Media RSS Feed

How AI Will Change Services

Fri, 01 May 2026 18:37:02 Z

Rachel Proffitt, Cooley partner and CEO, was quoted in a Semafor column about how artificial intelligence (AI) can be used to shift Big Law away from traditional billable‑hour pricing toward value and outcomes‑based models.

Read the article

Virginia Enacts Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program

Fri, 01 May 2026 07:00:00 Z

In late April 2026, Virginia enacted a new Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program (PFML). Like many other state paid family and medical leave programs, Virginia’s PFML will be funded through payroll contributions paid by employers and employees, with rates set annually by the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC). Payroll contributions begin April 1, 2028, and benefit payments begin December 1, 2028.

Key details of the new law are described below.

Contributions and funding

The program is funded through employer and employee payroll contributions. Employers with 11 or more employees must remit the full per-employee contribution to the state; such employers may deduct from each employee’s wages up to 50% of the per-employee contribution (or a lesser percentage as may be agreed upon with the employee). Employers with 10 or fewer employees must deduct from each employee’s wages 50% of the per-employee contribution rate applicable to larger employers and remit that amount to the state, with no additional employer contribution required. Deductions may not reduce an employee’s wages below the applicable minimum wage. Contribution rates will be set by the VEC no later than October 1, 2027, and annually thereafter.

Benefit amounts

The weekly benefit amount is 80% of the employee’s average weekly wages, subject to a statutory maximum. Employees may take leave on an intermittent schedule, with benefits prorated accordingly. Employees taking leave on an intermittent schedule are required to make reasonable efforts to avoid undue disruption to business operations when scheduling PFML leave.

Coverage

Beginning December 1, 2028, covered employees may take up to 12 weeks of paid leave for the following reasons:

Caring for a new child during the first year after birth, adoption or placement of the child through foster care.
Caring for a family member with a serious health condition.
Addressing the employee’s own serious health condition that prevents them from performing their job functions.
Caring for a covered service member who is the covered individual’s next of kin or other family member.
Qualifying exigency leave arising from a family member’s active duty service or call to active duty in the Armed Forces.
Seeking safety services, such as legal or law enforcement assistance, medical treatment, relocation, and home security services for the covered individual or a family member, related to domestic violence, harassment, sexual assault or stalking. Leave taken for this reason is capped at four weeks per benefit year.

“Serious health condition” means an illness, injury, impairment, pregnancy, recovery from childbirth, or physical or mental condition involving inpatient care or continuing treatment by a healthcare provider. “Family member” includes a child, grandchild, grandparent, parent, sibling, spouse or domestic partner (including step, foster or adopted relationships), as well as any individual who regularly resides in the employee’s home or where the relationship creates an expectation that the employee care for such individual, and who depends on the employee for care. The definition does not include an individual who simply resides in the home with no expectation that the employee care for the individual.

Employer notice obligations

Employers must provide written notice to each employee at hire, annually, and when the employee requests PFML or when the employer “acquires knowledge of an employee’s intent to take [PFML].” The notice must address:

The employee’s right to benefits and how they may be used
Benefit amounts
Claims procedures
Job protection and benefits continuation rights
Anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation protections
The right to file a complaint

Employers must also display a VEC-provided poster in a conspicuous location in English, Spanish and any language spoken as a first language by at least 5% of the workforce.

Job restoration and benefits continuation

Employees employed for at least 120 days before taking PFML are entitled to restoration to the same or an equivalent position upon return, including equivalent seniority, status, pay, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment, including fringe benefits and service credits upon return from leave. Employers must also maintain healthcare benefits during leave.

Anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation protections

Employers may not discriminate or retaliate against employees for filing, applying for or using benefits; communicating an intent to file a claim or complaint; assisting in any investigation; or informing others of their PFML rights. Protections extend to good-faith, but mistaken, allegations of violations.

Coordination with FMLA and private plans

As with other state programs, leave taken under the PFML program that also qualifies under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) will run concurrently with PFML leave. Employers may apply to the VEC to satisfy their PFML obligations through a private plan offering equal or greater benefits. Approval must be renewed every two years, with disclosure of benefit changes and payment of a fee

Enforcement and liability

Employers that violate job restoration, benefit continuation or anti-retaliation obligations may be liable for:

Lost wages, benefits or other compensation (or actual monetary losses up to 12 weeks of wages)
Interest
Equal liquidated damages, unless the employer proves a good-faith violation

Courts may also order equitable relief, including reinstatement and promotion.

Next steps

Employers should audit current leave policies against the new requirements and determine whether to participate in the state program or pursue a private plan. Handbooks and leave policies should be updated to reflect the law, including FMLA coordination language. Employers should also prepare the required notice and stay tuned for the VEC-provided workplace poster. HR teams and managers should be trained on the new obligations, including anti-retaliation protections. Finally, employers should also monitor VEC rulemaking, as implementing regulations must be promulgated by April 1, 2028.

If you have questions about the PFML, please contact the Cooley employment team or one of the lawyers listed below.

Cooley and BIICL Launch ‘Technology Based Disputes and Investment Treaty Arbitration’ Report

Thu, 30 Apr 2026 16:49:00 Z

Cooley collaborated with the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) to launch the study, “Technology‑Based Disputes and Investment Treaty Arbitration,” on Tuesday, March 10, 2026.

The launch event brought together practitioners, academics and industry professionals to explore how emerging technologies are reshaping investment treaty arbitration, and to discuss the key findings and implications of the research.

Read the final report.

Watch a recording of the launch event.

What Teva v. Eli Lilly Means for Written Description and Enablement of Method-of-Use Patents

Thu, 30 Apr 2026 14:17:00 Z

On April 16, 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH v. Eli Lilly and Company, No. 2024-1094 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 16, 2026), reversing the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law that the asserted claims lacked adequate written description and enablement under 35 USC § 112.ⁱ The Federal Circuit found that the district court applied an overly stringent standard that failed to account for the well-established background knowledge in the field and the specific nature of the claimed invention as a method of treatment.ⁱⁱ Previously, Lilly successfully challenged Teva’s related composition of matter patents claiming the same genus of humanized anti-CGRP antibodies in inter partes review proceedings that were affirmed by the Federal Circuit.

The technology and patents at issue

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is a neuropeptide associated with migraines, and blocking CGRP signaling through antagonist antibodies has become an important therapeutic approach. Anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies can be made in mice, and “humanization” refers to the process of converting nonhuman antibodies into a form that the human immune system will not reject, resulting in “humanized” antibodies.ⁱⁱⁱ Teva’s patents (sometimes referred to as the “headache patents”) claim a method for treating headaches by administering any humanized monoclonal anti-CGRP antibody.^iv Expert testimony indicated that a very large number of antibodies would need to be screened in order to identify those that could antagonize CGRP.^v

While there were no humanized versions of anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies in the prior art, it was undisputed that the prior art was “replete with exemplary disclosures of anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies,” techniques for making such antibodies were “extensively described in the prior art,” and humanization “was a well-established and routine procedure.”^vi Lilly itself made those same points in arguing obviousness during the earlier inter partes review proceedings against Teva’s anti-CGRP antibody patents.

The Teva headache patents disclosed only one exemplary humanized anti-CGRP antagonist antibody, referred to as “G1,” but also disclosed several mouse (murine) anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies. The specification also states that “anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies may be made by any method known in the art” and referenced established prior-art methods for humanizing antibodies.”^vii Based on the data in the specification and the testimony heard at trial, the district court acknowledged that a jury could have found “that a person of ordinary skill would have … understood from the specification that all humanized anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies would treat headache.”^viii

Written description: Using a well-known genus as part of a different invention

The written description requirement demands the specification demonstrate that the inventor was “in possession” of the claimed invention as of the filing date. According to the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co,^ix generally, a genus can be disclosed by either “a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus” or “structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.”

In life sciences, where genus claims may encompass vast numbers of compounds, this can be a daunting standard. For example, the Federal Circuit invalidated genus claims for lack of written description in AbbVie Deutschland GmbH v. Janssen Biotech, Inc.^x (disclosing more than 300 exemplary antibodies) and Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc.^xi (disclosing two embodiments from a known class; “Even accepting that scFvs were known and that they were known to bind, the specification provides no means of distinguishing which scFvs will bind to which targets.”).

In Teva, the court acknowledged the Ariad written description standard, but then pivoted to “analyzing written description in circumstances like those here—where a claim pertains to a well-known genus that is not, itself, the invention.”^xii

The court started with Ajinomoto Co. v. International Trade Commission – the only binding precedent in this part of the court’s analysis that post-dates Ariad – for the proposition that the specification could be “read in light of the background knowledge in the art” to find a representative number of species, where the genus “was already well explored,” techniques for producing the relevant functionality were “well known,” and those “well-known techniques” were not the core invention.”^xiii

The court then turned to In re Herschler, a case from 1979 that in turn relied heavily on the reasoning from a 1963 plurality opinion from In re Fuetterer for the proposition that an inventor does not necessarily need to identify every member of a genus that is not, itself, the invention.^xiv In a footnote, the court quoted a more recent case from the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co., to emphasize that “when a genus is well understood in the art and not itself the invention but is instead a component of the claim, background knowledge may provide the necessary support for the claim.”^xv

Applying those cases, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that:

The claimed invention was the use of anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies to treat headache, not the antibodies themselves.
Nonhumanized anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies and methods of humanization were well-established in the art.
The specification could have led a skilled artisan to understand that all humanized anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies would treat headache.^xvi

Notably, the court found this conclusion was supported, in part, by Lilly’s own statements during inter partes review proceedings in which it successfully challenged Teva’s anti-CGRP antibody claims as unpatentable.^xvii

Lilly argued that humanized anti-CGRP antibodies were not known in the prior art at all (much less well-known), and that murine antibodies could not be representatives of a humanized antibody genus.^xviii In rejecting that argument, the court reasoned that the jury could find humanization was a routine step, and that the specification explicitly disclosed humanization and identified prior-art methods for accomplishing it.^xix Thus, the court effectively accepted a single representative humanized antibody, combined with murine antibodies, and the “routine” process of humanization, as demonstrating possession of the entire genus of humanized anti-CGRP antibodies.

