Miranda Cole

Covington & Burling (Brussels)
Lawyer (Partner)

Miranda Cole is a partner based in Covington & Burling Brussels office. She practices competition and communications law and policy. Ms. Cole’s competition law expertise encompasses merger control, actions under Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, advisory work and actions before the European courts in Luxembourg. She has particular expertise in advising companies active in the technology and communications sectors. In addition, she has extensive experience in the communications sector, across all aspects of regulation, policy and competition law relating to the sector, and counselling relating to the impact of regulation on transactions. Recent transaction include Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram, and Microsoft’s acquisitions of Nokia’s Devices & Services division and Skype. She has also recently advised a number of technology sector clients in relation to complaints pursuant to Articles 101 and 102 TFEU before the European Commission and Chapters 1 and 2 before the Office of Fair Trading, including Microsoft in its complaint to the European Commission regarding MMI’s actions to injunct the use of standards essential patents, Microsoft in its defense of its software licensing and distribution structure, and Expedia, Trip Advisor and Microsoft in connection with their complaints to the European Commission regarding Google’s conduct in search and related markets.

Distinctions

Auteurs associés

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer (Paris)
University Paris II Panthéon‑Assas
General Court of the European Union (Luxembourg)
Paris School of Economics
French State Council (Paris)
ESSEC Business School (Cergy)
Compass Lexecon (Brussels)
Van Bael & Bellis (Brussels)

Vidéos

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

Articles

372 Bulletin

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

91

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 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 (Flynn / Pfizer)

73

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 authorised retailers from using third-party platforms to sell its products, in order to preserve the products’ luxury image (Coty Germany / Parfümerie Akzente)

17

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)

14

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 Advocate General Wathelet states that holding a standard essential patent does not mean a company is dominant (Huawei / ZTE)

20

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 (...)

Envoyer un message