.

Mike is a seasoned first chair IP litigation trial attorney, a consulting and testifying consumer survey expert, and a recognized thought leader on cutting-edge issues involving trademarks, copyrights, and advertising.

IP Litigation Trial Practice

Mike Keyes is a “go to” intellectual property trial attorney with a vast reservoir of experience in cases involving trademarks, copyrights, and false advertising, including individual consumer and class action claims. Mike and his team have represented some of the world’s most recognized brands and companies in high-stakes litigation in numerous federal courts across the country including Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Minnesota, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, Utah, and Florida. These disputes have encompassed a wide array of subject matters including medical diagnostics software, online games and apps, Google Ads, social media, e-books, consumer products, food and beverage, fashion, sports equipment, educational testing tools, and hospitality services.

Mike has served as lead or co-lead trial counsel in several high-profile IP cases. He was trial counsel in Chicago federal court for Kraft Foods in a highly publicized false advertising trial featured on ABC’s Good Morning America and covered by the likes of The Chicago Tribune and The New York Times. He represented Abercrombie & Fitch in a closely watched case in California federal court brought by Levi Strauss & Co. involving claims of unfair competition, trademark infringement, and dilution. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Abercrombie & Fitch on all claims. The case was profiled in the Daily Journal—California’s largest legal publication—as one of the Top 10 “Defense Wins” in California that year. Some of Mike’s other successes as lead trial counsel include obtaining final judgments and permanent injunctions on behalf of several clients including: a national hospitality chain, a consumer products company selling the No. 1 toy on Amazon.com, and the creator of Angry Birds.

His intellectual property clients have also included the likes of Hall of Fame Major League Slugger George Brett, Facebook, Foot Locker, Beats Electronics, LLC (Beats by Dr. Dre), TikTok, Viacom, Corona Beer, Target, Helly Hansen, the North Face, the Mayo Clinic, the University of Minnesota, Del Monte, and Carmex.

Consumer Survey Expert Practice

In addition to his extensive trial work, Mike is also a consulting and testifying consumer survey expert and leads Dorsey’s Consumer Insights Group. Mike brings a truly unique value proposition to his work as an expert. Not only does he have an advanced degree in Survey Research & Data Analysis, but he also has over two decades of practical experience as a trial lawyer in drafting and analyzing consumer surveys, as well as collaborating with, deposing, and cross-examining survey experts. Mike understands the critical importance of this type of evidence in litigation and excels at making it relatable and understandable to judges and juries.

Mike is a leading voice on consumer survey evidence, regularly presenting at national conferences and events hosted by the ABA, AIPLA, PLI, Strafford, and AAPOR (the American Association for Public Opinion Research). He publishes frequently on the topic of consumer surveys and maintains an active following on LinkedIn where hundreds of lawyers and survey experts alike subscribe to his publication Lanham Act Surveys for Lawyers. He also imparts his survey expertise to law students at the University of Washington Law School, where he serves as an affiliate instructor, teaching Advanced Trademark Law and IP Litigation Strategies. His insights on survey research have also been shared with students and faculty at esteemed law school institutions including the University of Notre Dame, Franklin Pierce Law Center, and Gonzaga University.

Mike is a certified mediator, an ADR panelist for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, a registered ADR panelist with the AIPLA, and was recently invited to join the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center’s ADR panel.

Lastly, Mike served on Dorsey’s Management Committee from 2019-2023 where he was the global head of Dorsey’s trial group.

Select Experience

View all

Intellectual Property

  • Scotts v. Procter & Gamble, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, (2024) (Cole, J.). Lead counsel defending Procter & Gamble against claims for infringement of Scotts’ Miracle-Gro trade dress.  Scotts’ motion for preliminary injunction was denied.
  • Grecco v. TikTok, Inc. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, (2024) (Aenlle-Rocha, J.). Representing TikTok against claims of copyright infringement.
  • ICVA v. Anivive, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, (2024) (Staton, J.). Obtained preliminary injunction against Defendants’ copying and inputting into artificial intelligence large language models standardized test for veterinary licensure.
  • Represented seller in the sale of one of the most popular user-created islands in Fortnite, one of the largest online multiplayer battle royale games in the video gaming sector, to a large video game developer headquartered in Europe.

