Attorney Profile

Jeffrey Blumenfeld

A founding partner of Competition Law Partners PLLC, Jeff is a leading figure in the competition issues that shape today’s economy, particularly those affecting finance, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, ecommerce, and other technology-based companies. Clients value his understanding of a wide variety of industries as well as his collaborative approach in seeing law as a skillset used to accomplish business goals. With more than 35 years of government and private practice experience, Jeff has an in-depth knowledge of competition principles, technology, regulation, and economics. He has represented clients in dozens of complex business negotiations, as well at the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, in US District Courts, the Federal Communications Commission, state regulatory agencies, and other venues.

Drawing on nearly two decades of experience in the increasingly important and complex competition issues in intellectual property, Jeff works with clients on participation in standards setting, collective IP activity such as patent pools and collective defense, licensing issues including for standard essential patents (SEPs), and the competition issues that have become common in patent litigation over FRAND/RAND licensing terms for SEPs.

Understanding that legal strategy must serve business strategy, Jeff functions as an integral part of his clients’ business teams, from major brands to early-stage venture-backed tech companies. As outside counsel, in-house general counsel, board director, and litigator, Jeff represents companies and their investors on a broad range of competition issues, including class action antitrust lawsuits, actions by customers and suppliers, actions by or against competitors, and cases of collusion and of monopolization.

Beginning his career with more than a decade at the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for DC, Jeff has first chaired more than 60 jury trials and has argued more than 20 appellate cases. As Assistant Chief of the then-named Special Regulated Industries Section of the Antitrust Division, Jeff supervised investigative and trial staffs in complex matters in the financial services and telecommunications industries.

Jeff was a senior attorney on a DOJ monopolization case, including at the three month trial, when he was three years out of law school and in the years of litigation leading to, and the 18-month trial of, United States v. AT&T (the divestiture case), arguably the most complex monopolization case ever tried successfully by the Government, covering anticompetitive conduct over a span of several decades. He had a senior role in determining the theory of the case, conducting discovery including extensive depositions, architecting the Government’s case, and both presenting and cross-examining numerous key witnesses, including senior AT&T officers as well as many other fact, technology, engineering, and economic witnesses. He then served as chief of the entire trial staff during the first wave of post-divestiture litigation establishing the meaning and parameters of the consent decree that settled the case in the government’s favor.

While in private practice, Jeff was called back to the Antitrust Division several times to work with trial staffs in developing complex cases, including those that became US v Microsoft and US v MasterCard and Visa. In addition, he has continued to advise clients in the technology and payments industries, working with electronic payment companies on both the issuer and merchant sides, as well as those providing transaction acceptance and fraud protection and remediation. Jeff also regularly counsels clients and trade associations on antitrust issues relating to credit and collections.

Jeff is an accomplished litigator and trial lawyer in a variety of complex matters. His trial expertise includes both presenting and cross-examining not only fact witnesses but also technologists, engineers, economists, finance and other experts. He also has a long record of successfully trying complex technology matters involving these same issues at US District Courts, at the FCC, and at state regulatory commissions nationwide. All these benefit from his ability to ”translate” complex technology for non-technology-literate decision makers.

Drawing on this experience, Jeff has taught trial practice throughout his career, at a variety of forums including the Attorney General’s Advocacy Institute of the US Department of Justice, the National Institute for Trial Advocacy (“NITA”), as an adjunct professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, and at several law firms.