The court also rejected Lilly’s reliance on University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle and Ariad because the patents in those cases did not disclose any compounds that could be used in the claimed methods, nor was there any evidence that such compounds were known.^xx By contrast, the specification in Teva included one example that could be produced from a well-known class of antibodies using a routine procedure, along with data that a skilled artisan would understand to show that any humanized anti-CGRP antibody would be effective for the claimed method of treatment.^xxi

Enablement: Claim scope defined by specific use

As with written description, the standard for enablement of genus claims in life sciences cases has been demanding. The US Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi reinforced that a patentee claiming an entire class of compositions “must enable a person skilled in the art to make and use the entire class” (emphasis added).^xxii Applying this principle, the Federal Circuit found a lack of enablement for genus claims in Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.^xxiii and Idenix Pharms. LLC v. Gilead Scis. Inc.^xxiv

The Teva court reiterated the foundational principle that the specification must teach persons of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation, and that the scope of enablement must be commensurate with the scope of the claim.^xxv However, the court went on to distinguish Amgen and Baxalta by characterizing Teva’s claims as narrow in functional scope, as opposed to claiming the entire antibody genus “for any and all purposes.”^xxvi Rather, the Teva claims covered only the use of humanized anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies to treat headaches.^xxvii

The court reasoned that, in light of the well-known status of anti-CGRP antibodies and the routine nature of humanization, the only determination a person of skill would need to make is which humanized anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies treat headache.^xxviii That determination was already made, because a reasonable jury could have found that all humanized anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies work for that specific therapeutic purpose.^xxix As a result, unlike Amgen and Baxalta, a practitioner did not need to identify and screen vast numbers of candidate antibodies to determine which ones are effective for treating headache, as the answer was effectively already known. In other words, even assuming in Lilly’s favor that making all anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies would require screening a very large number of candidates, and that the time and expense of doing so could constitute undue experimentation, such experimentation would not be required.^xxx

The court also distinguished Idenix on its record, noting that while the evidence in Idenix did not support a finding that all members of the claimed genus would be effective for the claimed therapeutic use, in the Teva case, Lilly did not dispute that the jury could have found that all humanized anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies treat headache.^xxxi

Conclusion

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Teva v. Eli Lilly introduces an important distinction between claims directed to a novel genus of compounds and claims directed to the use of a well-known genus for a specific therapeutic purpose. Practitioners should carefully consider how this framework may affect the drafting, defense and challenge of method-of-use and genus claims in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology space.

Notes

Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH v. Lilly, No. 2024-1094, slip op. at 2 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 16, 2026).
Id. at 13 – 14, 22 – 24.
Id. at 2 – 3.
Id. at 3 – 4 (“a method for reducing incidence of or treating headache in a human, comprising administering to the human an effective amount of an anti-CGRP antagonist antibody, wherein said anti-CGRP antagonist antibody is a … humanized monoclonal antibody.”)
Memorandum and Order, Teva Pharms. Int’l GMBH v. Eli Lilly and Co., 18-cv-12029-ADB, ECF No. 695 at 24 (D. Mass. Sept. 26, 2023) (hereinafter D.Ct. Order) (“[T]he jury could only have found that (1) there are a very large number of antibodies that would need to be screened in order to identify those that could antagonize CGRP, … and (2) the size of the genus, i.e., the number of anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies that could be humanized and treat headache, was “unknowable,” and thus not necessarily very large or small.”) (record citations omitted); see also Teva Pharms., No. 2024-1094, slip op. at 21 – 22 (Federal Circuit assuming a “very large number of candidate antibodies”).
Teva Pharms., No. 2024-1094, slip op. at 4, 13 – 14.
Id. at 3, 13.
Id. at 5 (see also D.Ct. Order at 25 (“That said, the jury could have credited testimony that a POSA would understand … that all humanized anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies would treat headache.”))
Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
AbbVie Deutschland GmbH v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc., 10 F.4th 1330, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
Teva Pharms., No. 2024-1094, slip op. at 9.
Id. at 9 – 10 (citing Ajinomoto Co. v. International Trade Commission, 932 F.3d 1342, 1346-47 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Id. at 10 – 11 (citing In re Herschler, 591 F.2d 693 (CCPA 1979) and In re Fuetterer, 319 F.2d 259 (CCPA 1963).
Id. at 12 n.11 (citing Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co., 276 F. Supp. 3d 629, 648 (E.D. Tex. 2017) (Bryson, J., sitting by designation), aff’d, 739 F. App'x 643 (Fed. Cir. 2018)) (nonprecedential).
Id. at 12 – 14.
Id. at 4, 12 – 13.
Id. at 14.
Id. at 14 – 15.
Id. at 16 – 17 (citing University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 918 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1341, 1355-58).
Id. at 16 – 17.
Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. 594, 610 (2023).
Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 81 F.4th 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
Idenix Pharms. LLC v. Gilead Scis. Inc., 941 F.3d 1149, 1153 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Teva Pharms., No. 2024-1094, slip op. at 21.
Id. at 22.
Id.
Id. at 23.
Id; see D.Ct. Order at 25.
Id. at 22 – 23.
Id. at 24.

Who’s Got That Kind of Time: SEC Shortens Tender Offer Window for Equity Awards in Certain Circumstances

Thu, 30 Apr 2026 07:00:00 Z

On April 16, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued relief permitting certain types of tender offers to remain open for only 10 business days, cutting in half the prior general requirement of 20 business days. This alert explores what this relief means for companies navigating the tender offer rules involving equity incentive compensation awards.

Background on tender offers

A “tender offer” is an opportunity for security holders to “tender” – i.e., sell – their security at a fixed price. Tender offers are typically structured in one of two ways:

As a company-led “self-tender” where the company offers to buy back securities.
As an investor-led “third-party tender” where an investor looks to take or increase a position in company securities.

While the SEC does not precisely define the term “tender offer,” it does prescribe many complex technical requirements governing tender offers. One of the simpler requirements was that the offer to purchase must stay open for at least 20 business days from the date of announcement of the offer.

What the SEC relief does

In basic terms, the relief shortens the time a tender offer must remain open to 10 business days from 20 – but subject to certain important conditions. As with the tender offer rules generally, most of those conditions are complicated, technical and outside the scope of this alert. For equity incentive awards, three notable conditions are:

The consideration offered must consist solely of cash.
For private companies, the relief is available only for self-tenders, not for third-party tenders.
For public companies, third-party tenders must be conducted pursuant to a negotiated merger or other business combination agreement and be for all of the securities of the particular class.

What this means for equity award tenders

Because of the conditions attached to the reduced 10-day tender period, the SEC relief should generally work in favor of companies, but it is limited. For both private and public company equity award tender offers, the 10-day window is effectively limited to company self-tenders for cash. Notably, it does not apply to tender offers in connection with repricings, modifications or option exchanges – areas where incentive equity compensation often implicates the tender offer requirements.

In the right circumstances – for instance, an option award buyback – a company will now be able to launch and close a cash tender offer more quickly than has been the case in the past, and can do so without inadvertently disqualifying options intended to qualify as incentive stock options.

Two caveats to note:

First, because of the procedure used to grant the relief, it may be revoked by the SEC at any time.
Second, and more importantly, the tender offer rules remain a highly technical and complicated thicket requiring great care to successfully navigate.

Cooley’s compensation and benefits group has extensive experience leading companies through the tender offer process in connection with equity awards, and can help you determine whether and how this relief can be used to streamline your company’s equity award tenders.

$1B Benchmark: US Firms' Quest for UK Growth Marches On Year-on-Year

Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:54:00 Z

James Maton, co-partner in charge of Cooley’s London office, was quoted in a Law.com article about the consistent revenue growth of US-founded firms in London over the past three years. Cooley’s London office has maintained a steady growth trajectory driven by its focus on technology and life sciences, with Maton emphasizing the firm’s view of the UK as a gateway for international services.

Read the article (subscription required) >

Cooley Partner Honored As Commercial Lawyer of the Year

Wed, 29 Apr 2026 16:55:51 Z

Cooley partner Guadalupe Sampedro was named Commercial Lawyer of the Year at the annual Women and Diversity in Law Awards.

Sampedro was recognized for her outstanding commercial acumen as a cyber, data and privacy lawyer, including advising on data-related agreements, high-profile data breaches, compliance programs and data governance. She also advises on the new digital regulatory framework in the UK and EU, including artificial intelligence and online safety. Sampedro was praised for her sustained leadership in diversity and inclusion, including her work co-launching an exclusive, first-of-its-kind forum for senior women privacy experts to network and engage in discussions.

In February, four partners from Cooley’s London office were shortlisted by the Women and Diversity in Law Awards. Spanning 30+ categories, the series honors outstanding women leaders and practitioners, along with the legal teams and businesses making strides in ensuring the UK legal profession reflects the society it operates in.

Elizabeth Prelogar Honored With Servant of Justice Award

Wed, 29 Apr 2026 14:54:40 Z

Washington, DC – April 29, 2026 – Cooley partner Elizabeth Prelogar was honored by Legal Aid DC with the Servant of Justice Award – the highest award conferred by the organization.

Throughout her career, Prelogar has demonstrated a sustained dedication to public service through federal government work and high-impact pro bono litigation, including in cases focused on protecting civil rights, democracy and voting, and the rule of law.

Prelogar leads Cooley’s Supreme Court and appellate practice and is widely considered one of the nation’s top appellate lawyers. She has argued 36 cases in the Supreme Court, delivering more Supreme Court arguments since 2021 than any other advocate. Her matters have included some of the most high-profile, consequential cases of our time, involving pressing and complex issues of constitutional law, administrative law, taxation, statutory interpretation, criminal law, environmental regulation, technology, civil rights and antitrust.

Before returning to Cooley last year, Prelogar served as the 48th Solicitor General of the United States from 2021 to 2025. In this capacity, she served as a principal legal advisor to the executive branch and was responsible for conducting and supervising all Supreme Court litigation on behalf of the United States and overseeing the federal government’s appellate strategy in lower courts. In previous roles, she served as Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Assistant to the Solicitor General, and Associate Special Counsel. She also clerked for Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, as well as Judge Merrick Garland of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Prelogar was celebrated at Legal Aid DC’s 36th Annual Servant of Justice Awards Dinner in Washington, DC, alongside co-honoree, Grace Speights, a partner at Morgan Lewis. Prelogar and Speights were honored for their outstanding careers, commitment to public service and pursuit of justice. Judge Garland introduced Prelogar, and Andrew Goldstein – head of Cooley’s white collar defense and investigations practice and co-chair of this year’s Servant of Justice Awards Dinner – gave remarks on behalf of Prelogar and in support of Legal Aid DC.

