BCLP logo

Katherine E. Clemons

Katherine E. Clemons

Counsel

Kansas City/Washington

T: +1 816 374 3234

VcardVcard
Download PDFDownload PDF
Print
Share

Biography

Katherine Clemons is a counsel in the firm’s Antitrust and Competition Practice Group. She is a seasoned antitrust attorney with a proven record of handling complex investigations, mergers, and litigation over nearly 15 years in practice.  

Most recently, as a trial attorney at the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Katherine was a core member of the DOJ’s litigation team leadership and trial team in U.S. v. Google, LLC (Ad Tech), lead attorney for the United States in Nosalek v. MLS Property Information Network, and a key participant in U.S. v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., the Division’s challenge to and proposed settlement of the $1.5 billion merger of Keysight and its competitor Spirent Communications plc. Katherine also led significant nonpublic civil conduct and merger investigations in the professional services, telecommunications, and media industries, and supported similar investigations in other sectors. She also managed investigation teams, coordinated with state attorneys general and international competition enforcers, served as a member of the Division’s E-Discovery Working Group, and developed strategic plans for investigation and litigation.

Katherine brings deep experience navigating the complexities of merger investigations, having led multiple inquiries—including Second Requests—during her tenure at the DOJ. While at the Antitrust Division, Katherine received three Assistant Attorney General’s Awards for her service in merger and litigation work, including for excellence in writing.

Before her career in government service, Katherine was a senior antitrust associate in the Washington DC office of an international law firm, where she represented clients in civil and criminal matters before the Federal Trade Commission, DOJ, and state attorneys general, as well as in private state and federal antitrust litigation in jurisdictions throughout the United States. She acted as lead associate in numerous high-stakes merger, criminal, and litigation matters across a broad range of industries, including cartel investigations for auto parts, agriculture, technology, telecommunications, and healthcare clients.

Having held a leadership role in the American Bar Association’s Antitrust Section since 2019, and currently serving as Vice Chair of the Section’s Books & Treatises Committee, Katherine is actively engaged with the latest policy and legal developments in antitrust law. Katherine clerked for the Honorable S. James Otero of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. She earned her J.D. from Washington University School of Law, where she served as senior editor for the Washington University Law Review, and her undergraduate degree from the University of Kansas.

Professional Affiliations

  • ABA, Antitrust Section Books & Treatises Committee, Vice Chair, 2019-Present

Clerkships

  • Clerkship, Honorable S. James Otero, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Admissions

  • District of Columbia, 2013
  • Missouri, 2011

Education

  • Washington University in St. Louis, J.D., magna cum laude, 2011
  • Washington University in St. Louis, J.D., Order of the Coif, 2011
  • University of Kansas, BGS, 2006

Related Capabilities

Antitrust & Competition Antitrust & Competition

Litigation & Dispute Resolution Litigation & Dispute Resolution

Investigations Investigations

White Collar White Collar

State Attorneys General Practice State Attorneys General Practice

  • Antitrust & Competition

  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution

  • Investigations

  • White Collar

  • State Attorneys General Practice

Related Insights

Insights
Feb 23, 2026

HSR in Flux: New Filing Requirements Collide with Federal Court Ruling

On February 12, 2026, a federal district court in the Eastern District of Texas vacated the Federal Trade Commission’s new Hart‑Scott‑Rodino Act premerger notification form, concluding that in its 2025 comprehensive overhaul of the nearly 50-year old form, the agency exceeded its statutory authority and acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the Administrative Procedure Act. Although the court ordered the new form set aside, the Fifth Circuit has issued an administrative stay while it considers the FTC’s emergency motion for a stay pending appeal. As a result, the new HSR form remains in effect at this time. Parties preparing HSR filings should be aware that filing requirements may shift quickly depending on the Fifth Circuit’s forthcoming decision.
Insights
Feb 04, 2026

FTC Chairman Issues Warning Letters Relating to Diversity Initiatives to Law Firms Which Have Implications to Corporate Employers as Well

Summary: On Friday, January 30, 2026, Andrew Ferguson, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), sent warning letters to over 40 law firms about their purported involvement in the Mansfield Certification program, a diversity initiative pursuant to which law firms commit to considering diverse applicant pools. The warning letters characterize the Mansfield Certification program as an illegal collusion scheme, often referred to as a “hub and spoke” cartel. The current administration has used this type of “cartel” claim frequently. Several of us predicted last year (in the context of U.S. antitrust challenges to environmental sustainability initiatives) that the cartel type claims would be increasingly invoked. But significant challenges exist between these warning letters and legal action sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Clients, whether law firms or other entities that participate in the Mansfield Certification program, should review their hiring practices to ensure that they are making independent hiring decisions, even if those actions parallel other firms’ decisions.
Insights
Jan 30, 2026

