Noah A. Brumfield
Allen & Overy (Palo Alto)
Partner
Noah Brumfiled is a partner at Allen & Overy in the antitrust practice and splits his time between Washington, D.C. and Silicon Valley. He partners with clients to craft and execute global antitrust strategies while also representing them before US courts, the US Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, and the various states’ Attorney General offices. He draws on his 20 years of experience with complex cross-border antitrust issues, with a focus on how the antitrust laws intersect with intellectual property. He has successfully defended and asserted antitrust claims in merger and non-merger investigations before the enforcement agencies, and in federal district court. Noah Brumfield enjoys teaching on Antitrust and Innovation as an adjunct professor for antitrust at UC Berkeley School of Law. He is a prolific author and speaker on a range of competition topics, and contributes to American Bar Association (ABA) publications and commentary.
Distinctions
Nominee, 2021 Antitrust Writing Awards: Business, Intellectual Property
Nominee, 2019 Antitrust Writing Awards: Business, Asian Antitrust
Nominee, 2015 Antitrust Writing Awards: Business, Mergers
Nominee, 2014 Antitrust Writing Awards: Business, Intellectual Property
Nominee, 2013 Antitrust Writing Awards: Business, General Antitrust
Nominee, 2012 Antitrust Writing Awards: Business, Mergers
Linked authors
Börries Ahrens
Allen & Overy (Hamburg)
Dirk Arts
Allen & Overy (Brussels)
Noemie Bomble
Allen & Overy (Paris)
Ellen Braun
Allen & Overy (Hamburg)
Susanna Charlwood
Allen & Overy (London)
7408 | Events
Articles
3953 Bulletin
185
Calls for changes to antitrust law, and how antitrust laws should be applied to the conduct of large technology companies, have been heating up in recent years. Now, the push for wide-scale changes to antitrust law has reached a boiling point. Indeed, President Biden’s sweeping July 9, 2021 (...)
334
On February 1, 2021, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced the annual changes to the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act notification thresholds. The FTC is required by law to revise the jurisdictional thresholds annually, based on the change in gross national product. Accordingly, the 2021 (...)
184
Price gouging enforcement has largely been left to the States with their patchwork of varying laws—laws that have been invoked sporadically in crises. While the COVID-19 crisis has reportedly led to increased state enforcement, the federal government has taken a larger role, including Justice (...)
184
This article has been nominated for the 2020 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. On October 7, 2019, California became the first state to enact legislation— Assembly Bill 824 (“AB 824”)—rendering certain pharmaceutical patent litigation (...)
225
On January 26, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced the annual changes to the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act notification thresholds. The FTC is required by law to revise the jurisdictional thresholds annually, based on the change in gross national product. Accordingly, the 2018 (...)
194
On Wednesday, June 29, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced substantial increases to the maximum civil penalties for 16 distinct violations of certain laws enforced by the FTC. Notable increases were announced for violations of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Improvements (HSR) Act and the (...)
288
This article has been nominated for the 2015 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. Advertising giants Omnicom Group and Publicis Groupe called off their US$35 billion merger on May 8, 2014, terminating a transaction that would have created the (...)
112
On January 10, 2013, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced the annual changes to the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act notification thresholds. The FTC is required to revise the jurisdictional thresholds annually, based on the change in gross national product. The thresholds will increase (...)
164
On December 14, 2015, Hong Kong became the latest jurisdiction to prohibit anticompetitive agreements and unilateral conduct. The Competition Ordinance (Ordinance) is Hong Kong’s first cross-sector competition law for this international financial hub. For the first time, the Hong Kong government (...)
196
This article has been nominated for the 2013 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. US State Unfair Competition Laws Create Increased Exposure for Misappropriated IP* For many years, information technology companies in the United States have (...)
342
This article has been nominated for the 2012 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. New rules issued by the Federal Trade Commission on July 7, 2011 will streamline some information required for the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (“HSR Act”) Notification (...)
850
An August 31, 2010 trial court decision in Plastic Additives Antitrust Litigation is likely to be widely cited by defense counsel in class action cases provides an important example of the scrutiny needed in evaluating dueling testimony by experts. The decision is an early case to apply the (...)
342
On Friday, 21 January 2010, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced the annual changes to the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act notification thresholds. The FTC is required to revise the jurisdictional thresholds annually, based on the change in gross national product. The thresholds will (...)
353
The Department of Justice’s challenge to unwind the Dairy Farmers of America (“DFA”) acquisition of a partial interest in Southern Bell Dairy is interesting on a number of levels. This article addresses two issues raised by Dairy Farmers that antitrust attorneys should consider when counseling (...)
1699 Review
1699
In view of the well-known tensions between the antitrust laws and the intellectual property laws, in any patent infringement litigation the accused infringer should always consider possible antitrust counterclaims. Such claims may include variations on monopolization under Section 2 of the (...)