Founded in 1932, Legal Aid DC is a nonprofit law office committed to providing free, high-quality civil legal advice and services to low-income people in the District of Columbia. Legal Aid DC is the District’s oldest and largest civil legal services organization and providing assistance with respect to housing, public benefits, consumer law, family law, domestic violence, immigration and reentry.

Cooley Signs Lease for New State‑of‑the‑Art Redwood City Office

Tue, 28 Apr 2026 14:13:00 Z

Palo Alto – April 28, 2026 – Cooley has signed a lease to relocate its Palo Alto office to Redwood City, in the heart of Silicon Valley, with an expected move-in date in early 2030. The firm’s new high‑tech workspace will encompass 145,000 square feet across the top four floors of a premier, custom‑built office building at 1900 Broadway.

“This new space marks an exciting next chapter as we continue to grow and adapt alongside the clients and communities we serve,” said Cooley partner and CEO Rachel Proffitt. “The space will be designed to reflect Cooley’s innovative and collaborative culture and will offer a dynamic atmosphere for our people and clients alike.”

The new Redwood City office will feature a range of top‑tier amenities, including a centralized conference center, flexible team and client collaboration spaces, 19,000 square feet of private outdoor terraces for events, and a full‑service, made‑to‑order café. Designed for both productivity and connection, the space reflects the firm’s continued commitment to a modern workplace experience.

“Our new space positions us for continued growth, with state‑of‑the‑art facilities designed to support how our teams work together to serve our clients,” said Shannon Eagan, partner in charge of Palo Alto. “Its downtown Redwood City location offers meaningful benefits for our lawyers and business professionals – from easy Caltrain access to a vibrant mix of restaurants, services and entertainment – reflecting the energy of our people and the work we do every day.”

Cooley opened its first Silicon Valley office in 1980 and has been deeply embedded in the region’s growth at the center of the innovation ecosystem. Today, with 19 offices around the world, the firm supports many of the companies driving the global modern economy.

Cooley Advises BioMarin on $4.25 Billion Financing in Connection With Amicus Therapeutics Acquisition

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 22:10:00 Z

Washington, DC – April 27, 2026 – Cooley advised BioMarin Pharmaceutical, a leading global rare disease biotechnology company focused on delivering medicines for people living with genetically defined conditions, on $4.25 billion in financings in connection with the completion of its acquisition of Amicus Therapeutics. The financing consisted of an offering of $850 million of 5.5% senior unsecured notes due 2034, $2.8 billion in senior secured term loans, and $600 million in revolving loan commitments.

The Cooley team advising BioMarin on the financing was led by partners Michael Tollini and Addison Pierce and included partners Chadwick Mills, Julia Boesch and Evan Leitner, of counsel Siana Lowrey and associate Charles Watkins.

Cooley has represented BioMarin for 10+ years, including in an approximately $3.7 billion bridge financing commitment in connection with its acquisition of Amicus Therapeutics in December 2025, its definitive agreement to acquire Inozyme Pharma in May 2025, its $600 million revolving credit facility in August 2024, a securities class action win before the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in February 2024, its $550 million offering of 1.25% senior subordinated convertible notes due 2027 in May 2020, its licensing agreement with Allievex in October 2019, its $720 million follow-on offering in July 2018, its $450 million offering of 0.599% senior subordinated convertible notes due 2024 in August 2017, and its $720 million follow-on offering in September 2016.

Vinted Completes Secondary Share Transaction at €8B Equity Valuation

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 21:04:00 Z

London – April 27, 2026 – Cooley advised Vinted, the C2C second-hand marketplace, on the completion of a secondary share transaction of €880 million, at an equity valuation of €8 billion. The transaction included a mix of new and existing investors, led by EQT, Schroders Capital, and Teachers’ Venture Growth (TVG).

Lawyers Harry Calkin, Ryan Naftulin, Ella Donegan, Angus Miln, William Duval, Mo Swart and Rebecca Wright led the Cooley team advising Vinted.

Settlements Slump and Activists Take Fewer Board Seats in First Quarter

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 16:05:52 Z

Cooley partner Sean Brownridge, chair of the firm’s activism defense group, was quoted in FT Agenda about the complexity of the current investor engagement landscape. He noted the changes to 13D and 13G reporting and how boards may earn more credibility with investors through consistency.

Read the article (subscription required)

Ineffable Intelligence Announces $1.1 Billion Seed Financing

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 14:21:10 Z

London – April 27, 2026 – Cooley advised Ineffable Intelligence, a London-based frontier artificial intelligence lab founded by David Silver, on its $1.1 billion seed financing led by Sequoia Capital and Lightspeed Venture Partners at a $5.1 billion post-money valuation, Europe’s largest ever seed financing to date.

Ineffable Intelligence’s mission is to make first contact with superintelligence by creating a superlearner that discovers all knowledge from its own experience.

The Cooley team was led by London-based partner Eric Davison and included Kristy Hart, Chris Stack, Kafeel Azher, Tom Connors, Leo Spicer-Phelps, Olivia Anderson, Paula Holland and Bethan Chalmers.

Ajax Therapeutics Acquired By Eli Lilly for $2.3 Billion

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 11:52:48 Z

Cooley advised Ajax Therapeutics, a biopharmaceutical company developing next generation JAK inhibitors for patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), on its agreement to be acquired by Eli Lilly for up to $2.3 billion.

The transaction was announced publicly in the following press release, which can be viewed here.

Lead Team: Kevin Cooper, Sangitha Palaniappa, Brandon Fenn, Kenneth Krisko and Stephanie Palmer led the Cooley team advising Ajax Therapeutics.

Supporting Team: Megan Browdie, Sarah Buchik, Navya Dasari, Alex Fullman, Jenny Ge, Stephanie Gentile, Tony Guan, Josh Holtzman, Nicollette Kirby, Natasha Leskovsek, Sarah Miller, Phil Mitchell, Ryan Montgomery, Morgan Perna, Joe Perry, Breanna Qin, Carly Robinson, Patrick Sharma, Daniel Tsai, Karen Tsai, Ryan Vann and Bo Yaghmaie provided invaluable support.

Cooley previously advised Ajax Therapeutics on its $40 million Series B financing (2021) and its $95 million Series C financing (2024), as well as other general corporate matters.

Four Cooley Partners Honored Among Elite in Data Breach Response

Fri, 24 Apr 2026 18:38:00 Z

April 24, 2026 – Washington, DC Four Cooley partners were named to Cybersecurity Docket’s Incident Response Elite for 2026, a prestigious annual list recognizing the top data breach response lawyers worldwide.

The honorees include Travis LeBlanc, DC-based co-chair of Cooley’s cyber/data/privacy practice; Patrick Van Eecke, co-chair and head of the cyber/data/privacy practice in Cooley’s Brussels office; Guadalupe Sampedro, head of the cyber/data/privacy practice in Cooley’s London office; and New York-based partner Kristen Mathews. The 2026 list marks LeBlanc’s ninth, Van Eecke’s third, Sampedro’s fourth and Mathews’ first recognition by Cybersecurity Docket.

Based on input from numerous senior lawyers and other professionals in the field, as well as extensive research, the IR Elite identifies lawyers who can manage large data breach responses with professionalism and urgency.

Cooley’s cyber/data/privacy practice is a cross-functional, integrated team of lawyers in the United States, Europe and Asia, spanning the full spectrum of advisory, transactional, regulatory and litigation matters involving privacy, cybersecurity and data governance. The firm’s c/d/p lawyers have handled hundreds of data breaches since 2003, including complex international incidents spanning multiple jurisdictions. The team leverages that experience – and the insights gained from it – to help clients respond effectively to security incidents and mitigate legal, reputational, operational and regulatory risk.

Cooley’s c/d/p practice works with clients on breach preparedness and response, including incident response planning, proactive strategy development, response playbook development, training and tabletop exercises, incident investigation, mitigation and remediation, and engagement with key vendors.

The practice group’s blog – cyber/data/privacy insights – provides proactive legal insight and analysis on the full range of cybersecurity, data protection and privacy issues. Cooley’s data incident and breach response team can be reached 24/7 via incident.response@cooley.com, or at +1 844 476 1248 or +44 (0) 20 7556 4567.

Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs

Fri, 24 Apr 2026 18:26:44 Z

A Cooley appellate team earned a shout-out on The American Lawyer’s Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs list for securing a unanimous ruling from the Delaware Supreme Court, overturning a decision of the Delaware Chancery Court and eliminating a potential personal exposure of about $40 million in damages and interest against client Michael Patterson, the former CEO of Romeo Systems.

The Cooley team was led by partners Ephraim McDowell, Brian Klein and Brian French and associate Anna Mohan.

Read the article (subscription required)

How Niche Specialist Managers Are Winning LP Capital

Fri, 24 Apr 2026 18:21:34 Z

Cooley partner Jaclyn Rabin was quoted in a PitchBook article discussing how successful mid-market firms are winning LP capital through a specialized focus, rather than a generalist strategy, helping investors better understand a manager’s competitive edge and value-creation approach.

Read the article

Caihong Secures Decisive Victory at ITC

Fri, 24 Apr 2026 17:08:34 Z

Washington, DC, – April 24, 2026 – A Cooley team secured a decisive victory for its client Caihong Display Devices (Caihong), a leading manufacturer of liquid-crystal display (LCD) glass used in the manufacture of televisions, in a high-stakes competitor-versus-competitor dispute before the US International Trade Commission (ITC).

Caihong and its customers were sued in the ITC by competitor Corning for infringing two patents impacting the global LCD market. Corning accused Caihong of selling the 615 glass and the 616 glass to its customers, and the primary dispute was whether the 616 glass infringed and could continue to be imported into the US.

On April 8, Administrative Law Judge Bryan Moore issued an initial determination that the 616 glass did not infringe Corning’s patents, allowing Caihong’s customers to continue importing and selling televisions containing that glass. Corning is not petitioning the decision to the full ITC.

Read the order

The Cooley intellectual property litigation team representing Caihong was led by Stephen Smith, alongside Matthew Brigham, Adam Pivovar, Sam Whitt, Cole Merritt, and Matthew Ritter.

The case is Certain Glass Substrates for Liquid Crystal Displays, Products Containing the Same, and Methods for Manufacturing the Same II (Case No. 337-TA-1441).