Jeffrey Blumenfeld Founding Partner

1101 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20004

M : 202.255.6300 | O : 202.742.4300

Jeffrey Blumenfeld

  • Panelist, Litigating the FRAND Defense, OxFirst Ltd, Webinar, June 24, 2021
  • Panelist, Biden Administration’s Impact on Trade and Antitrust Issue, Lowenstein Sandler LLP, Webinar, February 4, 2021
  • Speaker, SEPs and the Internet of Things, IPWatchdog, Inc., Webinar, November 17, 2020
  • Speaker, The Intersection of SEPs and U.S. Antitrust, IPWatchdog, Inc., Webinar, November 10, 2020
  • Presenter, Update to Recent Caselaw on FRAND, OxFirst, Webinar, October 19, 2020
  • Panelist, Drug Repurposing and Diagnostics in the Age of COVID-19, IPWatchdog, April 14, 2020
  • Speaker, IPWatchdog Conference, IPWatchdog, March 15-18, 2020
  • Panelist, Patent Pools as a Means to Facilitate Licensing Transactions?, OxFirst 4th IP and Competition Forum: Building Bridges in Turbulent Markets, Brussels, Belgium, February 6-7, 2020
  • Speaker, A Public Policy View on the Status of FRAND, OxFirst 4th IP and Competition Forum: Building Bridges in Turbulent Markets, Brussels, Belgium, February 6-7, 2020
  • Speaker, FRAND and Willing Licensees: What is Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory, “Standard Essential Patents: Striking a Balance Between Competition and Innovation,” IP Watchdog Patent Masters Forum, Arlington, VA, September 10-11, 2019
  • Speaker, Business Solutions for Licensing Markets in the Digital Era, OxFirst Third IP and Competition Forum: Creating the Missing Link in the Digital Economy, Brussels, February 14-15, 2019
  • Speaker, IP/Antitrust in a Changing World , China Institute of International Antitrust and Investment, Beijing, China, December 13, 2018
  • Speaker, Washington’s New Views on Standard Essential Patents?, SAS Conference on Patent Litigation, March 2018
  • Speaker, View from Both Sides of the Aisle: Issues in Antitrust Practice in Government Agencies and in Private Practice, ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Cartel and Criminal Practice Committee and Membership and Diversity Committee, Washington, D.C., January 10, 2018
  • Speaker, Antitrust, Patent Law, SEPs, FRAND: Who’s in Charge Here?, SAS Conference on Patent Litigation, April 2017
  • Speaker, IP, Antitrust, and FRAND in China Today, Client Presentation, February 2017
  • Speaker, Recent Developments in Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Enforcement and Litigation, ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Civil Practice and Procedures Committee, New York, NY, December 5, 2016
  • Panelist, The Risk of Connectivity (Exploring Issues in Cybersecurity), Bloomberg NEXT, Washington, D.C., November 17, 2016
  • EU Developments on Standard Essential Patents: Huawei v. ZTE and After, Client Presentation, October 2016
  • FRAND and Efficient Infringement, The Big Thoughts/Quick Reads Antitrust Blog Jeffrey Blumenfeld, August 3, 2020
  • Should FRAND Excuse ‘Efficient Infringement’?, The Criterion Journal on Innovation Jeffrey Blumenfeld, May 28, 2020
  • “A Business Guide to Antitrust for Credit Professionals,” Lowenstein Sandler LLP; The Credit Research Foundation Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Bruce S. Nathan, May 28, 2020
  • “Antitrust Does Not Shelter in Place During a Pandemic, Part 2: Don’t Claim the Failing Firm Defense Unless You’re Really Failing,” Antitrust/Competition Client Alert Leiv Blad Jr., Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Zarema A. Jaramillo, Jack Sidorov, April 29, 2020
  • “Please stop saying “antitrust protects competition, not competitors.” (Letter to the editor),” The Big Thoughts/Quick Reads Antitrust Blog Jeffrey Blumenfeld, April 20, 2020
  • “Before You Cut Your Employees’ Wages–Antitrust for Employers in the Age of COVID-19,” Antitrust and Employment Client Alert Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Julie Levinson Werner, April 20, 2020
  • “Examining Antitrust Guidance on Cooperation in Fighting COVID-19,” IPWatchdog Jeffrey Blumenfeld, April 14, 2020
  • “Did We Just Join OPEC? Part 2,” The Big Thoughts/Quick Reads Antitrust Blog Jeffrey Blumenfeld, April 7, 2020
  • “The Certainty of Antitrust Review in Uncertain Times,” Antitrust/Competition Client Alert Leiv Blad Jr., Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Zarema A. Jaramillo, Jeffrey M. Shapiro, Jack Sidorov, April 6, 2020
  • “Focusing on efficiency has made antitrust less effective,” The Big Thoughts/Quick Reads Antitrust Blog Jeffrey Blumenfeld, April 3, 2020
