving hydraulic fracturing technology. Case resolved on favorable terms to USWS.{{ FIELD }}Samuel is an intellectual property lawyer. He draws on his engineering industry experience to help clients navigate complex, high-stakes disputes involving advanced technologies. Samuel has experience at every stage of district court litigation, including claim construction, fact and expert discovery, summary judgment, and trial. He also has experience with pre-suit diligence and inter partes review proceedings. \nBefore joining the firm, Samuel served as a law clerk to the Honorable Roy S. Payne of the Eastern District of Texas. In that role, he was deeply involved in dozens of Markman hearings and supported multiple trials, providing him with valuable insight into how courts evaluate complex patent disputes.\nEarlier in his career, Samuel practiced at a boutique intellectual property firm where he prepared and prosecuted domestic and international patent applications spanning technologies such as oil and gas, semiconductors, biomedical devices, power generation and storage, electronics, and computer software. Associate Colorado State University  Case Western Reserve University Case Western Reserve University School of Law U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Texas Utah Judicial Clerk, Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Halliburton v. U.S. Well Services (W.D. Tex.) – represented USWS in patent infringement case against Halliburton involving hydraulic fracturing technology. Case resolved on favorable terms to USWS.","searchable_name":"Samuel Riebe","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":447509,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7340,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWith an engineering background and experience as a Registered Patent Attorney, Caitlin Rodgers helps clients navigate patent litigation across technology-driven industries\u0026mdash;including software, consumer electronics, manufacturing, telecommunications, and oil and gas. Caitlin also represents clients in federal and state courts on a variety of technology, business, and civil rights disputes, combining technical know-how with practical legal strategy to get results. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCaitlin is an associate in the business litigation practice group with a primary focus on intellectual property disputes. She has hands-on experience across the lifecycle of complex cases, such as managing discovery,\u0026nbsp;drafting\u0026nbsp;petitions for\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;review, preparing witnesses for and taking depositions, presenting at \u003cem\u003eMarkman\u003c/em\u003e hearings, drafting and arguing motions, and\u0026nbsp;developing overall case strategy.\u0026nbsp;Beyond patent litigation, Caitlin represents clients in federal and state courts on a broad range of business and civil rights matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCaitlin earned\u0026nbsp;her B.S.\u0026nbsp;and J.D.\u0026nbsp;from Texas A\u0026amp;M University, graduating\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003emagna cum laude\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ein both the Honors Engineering Program and law school curriculum.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"caitlin-rodgers","email":"crodgers@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":579,"guid":"579.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Rodgers","nick_name":"Caitlin","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Caitlin","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWith an engineering background and experience as a Registered Patent Attorney, Caitlin Rodgers helps clients navigate patent litigation across technology-driven industries\u0026mdash;including software, consumer electronics, manufacturing, telecommunications, and oil and gas. Caitlin also represents clients in federal and state courts on a variety of technology, business, and civil rights disputes, combining technical know-how with practical legal strategy to get results. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCaitlin is an associate in the business litigation practice group with a primary focus on intellectual property disputes. She has hands-on experience across the lifecycle of complex cases, such as managing discovery,\u0026nbsp;drafting\u0026nbsp;petitions for\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;review, preparing witnesses for and taking depositions, presenting at \u003cem\u003eMarkman\u003c/em\u003e hearings, drafting and arguing motions, and\u0026nbsp;developing overall case strategy.\u0026nbsp;Beyond patent litigation, Caitlin represents clients in federal and state courts on a broad range of business and civil rights matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCaitlin earned\u0026nbsp;her B.S.\u0026nbsp;and J.D.\u0026nbsp;from Texas A\u0026amp;M University, graduating\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003emagna cum laude\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ein both the Honors Engineering Program and law school curriculum.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-04-13T22:07:17.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-13T22:07:17.000Z","searchable_text":"Rodgers{{ FIELD }}With an engineering background and experience as a Registered Patent Attorney, Caitlin Rodgers helps clients navigate patent litigation across technology-driven industries—including software, consumer electronics, manufacturing, telecommunications, and oil and gas. Caitlin also represents clients in federal and state courts on a variety of technology, business, and civil rights disputes, combining technical know-how with practical legal strategy to get results. \nCaitlin is an associate in the business litigation practice group with a primary focus on intellectual property disputes. She has hands-on experience across the lifecycle of complex cases, such as managing discovery, drafting petitions for inter partes review, preparing witnesses for and taking depositions, presenting at Markman hearings, drafting and arguing motions, and developing overall case strategy. Beyond patent litigation, Caitlin represents clients in federal and state courts on a broad range of business and civil rights matters.\nCaitlin earned her B.S. and J.D. from Texas A\u0026amp;M University, graduating magna cum laude in both the Honors Engineering Program and law school curriculum. Associate Texas A\u0026amp;M University Texas A\u0026amp;M School of Law Texas A\u0026amp;M University Texas A\u0026amp;M School of Law U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Texas","searchable_name":"Caitlin Rodgers","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null}]}}