Scrip M&A Podcast With Cooley Attorneys Kevin Cooper and Bill Roegge

Fri, 24 Apr 2026 14:18:52 Z

Cooley partners Kevin Cooper and Bill Roegge spoke on a Scrip M&A podcast analyzing the current biopharmaceutical M&A trends, competitive deal dynamics and the ride of platform-technology acquisitions. Cooper also offered tips for smaller companies to get favorable outcomes when dealing with larger pharmaceutical firms. Roegge discussed whether 2026 is a year for competing bids in this space.

Listen on Apple

Listen on Spotify

State AI Laws – Where Are They Now?

Fri, 24 Apr 2026 07:00:00 Z

The US artificial intelligence (AI) regulatory landscape is at an inflection point. With accelerating pace starting in the 2020s, hundreds of proposed state measures signaled a fast-developing state-level regulatory AI landscape. However, as compliance deadlines in 2026 approached, many of these state AI laws that initially passed just a few years ago have undergone significant changes or delays since their passage. At the same time, federal action is potentially threatening to reshape or constrain state-level initiatives. In this alert, we check in on the current status of some of the major state AI laws.

As we discussed on March 25, the White House recently released its National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence, urging Congress to enact sweeping AI legislation to preempt certain state AI laws, with a focus on state laws that risk stifling innovation and avoiding “undue burdens.” States like California are also leveraging executive action. For example, on March 30, 2026, California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-5-26, directing state agencies to draft recommendations for AI safety requirements – including related to illegal content, bias, and civil rights and free speech – for companies doing business with state agencies. In parallel, other states are reconsidering or delaying their AI laws. Below we outline the key AI laws where companies should watch for potential changes over the coming months.

Colorado: SB 205

In May 2024, Colorado SB 205 created one of the first comprehensive state AI regimes, regulating “high-risk artificial intelligence systems” used in “consequential decisions.” The law imposes broad obligations on developers and deployers related to risk management, impact assessments, consumer disclosures and reporting to the Colorado attorney general.

Since its enactment, SB 205 has been subject to significant debate and criticism, particularly from the tech industry, with concerns raised over its scope and feasibility. These concerns prompted a special legislative session in August 2025 that led to the postponement of the initial enforcement date, from February 1, 2026, to June 30, 2026.

Now, with the delayed effective date, Colorado is considering a more substantive revision. The March 2026 working group draft would repeal and reenact the newly focused law on automated decision-making technology (ADMT) and reset the effective date to January 1, 2027. The group is led by the Colorado governor’s office and is composed of legislators, industry representatives, consumers and school district representatives, among others. The group was tasked with evaluating whether the original framework was workable in practice, with the ultimate goal of protecting consumers.

Key proposed changes by the working group include:

Replacing “high-risk AI” with “covered ADMT” that must “materially influence” a consequential decision, excluding incidental or low-stakes uses.¹
Clarifying and narrowing what constitutes a “consequential decision” – specifically, limiting “consequential decisions” to high-impact decisions affecting access to education, employment, housing, financial services, insurance, healthcare or government services, where the outcome materially influences eligibility, access or opportunity.
Carving out routine business processes, marketing and other low-risk uses (e.g., advertising and marketing tools, recommendation and search systems, content moderation, and summarization and presentation assistance).
Substantially scaling back governance obligations for both developers and deployers, including eliminating requirements to implement formal risk-management programs, impact assessments, annual reviews and Colorado attorney general incident reporting. Instead, it shifts to a more targeted framework that still requires developers and deployers to maintain records and documentation regarding covered ADMT, provide consumer-facing disclosures, and implement processes for requests to correct inaccurate information and seek human review or reconsideration of certain decisions, where commercially reasonable.
Replacing the pre-decision notice framework with a point-of-interaction requirement (meaning at the specific moment a user engages with the system) that may be satisfied via a prominent public posting, and adding a separate post-adverse disclosure that explains the decision, the role of ADMT and available recourse options.
Retaining Colorado attorney general-only enforcement but adding a 90-day notice-and-cure period and clarifying developer versus deployer liability.
Removing the stand-alone affirmative duty to “avoid algorithmic discrimination” that appeared as an explicit, independent requirement in the original SB 205.

These proposed, significant changes signal state action moving away from a broad “high-risk AI” framework toward a narrower, decision-focused model. With the effective date of June 30, 2026, approaching, it remains unclear whether and when the proposed amendments will be enacted. As such, companies should continue preparing for compliance under the current framework, while maintaining a watchful eye on legislative developments that could reshape obligations in the near term.

California: AB 2013, SB 942 and AB 853

California enacted 18 AI-related laws across 2023 and 2024, some of which we discussed at the time. Many of these laws impose transparency, disclosure and governance requirements on AI systems and digital services.

Given many compliance effective dates now start in 2026 and beyond, these laws have not yet seen enforcement activity or further interpretive guidance to aid in compliance; however, that may change as the year progresses.

Key California AI laws that have recently come into effect or been amended include AB 2013, SB 942 and AB 853:

AB 2013 (training data transparency) requires developers to disclose information regarding training datasets. It was enacted on September 28, 2024, and became effective on January 1, 2026, with limited implementation guidance beyond the law’s original provisions. The law requires a “high-level summary of the datasets used in the development of the generative artificial intelligence system or service,” and identifies certain information for inclusion in said summary, as well as certain security-related exceptions to the disclosure requirement. Industry stakeholders have raised concerns regarding feasibility and scope, and clear patterns around the form of compliance (such as the format or level of detail for the summary) have not yet emerged. In addition, the lack of guidance or action from the California attorney general has contributed to some uncertainty on the regulatory compliance obligations.
SB 942 (AI disclosure requirements), enacted September 19, 2024, requires providers of generative AI image, video and audio tools with more than one million monthly visitors or users to provide an AI detection tool, “manifest” disclosures (a watermarking option) and “latent” disclosures, enabling individuals to detect whether content was generated by the provider’s tool. Its effective date was delayed from January 1 to August 2, 2026, via AB 853, which also added new obligations on large online platforms with an operative date of January 1, 2027, and capture device manufacturers with an operative date of January 1, 2028.
AB 853 (California AI Transparency Act) introduces the phased implementation for SB 942 discussed above and also expands SB 942, including to add requirements applicable to large online platforms (public-facing social media platforms) and capture device manufacturers (persons producing capture devices for sale in California). These obligations include ensuring that content is appropriately labeled or identifiable as AI-generated, as well as implementing mechanisms to enable detection of such content.

Utah: SB 149

Utah’s Artificial Intelligence Policy Act (SB 149), enacted on March 13, 2024, and effective on May 1, 2024, is widely viewed, together with other laws discussed in this article, as one of the first state AI governance frameworks. Rather than creating a stand-alone regulatory regime, the law primarily extends existing consumer protection principles to AI by making companies liable where AI-driven conduct would otherwise violate deceptive or unfair practices laws. The law also introduced targeted disclosure requirements, such as requiring businesses in regulated professions to proactively disclose when consumers are interacting with AI.

Utah narrowed this framework through multiple bills in 2025, a reflection of early implementation concerns raised by state legislators and industry stakeholders. SB 226 and SB 332 narrowed the scope of disclosure obligations, limiting these obligations to “clear and unambiguous” consumer requests or “high-risk” interactions involving sensitive data and consequential advice, and narrowing the definition of covered AI systems to exclude routine uses (such as technologies that do not simulate human communication or generate human-like, nonscripted outputs). The Utah Division of Consumer Protection has authority to enforce SB 149, though enforcement remains limited to date.

New York: RAISE Act

California’s Transparency in Frontier AI Act (TFAIA) was one of the first state regulatory frameworks for developers of frontier models. As we discussed in this April 1 alert, New York has since revised its frontier AI framework to align more closely with California’s law. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the Responsible AI Safety and Education (RAISE) Act in December 2025 with the expectation that legislators would amend the law to mirror TFAIA. Hochul signed those amendments on March 27, 2026, shifting the RAISE Act toward a transparency and reporting-based framework.

As revised, the RAISE Act imposes:

Model-level obligations, including transparency and reporting on training, deployment, safety protocols and incidents.
A shift away from deployment restrictions, removing earlier prohibitions on models posing an “unreasonable risk of critical harm.”
Alignment with California’s framework, emphasizing safety testing, documentation and reporting.
Key differences from TFAIA include:

Higher civil penalties (up to $1 million for a first violation and up to $3 million for subsequent violations).
Shorter incident reporting timeline (72 hours versus TFAIA’s 15-day window). Other states, including Utah and Illinois, are considering similar frontier model regulation.

Key takeaways for companies

The evolution of AI laws is not limited to the US. The European Union AI Act – one of the earliest and most comprehensive cross-sector AI laws, imposing obligations on AI models based on risk tiers and categories of models – is also now being reconsidered by EU lawmakers for revision. While the AI Act entered into force on August 1, 2024, key obligations were set to phase in over time, with the main requirements starting in 2026, and certain obligations extending into 2027. However, the European Commission’s November 2025 “Digital Omnibus” proposal, now advancing through the legislative process, would delay application of certain high-risk AI requirements and make targeted changes to exemptions, governance and implementation. As of April 2026, EU institutions are actively considering pushing key compliance deadlines to 2027 – 2028, reflecting implementation challenges and concerns about regulatory burden. The EU’s AI regulatory framework continues to be refined and tailored in real time.

In combination, these developments underscore a broader shift: Even the most comprehensive AI regulatory regimes are being recalibrated as implementation approaches. Given the pace of change to these regulations, companies may benefit from a phased approach to compliance that accounts for evolving requirements and still emerging enforcement priorities. As such, companies should consider the following:

Reassessing compliance strategies: Several key state AI laws have upcoming deadlines, but some requirements are subject to amendment or delay. While enforcement currently has been minimal, regulators may begin issuing guidance and early enforcement actions as compliance dates approach.
Monitoring federal action: With the recent release of its AI legislative recommendations, the White House outlined an innovation-oriented federal approach to AI, recommending Congress preempt state laws that relate to AI development, “unduly burden” lawful activity assisted by AI or “penalize AI developers” for unlawful third-party conduct. Even if Congress does not act, or does so slowly, the administration is positioned to move through executive and enforcement channels. The Department of Justice’s AI Litigation Task Force is expected to identify and potentially challenge state AI laws in court, and other federal agencies, such as the Department of Commerce, may target certain states regulating AI by restricting federal funds. As such, companies should monitor both congressional developments and near-term federal activity, as the administration considers multiple pathways to shape the AI regulatory landscape.
Tracking state-level changes: As state AI regulation evolves, key areas to watch include the revisions to Colorado SB 205, further changes to California’s AI laws, and the continued development of frontier regulations, including in New York and potentially Illinois, Washington and Utah.