Education

  • University of Connecticut (M.S., Survey Research & Data Analysis, 2023)
  • Gonzaga University School of Law (J.D., 1998)
    • magna cum laude; Best Oralist, National Moot Court Competition, Regional Finals 1997; Associate Editor Law Review 1997-1998
  • Columbia Law School (LL.M., 1999)
    • Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar
  • Loyola University, New Orleans (B.M., Piano Performance, 1993)
  • Tbilisi State Conservatoire, Former Soviet Republic of Georgia
    • Graduate Piano Student, 1993-1994

Bar Admissions

  • New York
  • Washington
  • California

Court Admissions

  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • U.S. District Court for the Central, Northern, Eastern, and Southern Districts of California
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Washington
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern and Southern Districts of New York
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

Professional Affiliations

  • Trustee of the King County Bar Foundation, 2018-present
  • Member, Law360 Intellectual Property Editorial Advisory Board, 2017 and 2018
  • Co-Chair, ABA Copyright Litigation Committee, 2006-2008
  • Washington State Bar Association IP Section, Chair, 2006; Chair-elect, 2005; Secretary-Treasurer, 2004
  • Co-founder, Spokane County Bar Association IP Section, 2003
  • Coach of National Appellate Advocacy Competition Team, Gonzaga University School of Law
  • Adjunct Professor of Law, “Internet and the Law,” “Trademark Law,” and “Legal Research & Writing,” Gonzaga University School of Law
  • Member, Copyright Society of the USA
  • Member, Supreme Court Historical Society

Clerkships

  • Washington Supreme Court, Honorable Chief Justice Gerry L. Alexander, 1999-2000

Charitable & Civic Involvement

  • Past Chair, Gonzaga Prep High School Board of Directors
  • Trustee, King County Bar Association Foundation
  • Guest Lecturer, University of Washington School of Law
  • Volunteer supervising attorney, University of Washington Entrepreneurial Law Clinic
  • Volunteer Pianist, Sacred Heart Parish
  • Volunteer Pianist, Compass Room & Rooftop
  • Past Board Member, Holy Names Music Center

Accolades

  • Best Lawyers in America®, Advertising Law, Commercial Litigation, Copyright Law, Intellectual Property Litigation, Patent Litigation, Patent Law, Trademark Law, Seattle, 2013-2027
  • Chambers USA, Intellectual Property: Trademark, Copyright & Trade Secrets, Washington, 2026
  • IAM/WTR Copyright 1000, “World's Leading Copyright Professionals," 2026
  • World Trademark Review 1000, "The World’s Leading Trademark Professionals," Leading Practitioner, 2017-2026
  • Washington Super Lawyers®, 2014-2026
  • Managing IP, IP STAR, 2016-2026
  • Best Lawyers® Lawyer of the Year, Trademark Law, 2025, 2027
  • Washington Super Lawyers®, "Top 100," 2021
  • JD Supra Readers’ Choice Awards, "Top Author," 2017
  • Washington Super Lawyers®, “Rising Stars,”2006-2008, 2011

