Michael Zymler

Experience

Antitrust/Competiton

Prior to joining Hausfeld, Michael was part of the legal team which:

• Acted for a pharmaceutical company in connection with challenges to search warrants by the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) at the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
• Represented a pharmaceutical company on its appeal in the Competition Appeal Tribunal against the CMA’s infringement decision alleging that it was party to a market exclusion agreement in relation to adrenal insufficiency drug Hydrocortisone.
• Represented a pharma manufacturer on its appeal in the Competition Appeal Tribunal against the CMA’s infringement decision alleging that it was party to a market-sharing agreement in relation to Prochlorperazine, an anti-nausea drug.
• Acted for a global pharmaceutical company on its appeal in the Competition Appeal Tribunal against the CMA’s infringement decision alleging that it abused a dominant position on the market by charging unfair and excessive prices in relation to thyroid drug Liothyronine.
• Provided advice on the application of competition law to a wide range of commercial agreements and practices, in particular in respect of vertical agreements and agreements involving IP rights;
• Assisted in preparing responses to CMA statements of objections alleging infringements under Article 101 TFEU/Chapter I Competition Act, and Article 102 TFEU/Chapter II Competition Act;
• Assisted clients in submitting representations to the European Commission, the CMA, and the UK Intellectual Property Office in respect of proposed regulations for standard essential patents.

At Hausfeld, Michael is part of the legal team: 

• Acting for the proposed class representative, consumer advocate Julie Hunter, in collective proceedings filed against Amazon.com, Inc. seeking damages on behalf of UK consumers for alleged anticompetitive conduct in relation to Amazon’s ‘Buy Box’.
• A representative collective action filed with the CAT on behalf of the Consumers’ Association (known as Which?) against Qualcomm on behalf of a class of around 29 million UK consumers alleging that Qualcomm abuses its dominance in the markets for smartphone chipsets and standard essential patents, the result of which is that Qualcomm is able to overcharge smartphone manufacturers like Apple and Samsung for its technology. Damages are estimated to be over £480 million.