  • “Please stop saying ‘antitrust protects competition, not competitors.’” (Letter to the editor),” The Washington Post Jeffrey Blumenfeld, April 2, 2020
  • “It Is Time To Make Virtual Trials A Reality,” Law360 Jeffrey Blumenfeld, March 30, 2020
  • “U.S. and European Antitrust Authorities Provide Updated Guidance on Joint Activity During COVID-19,” Antitrust/Competition Client Alert Leiv Blad Jr., Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Zarema A. Jaramillo, Jack Sidorov, March 26, 2020
  • “No, patent pools should not test for validity,” IAM (Intellectual Asset Management) Jeffrey Blumenfeld, March 24, 2020
  • “Antitrust Does Not Shelter in Place During a Pandemic,” Antitrust/Competition Client Alert Leiv Blad Jr., Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Zarema A. Jaramillo, Jack Sidorov, March 23, 2020
  • “COVID-19: The Reaction of U.S. Antitrust Agencies,” Antitrust/Competition Client Alert Leiv Blad Jr., Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Zarema A. Jaramillo, Jeffrey M. Shapiro, Jack Sidorov, August 8, 2019
  • “New Guidelines on Antitrust Compliance Programs Offer Chance to Avoid Criminal Charges,” Lowenstein Sandler Client Alert Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Rachel Maimin
  • *including publications while Mr. Blumenfeld was a partner at Lowenstein Sandler LLP, prior to co-founding Competition Law Partners PLLC
  • September 2, 2020
    Jeffrey Blumenfeld speaks to The Capitol Forum about antitrust legislation apparently aimed at large tech companies pending in both houses of the New York State legislature that proposes giving the state’s attorney general broader authority to bring cases in state courts against companies for unilateral conduct. The legislation would create a new, tougher standard of “abuse of dominant position” and would allow class action suits and higher fines. “I’d give it better than a 50% chance [of passing],” Blumenfeld says. Noting that the new “abuse of dominant position” standard is similar to that in the EU, South Korea, Japan, and other countries, he adds, “I would expect strong tech opposition to this.”
  • August 15, 2020
    Jeffrey Blumenfeld speaks to CNN about a suit by Epic, developer of the popular game Fortnite, against Apple and Google for what Epic claims to be anti-competitive practices in the defendants’ app stores and payment policies. He says that Apple “could argue that the 30% fee for in-app purchases pays for running the App Store and reviewing apps to ensure they are not security risks.” For Epic to prevail, Blumenfeld believes the court would have to be “pretty strongly convinced” that forcing Google and Apple to change their distribution practices would benefit consumers in the long run. He states, “I have a very hard time believing that the result of this lawsuit is that the court says that Apple is not permitted to control distribution of apps through its own App Store.”
  • April 8, 2020
    Law360 reports that a Lowenstein Sandler team headed by Jeffrey Blumenfeld is representing the National Women’s Law Center, the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum, the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice, SisterLove, Inc., and 50 other groups in opposing the Trump Administration’s efforts to limit contraception benefits under the Affordable Care Act. These amici join “twenty states, 32 cities, 186 federal lawmakers and dozens of interest groups” in urging the Supreme Court to strike down regulations allowing employers to stop covering workers’ birth control. Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Naomi D. Barrowclough, and Rachel Moseson appeared on the brief.
  • September 26, 2019
    Jeffrey Blumenfeld, comments in an article in The Hill on concerns that antitrust investigations into four leading automakers may be driven by politics. Blumenfeld, who served twice in the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Antitrust Division, questions whether the DOJ now has sufficient legal grounds to pursue the investigation, and warns that a politically motivated investigation could permanently damage the Antitrust Division’s reputation: “Once people begin to suspect that law enforcement is not based on the law and is not even handed — once a law enforcement agency loses that moral authority, I don’t know how you get it back.”
  • March 12-April 18; May 24, 2019