Select Presentations

  • Panelist, “Daubert-Proofing Your Survey,” AIPLA, On-Line Webinar, July 2022
  • Panelist, "Making the Case With Tweets, Snaps and Facebook Posts," Federal Bar Association, Eastern District Conference and CLE, September 2018
  • Presenter, “2018 Global Law Innovation Summit”—Recent Cases & Controversies Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the University of Washington School of Law, July 2018
  • Presenter, “Monkey, Music, and Much, Much More!—A Copyright Law Update,” King County Bar Association IP Section, Seattle, WA, June 2018
  • Presenter, “Extraterritorial Applications of the Lanham Act,” California Lawyers Association, June 2018
  • Moderator, "New Frontiers in Branding," The New Music Ecosystem sponsored by the University of Washington School of Law, May 2018
  • Panelist, Law Seminars International, “Consumer Protection: The Challenge of Achieving Regulation Compliance and Meeting Customer Expectations,” December 1, 2017
  • Presenter, American Bar Association Intellectual Property Law Books Webinar Series: "Copyright Litigation Strategies: From Soup to Nuts," September 19, 2017
  • Presenter, 43rd Annual ICLE  Intellectual Property Law Institute on Mackinac Island, MI, July 2017 
  • Presenter, International Trademark Association Meeting, "#TalkingIP: Optimizing Publishing Opportunities and Digital Platforms - INTA and Beyond," May 21, 2017 
  • Presenter, IP Section of the King County Bar Association, “From Pom-Poms to Rockstars: The Latest and Greatest Copyright Hits,” May 2017
  • Panelist, American Bar Association Intellectual Property Spring Conference, “Copyright at a Gallop,” April 2017 
  • Moderator, Copyright Society of the USA CLE, “Other People’s Footage: Copyright and Fair Use,” February 2017 
  • Presenter, International Trademark Association Annual Meeting, "Monetary Remedies in Trademark Cases,"  May 2016
  • Presenter, Washington State Bar Association IP Institute, “Copyright Case Law, the Year in Review,” March 2016
  • Panelist, American Bar Association sponsored webinar, “Designing Effective Consumer Surveys in Trademark Infringement and False Advertising Disputes,” November 2015
  • Co-Presenter with Dorsey & Whitney partner Sandy Edelman, Practicing Law Institute, “Designing Effective Consumer Surveys in Trademark Infringement and False Advertising Disputes,” July 2015
  • Panelist, American Bar Association Technology Symposium, “One Problem: Reconciling Advice of Employment, Intellectual Property, and Other Counsel,” March 2015
  • Presenter, Washington State Bar Association IP Institute, “Design and Use of Consumer Surveys in Lanham Act Cases—Recent Developments,” March 2014
  • Presenter, Practicing Law Institute, “Fundamentals of Copyright Law in the Data Era,” July 2013
  • Presenter, American Intellectual Property Law Association 2013 Spring Meeting, “Use of Non-Patent Literature During Patent Examination—Fair or Infringing?”, May 2013
  • Presenter, Practicing Law Institute, “Understanding Copyright in the Data Era,” July 2012
  • Presenter, Practicing Law Institute, University of Chicago, “Copyright Enforcement in the Data Era,” June 2012
  • Panelist, American Bar Association Intellectual Property Spring Conference, “Trollings, Take Downs, and Transfers: An Audiovisual Odyssey Through The World of Copyright,” March 2012
  • Presenter, Practicing Law Institute, “Understanding Copyright in the Data Era,” July 2011
  • Presenter, Practicing Law Institute, “Copyright Litigation,” July 2010
  • Panelist, American Bar Association Intellectual Property Law Spring Conference, “Of Courts and Copyists: The Year in Review,” April 2010
  • Panelist, American Bar Association Intellectual Property Law Spring Conference, “The Year in Copyright,” April 2009
  • Presenter, American Intellectual Property Law Association, "Recoveries in IP Litigation: Hotspots and Trends in Copyright, Trademark, and Patent Damages,” Webinar, April 2009
  • CLE Co-Chair, Intellectual Property Institute, Washington State Bar Association, featuring U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit Chief Judge, The Hon. Alex Kozinski, October 2008
  • Presenter, American Bar Association Intellectual Property Law Spring Conference, “An Audiovisual Tour Through The Year in Copyright,” April 2008
  • Panelist, American Intellectual Property Law Association 2008 Mid-Winter Institute, “A Survey of Licensing Strategies One Year After MedImmune,” January 2008
  • Presenter, Washington State Bar Association Corporate Counsel Institute, “Trademark Law For General Counsel,” October 2007
  • Panelist, American Bar Association Intellectual Property Law Spring Conference, “Copyright in the Courts: Issues of First Impression,” April 2007
  • CLE Co-Chair, Intellectual Property Institute, Washington State Bar Association, March 2007
  • Presenter, “Copyright Law For The IP Attorney,” Idaho State Bar Association Intellectual Property Section, November 2006
  • CLE Chair, “Intellectual Property Developments: Litigation, Machination & Reformation,” Washington State Bar Association, September 2006
  • Presenter, “Spyware Resolution Debate,” ABA Intellectual Property Annual Meeting, 2006
  • Presenter, “Copyright & The World of Music,” Washington State Music Teachers Association Leadership Conference, 2005
  • Presenter, “Top Ten Trademark Tips,” Coeur d’ Alene Chamber of Commerce, 2005
  • Co-Presenter, “Protecting Your Artistic Creations in the Digital Age,” 2005
  • Co-Presenter, “Pitfalls for the Unwary: Recognition, Protection & Enforcement of IP Rights,” Emerald Education Group, 2004
  • Presenter, “Copyright Law & The World of Advertising,” Great Falls Advertising Federation, 2004

Insights

View all

Blog Post

Dorsey Takes London: Highlights from the INTA Annual Meeting

June 8, 2026

Articles

Eveready Vs. Squirt: How Trademark Surveys Fare In 9th Circ.

December 10, 2025

Eveready and Squirt consumer surveys have stood as the two titans for measuring likelihood of confusion in trademark disputes. But how do these two formats stack up in trial courts in the Ninth Circuit — the largest circuit in the country? Partner Michael Keyes and Associate Emily Martin-Shakya authored an article in Law360 taking a deep dive to see how these two approaches fare across four pivotal points in a trademark case's progression — preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders, Daubert challenges, summary judgment motions, and bench trials. Read the full article on Law360.

