Tim Kasten specialises in EU competition law, with a particular emphasis on abuse of dominance and cartels, as well as distribution and licensing agreements. 

Tim routinely represents clients in investigations before the European Commission and in litigation before the EU Courts. He has also been called on to provide assistance to local counsel in proceedings before EU Member States and internationally.

Tim also routinely assists clients in ensuring that their agreements and unilateral practices comply with EU competition rules.

Clients he has assisted include Dole, Microsoft, Nike, Stora Enso, Thai Airways, the Association for Competitive Technology (ACT) and various automobile producers.




  • Legal 500 for Competition Law


  • University of Oxford, M. Jur., 1999
  • University of Michigan, J.D., 1997
  • University of Wisconsin, B.A., 1993 


Contributor to Van Bael & Bellis, Competition Law of the European Community (fifth edition, Kluwer, 2010), the standard work of reference in the field of EU competition law.

“Federal Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property”, (ABA, 2010).

“Microsoft on Trial: Legal and Economic Analysis of a Transatlantic Antitrust Case”, (Elgar, 2010), “Competition Law and the Enforcement of Article 102”, (OUP, 2010).

Van Bael & Bellis' monthly newsletter VBB on Competition Law. 

Bar Admission



Notable assignments

  • Representing Microsoft throughout the landmark proceedings that led to the 2004 European Commission abuse of dominance decision. On appeal, Tim helped the company obtain a partial annulment of that decision with respect to the Commission’s remedial powers. Subsequently, in Microsoft’s appeal for alleged non-compliance with the 2004 decision, Tim helped Microsoft obtain the largest fine reduction in any case involving abuse of dominance

  • Representing ACT, a trade association of more than 5,000 IT firms worldwide, in support of Intel’s challenge to the Commission decision imposing a record fine of €1.06 billion on Intel for allegedly granting rebates and payments conditional on exclusivity. The case has raised many novel issues, including burden of proof, the proper legal test for assessing fidelity rebates, the Commission’s duties when gathering evidence, and jurisdiction.

Publications and insights

Sign up for updates

Subscribe to our updates

Please select the practice areas you are interested in: *