Client Alerts
Executive Summary The antitrust world is currently riding a wave of cases alleging “collusion by code”—purported conspiracies in which competitors …
August 26, 2026
August 26, 2026 • 10-minute read
Chambers USA, 2026
Dylan is a trial lawyer who focuses on litigating antitrust and competition cases arising under the federal Sherman and Clayton Acts, as well as state antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition statutes. He has more than a decade of experience successfully resolving every variety of antitrust and competition matter, from government investigations, to criminal prosecutions and government enforcement actions against businesses and individuals, to class actions and other private civil actions. His practice encompasses matters civil and criminal, state and federal, before both trial and appellate courts, as well as various international arbitration tribunals. He also routinely counsels businesses on antitrust risks and best practices for avoiding them.
Dylan has served as counsel in some of the largest and most complex antitrust cases of all time. He has successfully represented key defendants in major government cartel investigations, federal criminal prosecutions, state Attorney General actions, and multi-district class actions involving dealer management software, canned tuna, DRAM, SRAM, and flash memory chips, automotive parts, LCD panels, cathode ray tubes, lithium-ion batteries, and many other industries. He frequently represents companies, as both plaintiffs and defendants, in lawsuits brought by competitors or customers alleging conspiratorial conduct or unlawful monopolization.
Dylan also has extensive experience in the area of overlap between antitrust and intellectual property laws, including cutting-edge antitrust and competition issues arising from the use and licensing of standard-essential patents. His work often involves international issues requiring close collaboration with clients and counsel located around the world.
Defended management software provider against state and federal antitrust claims relating to data management system access; In re Dealer Management Systems Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2817 (N.D. Ill.)
Defended leading manufacturer in price-fixing actions concerning lithium-ion rechargeable batteries; In re Lithium-ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2420 (N.D. Cal.)
National counsel defending industry-leading multinational electronics companies in price-fixing class actions, individual plaintiff actions, and state attorney general actions regarding cathode ray tube products; In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1917 (N.D. Cal.)
Defended global electronics companies in consolidated class actions and individual actions alleging price-fixing of flash memory products; In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1852 (N.D. Cal.)
Represented international electronics companies in private and governmental price-fixing actions concerning thin film transistor liquid crystal display products; In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1827 (N.D. Cal.)
Defended global technology manufacturer in civil price-fixing class actions and related U.S. and foreign enforcement agency proceedings regarding static random access memory chip products; In re Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1819 (N.D. Cal.)
National counsel defending civil price-fixing and government enforcement actions regarding dynamic random access memory chip products; In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1486 (N.D. Cal.)
Representing international payment-processing company in coordinated class actions and related settlement appeals concerning alleged payment card tying and network exclusionary practices; In re Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases, Cal. Jud. Council Coord. Proc. No. 4335
Prevailed on behalf of one of world’s largest technology companies in multi-billion dollar ICC arbitration against client’s largest global competitor (2021)
Representing global micro-irrigation company as plaintiff in action alleging group boycott conspiracies among manufacturers of micro-irrigation products in violation of California’s Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Law; Jain Irrigation, Inc., et al. v. Netafim Irrigation, Inc., et al.(San Diego Superior Court)
Representing telescope manufacturer against price-fixing, market allocation, monopolization and attempted monopolization claims; Optronic Technologies, Inc. v. Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd.(N.D. Cal.)
Defending leading international provider of cybersecurity products against antitrust boycott and refusal to deal claims regarding testing standards development; NSS Labs v. Crowdstrike, Inc.(N.D. Cal.)
Represented the largest independent publisher of yellow pages phone directories in California as plaintiff in below cost pricing, loss leader and secret rebate action under California’s Unfair Practices Act, favorably settling for a confidential amount; AGI Publishing, Inc. v. YP Western Directory (Fresno Superior Court)
Antitrust counsel for global electronics company defending IP-related antitrust claims in multi-billion dollar litigation with Rambus, coordinating with patent counsel in worldwide related proceedings; Rambus Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al. (San Francisco Superior Court)
Obtained complete dismissal at pleadings stage on behalf of vehicle fueling network in action alleging antitrust conspiracy among providers of fueling networks; Net LLC v. CFN Holding Co. (San Diego Superior Court)
Obtained complete dismissal with prejudice on behalf of nonprofit standardized test provider of actual monopolization claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act alleging product disparagement and misuse of trademarks and copyrights; ACT, Inc. v. Worldwide Interactive Network, Inc. (E.D. Tenn.)
Representing international electronics company in global patent and standards related antitrust governmental proceedings, and private antitrust actions involving major technology companies including Qualcomm and Apple
Secured complete dismissal of all claims against electronics company in boycott and monopsonization case relating to smartphone patent licensing, based on lack of antitrust standing and failure to allege a plausible conspiracy; obtained affirmance of defense judgment on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; Cascades v. RPX Corp. (N.D. Cal.)
Obtained complete dismissal of sham litigation, predatory pricing and state unfair competition counterclaims in patent infringement action concerning electric grid voltage optimization technology; RGA Varentec, Inc. v. GridCo, Inc. (D. Del.)