News

View all

Recognition

Dorsey Recognized in Inaugural 2026 IAM/WTR Copyright 1000

September 28, 2026

Recognition

229 Dorsey Lawyers Recognized in 2027 Best Lawyers in America, Lawyers of the Year, and Ones to Watch

August 20, 2026

Firm Highlights

Insights

The Supreme Court Update - October 8, 2026

On September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in one case: Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., No. 26-426: This case concerns the Trump Administration’s “third-country removal” procedures, where immigrants are deported to countries not listed in the removal orders. In granting certiorari, the Court granted the Government’s application to stay a lower court decision halting the practice, which will allow third-country removals to continue pending resolution of the case. The issues presented are: (1) Whether the district court had jurisdiction over respondents’ claims; (2) whether the district court had authority to enter class-wide declaratory relief and APA vacatur under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1); (3) whether the Government’s guidance on third-country removals is unlawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b), the due process clause, or FARRA/CAT and its implementing regulations; and (4) such other questions that the Government determines are appropriate for the proper disposition of the case. On October 1, 2026, the Court granted certiorari in three additional cases: Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104: Immigration officials detained Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha—a Brazilian citizen who had lived in the United States for approximately twenty years after entering without inspection—and denied him a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The Second Circuit held that his detention was instead governed by § 1226(a), which permits release on bond, because § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory-detention requirement applies only to noncitizens apprehended while entering the country or shortly thereafter. The question presented is: Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates the detention pending removal proceedings of aliens who, like Barbosa da Cunha, are present in the United States without having been admitted. Missionaries of St. John the Baptist, Inc. v. Frederic, No. 25-113: A Catholic religious organization sought to build a shrine to the Virgin Mary on land the organization owned adjacent to its church in Park Hills, Kentucky. Local zoning restrictions prohibited the proposed construction. The question presented is: Whether a land-use regulation that prohibits a religious institution from building a religious structure on its own property constitutes a “substantial burden” on religious exercise under the Substantial Burden Provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a). Marschner v. Marschner, No. 25-1349: Under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (“USFSPA”), a veteran’s longevity-based retirement pay can be divided in a divorce, but retirement pay based on disability and retirement pay that was waived to receive disability pay are indivisible. The question presented is: Does the USFSPA require state courts to refuse enforcement of indemnification provisions in a divorce settlement agreement?

Insights

SEC Proposes Expansion of Investment Adviser Performance-Based Compensation Rule

On September 30, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) proposed amendments to Rule 205-3 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”), which provides an exemption from the general prohibition under Section 205(a)(1) of the Advisers Act on registered investment advisers receiving performance-based compensation (the “Proposal”) so long as performance-based compensation is limited to “qualified clients”.1 Most notably for private fund sponsors, the Proposal would expand the definition of “qualified client” to include any investors that satisfy the “accredited investor” definition under Regulation D. The Proposal may also have implications for private fund managers that rely on exemptions from investment adviser registration under state law because certain state-level investment adviser registration exemptions incorporate or otherwise reference the federal qualified client definition. Expansion of the Qualified Client Definition Under the current Rule 205-3, an investor generally may qualify as a qualified client if, among other alternatives, the investor has at least $1.4 million under management with the adviser or has a net worth exceeding $2.7 million. These thresholds are higher than the financial thresholds applicable to many accredited investors under Regulation D. As a result, an investor may currently qualify as an accredited investor for purposes of investing in a private offering without qualifying as a qualified client for purposes of paying performance-based compensation. The Proposal would expand the qualified client definition to include any natural person or legal entity investor that satisfies the accredited investor definition under Regulation D. The Proposal would also remove the assets under management and net worth thresholds under the current Rule 205-3 qualified client test. For private funds relying on Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, this change could reduce the need to apply a separate qualified client standard to investors that already qualify as accredited investors. Dorsey Observations and Next Steps If adopted as proposed, the expanded qualified client definition could be particularly significant for private fund managers. Most private fund offerings are already limited to accredited investors under Regulation D. However, the Proposal could expand the pool of prospective investors available to emerging private fund managers while reducing the regulatory burden associated with complying with Rule 205-3. The Proposal could also benefit advisers operating below the SEC registration threshold that rely on a state private fund adviser exemption. A number of states have adopted exemptions modeled on the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) private fund adviser exemption, which may condition relief for advisers to certain funds relying on Section 3(c)(1) on each beneficial owner satisfying the federal qualified client definition. However, state requirements vary, and any effect of the Proposal would depend on the text of the applicable state exemption and how it incorporates Rule 205-3. Many emerging private fund managers may have a larger network of accredited investor relationships than qualified client relationships during the early stages of their investment advisory business. Currently, under Rule 205-3, private fund managers may receive performance-based compensation from investors who do not satisfy the qualified client definition if those investors were admitted to their private funds prior to registration with the SEC. Following registration with the SEC, however, managers may continue to permit investors that are not qualified clients to invest in future private funds but may not receive performance-based compensation from those investors with respect to such investments. In addition, because the net worth and assets under management thresholds for qualified client status are adjusted for inflation every five years, the pool of qualified client investors may diminish over time as previously eligible investors no longer satisfy the applicable thresholds. The Proposal could provide the dual benefit of greater flexibility for private fund managers to establish and maintain relationships with accredited investors as their businesses scale and they become registered with the SEC, and greater flexibility for certain accredited investors to participate in investment strategies that historically have been restricted to much larger institutional investors. Unless and until the Proposal is adopted, investment advisers should continue to comply with the existing qualified client requirements. If the Proposal is adopted, private fund sponsors should consider whether corresponding changes are appropriate for their subscription documents, investor questionnaires, and other offering materials. Advisers that are state-registered or rely on a state-level exemption should also consult the laws and regulations of each relevant jurisdiction before changing investor eligibility standards or performance-based compensation practices, because adoption of the federal amendments may not automatically modify state requirements. Comments on the Proposal will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. 1 Investment Adviser Performance-Based Compensation Modernization, Investment Advisers Act Release No. IA-7022 (Sept. 30, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/2026/09/s7-2026-28#33-11443proposed.