Note

ADMT is defined as an automated decision-making technology that processes personal data to generate outputs (including predictions, scores and classifications) and is used to materially influence a consequential decision. The definition excludes (i) basic web infrastructure (such as web hosting and caching) that require human analysis and do not use machine learning; (ii) tools that solely summarize, organize or present information for human review; and (iii) general-purpose technology that provides information or recommendations.

Capital Markets Lawyers Wait for Windows of War Calm to Pounce

Thu, 23 Apr 2026 20:36:42 Z

Cooley partner David Peinsipp, co-chair of the firm’s global capital markets practice group, was quoted in a Bloomberg Law article about how the US initial public offering (IPO) market is reopening in bursts, during a period of instability due to the war in Iran. Peinsipp noted that a few strong, early deals are helping maintain momentum in the IPO market, and once conditions open, many companies are already prepared to go public.

Read the article (subscription required)

Sight Sciences Secures Order on Post-Trial Motions

Thu, 23 Apr 2026 15:01:52 Z

PALO ALTO – April 23, 2026 – Cooley represented Sight Sciences (Nasdaq: SGHT), an eyecare technology company focused on developing and commercializing innovative, interventional technologies that elevate the standard of care, in defeating post-trial motions to reverse its jury trial patent infringement verdict.

Cooley secured a jury trial patent infringement victory on behalf of Sight Sciences on April 26, 2024. The jury found that Alcon’s and Ivantis’ sale of the infringing Hydrus Microstent caused Sight Sciences to lose sales of its OMNI Surgical System device and awarded lost profits damages and royalty damages totaling $34 million.

On April 20, 2026, the US District Court for the District of Delaware preserved the jury’s verdict of willful infringement, denied Alcon’s request for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, and awarded total damages of $55.4 million, plus an ongoing royalty of 10% of Hydrus revenue through the date of expiration of Sight Sciences’ last asserted patent. The value of the court’s final judgment is expected to increase significantly with the payment of ongoing royalties over the next two and a half years.

The patents at issue are US Patent Nos. 8,287,482, 9,370,443 and 11,389,328.

Read the final judgment

The Cooley litigation team was led by intellectual property litigation partner Orion Armon with partners Mika Reiner Mayer, Joanna Liebes Hubberts and Eamonn Gardner; senior counsel Michelle Rhyu ; and associates Joseph Van Tassel, Dustin Knight, Lauren Strosnick, Juan Pablo Gonzalez and Angela Madrigal.

Cooley’s London Lawyers Again Recognised for Pro Bono Work

Thu, 23 Apr 2026 14:02:16 Z

London – 23 April 2026 Fifty-six London-based Cooley lawyers, including 12 partners, were recognised on the 2026 Pro Bono Recognition List of England & Wales.

The annual list recognises lawyers who contributed at least 25 pro bono hours over the last year. The initiative is supported by the Law Society, the Bar Council, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives and all major pro bono organisations under the aegis of the Attorney General’s Pro Bono Committee.

Core Scientific Prices $3.3 Billion Senior Secured Notes Offering

Wed, 22 Apr 2026 13:49:00 Z

Washington, DC – April 22, 2026 – Cooley advised Core Scientific (Nasdaq: CORZ), a leader in digital infrastructure for high-density colocation, in connection with an offering of $3.3 billion aggregate principal amount of 7.750% senior secured notes due 2031 issued by its wholly-owned subsidiary, Core Scientific Finance I LLC, at an issue price equal to 99.250% of the principal amount thereof. The offering is expected to close on May 6, 2026, subject to customary closing conditions.

Lawyers Daniel Peale, Darah Protas, Richard Segal, Logan Tiari, Eric Blanchard, Michael Tollini, Adam Longenbach, John Goldman and Alanna Zuchelli led the Cooley team advising Core Scientific.

Cooley previously advised Core Scientific on its $1 billion loan facility with Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase Bank in March 2026, $625 million convertible senior notes in December 2024, $460 million convertible senior notes in August 2024 and merger with SPAC Power & Digital Infrastructure Acquisition Corp. in August 2021.

Manycore Announces HK$1.24 Billion IPO

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 19:46:00 Z

Hong Kong – April 20, 2026 – Cooley advised Manycore Tech, a global leading provider of spatial intelligence services, on its HK$1.24 billion initial public offering (IPO). Manycore offered 160,619,000 shares globally priced at HK$7.62 per share. The 15% over-allotment option was exercised in full on April 20, 2026. The company’s shares began trading on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange on April 17, 2026, under stock code 00068. This marks the first initial public offering among the Six Little Dragons, a group of tech startups based in Hangzhou, China.

J.P. Morgan and CCB International acted as joint sponsors, overall coordinators, joint global coordinators, joint bookrunners and joint lead managers for the offering. ABCI and BOCI acted as joint global coordinators, joint bookrunners and joint lead managers. FUTU Securities International and Tiger Brokers acted as joint bookrunners and joint lead managers.

Lawyers Will Cai, Michael Yu, Jie Zhang and Brian Lau and international legal project manager Jocelyn Gao led the Cooley team advising Manycore.

Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 16:58:09 Z

A Cooley team earned a shout-out on The American Lawyer’s Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs list as defense counsel for Bell Textron Inc., alongside The Boeing Co. and Universal Stainless & Alloy Productions Inc., the makers of the V-22 Osprey military aircraft, that was involved in the 2023 crash off the coast of Japan, in which eight airmen tragically perished. US District Judge John Murphy dismissed the plaintiffs’ state-law claims, finding they were preempted by the Death on the High Seas Act, which applies to wrongful death claims in incidents occurring more than three miles from US shore.

The Cooley team was led by partners William O’Connor and Koji Fukumura with associates Chip Harrison, Rachael Heller, Mike Tetreault, and Harris McLeod.

Read the article (subscription required)

Alamar Biosciences Announces Upsized $219.9 Million IPO

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:42:00 Z

San Francisco – April 20, 2026 – Cooley advised Alamar Biosciences, a leader in precision proteomics dedicated to advancing the early detection of disease, on its $219.9 million initial public offering (IPO). Alamar offered and sold 12,937,500 shares of its common stock priced at $17 per share, which includes the full exercise of the underwriters’ option to purchase up to 1,687,500 additional shares. Alamar began trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market on April 17, 2026, under the ticker symbol ALMR.

Partners Kristin VanderPas, Charlie Kim and David Peinsipp led the Cooley team advising Alamar.

Michael Patterson Wins Delaware Supreme Court Appeal, Overturning $40 Million Judgment

Fri, 17 Apr 2026 20:33:00 Z

Los Angeles – April 17, 2026 – Cooley secured a unanimous ruling from the Delaware Supreme Court for client Michael Patterson, overturning a decision of the Delaware Court of Chancery and eliminating a potential personal exposure of $40 million in damages for alleged conversion.

The dispute arose from a $20,000 loan Patterson, former CEO of Romeo Systems, made to Lady Benjamin Cannon, a technology consultant, to hire a criminal defense lawyer. To secure the loan, Cannon executed an agreement pledging a warrant for one million shares of Romeo. Cannon signed off on the pledge agreement’s collateral description, represented she owned the pledged assets and reaffirmed over email that she intended “to pledge her ‘Romeo shares.’”

After Cannon defaulted, Patterson transferred the shares to his name. The corporation later entered into an agreement to be acquired by a public company in a stock-for-stock merger. Upon reading the announcement, Cannon filed a complaint for declaratory relief, noncompliance with Article 9 of the Delaware Uniform Commercial Code, conversion and breach of contract against Patterson. In October 2025, after a short trial (for which Cooley was not trial counsel), the Delaware Chancery Court ruled that Patterson had wrongly converted the warrant, and Cannon was entitled to damages and interest amounting to approximately $40 million.

In January 2026, Cooley was retained to help with the appeal and filed an appeal for Patterson to the Supreme Court of Delaware challenging the Chancery Court’s decision.

On April 17, 2026, the Delaware Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Delaware Chancery Court decision holding Patterson liable for $40 million in damages for alleged conversion.

Read the order

The Cooley team advising Patterson was led by partners Brian Klein, Ephraim McDowell and Brian French, and also included associate Anna Mohan.

The case is Patterson v. Cannon.

New Ex Parte Reexamination Procedure at USPTO: What Patent Owners and Challengers Need to Know

Fri, 17 Apr 2026 16:38:00 Z

USPTO announces new reexamination procedure in response to increased filings

Under 35 USC § 303(a), the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) must determine within three months of the filing of a reexamination request whether the request raises a substantial new question of patentability. A substantial new question exists when the cited prior art presents a noncumulative teaching that a reasonable examiner would consider important in assessing patentability, and the same question has not already been decided by the USPTO or a federal court. Until now, the USPTO made this determination based solely on the reexamination request, without any input from the patent owner.

On April 1, 2026, the USPTO published an Official Gazette Notice establishing a new pre-order procedure in ex parte reexamination proceedings. For the first time, patent owners will have a formal opportunity to submit arguments to the USPTO before the agency decides whether a reexamination request raises a substantial new question of patentability – the statutory threshold for ordering reexamination. The new procedure applies to all ex parte reexamination requests filed on or after April 5, 2026.

The change comes amid a significant increase in ex parte reexamination filings since October 2025. According to the USPTO website, the agency recorded 223 filings in Q1 FY2026 alone (October – December 2025) – an annualized rate of nearly 900, compared to 407 filings in FY2024 and 495 in FY2025. The director expressly cited this surge as a basis for the new procedure, invoking the need to obtain information from patent owners before deciding whether to order reexamination in the face of a rapidly growing caseload.

What patent owners and challengers need to know

Patent owners may now file a “pre-order paper” without a petition or fee within 30 days of service of the reexamination request, arguing that the cited references do not raise a substantial new question of patentability. The paper is limited to 30 pages and should focus squarely on why the teachings in the request are insufficient to warrant reexamination of some or all of the challenged claims. The paper should not address 35 USC § 325(d) discretionary denial arguments, nor should it include arguments about whether a teaching is truly new or noncumulative. Patent owners may support their paper with a declaration, but the USPTO will rely on the arguments in the paper itself, and incorporation by reference is not permitted.

