Norton Rose Fulbright (Brussels)

Miranda Cole

Norton Rose Fulbright (Brussels)
Partner

Miranda Cole is an antitrust and competition lawyer with Norton Rose Fulbright based in the firm’s Brussels office. She has a broad competition practice focussed on the technology and life sciences sectors. With more than 20 years’ experience, Miranda is regarded as a key adviser to life sciences and technology companies globally. Miranda has extensive experience advising clients to address increasing regulatory scrutiny from governments and competition authorities. She advises on merger control, actions under Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, abuse of dominance, anticompetitive agreements, and compliance and advisory work, as well as actions before the European courts in Luxembourg. Miranda is also heavily involved in supporting clients in aligning their competition policy engagement in response to a variety of new regulatory frameworks. Prior to joining the firm, Miranda was a senior partner in a multinational law firm in Brussels.

Distinctions

Linked authors

Norton Rose Fulbright (Toronto)
Norton Rose Fulbright (New York)
Norton Rose Fulbright (Brussels)
Norton Rose Fulbright (Paris)
Norton Rose Fulbright (Brussels)

Videos

Miranda Cole - New frontiers of antitrust 2015
Miranda Cole 15 June 2015 Paris

Articles

3367 Bulletin

Miranda Cole, Laura van Kruijsdijk, Andrés Betancor Jimenez de Parga The EU Court of Justice AG Rantos delivers his opinion in a request for a preliminary ruling on the conduct of an energy and gas producer in the context of the liberalisation of the electricity market in Italy (Enel)

314

On 9 December 2021, Advocate General (“AG”) Rantos delivered his Opinion in Servizio Elettrico Nazionale (Case C‑377/20), a request for a preliminary ruling from the Italian Consiglio di Stato. The case concerns the conduct of the ENEL Group (“ENEL”) in the context of the liberalisation of the (...)

Miranda Cole, Petros Vinis, Andrés Betancor Jimenez de Parga The EU Court of Justice confirms that follow-on damages actions can be brought against subsidiaries of companies found to have infringed EU competition law (Sumal / Mercedes Benz Trucks España)

199

On 6 October 2021, a preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in Sumal confirmed that follow-on damages actions can be brought against subsidiaries of companies found to have infringed EU competition law. This note briefly analyzes the judgment and the (...)

Miranda Cole, Petros Vinis The EU Court of Justice publishes the summary of an appeal by a sports association against a General Court’s decision stating that standards restricting athlete participation in rival events infringe Article 101 TFEU (International Skating Union)

246

In May 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) published the summary of an appeal filed by the International Skating Union (“ISU”) against a ruling from the General Court (“GC”) which found that ISU rules restricting athletes from taking part in rival events infringed Article 101 (...)

Marilena Nteve, Wesley Lepla, Miranda Cole The EU Court of Justice dismisses the appeals of several manufacturers of medicines against the General Court’s judgment upholding the Commission’s pay-for-delay infringement decision (Lundbeck)

433

On 25 March 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) dismissed the appeals by Lundbeck, Merck KGaA (and Generics UK), Arrow, Alpharma (and Xellia) and Ranbaxy, against the General Court’s (“GC”) judgment upholding the European Commission’s (“Commission”) 2013 pay-for-delay (...)

Miranda Cole, Wesley Lepla The UK Court of Appeal of England and Wales provides guidance regarding the legal test to determine whether pricing is excessive and unfair in the pharmaceutical market (Pfizer / Flynn)

218

The UK Court of Appeal Clarifies the Legal Test for Excessive Pricing* Under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”), an undertaking may abuse its dominant position by “directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices”. The UK Court of Appeal (...)

Spyridon Goulielmos, Wesley Lepla, Miranda Cole The UK Court of Appeal of England & Wales provides guidance on the legal test for excessive and unfair pricing after finding that an undertaking is charged unfairly high prices for phenytoin sodium capsules (Pfizer / Flynn)

191

Under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”), an undertaking may abuse its dominant position by “directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices”. The UK Court of Appeal recently provided guidance regarding the legal test to determine whether (...)

Miranda Cole, Jennifer Boudet The EU Court of Justice finds that a luxury goods supplier may prevent its authorized retailers from using third-party platforms to sell its products to preserve the products’ luxury image (Coty Germany / Parfümerie Akzente)

145

On 6 December 2017, the Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU) issued its long-awaited Judgment in Coty Germany GmbH v Parfümerie Akzente GmbH. Taking an approach similar to that adopted by Advocate General (AG) Wahl in his Opinion in July, the CJEU found that a supplier of luxury goods may (...)

Miranda Cole, Peter D. Camesasca The EU Court of Justice finds that a holder of a standard-essential patent may abuse a dominant position by seeking to enjoin infringement (Huawei / ZTE)

44

On July 16, 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU” or “the Court”) issued its long-awaited judgment in Huawei Technology Co. Ltd v ZTE Corp., ZTE Deutschland GmbH. The CJEU found that the holder of a standard essential patent (“SEP”) may, in certain circumstances, abuse its dominant (...)

Peter D. Camesasca, Miranda Cole The EU Court of Justice AG Wathelet states that holding a standard essential patent does not mean a company is dominant (Huawei / ZTE)

45

The Reference On 5 April 2013, the Landgericht Düsseldorf referred questions relating to injunctive relief over standard-essential patents (“SEPs”) to the Court of Justice (“CJEU”) in connection with a patent dispute between Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (“Huawei”) and ZTE Corp., ZTE Deutschland GmbH (...)

John D. Graubert, Miranda Cole, James J. O’Connell, Timothy Stratford The Chinese Ministry of Commerce issues regulations regarding investigations and sanctioning of companies that fail to notify transactions under competition law

15

On January 5, China’s Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”) issued new regulations regarding investigations and sanctioning of companies that fail to notify transactions under China’s Anti- Monopoly Law (“AML”). Under the regulations, which take effect on February 1, non-compliant companies may be fined up (...)

Send a message