Regulatory Affairs Partner Jeff Beelaert Joins Dorsey in Boise

News

Regulatory Affairs Partner Jeff Beelaert Joins Dorsey in Boise

Insights

EPA Limits Title V Re-Litigation of NSR Permits

Overview On September 25, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) published a final rule that significantly limits the ability of third parties to use the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) Title V permitting process to revisit New Source Review (“NSR”) permitting decisions years after those decisions were made. The rule establishes that NSR permitting determinations generally must be challenged during the original permitting proceeding, thereby providing regulated sources with greater permitting certainty and finality for major capital projects. Published in the Federal Register titled Clarifying the Scope of “Applicable Requirements” Under State Operating Permit Programs and the Federal Operating Permit Program (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0401), the rule amends 40 C.F.R. Parts 70 and 71 to codify EPA’s interpretation regarding when requirements established under other CAA programs may be reviewed, modified, or implemented through the Title V operating permit program. The rule becomes effective 30 days after publication. The rule addresses two principal issues: (1) the relationship between NSR preconstruction permitting and Title V operating permits, and (2) the treatment of the General Duty Clause under CAA section 112(r)(1). Most significantly, the rule provides greater certainty for sources navigating the NSR permitting process. EPA’s amendments are intended to ensure that NSR permitting decisions made through an approved public process are generally not revisited later through Title V permit proceedings. The rule responds to a circuit split between the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Tenth Circuits. In Environmental Integrity Project v. EPA, 969 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2020), the Fifth Circuit upheld EPA’s interpretation, concluding that it was consistent with the text, structure, and purpose of Title V. In contrast, the Tenth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in Sierra Club v. EPA, 964 F.3d 882 (10th Cir. 2020), finding that the then-existing regulatory definition of “applicable requirement” did not support EPA’s position. By amending the regulatory language on which the Tenth Circuit relied and codifying the interpretation approved by the Fifth Circuit, EPA has established a nationwide framework governing the interaction between NSR and Title V. NSR and Title V: EPA Establishes a Uniform Nationwide Framework At the core of the rule is EPA’s effort to define the respective roles of NSR and Title V. The rule codifies the approach EPA has applied since 2017: once a source obtains an NSR permit under an EPA-approved permitting program, and that permit was issued following public notice with an opportunity for comment and judicial review, the permit establishes the NSR-related “applicable requirements” of the State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) or Federal Implementation Plan (“FIP”) for Title V purposes. Under this framework, Title V is not a vehicle for re-examining underlying NSR permitting decisions. EPA does not intend to use the Title V process to revisit applicability determinations, emissions calculations, control technology determinations, permit conditions, or other issues resolved through the NSR permitting process. This principle applies regardless of the stage of the Title V proceeding; whether the NSR permit was issued pursuant to a SIP or FIP; the type of NSR issue involved; or whether the NSR permit is incorporated into Title V sequentially or concurrently. Limited Exceptions EPA recognizes several circumstances in which NSR issues may still be reviewed through the Title V program: No NSR permit was issued at all; The permit was issued without public notice and an opportunity for comment and judicial review; or The issue involves substantive overlap between Title V and NSR requirements, such as the adequacy of monitoring provisions. As a result, the rule does not insulate unpermitted projects or foreclose review of matters that independently arise under Title V. Key Regulatory Amendments The rule revises the definition of “applicable requirement” in 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.2 and 71.2. Paragraph (1): Where an NSR permit is issued with public notice and an opportunity for comment and judicial review, the permit establishes and defines the applicable SIP or FIP requirements for Title V purposes. Paragraph (2): All NSR permit terms, including terms contained in minor NSR permits, constitute applicable requirements that must be incorporated into Title V permits. Paragraph (4): CAA section 112(r)(1) (the General Duty Clause) is expressly excluded from the definition of “applicable requirement,” while section 112(r)(7) Risk Management Program requirements remain included. EPA also amended 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.8 and 70.12 to clarify that alleged defects in requirements established outside the Title V process generally do not provide a basis for EPA objection to a Title V permit or for a Title V citizen petition. General Duty Clause Exclusion The rule also codifies EPA’s longstanding position that the General Duty Clause in CAA section 112(r)(1) is not an “applicable requirement” for Title V purposes. EPA points to several considerations supporting that conclusion, including the distinction between the General Duty Clause and Title V permit terms, the provision’s origins in the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s general duty clause, and the different enforcement structures applicable to the General Duty Clause and Title V permit requirements. Importantly, excluding section 112(r)(1) from the definition of “applicable requirement” does not eliminate EPA’s authority to enforce the General Duty Clause independently of the Title V program. The final rule instead clarifies that the General Duty Clause need not—and should not—be incorporated into Title V permits as an applicable requirement. Practical Implications for Regulated Sources Greater Finality for NSR Permits  For projects requiring PSD, nonattainment NSR, or minor NSR permits, the permitting process becomes the primary forum for resolving disputes regarding applicability determinations, emissions calculations, control technology requirements, offsets, and permit conditions. Once an NSR permit is issued through a qualifying public process, regulated sources should face substantially reduced risk that those same issues will be challenged years later through Title V permit proceedings. Reduced Risk of Collateral Permit Challenges Stakeholders have sometimes sought to use Title V permit issuance, renewal, revision, or citizen-petition proceedings to challenge underlying NSR determinations. The final rule makes clear that Title V is not the appropriate vehicle for challenging whether an applicable requirement was correctly established in the first instance. This should reduce the risk of permit delays and uncertainty associated with collateral challenges to previously issued NSR permits. The rule does not, however, eliminate all Title V challenges relating to an NSR permit. Challenges concerning the Title V permit itself—including whether it appropriately incorporates applicable requirements or contains adequate compliance provisions—remain possible. Increased Importance of the Initial NSR Proceeding Because Title V generally will not provide a second opportunity to challenge the substantive validity of an NSR determination, the administrative record developed during the NSR process becomes increasingly important. Permit applicants should ensure that applicability analyses, emissions calculations, control technology evaluations, modeling demonstrations, and supporting technical documentation are thoroughly developed during the original permitting proceeding. For significant projects, applicants may therefore have an additional incentive to identify and resolve potential permitting issues before the NSR permit is issued rather than assuming that unresolved issues can be addressed during a subsequent Title V proceeding. Potential Incentive for Broader Public Participation EPA also notes that permitting authorities may choose to provide public notice and an opportunity for comment for a broader range of NSR permits because permits issued through a qualifying public process receive the benefit of the finality framework established by the rule. Some permitting authorities may conclude that greater public participation at the NSR stage is preferable to uncertainty during subsequent Title V proceedings. Conclusion The final rule is principally a permitting-certainty measure. For sources that obtain NSR permits through a public process, EPA has substantially limited the ability of third parties to revisit underlying NSR determinations through the Title V program. As a result, regulated entities should benefit from greater finality regarding key permitting decisions, reduced risk of collateral permit challenges, and increased certainty when planning and implementing capital projects.