Patent challengers should factor this dynamic into their overall reexamination strategy. It is more important than ever that the initial request be as comprehensive and well-supported as possible – and anticipate potential patent owner arguments that may now be filed before the order decision. If the patent owner does file a pre-order paper, the requester may petition under 37 CFR 1.182 to file a responsive paper of up to 10 pages to address misrepresentations of fact or law, or other improper arguments that materially impede the determination of a substantial new question. Any such responsive paper must be filed within 15 calendar days of service of the patent owner’s pre-order paper and must be accompanied by the applicable fee.

Conclusion

The USPTO’s new pre-order procedure marks a significant shift in ex parte reexamination practice. By giving patent owners an opportunity to weigh in before the order decision, and giving challengers a limited right to respond, the procedure introduces new strategic considerations for both sides.

If you have questions about the new pre-order procedure, or about navigating the evolving post-grant proceedings landscape, Cooley’s experienced patent litigation team is available to help.

Reverse Mergers in Biotech: A Strategic Path to Public Markets

Fri, 17 Apr 2026 14:16:45 Z

Cooley partners Carlos Ramirez and Rama Padmanabhan were featured in a BioXconomy Q&A about dynamics, trends and the future of reverse mergers in the life sciences industry. They discussed the key advantages and challenges of reverse mergers compared to traditional initial public offerings, as well as other strategies for capital formation.

Read the Q&A

Cooley Named Finalist as Growth Capital Team of the Year in The Lawyer 2026 Awards

Fri, 17 Apr 2026 13:40:55 Z

London – April 17, 2026 – Cooley was shortlisted by The Lawyer in the publication’s annual awards series, which celebrate legal excellence in the United Kingdom and the European continent.

Specifically, Cooley is shortlisted as Team of the Year for Growth Capital – a category reserved for law firm practices advising companies and investors with respect to growth, venture capital, seed funding, and angel investment.

Over 18 months, the firm’s strategic lateral hires and promotions have accelerated the simultaneous growth and success of the firm’s London-based emerging companies and venture capital practice. The Cooley team is a true destination practice and entails one of the largest dedicated ECVC teams.

The shortlisting is based in part on the team’s representation on several of Europe’s largest and most high-profile deals over the last 12 months including PhysicsX on its $155 million financing, OLIX on its $220 million financing, Swap on its $100 million financing and Uber’s Investment into Wayve’s $1.5 billion financing.

As London co-managing partner Claire Keast-Butler noted in an interview with The Lawyer, “2025 was a transformational year for Cooley in London, and this included the strategic expansion of our emerging companies and venture capital practice, which makes it the City’s go-to destination in the space. The team had a stellar year, working on some of Europe’s landmark venture deals.”

Read the full shortlist

The awards will be presented in June during the annual awards ceremony in London.

Fluidstack Joint Venture to Issue $5.7 Billion in Senior Secured Notes

Thu, 16 Apr 2026 20:21:00 Z

Reston – April 16, 2026 – Cooley advised Fluidstack, a premier artificial intelligence (AI) cloud platform, in connection with the $5.7 billion offering of five‑year senior secured notes issued by Meridian Arc HoldCo LLC, a joint venture owned by Next Frontier and Fluidstack. Proceeds will fund the construction of two new data centers in Sullivan County, Indiana, which will be leased to Fluidstack.

Lawyers Richard Segal, Darah Protas, Jon Avina, David Peinsipp, Michael Tollini, Adam Longenbach, Michelle Schulman, Adam S. Bloom and Mark Looney led the Cooley team advising Fluidstack.

HKSTP Leads Five High-Potential Biotech Startups to Explore Global Collaboration and Financing at Premier Biopharma Summit in Seoul

Thu, 16 Apr 2026 14:09:16 Z

Yiming Liu, partner in charge of Cooley’s Shanghai’s office, was quoted in The Standard during his participation in Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation’s (HKSTP) 2026 BioCentury-BayHelix East-West Summit in Seoul, South Korea. He highlighted how Hong Kong’s legal system supports cross-border transactions and underpins market confidence.

Read the article

MAHA Push Accelerates Reformulation, But Leaves Food Industry in Limbo

Thu, 16 Apr 2026 14:01:07 Z

Laura Akowuah, Cooley special counsel and former FDA attorney, was quoted in a Food Navigator USA article about how the Administration’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement is pushing the food industry to reformulate rapidly based on policy announcements, creating significant uncertainty for the industry. Akowuah also highlighted potential risks to companies relying on the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) pathway and urged the food industry to engage with FDA when it seeks input on changes to the regulatory landscape.

Read the article

Terremoto Biosciences Closes $108 Million Series C

Wed, 15 Apr 2026 18:27:15 Z

San Diego – April 15, 2026 – Cooley advised Terremoto Biosciences, a biotechnology company developing highly targeted, small molecule medicines, on its $108 million Series C financing round. The round includes new investors RA Capital Management, Deep Track Capital, Osage University Partners, and BeOne Medicines, and participation from existing investors OrbiMed, Third Rock Ventures, Novo Holdings, and Cormorant Asset Management.

Lawyers Ken Rollins, Edmond Lay and Rachel Lydon led the Cooley team advising Terremoto.

Cooley Shortlisted for Four Awards at ALB SE Asia Law Awards 2026

Wed, 15 Apr 2026 11:49:25 Z

Singapore – April 15, 2026 – Cooley was shortlisted by Asian Legal Business (ALB) in its annual SE Asia Law Awards series, which honours outstanding performance by private practitioners and in-house legal teams in Southeast (SE) Asia.

Cooley was shortlisted as International Deal Firm of the Year, Private Equity and Venture Capital Law Firm of the Year, and SE Asia Law Firm of the Year.

Additionally, the firm was noted for its work representing AvePoint on the company's SG$260 million underwritten public offering and SGX listing – a deal which is shortlisted as Equity Market Deal of the Year.

Read the full shortlist

The awards will be presented in May during the annual awards ceremony in Singapore.

Cooley Receives Three Managing IP Americas Awards

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 19:33:10 Z

New York – April 14, 2026 – Cooley received three Managing IP Americas Awards in the latest edition of the publication’s annual awards series.

The firm’s 2026 honors were:

Firm of the Year: Trademark Disputes (West)
Practitioner of the Year: Trademark Litigator (West) – Bobby Ghajar
Impact Case of the Year: Kadrey v. Meta (N.D. Cal.)

These recognitions of Cooley’s intellectual property practice follow the firm’s trademark, copyright and advertising (TCA) practice’s receipt in February of multiple honors from Managing IP’s sister publication, World Trademark Review.

With more than 25 TCA lawyers and paralegals across the US and UK, Cooley has one of the largest dedicated TCA practice groups among Am Law 50 firms. As a fully integrated, full-service practice, the group represents clients in complex infringement suits where core products and brands are at stake while also providing prosecution and strategic counseling services that allow clients to maximize their trademark value globally. Cooley’s TCA team also plays a critical role in thousands of high-value financings, M&A deals, capital markets offerings and other transactions.

CargoSense Announces Strategic Investment and Partnership With MegaChips

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 17:04:00 Z

Reston – April 14, 2026 – Cooley advised CargoSense, the provider of the world's first "Agentic (Autonomous) Supply Chain Execution Platform," on its strategic investment from MegaChips Corporation and partnership aimed at the execution and automation of next-generation supply chains.

Through this partnership, MegaChips will leverage CargoSense's platform to accelerate its entry into new markets requiring precise real-time management, such as the rapidly growing data center construction and pharmaceutical sectors.

Lawyers Mike Lincoln, Edward Sniezek, Arjan Ganji and Jason Shefferman led the Cooley team advising CargoSense.

European Commission Proposes EU Industrial Accelerator Act Including ‘Made in EU’ and Low-Carbon Requirements, Stricter Rules for FDI in Strategic Sectors

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 14:11:20 Z

On 4 March 2026, the European Commission published a proposal for an EU Industrial Accelerator Act (IAA). The proposal will now be negotiated in the European Parliament and by EU Member States in the Council. If adopted as proposed, the IAA would introduce several measures aimed at making the EU more competitive and resilient, increasing manufacturing in the EU and contributing to the EU’s climate goals.

The IAA could have broad implications for non-EU investors, businesses taking part in public tenders in the EU, and any companies operating manufacturing sites in strategic sectors in the EU, such as steel, cement, aluminium, automotive, batteries, solar, wind and heat pumps.

Background

The IAA aims to increase manufacturing activity in the EU generally, with the European Commission targeting the manufacturing sector reaching 20% of the EU’s gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035 by including this objective in the IAA. This follows a decline of manufacturing in the EU from 17.4% to 14.3% of GDP between 2000 and 2024.

The IAA is being proposed against the background of the EU striving for greater strategic autonomy and security. The recitals of the proposal expressly refer to the IAA being a response to factors such as hostile economic actions, cyberattacks, foreign interference, the weaponisation of EU economic dependencies, the arbitrary deployment of trade measures, the increasing effects of climate change and rising geopolitical tensions. While there is a general consensus among Member States that the EU’s vulnerabilities and dependencies need to be addressed, there is some disagreement on how to do this. Ahead of publication of this final proposal, a debate had already started. This will continue as the IAA makes its way through the legislative procedure.

The measures of the proposed IAA can be divided into four broad categories:

1.‘Made in EU’ and low-carbon requirements

‘Made in EU’ requirements

The proposed IAA introduces “Made in EU” requirements in public procurement and other forms of public intervention, such as government schemes supporting individuals or businesses purchasing electric vehicles or renovating buildings. These new EU-origin requirements would apply to sectors that are considered strategic, including steel, cement and aluminium, as well as technologies included in the EU’s Net-Zero Industry Act (NZIA), such as battery energy storage systems, solar photovoltaic (PV) technologies, heat pumps, onshore and offshore wind technologies, electrolysers and nuclear fission energy technologies. For example, for solar PV technologies, from three years after entry into force of the IAA, the PV inverter and the PV cells purchased by a public body would need to be of “EU origin”.

The concept of “EU origin” is broad and would include content originating in third countries with which the EU has an agreement establishing a free trade area or a customs union, or that are parties to the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement, including the US.

