Katarzyna Czapracka
White & Case (Brussels)
Partner
Katarzyna Czapracka is a partner with White & Case based in the Brussels office. She advises clients on the full range of competition law issues, including complex merger control and antitrust matters. She represents clients in Phase I and Phase II merger cases before the European Commission and the Polish competition authority. She has a broad experience advising on multijurisdictional considerations, as well as remedies in merger cases. Katarzyna Czapracka also defends clients in conduct matters and advises on compliance with antitrust rules. Her experience includes handling EU and national investigations and litigation before the EU and national courts. Based in Brussels and Warsaw, her practice focuses on EU and cross-border projects, but she is also adept in domestic Polish matters. Katarzyna has also worked in the firm’s offices in New York and Washington, DC, where her practice focused on international and US antitrust matters. She advises clients on complex cases of abuse of dominance, involving price-based conduct (rebates), refusal to supply/license and tying/bundling practices. She has also been involved in cartel investigations and in pleading related appeals before the EU Courts. She has extensive experience in handling cases involving the intersection of IP and competition law, including technology transfer/IP licensing agreements. She received a doctorate (JSD) from Columbia Law School in 2007, where her thesis focused on the intersection between IP and competition law.
Distinctions
Linked authors
Fanny Abouzeid
White & Case (Brussels)
Adam Acosta
White & Case (Washington)
Kevin Adam
White & Case (Boston)
Reem Albakr
White & Case (Riyadh)
Melinda Anderson
White & Case (New York)
2810 | Events
Videos
Articles
6308 Bulletin
80
The EU Court of Justice in the CK Telecoms ruling has addressed key questions of EU merger control, including the standard of proof for the European Commission to challenge a merger, the assessment of mergers below the dominance threshold ("gap cases"), the concepts of "closeness of (...)
89
The EU Commission (EC) has published its final revised Horizontal Cooperation Guidelines and adopted new R&D and Specialisation Block Exemption Regulations (HBERs). The EC’s aim is to provide more guidance for competitors wishing to cooperate in areas such as R&D and production, but (...)
441
The long-awaited European Court of Justice’s judgment in Towercast confirmed that national competition authorities (and national courts) can apply abuse of dominance rules to mergers that did not trigger EU and national merger control thresholds, and were not referred to the European (...)
669
On 19 January 2023, the EU Court of Justice, answering questions from the Italian Council of State, confirmed that the Intel effects-based approach applies also to exclusive dealing practices and held that competition authorities must duly examine economic evidence produced by dominant (...)
494
On 12 January 2023, the EU Court of Justice upheld the EU General Court’s judgment imposing a fine on Lithuanian Railways for dismantling a section of railway track. While reaffirming its essential facility case law (Bronner), the Court confirmed that the Bronner case law did not apply to the (...)
178
Advocate General Juliane Kokott has proposed that the EU Court of Justice should find that competition authorities have the power to apply Article 102 TFEU to corporate transactions that are not reportable, and test under that provision whether the transaction as such constitutes an abuse of a (...)
288
On 18 May 2022, the EU General Court (GC) upheld the European Commission’s (EC) € 28 million fine imposed on Canon for gun-jumping in the context of a (somewhat unique) so-called warehousing structure. The judgment confirms that structures such as the one at issue are not allowed under EU law (...)
298
On 23 February 2022, the EU’s General Court (GC) dismissed a €1.7 billion claim for damages brought by United Parcel Service Inc. (UPS) against the European Commission (EC). UPS sought compensation for the losses resulting from the EC’s decision to block UPS’ merger with TNT NV (TNT). The GC, (...)
535
As part of its review of the EU antitrust rules governing vertical agreements, the European Commission (EC) has published for consultation a draft new section of its Vertical Guidelines, which contains proposed guidance on information exchange in "dual distribution" relationships. Reacting to (...)
246
A recent speech by the European Commission’s (the Commission) Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager (the Commissioner), on the 30th anniversary of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR), praised it as having created "a better life for everyone", "saved customers billions of euros each (...)
48
This article has been nominated for the 2021 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. A recent speech by the European Commission’s (the Commission) Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager (the Commissioner), on the 30th anniversary of (...)
508
Standards lie at the heart of the digital economy – without standards, we would not have smartphones, tablets and other key parts of modern life. Europe’s highest court recently delivered a judgment in Huawei v. ZTE explaining when EU competition law will prevent holders of patents that are (...)
1370
The interaction between competition rules and intellectual property (“IP”) rights continues to be the source of lively debates in Brussels and other capitals across the globe. IP lawyers lament that competition lawyers do not understand IP rules and that competition intervention undermines (...)
308
Summary The Advocate General’s advisory Opinion in the Huawei v. ZTE FRAND Case (C-170/13) would, if followed by the full European Court of Justice (ECJ), usher in a significant shift in the playing field in German litigation on Standard essential patents (SEPs). Germany has been known as a (...)
756
The interaction between competition rules and intellectual property ("IP") rights has long been among the most interesting, controversial and widely discussed issues in competition law. At a first glance, the objectives of IP law and competition rules might seem to be at odds with each other. On the one hand, competition rules prohibit conduct that restricts competition and thereby leads to lower output and higher prices. On the other, IP law creates exclusive rights that limit access to information, technologies and other intangible assets.
1064 Review
86
This section selects books on themes related to competition laws and economics. This compilation does not attempt to be exhaustive but rather a survey of themes important in the area. The survey usually covers publication over the last three months after publication of the latest issue of (...)
978
Contents: Reining in digital unicorns: Is Europe setting the rules for the world?, Dr Katarzyna Czapracka, Partner, White & Case, Brussels and Warsaw A few thoughts on privacy and competition, Martin d’Halluin, Senior Vice President, Global Competition Law & Policy Counsel, News (...)
Statistics
10182
509.1
20
Author's ranking
474th
In number of contributions
981th
In number of visits
3995th
In average number of visits