News

Dorsey & Whitney Partner Michael W. Droke Releases Fourth Edition of Cooperative Business Law: A Practical Guide with Enhanced Insights for Today's Cooperatives

Industry-leading reference updated with practical tips and current cooperative law developments Dorsey & Whitney LLP is pleased to announce the publication of the fourth edition of Cooperative Business Law: A Practical Guide to the Special Laws Governing Cooperatives, authored by Dorsey Partner Michael W. Droke. Drawing on more than 20 years of direct experience as outside general counsel to major agricultural and food industry cooperatives, Droke has updated this essential resource with new practical tips, real-world guidance, and insights into emerging cooperative law issues that matter to cooperative leaders and their advisors. Since its initial publication, this comprehensive guide has become the standard reference for attorneys, executives, and cooperative governance professionals navigating the unique legal landscape of cooperative organizations. The new fourth edition builds on that foundation by incorporating practical lessons learned from recent cooperative transactions, governance challenges, and regulatory developments. "I am grateful for Dorsey's continued support of this work and for the opportunity to contribute to the cooperative community," said Droke. "Over the past 20 years, I've had the privilege of serving as outside general counsel to some of the nation's most successful cooperatives. The practical insights gained from that work inform every page of this edition. I wanted to create a resource that helps cooperative leaders and their legal advisors tackle real business challenges with confidence." The Fourth Edition features: Practical tips and real-world case examples drawn from decades of cooperative practice Guidance on cooperative formation, governance, member rights, and voting structures Current analysis of antitrust and Capper-Volstead Act issues affecting modern cooperatives Insights into financing, mergers and acquisitions, and corporate restructuring for cooperatives Member relations strategies and dispute resolution approaches specific to cooperative structures About Michael W. Droke Michael W. Droke is a Partner at Dorsey & Whitney LLP and Firmwide Co-Chair of the Food, Beverage & Agriculture practice group. He serves as outside primary counsel for numerous cooperatives, providing comprehensive legal guidance on all aspects of cooperative operations, governance, member relations, corporate restructuring, financing, and mergers and acquisitions. His representative clients include National Co+op Grocers, Darigold, the Northwest Dairy Association, Organic Family Farms Cooperative, Chelan Fruit Cooperative, and Sacramento Natural Foods Co-op. A former business executive who brings a dual perspective to his practice, Droke combines legal expertise with practical business acumen. He has served as an outside board member and general counsel for major cooperatives and maintains deep involvement in the cooperative community through regular presentations and participation in industry organizations including NCBA CLUSA, the National Society of Accountants for Cooperatives, and the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives. About Dorsey & Whitney's Cooperative Law Practice Dorsey & Whitney's Cooperative Law practice group is a recognized national leader in cooperative law with more than 45 years of experience serving agricultural cooperatives, rural electric cooperatives, purchasing cooperatives, consumer cooperatives, worker cooperatives, and cooperative start-ups across the nation. The practice includes 20 dedicated lawyers who advise cooperatives and other agriculture-related organizations on formation and organization, voting rights and governance, antitrust and Capper-Volstead Act compliance, tax issues, project development and finance, mergers and acquisitions, real estate, labor and employment, environmental compliance, and all other aspects of cooperative business operations. Cooperative Business Law: A Practical Guide to the Special Laws Governing Cooperatives, Fourth Edition, is available from major book retailers and online booksellers.

Attorney John Cooney Returns to Dorsey in the Finance & Restructuring Group in Minneapolis

News

Attorney John Cooney Returns to Dorsey in the Finance & Restructuring Group in Minneapolis

The image shows classic stone columns and steps, which often represent government buildings, courthouses, or legal institutions.