However, the European Commission would have the power to adopt delegated acts to exclude countries from this broad approach where:
(a) The country failed to give EU products and entities access under the relevant agreement on terms no less favourable than to their domestic entities or products (national treatment).
(b) The exclusion is justified to avoid dependencies or a threat to the security of supply in the EU.
(c) The exclusion is justified under any other exception under the relevant agreement.

Low-carbon requirements

For public procurement and other forms of public intervention benefiting households or companies in the EU, the proposed IAA would also introduce low-carbon requirements in relation to steel, cement and aluminium used in buildings, infrastructure and motor vehicles. These sectors were selected as they are some of the most energy-intensive sectors, and the European Commission aims to create demand for low-carbon versions of these products.

The European Commission would also be empowered to adopt delegated acts laying down additional EU-level demand-side measures for products from the chemical industry.

2. Foreign direct investment in strategic sectors subject to prior authorisation requirement

With the IAA, the European Commission proposes a new mandatory foreign direct investment (FDI) regime for “emerging strategic sectors”. This supplements Member States’ existing, broader FDI approval systems and the updated EU FDI Screening Regulation.

The new review system would apply to investments that afford investors “control” (defined as 30% or more of share capital/voting rights/ownership) over an EU target where:

The value of the investment exceeds €100 million.
More than 40% of global manufacturing capacity in the target’s sector is held by a third country of which the foreign investor is a national or undertaking.

The relevant “emerging strategic sectors” are battery technologies, electric vehicles, and solar PV technologies, and extraction, processing and recycling of critical raw materials. The European Commission would have powers to extend this list of emerging strategic sectors by adopting delegated acts, but such acts could not cover digital technologies, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies or semiconductors.

Investors and investments covered by economic partnership agreements or free trade agreements concluded by the EU, and investments targeted at providing services and portfolio investments, are not subject to this pre-approval requirement.

Notifications under the new system should be made to the national investment authority designated by the Member State where the target is based (or to all relevant authorities and the European Commission, in parallel, where the target is located in more than one Member State). Although reviews are conducted nationally, the substantive standard for approval is set at the EU level and common to all Member States. Departing from the traditional approach to FDI in the EU, focused on security and public order criteria, approval under the IAA would only be granted to investments that meet at least four out of the following six conditions:

Ownership requirement: The ownership interest to be acquired, held or exercised is no more than 49%.

JV requirement: The investment is a joint venture (JV) with an EU entity meeting relevant conditions.

Technology transfer requirement: The investor licensed intellectual property and know-how to benefit the EU target to help carry out its economic activities in the context of the investment.

R&D requirement: The foreign investor annually directs at least 1% of gross annual revenue of the EU target, or generated by the EU asset, to research and development (R&D) spending in the EU as applied in proportion to the foreign investor’s share of control.

Workforce requirement: At least 50% of the workforce at implementation and throughout the operation of the investment is made up of EU workers across all levels of the workforce.

Input requirement: The foreign investor publishes a strategy for enhancing EU value chains and endeavours to source at least 30% of inputs for products placed on the EU market from the EU.

Although Member State authorities would be responsible for the review and retain the last word on approvals, the IAA envisages central oversight and coordinating roles for the European Commission.

Investments that qualify for review under the IAA would be subject to a mandatory standstill requirement and must not be implemented unless and until approval has been granted. This could result in potential delays, with review taking up to 75 days (which can be extended by 30 days) from receipt of the application. However, many of these investments, particularly in Member States which already have sophisticated FDI screening mechanisms in place, would likely already have been covered by national screening requirements and would therefore already have to undergo screening even without the IAA.

Even after approval, foreign investors would need to report regularly to the investment authority on the ongoing compliance with the conditions.

Penalties for failure to notify are high at no less than 5% of the average daily aggregate turnover of the foreign investor undertaking.

3. Boosting sustainable manufacturing through creation of industrial manufacturing acceleration areas

Within one year of the IAA’s entry into force, each Member State is required to designate at least one “industrial manufacturing acceleration area” within its territory for projects in one or more of the strategic sectors listed in an annex to the proposed IAA. This includes energy-intensive industries like paper manufacturing, the automotive industry and net-zero technologies listed in the NZIA, such as heat pumps, battery and energy storage technologies, and biotech climate and energy solutions. These areas are intended to make it easier for industrial activities to cluster in one geographical zone with the aim of promoting favourable conditions for the industries established there.

Once established, industrial manufacturing acceleration areas would benefit from a range of measures. For example, Member States would be required to facilitate financing of projects, promote research and innovation investments, analyse the energy needs and identify the required energy infrastructure, and support the development of a highly skilled workforce.

Member States also need to issue an aggregated baseline permit authorising industrial activities within the industrial manufacturing acceleration area. This would be a single permit that covers all necessary permits generally needed for industrial manufacturing projects in that area.

4. Easier permitting via digital one-stop shop at national level

To facilitate the development of industrial manufacturing projects, the proposed IAA requires processes to be streamlined and digitalised. It requires Member States to set up a single access point at the national level where project promoters can submit one single application to obtain all necessary permits for an industrial manufacturing project. An authority designated by the Member State then coordinates the permitting processes via a single permit-granting procedure. They should be able to pass on the applications to relevant authorities and provide information, all via the digital European Business Wallet.

Energy-intensive decarbonisation projects will moreover be subject to the streamlined administrative and permit-granting procedures under the NZIA and benefit from the measures in the proposed regulation to speed up environmental assessments once it is adopted.

Next steps

The IAA proposal is now being scrutinised by the European Parliament and the representatives of the 27 EU Member States in the Council. The Council and the European Parliament can each propose amendments and will enter into negotiations to reach a compromise on a final text. This process usually takes around one to one-and-a-half years. We do not expect the IAA to be adopted before 2027. Given the intensity of debate around this proposal even before it was published, the text as it now stands is likely to undergo considerable amendments before it is adopted.

CrossBridge Bio Acquired by Eli Lilly and Co. for up to $300 Million

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 12:12:00 Z

Cooley advised CrossBridge Bio, a pre-clinical biotechnology company pioneering the development of next-generation dual-payload antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), on its agreement to be acquired by Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) for up to $300 million in cash, inclusive of an upfront payment and a subsequent payment upon achieving a specified development milestone.

The transaction was announced publicly in the following press release, which can be viewed here.

Lead Team: Rowook Park, Caitlin Cunningham, Nathan Baum, Allie Pilmer and John DelMastro led the Cooley team advising CrossBridge Bio.

Supporting Team: Ryan Sansom, Christophe Beauduin, John Forrest, Paul Holmer, Jeff Tolin, Patrick Sharma, Ali Murata, Tony Guan, Christian Lee and Ross Eberly provided invaluable support.

Cooley previously advised CrossBridge Bio on its $10 million seed financing in November 2024 as well as other general corporate matters.

Cooley Partner Named to India International A-List

Mon, 13 Apr 2026 16:40:26 Z

Cooley partner Rishab Kumar has been named to India Business Journal’s International A-List for the third consecutive year. Kumar was praised for his work on M&A technology transactions.

View the full list

The list recognizes lawyers outside of India who distinguished themselves as the top practice area experts for India-related legal matters.

Cooley Strengthens Fund Formation Practice With Private Equity Partner in New York

Mon, 13 Apr 2026 16:19:00 Z

New York – April 13, 2026 – Derek Pease has joined Cooley’s New York office as a partner in the firm’s fund formation practice. Pease joins Cooley from Silver Lake, one of the world’s largest private equity firms, and brings more than two decades of industry experience from several in-house and external advisory roles. With Pease’s addition, Cooley expands its private equity team, advancing its service to its sophisticated clients and its ongoing commitment to the sector.

“Derek brings the rare combination of elite in-house leadership and top-tier private practice experience at the highest level,” said John Clendenin, partner and chair of Cooley’s global fund formation practice. “Having led multibillion-dollar fundraises and coordinated global compliance and operational frameworks, he understands the full life cycle of modern investment platforms. His addition to our strong bench in New York reinforces Cooley’s position as a premier destination for sophisticated private equity sponsors.”

At Silver Lake, Pease most recently served as legal director of fund formation, working on a series of investment funds that raised billions of dollars from institutional investors and structured global technology investments. He has a substantial background in leading all aspects of fund formation through every step of the fundraising process and overseeing multifaceted fund operations.

Before joining Silver Lake, Pease was a partner at Kirkland & Ellis, where he represented leading domestic and international sponsors in fund development and operations and advised on fund-related transactions – including minority-stake sales, co-investments and joint ventures – and legal and regulatory issues.

“I’m energized to return to private practice at a collaborative and well-regarded global firm that serves many of the world’s leading and most innovative sponsors,” said Pease. “Cooley’s impressive momentum in the private equity space, along with its industry presence and strengths in fund formation, provides an exceptional platform for serving clients across multiple geographies and asset classes.”

Cooley’s fund formation practice provides primary counsel to more than 950 investment fund organizations. The practice’s deep bench of 60+ lawyers has helped collate $120 billion+ in committed capital in closings over the past five years. Its client investments span the US, China, Europe, India, Vietnam, Singapore, Israel, South America and elsewhere. The group formed the first venture capital limited partnership in the western US and has been active in China for four decades and in India for three decades. The team advises on every type of fund formation, including private equity, venture capital, fund of funds, evergreen, growth equity and other managers at all states and sizes, from individual angel funds to billion-dollar investment funds.

Cooley Shortlisted for Nine Life Sciences EMEA Awards

Mon, 13 Apr 2026 07:00:00 Z

London – April 13, 2026 – Cooley and its lawyers have been shortlisted for nine honors at the annual awards presented by LBG Life Sciences EMEA (Europe, the Middle East and Africa). Specifically, the firm has been nominated as:

International Firm of the Year
Cross-border M&A Firm of the Year
Equity Capital Markets Firm of the Year
Licensing & Collaboration Firm of the Year
Venture Capital Firm of the Year

Moreover, four Cooley lawyers are shortlisted individually, including Simon Amies as M&A Lawyer of the Year; Frances Stocks Allen as Licensing & Collaboration Lawyer of the Year; Alexandra Paterson as M&A Rising Star, and Philip Whitehead as Banking and Capital Markets Rising Star

View the full shortlists

An awards ceremony will be held in London on June 4. In 2025, the publication recognized Cooley as Licensing and Collaboration Firm of the Year for EMEA.