    Mondaq News, Retail Dive, The PE Hub Network,, and the Global Legal Chronicle cover news of Lowenstein client Ethoca’s acquisition by Mastercard. (The Lowenstein deal team included: Steven E. Siesser, Traci M. Tomaselli, Anthony O. Pergola, Lesley P. Adamo, Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Jeffrey M. Shapiro, Jack Sidorov, Michael J. Mueller, Darren Goodman, Megan Monson, Gina M. Seong, James McDonough, Sophia Mokotoff, Erica Perlmutter, and Lauren Killeen.) View Lowenstein’s news announcement about this transaction.
  • October 5, 2018
    CNN quotes Jeffrey Blumenfeld in an article noting that the outcome of the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) appeal of the lower court’s decision permitting AT&T’s $85 billion acquisition of Time Warner will depend on the views of the judges on the panel. The DOJ will have a more difficult time winning if the judges are skeptical of government intervention in business matters, which is often the case with more conservative judges Blumenfeld states, but may find a court more sympathetic to its arguments against the merger if the judges on the panel are less skeptical of such intervention.
  • August 7; September 2; September 24, 2018
    Wired, the Riverdale Standard, and LNR quote Jeffrey Blumenfeld in an article profiling Incompas CEO Charles Pickering and his support of net neutrality. Blumenfeld notes that, after the government forced AT&T to break into several smaller carriers (Baby Bells), Incompas (then called Comptel) played a key role in the telecom industry during post-breakup litigation over what the Bell companies could—and could not—do under the court decree that broke up the AT&T monopoly.
  • September 7-8, 2018
    The Hill, The Washington Post, the Houston Chronicle, and the East Bay Times quote Jeffrey Blumenfeld in an article reporting that the U.S. Department of Justice has invited attorneys general from some states, but not other important state attorneys general such as those from New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington – where the attorneys general are Democrats – to participate in a meeting in Washington, D.C., to assess whether tech companies such as Twitter, Facebook, and Google are hurting competition by deliberately stifling certain types of speech. Blumenfeld notes he does not know of a time when the DOJ selectively invited some but not others when issuing invitations to coordinate investigations.(subscription required to access certain content)
  • July 12-24, 2018
    Bloomberg Law – Big Law Business, The Washington Post(July 12, 2018; July 19, 2018), CNBC’s “Squawk Alley,” Law360, and Mobile World Live cover Jeffrey Blumenfeld’s perspective on the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) appeal of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia’s decision permitting AT&T’s $85 billion acquisition of TimeWarner. Blumenfeld’s observations include noting that: The appeal may cause companies to pause on plans for industry vertical mergers pending the case’s outcome; the appeal shows the DOJ wants clarity on the AT&T/Time Warner merger and similar transactions and that the DOJ’s action means pending and future deals may come under increased scrutiny; the district court judge “simply credited everything that AT&T said and discounted almost everything the government said”; an appellate defeat could hinder “efforts to challenge similar vertical deals the future”; the appellate court might apply a burden of proof standard that the DOJ may have difficulty meeting in later cases; and, even if the DOJ loses, it could sue in the future to break up the merged entity if there were evidence of negative market impact or if, at a later date, there were evidence of anticompetitive conduct. (subscription required to access certain content)
  • June 25, 2018
    The Washington Post quotes Jeffrey Blumenfeld in an article discussing the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision to leave in place a ruling that allows American Express to enact “anti- steering provisions” on merchants who accept its credit cards. Blumenfeld notes that, since this decision will not change how American Express interacts with merchants, it’s an open question whether it will have an effect on merchants’ pricing.
  • June 14, 2018