Insights

The Supreme Court Update - October 14, 2026

Regulatory Affairs Partner Randy Dann Joins Dorsey

News

Regulatory Affairs Partner Randy Dann Joins Dorsey

Insights

Energy Law: Month in Review - September 2026

Welcome to Dorsey’s Energy Law: Month in Review. We provide this update to our clients to identify significant developments in the previous month. Please reach out to any of the authors, listed above, to discuss these issues. Regulatory Developments Massachusetts Ratchets Up State and Local Regulation of AI Data Centers In early September, Governor Maura Healey of Massachusetts signed an executive order requiring that artificial intelligence data centers secure the approval of local communities as a precondition to proceeding with a given project. According to the terms of the order, data center developers will need to secure a “community benefits agreement” as a precondition to receiving permits from numerous state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Protection, the Energy Facilities Siting Board, and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office. Beyond requiring community benefits agreements, the order also mandates that developers mitigate utility costs to consumers, prohibits the use of nondisclosure agreements, and requires various state agencies to develop measures to limit data center impacts on the environment. North Carolina Regulators Decline Approval of Duke Energy Gas Turbine On September 18, 2026, North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) denied Duke Energy’s application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity required to construct a gas-fueled combustion turbine at its Smith Energy Complex in North Carolina. The NCUC objected strongly to the $584 million price tag and noted that Duke appeared to be constructing the facility “based on anticipated data center customer additions.” The NCUC rejected that anticipated growth as “insufficiently reliable for the Commission to act at this point.” In rejecting Duke’s application, the NCUC also noted that Duke had signed the White House Ratepayer Protection Pledge, in which it represented that it would not shift data center costs to consumers. The NCUC observed that the record did not demonstrate how Duke “intends to adhere to its commitments under the Ratepayer Protection Pledge with regard to the Proposed Facility.” Notably, commission staff had actually supported the construction of the turbine, citing concerns about Duke’s reserve margins. The NCUC noted that it “understands the Public Staff’s expressed concerns,” but those concerns were outweighed by the NCUC’s reservations, including questions of demand. Department of Energy Approves Funds for Grid Improvement The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently announced that it would fund 31 grid-improvement projects in 26 states. The funding initiative is part of the DOE’s “SPARK” initiative. The funding will include $1.9 billion in federal funding from DOE and $3.35 billion in recipient cost-sharing funding. The funds will go to projects designed to improve grid reliability and lower electricity costs. Recipients plan to reconductor over 1,500 miles of transmission lines and will deploy grid-enhancing technologies across approximately 21,000 miles. DOE stated that this initiative will make available over 23 additional gigawatts of electricity. Texas Moderates Rules Governing Data Center Interconnection The Texas Public Utility Commission adopted new regulations governing large-load interconnections. The rules impose a flat study fee of $100,000 for all proposed interconnections, which departs from the initial proposal to impose study fees using a tiered system based on project size. Additionally, the final rule eliminates the PUC’s previous proposal to impose a non-refundable interconnection fee of $50,000 per MW of contracted peak demand. The final rule also moderates the initially proposed regulations governing Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) notifications for large-load customers’ non-utilized capacity. The proposed rules would have required notifying ERCOT within 30 days of missing a scheduled energization milestone by six months. The final rules, however, do not require informing ERCOT unless a scheduled energization milestone is missed by 24 months. FERC Denies TransAlta 202(c) Cost-Recovery Plan The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) recently rejected TransAlta’s plan to recover $19.9 million in expenses stemming from a DOE order in which DOE prohibited TransAlta from retiring its coal-powered Centralia power plant. TransAlta had previously intended to retire the facility at the end of 2025. TransAlta’s cost