Connected Cars: Privacy Compliance Guidance

Fri, 10 Apr 2026 17:03:15 Z

Cooley special counsel Claire Gibbs was quoted in a Cybersecurity Law Report article outlining the privacy and compliance challenges that original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) face as connected vehicles collect and share sensitive data, emphasizing that OEMs must provide clear, timely notice and obtain meaningful consent so consumers understand how their information will be collected, used, and shared before any processing occurs.

Read the article (subscription required) >

GreenSpark and ReMatter Combine to Form ReSpark

Fri, 10 Apr 2026 16:23:00 Z

New York – April 10, 2026 – Cooley advised GreenSpark Software, a cloud-native, AI-first platform for the metal recycling industry, on its combination with ReMatter, creating a single company known as ReSpark. The combined entity brings together two of the most advanced purpose-built software platforms in the metal recycling and scrap yard industry, unifying their products, teams and customer bases to serve operators across the United States, Canada and internationally.

Lawyers Roy Moran, Izzy Lubarsky, Kathryn Benvenuti, Norris Kadet, Joy Chow, Melanie Simon-Giblin, Paula Fleckenstein, Chris Chynoweth, Ryan Montgomery and Patrick Sharma led the Cooley team advising GreenSpark.

AI Hype, Hard Lessons: Where SEA’s Startup Capital Is Really Going

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 19:26:05 Z

Cooley partner David He was quoted in an e27 article about Southeast Asia’s (SEA) startup ecosystem, analyzing how capital, expectations and behavior have fundamentally changed in the past few years. He also highlighted the trend of increased investments in artificial intelligence (AI) and the four areas in which investors are scrutinizing startups.

Read the full article on e27 here.

FCC Proposes Sweeping Rules on Foreign Call Centers: Onshoring Mandates, Consumer Protections and Robocall Deterrence

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 17:27:00 Z

FCC Proposes Sweeping Rules on Foreign Call Centers: Onshoring Mandates, Consumer Protections and Robocall Deterrence

On March 27, 2026, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Call Center NPRM) seeking comment on a broad package of rules governing foreign call centers. The rulemaking addresses three distinct objectives: encouraging the onshoring of call center operations to the United States; establishing quality and security standards for foreign call center operations that remain; and deterring unlawful robocalls originating from foreign countries through financial mechanisms, such as bonds and fees.

The proposed rules would apply to providers of telecommunications services, commercial mobile radio services (CMRS), interconnected voice over internet protocol (VoIP), cable television, and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) services, as well as their affiliates that provide internet access service. The FCC also seeks comment on extending some or all of these rules more broadly, including all calls covered by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which could subject a range of commercial entities to new FCC requirements. Companies that use or rely on foreign call centers for customer service, sales or telemarketing should evaluate these proposals and consider participating in the comment process.

Key proposals

Cap on foreign-handled calls

The FCC proposes to limit the percentage of customer service calls that providers may route to or answer at foreign call centers. The NPRM uses 30% as an illustrative threshold and seeks comment on whether this cap should apply separately to inbound and outbound calls or on a combined basis. The FCC asks about the appropriate measurement period (annual, quarterly, monthly or daily) and whether to phase in the cap over time to allow providers to build domestic capacity.

English proficiency requirements

The proposed rules would require providers using offshore call centers to ensure that all calling staff are proficient in both spoken and written American Standard English. The FCC emphasizes that proficiency must extend beyond vocabulary to include understanding of tone, idioms and cultural context. The NPRM seeks comment on which testing regime should apply (referencing the OET, TOEFL and TOEIC as potential models) and whether the FCC should assess compliance per employee or on an aggregate basis. The FCC also asks how these requirements would apply to call centers serving non-English-speaking US customers.

Consumer right to transfer to a US-based representative

Upon consumer request, the proposed rules would require providers to transfer any call that a foreign call center is handling to a representative located in the US. Providers would need to ensure that wait times for transferred calls are no longer than for calls they initially route domestically.

Mandatory disclosure of foreign call center use

The proposed rules would require providers to inform customers at the beginning of each call that a representative outside the US is handling the call. The FCC proposes specific disclosure language that would include the name of the country where the call center operates and notification of the consumer’s right to request transfer to a US-based representative. The disclosure requirement would apply to both inbound and outbound calls.

Sensitive transactions: Domestic-only requirement

The FCC proposes to require that US-based call centers exclusively handle customer interactions involving sensitive data like passwords, multifactor authentication information, Social Security numbers, and bank account or credit card numbers. This requirement would apply regardless of the communication channel used (voice, chat, email or text) and proposes to exclude calls handling sensitive data from any percentage-cap calculation.

Prohibition on call centers in foreign adversary nations

The NPRM proposes to prohibit covered providers from using call centers located in “foreign adversary” nations, as defined under existing Commerce Department regulations. Foreign adversary nations include China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela. The FCC further seeks comment on an even broader prohibition –barring the use of any call center, wherever located, that employs citizens or residents of a foreign adversary nation. This is a hard prohibition, not a cap.

Broadband label and transparency disclosures

The FCC proposes to amend its broadband consumer label rules to require display of the percentage of customer service calls handled by US-based representatives. For providers of non-broadband services covered by the proposed rules, the FCC asks whether providers should publish comparable information on their websites.

Compliance tracking and reporting

The proposed rules would require providers to track and report to the FCC their compliance with all adopted rules. Reports would cover English proficiency testing results, call volumes by location (domestic versus foreign), transfer rates, wait times and dropped call data. The FCC seeks comment on reporting frequency (monthly, quarterly or annually) and whether the FCC should make compliance reports public.

Extension to nonvoice channels

Beyond the sensitive-transaction requirement (which already extends to all channels), the FCC asks whether all of the proposed rules should apply to nonvoice customer communications, including online chat, text messages, email and video conferencing.

Bond and fee requirements for robocall deterrence

In a separate but related set of proposals, the FCC seeks comment on requiring providers that transmit calls from foreign countries to the US, particularly international gateway providers, to post bonds. The FCC asks detailed questions about bond amounts, drawdown triggers, due process safeguards, replenishment obligations and administration. As an alternative, the FCC also asks about government-imposed fees on unlawful traffic.

Comment dates will be set after publication in the Federal Register. If you have questions about this proceeding or are considering submitting comments, please contact one of the Cooley lawyers listed below.

Cooley Partner Again Named Among Hollywood’s Top Attorneys

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 13:41:18 Z

For the second consecutive year, Los Angeles-based Cooley partner Bobby Ghajar was named to Variety’s Legal Impact Report. The prestigious annual report profiles Hollywood’s leading entertainment lawyers, and includes the litigators, deal lawyers and in-house counsel behind some of the industry’s biggest stories.

Ghajar’s profile highlighted his representation of Meta, for which his team secured a partial summary judgment victory in the company’s artificial intelligence (AI) copyright case. In June 2025, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ copyright infringement claims when it ruled that Meta’s use of copyrighted books to train its Llama AI was “highly transformative” and that the books’ authors failed to prove it harmed the market for their works.

Ghajar was also noted for his ongoing defense of Midjourney in a suit brought by Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. challenging his client’s ability to generate images of iconic Hollywood characters.

Read Ghajar’s profile ›

Washington State Expands Personality Rights Law to Cover AI-Generated Deepfakes

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 07:00:00 Z

Washington state expanded its existing property rights law to address use of a person’s “forged digital likeness” without the person’s consent. Substitute Senate Bill 5886 (SSB 5886), signed into law by Gov. Bob Ferguson on March 16, 2026, amends Washington’s Personality Rights Law to address the growing use of artificial intelligence to create realistic but deceptive audio and video, and impacts those that rely on such technology to create content. The law takes effect on June 11, 2026.

What changed?

The Personality Rights Law already prohibited the use of an individual’s name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness without their consent. The amended law expands that list to include a person’s “forged digital likeness,” defined as:

A visual representation which is either persistent or transmitted in real-time of an actual and identifiable individual, or an audio recording which is either persistent or transmitted in real-time of an actual and identifiable individual’s voice, which: (a) has been digitally created, adapted, altered, or modified to be indistinguishable from a genuine visual representation or audio recording of the individual; (b) misrepresents the appearance, speech, or conduct of the individual; and (c) is likely to deceive a reasonable person into believing that the visual representation or audio recording is genuine.

This property right applies to both living and certain deceased individuals.

Strengthened remedies

In addition to the potential for injunctive relief, actual damages and recovery of attributable profits and reasonable attorneys’ fees, the law significantly increases the potential consequences violators face:

Doubled civil penalty: Under the prior law, violators could be subject to financial penalties of $1,500 or actual damages, whichever was greater. The amended law raises the potential civil penalty to $3,000. There remains the potential recovery of actual damages and any attributable profits.
Noneconomic damages for deepfake violations: Where the violation involves a forged digital likeness, the violator is also responsible for noneconomic damages, such as mental or physical pain and suffering, or injury to reputation and humiliation.

Broader legal landscape

SSB 5886 is part of a broader national trend. Washington had already passed a law extending the state’s criminal impersonation statute to cover the distribution of someone’s forged digital likeness with the intent to defraud, harass or threaten them. Other states, such as California, New York and Tennessee, have passed legislation regulating digital likenesses.

Key takeaways and next steps

Businesses and content creators should act now to prepare for the June 11, 2026, effective date. In particular:

Review content workflows. Any use of AI tools to generate, alter or reproduce audio or visual representations of real individuals should be audited for compliance.
Update consent frameworks. Existing consent language in contracts, talent agreements and terms of service may not be sufficient to cover AI-generated digital likenesses under the new statutory definition.
Assess liability exposure. The expanded civil penalty and the addition of noneconomic damages for deepfake-specific infringements substantially raise the stakes of noncompliance.

Areas requiring further clarification include how courts will interpret the “likely to deceive a reasonable person” standard in practice, and how the law will interact with First Amendment protections for satire, parody and commentary.

FDA Guidance May Move Goalposts For Form 483 Responses

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 07:00:00 Z

Cooley lawyers Sonia Nath, Laura Akowuah and Auguste Humphries co-authored an article for Law360 analyzing the US Food and Drug Administration’s new draft guidance on Form 483 responses, which provides a clearer structure for drug manufacturers to document, assess and correct any underlying systemic issues, but may also create timing issues and disadvantage many small and midsize companies.

Read the article