Stephen McIntyre

O’Melveny & Myers (Los Angeles)
Lawyer (Associate)

Stephen McIntyre is an associate in O’Melveny’s Los Angeles office and a member of the Litigation Department. He is a member of the firm’s Antitrust and Competition practice. He is also an expert in Chinese law and politics. Illustrative Professional Experience: Represented a pharmaceutical company in a Federal Trade Commission investigation involving reverse-payment patent settlement and product-hopping practices. Represented a major Asian airline in multi-district class action litigation alleging global price-fixing conspiracy in the air cargo shipping industry. Advised on several investigations before the Federal Trade Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission involving Chinese entities. Represented several civil rights organizations in co-authoring a pro bono amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a petition for certiorari in a Fourth Amendment excessive-force case. Defended an insurance provider in a six-state breach of contract suit involving the federal government’s TRICARE program. Stephen is fluent in Mandarin Chinese. He received a Superior rating—the highest rating possible—on the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages’ verbal proficiency test. He has spent over two years living and working in East Asia, including an internship in Shanghai with one of China’s largest law firms, where he worked on several transactions and intellectual property law matters. Stephen has published two pioneering pieces of scholarship on Chinese copyright law, and has contributed to articles on foreign and domestic intellectual property and antitrust law.

Distinctions

Linked authors

Gibson Dunn (Washington)
O’Melveny & Myers (Los Angeles)
Simmons & Simmons (Paris)
University Aix-Marseille
European Court of Justice (Luxembourg)
White & Case (Brussels)
O’Melveny & Myers (Washington DC)
CRA International (London)

Articles

283 Bulletin

Kenneth R. O’Rourke, Richard G. Parker, Stephen McIntyre The US Supreme Court holds that reverse-payment patent settlements should be reviewed under the antitrust rule of reason (Actavis)

283

But Decision Raises as Many Questions as it Answers The Supreme Court yesterday held that it may be unlawful under the antitrust laws for a brand-name drug manufacturer to resolve patent litigation against an allegedly infringing generic drug maker by paying the generic to forestall market (...)

1621 Review

Send a message