recovery plan proposed spending an additional $23 million on repairs to continue operating the unit. FERC’s main objection had to do with geographic scope. TransAlta’s recovery plan called for recovering costs from California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and the Southwest Power Pool (SPP), but the DOE’s order requiring operation of the plant was designed to ensure reliability in the Northwest assessment area (Montana, Oregon, Washington, and parts of northern California and northern Idaho). Accordingly, FERC was unwilling to allow cost recovery from CAISO and SPP when the order that precipitated the additional costs only related to the Northwest assessment area. FERC informed TransAlta that it would only approve cost recovery from load-serving entities in the Northwest assessment area. FERC’s decision comes amid a rush of DOE emergency orders requiring the continued operation of coal-fired generating units. Litigation Appeals Court Upholds Washington Hydropower Plant With Caveats In a September 21, 2026, opinion, the Washington Court of Appeals largely upheld a Clean Water Act water quality certification by the Washington Department of Ecology for the Goldendale Energy Storage Project, a proposed pumped-water storage hydropower system adjacent to, but off-stream from, the Columbia River. A nonprofit (Columbia Riverkeeper) and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation appealed the certification, contending that it failed to impose necessary conditions and monitoring requirements to protect the water quality of the Columbia River. Most saliently, the plaintiffs argued that the project had the potential to leak 100 acre-feet of water per year into tributaries of the Columbia River. The Court of Appeals broadly rejected plaintiffs’ challenge to the state’s conclusion that “the project was designed not to leak.” That said, the Court of Appeals did reverse on one narrow issue. Specifically, the court determined that the state’s conclusion that “leakage from the project’s tunnels would be monitored and reported” was not supported by the evidence because the certification “does not explicitly require monitoring and reporting to determine whether there is any leakage.” Accordingly, the court remanded the matter to the state to impose monitoring and reporting requirements but otherwise affirmed the certification. Legislative Developments California Legislates Restrictions on Data Center Energy Use and Grid Costs On September 21, 2026, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed seven bills broadly regulating data centers in the state. SB 1168 directed the California Public Utilities Commission to assess the energy used by data centers. It also requires the PUC to pass costs of transmission and distribution upgrades and load increases on to data centers, rather than customers. SB 886 and SB 887 compel data centers to pay for infrastructure upgrade and generation costs, and wildfire mitigation costs, in addition to imposing environmental review. The statutes additionally increase local oversight of data centers. AB 1577 imposes a monthly reporting requirement that requires data centers to supply energy consumption and efficiency data to the California Energy Commission. AB 2383 contains incentives for data centers to use onsite clean energy generation. Finally, AB 2469 and AB 2619 require data center developments to assess water supply and develop a water scarcity plan. The statutes also mandate statewide water reporting as a precondition to obtaining and renewing business licenses.

News

Dorsey Recognized in Inaugural 2026 IAM/WTR Copyright 1000

Dorsey & Whitney LLP is pleased to announce its recognition in the inaugural edition of the Copyright 1000: The World’s Leading Copyright Professionals, published by IAM and World Trademark Review (WTR). Nine Dorsey attorneys were individually recognized, and the Firm’s Denver, Minneapolis, New York, Salt Lake City, and Seattle offices were recognized in the firm rankings. The following Dorsey attorneys were recognized in the inaugural guide: Lindsey Sadler Gregory Tamkin Charlene Krogh Evan Everist Jeffrey Cadwell Fara Sunderji Bruce Ewing Catherine Parrish Lake J. Michael Keyes The Copyright 1000 is the first dedicated ranking focused solely on the world’s leading copyright practitioners. The guide identifies leading copyright firms and practitioners across key jurisdictions worldwide. Dorsey’s intellectual property attorneys advise clients on a wide range of copyright matters, including protection, enforcement, licensing, litigation, transactions, and issues involving emerging technologies and digital content. The inaugural Copyright 1000 rankings are published by IAM and WTR.