Defended information technology services company and top executives with respect to criminal Sherman Act bid-rigging charges and related false claims and unfair competition civil action by California Attorney General
Defended senior executives in DOJ antitrust grand jury investigations of auto parts industry
Defending the chief executive of a major consumer facing branded manufacturer in a United States Department of Justice criminal price fixing investigation
Represented key targets and defendants in DOJ antitrust prosecutions regarding DRAM memory chips, cathode ray tubes, and others
Represented executive in DOJ antitrust grand jury investigation and criminal prosecution regarding alleged antitrust violations in real estate foreclosure market
Obtained complete dismissal on behalf of battery manufacturer of product liability class actions alleging battery defects with Samsung Galaxy Note 7 smartphone; Schmidt, et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, et al. (W.D. Wash.)
Prevailed on summary judgment on behalf of electronics company’s Netherlands and Central European subsidiaries in embezzlement action against former employees; successfully recovered nearly the entirety of stolen funds; Samsung Electronics Central Eurasia, LLP v. Nauruzbayev (Santa Cruz Superior Court)
Prevailed in AAA arbitration on behalf of United States corporation in action asserting breach of commercial lease at historic property in San Francisco’s Presidio; Mason Street Warehouse Venture, LLC v. The Presidio Trust (AAA Commercial Arbitration)
Represented technology company in class actions challenging disclosures about computer hard drive storage capacity, including leading case regarding class action settlements; Cho v. Seagate Technology Holdings, Inc., 177 Cal. App. 4th 734 (2009)
Represented Taiwanese business owner before China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) in series of disputes arising out of sale of textile-related businesses
Represented a national bank in an action brought by franchisees of a tax preparation service in which plaintiffs asserted unfair business practices and sought to certify a nationwide class; obtained a complete dismissal of the action before any discovery had occurred
Conducted a highly publicized internal investigation of a 20+ billion-dollar insurance provider
Education
Admissions
Client Alerts
Executive Summary The antitrust world is currently riding a wave of cases alleging “collusion by code”—purported conspiracies in which competitors …
August 26, 2026
August 26, 2026 • 10-minute read
Client Alerts
Q2 2026 Healthcare Antitrust and Competition Update
The pace of policy initiatives, legislation, enforcement actions, and private litigation related to antitrust and competition in the healthcare sector …
August 24, 2026
August 24, 2026 • 14-minute read
Client Alerts
Q1 2026 Healthcare Antitrust and Competition Update
The healthcare sector accounts for an increasingly significant component of the U.S. economy. Healthcare spending constitutes 18.0 percent of U.S. …
May 19, 2026
May 19, 2026 • 11-minute read
Client Alerts
California Poised to Amend its Antitrust Law to Aggressively Regulate Single-Firm Conduct
On January 30, 2026, the California Law Revision Commission (“CLRC” or the “Commission”) officially approved a final legislative proposal to …
February 17, 2026
February 17, 2026 • 7-minute read
Client Alerts
2025 Energy & Chemicals Antitrust Report
Vinson & Elkins’ 2025 Energy & Chemicals Antitrust Report details how antitrust enforcement under the second Trump administration has shifted …
January 13, 2026 •
January 13, 2026 • 1-minute read
Awards & Rankings
The Legal 500 US 2026 recommended Vinson & Elkins as a leading law firm in 47 practice categories. In total, …
June 10, 2026
June 10, 2026 • 3-minute read
Awards & Rankings
Vinson & Elkins announced today that it achieved 20 Band 1 rankings in Chambers USA 2026: Nationwide: Energy Transition; Energy: …
June 4, 2026
June 4, 2026 • 3-minute read
Awards & Rankings
Global Competition Review Recognizes Vinson & Elkins in 2026 Edition of GCR 100
Global Competition Review (GCR) has recognized Vinson & Elkins in the 26th edition of its annual GCR 100.
December 4, 2025
December 4, 2025 • 1-minute read
Awards & Rankings
Lawdragon Names 34 Vinson & Elkins Lawyers to Its 2026 500 Leading Litigators in America Guide
Lawdragon has recognized 34 Vinson & Elkins attorneys in its 2026 500 Leading Litigators in America guide.
September 12, 2025
September 12, 2025 • 1-minute read
Awards & Rankings
The Legal 500 US 2025 recommended Vinson & Elkins as a leading law firm in 43 practice categories. In total, 133 attorneys are recognized, many in more than one category. Vinson & Elkins attorneys earned multiple special designations, such as “Leading Trial Lawyer,’ “Hall of Fame,” “Leading Partner,” “Next Generation Partner,” and “Leading Associate.”
June 11, 2025
June 11, 2025 • 3-minute read
our People
Please note that any communication with Vinson & Elkins via e-mail through this website does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship with V&E. Please do not send any confidential information. A conflicts-of-interest procedure must be completed by V&E prior to establishment of an attorney-client relationship. When you execute an engagement letter from V&E you will be our client, and you may then exchange information freely with a V&E attorney.
By clicking “Accept,” you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if it is highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.