    Law360 quotes Jeffrey Blumenfeld in an article discussing the antitrust enforcement implications of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia’s decision permitting AT&T’s $85 billion acquisition of Time Warner. Blumenfeld notes how surprising it was that the judge placed greater emphasis on defendant executives’ court testimony than on contemporaneous documents showing what the executives were thinking and discussing while the deal was being negotiated because testimony reflects preparation with lawyers, but contemporaneous documents “tell the real story.” Blumenfeld also notes that the government faces a difficult decision on whether to appeal the decision based, in part, on the judge’s treatment of the documents, both because there would be a high burden of proof and because of the risk that an adverse appellate decision could have greater impact. (subscription required to access article).
  • June 12, 2018
    CNNMoney quotes Jeffrey Blumenfeld in an article discussing the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia’s decision permitting AT&T’s $85 billion acquisition of Time Warner and the parties’ possible next steps. Blumenfeld notes that if the U.S. government does not get an injunction to prevent the deal closing during what is likely to be a lengthy appeals process, the companies will merge their operations, making it that much more difficult to undo.
  • May 26, 2018
    GCR quotes Jeffrey Blumenfeld on the proposed merger of T-Mobile and Sprint.
  • May 9, 2018
    Law360 quotes Jeffrey Blumenfeld on the U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit seeking to block AT&T’s proposed merger with Time Warner. Blumenfeld comments on the risks of relying too heavily on economic evidence, the potential for AT&T documents to reveal the true motivations for the merger, AT&T’s burden of proof in defending against assertions of the deal’s negative economic impact, and the impact of the judge possibly imposing arbitration as a remedy. (subscription required to access article)
  • April 30, 2018
    The Seattle Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, and Gildshire Magazines quote Jeffrey Blumenfeld on the proposed merger of T-Mobile and Sprint.
  • April 23, 2018
    CNNMoney quotes Jeffrey Blumenfeld on the U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit that seeks to block AT&T’s proposed merger with Time Warner. Blumenfeld notes the judge’s broad discretion in adjudicating the case and that the judge’s questions to witnesses may not be clues as to his decision.
  • March 18-26, 2018
    The Hill, USA Today, CNN, and Law360 quote Jeffrey Blumenfeld on the U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit that seeks to block AT&T’s proposed merger with Time Warner. In The Hill, Blumenfeld notes the ineffectiveness of imposing behavioral conditions to avoid anticompetitive behavior following major industry mergers. In USA Today, he notes that this litigation offers consumers a real-world lesson in the antitrust issues that can affect everyday activities such as watching cable television and streaming programs. CNN quotes Blumenfeld on the difficulties AT&T customers might face should the deal be approved when attempting to obtain content that is not owned by AT&T. In Law360, Blumenfeld discusses the parties’ back-and-forth regarding confidentiality concerns and notes how greater evidentiary openness in this case can offer consumers a look at antitrust law as applied to an industry they understand and interact with every day.
  • December 14, 2017
    Jeffrey Blumenfeld discusses net neutrality in The Washington Post and TheStreet.
  • August 2017
    Jeffrey Blumenfeld comments in Washington Lawyer on how Lowenstein Sandler capitalizes on international legal networks and a collaborative culture to meet our clients’ legal needs in today’s globalized economy.
  • April 25, 2017
    In Law360, Jeff Blumenfeld discusses what to expect in the new administration’s approach to antitrust and merger enforcement under AAG nominee Makan Delrahim.
  • November 1, 2016
    Jeff Blumenfeld is quoted in Variety on how the AT&T-Time Warner merger will affect content competitors such as Netflix and Hulu.
  • October 25, 2016
    Jeff Blumenfeld comments in a Bloomberg BNA article about possible ramifications of the 2011 joint agreement between Comcast and NBCUniversal on the AT&T-Time Warner bid.
  • October 24, 2016
    In Law360, Jeff Blumenfeld discusses AT&T’s $84.5B Time Warner takeover and the likely shift in incentives and conduct once the two companies merge.
  • June 5, 2014
    In Bloomberg, Jeffrey Blumenfeld comments on the regulatory implications of Sprint’s proposed acquisition of T-Mobile.

1101 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20004 Map and Directions