Seal the Valve, But Not the Deal: Court Blocks Edwards Lifesciences’ Pre Commercial Merger

A recent federal district court decision in FTC v. Edwards Lifesciences adds another win to U.S. enforcers’ efforts to apply traditional antitrust principles to mergers involving early‑stage or pre‑commercial products. In granting the FTC a preliminary injunction blocking Edwards’ acquisition of JenaValve, the court endorsed an expansive “pre‑commercial innovation market” theory—accepting that the two companies were actively competing not in a traditional commercial market, but in the research, development, and anticipated commercialization of next‑generation transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR‑AR) devices.[1] Although no TAVR‑AR device is yet FDA‑approved for commercial sale in the United States, the court found that the companies’ efforts to progress through FDA trials constituted meaningful competitive interaction.[2] Relying on the 2023 Merger Guidelines, the ruling underscores the growing institutional acceptance of research and development-based theories of harm.  For clients, Edwards Lifesciences represents a helpful reminder of the import of antitrust counsel advising on potential transactions and reviewing deal terms as early as possible in the process, even when there is no present commercial competition between an acquirer and a target, so long as there is specific evidence of competition in innovation or R&D.  

Related Insights

Insights
Feb 23, 2026
HSR in Flux: New Filing Requirements Collide with Federal Court Ruling
On February 12, 2026, a federal district court in the Eastern District of Texas vacated the Federal Trade Commission’s new Hart‑Scott‑Rodino Act premerger notification form, concluding that in its 2025 comprehensive overhaul of the nearly 50-year old form, the agency exceeded its statutory authority and acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the Administrative Procedure Act. Although the court ordered the new form set aside, the Fifth Circuit has issued an administrative stay while it considers the FTC’s emergency motion for a stay pending appeal. As a result, the new HSR form remains in effect at this time. Parties preparing HSR filings should be aware that filing requirements may shift quickly depending on the Fifth Circuit’s forthcoming decision.
Insights
Feb 04, 2026
FTC Chairman Issues Warning Letters Relating to Diversity Initiatives to Law Firms Which Have Implications to Corporate Employers as Well
Summary: On Friday, January 30, 2026, Andrew Ferguson, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), sent warning letters to over 40 law firms about their purported involvement in the Mansfield Certification program, a diversity initiative pursuant to which law firms commit to considering diverse applicant pools. The warning letters characterize the Mansfield Certification program as an illegal collusion scheme, often referred to as a “hub and spoke” cartel. The current administration has used this type of “cartel” claim frequently. Several of us predicted last year (in the context of U.S. antitrust challenges to environmental sustainability initiatives) that the cartel type claims would be increasingly invoked. But significant challenges exist between these warning letters and legal action sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Clients, whether law firms or other entities that participate in the Mansfield Certification program, should review their hiring practices to ensure that they are making independent hiring decisions, even if those actions parallel other firms’ decisions.
Insights
Jan 30, 2026
Seal the Valve, But Not the Deal: Court Blocks Edwards Lifesciences’ Pre Commercial Merger
A recent federal district court decision in FTC v. Edwards Lifesciences adds another win to U.S. enforcers’ efforts to apply traditional antitrust principles to mergers involving early‑stage or pre‑commercial products. In granting the FTC a preliminary injunction blocking Edwards’ acquisition of JenaValve, the court endorsed an expansive “pre‑commercial innovation market” theory—accepting that the two companies were actively competing not in a traditional commercial market, but in the research, development, and anticipated commercialization of next‑generation transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR‑AR) devices.[1] Although no TAVR‑AR device is yet FDA‑approved for commercial sale in the United States, the court found that the companies’ efforts to progress through FDA trials constituted meaningful competitive interaction.[2] Relying on the 2023 Merger Guidelines, the ruling underscores the growing institutional acceptance of research and development-based theories of harm.  For clients, Edwards Lifesciences represents a helpful reminder of the import of antitrust counsel advising on potential transactions and reviewing deal terms as early as possible in the process, even when there is no present commercial competition between an acquirer and a target, so long as there is specific evidence of competition in innovation or R&D.  
Insights
Sep 26, 2025
Increased Scrutiny of Crop Inputs: USDA Announcement Signals a Renewed Partnership with DOJ Antitrust Enforcement