David B. Owsley II
Awarded Practice Areas
Biography
David Owsley is a Member in the firm’s Business Litigation Service Group in Louisville. He practices complex and bet-the-company litigation in courts across the country, with subjects including intellectual property, commercial disputes, government investigations, product liability, international disputes, trusts and estates, antitrust, fiduciary duty, corporate governance, executive employment, legal ethics, professional liability, and constitutional law.
During the summer of 2002, Dave worked for a law clinic in South Africa. Before law school, Dave worked as a research assistant and for a dot-com startup. He also completed the McIntire Business Institute program at the University of Virginia School of Commerce.
Overview
- Washington University in St. Louis, J.D., graduated 2004
- University of Virginia, B.A., graduated 2000
- Kentucky, Kentucky State Bar
- American Bar Association - Member
- Defense Research Institute (DRI) - Member
- Kentucky Bar Association - Member
- Leadership Louisville - Member
- Louisville Bar Association - Member
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit
- Kentucky, Kentucky State Bar
- American Bar Association - Member
- Defense Research Institute (DRI) - Member
- Kentucky Bar Association - Member
- Leadership Louisville - Member
- Louisville Bar Association - Member
- Washington University in St. Louis, J.D., graduated 2004
- University of Virginia, B.A., graduated 2000
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit
Client Testimonials
Awards & Focus
- Commercial Litigation
- Legal Malpractice Law - Defendants
- Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants
- Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
- Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants
- Trade Secrets Law
- Kentucky Super Lawyers, Rising Star (2013-present)
- Benchmark Litigation magazine, Future Star (2015-present)
- Benchmark Litigation, Under 40 Hot List (2016)
News & Media
Case History
- First Amendment litigation
- Patent Infringement litigation
- Lead counsel for UK protective case manufacturer Tech21 defending against patent infringement claims filed by OtterBox at the United States International Trade Commission, In the Matter of Certain Protective Cases for Electronic Devices and Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-955. Obtained complete dismissal of the investigation. See "Victory for Tech21 as OtterBox ends patent dispute with protective case rival," MOBILE NEWS (September 15, 2015).
- Obtained a $40 million settlement for global flavor company V. Mane Fils (www.mane.com) in a lawsuit against a competitor for claims of patent infringement, false advertising, unfair competition, and tortious interference. See NEW YORK TIMES, "IFF and Mane Announce Settlement of Mane’s Lawsuit Concerning Monomenthyl Succinate" (December 29, 2011); V. Mane Fils S.A. v. Int'l Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 152 (D.N.J. 2008), reported in NEW JERSEY LAW JOURNAL, "Use of Attorneys' Letters To Woo Business Held to Waive Privilege" (March 5, 2008); V.Mane Fils S.A. v. Int'l Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38637 (D.N.J. Apr. 8, 2011); V. Mane Fils S.A. v. Int'l Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49578 (D.N.J. June 23, 2008); V. Mane Fils S.A. v. Int'l Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63619 (D.N.J. Aug. 19, 2008); V. Mane Fils S.A. v. Int'l Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82540 (D.N.J. Oct. 15, 2008); V. Mane Fils S.A. v. Int'l Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56462 (D.N.J. July 1, 2009); V. Mane Fils S.A. v. Int'l Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45645 (D.N.J. May 6, 2010)
- Imprudent Investment Management litigation
- Dormant Commerce Clause litigation
- Trade Secret Litigation
- Won at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals with an opinion affirming a complete defense verdict in a trade secret case alleging $80 million in damages. See Givaudan Fragrances Corp. v. Krivda, 639 Fed. Appx. 840, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2459 (3d Cir. N.J. Feb. 12, 2016); "3d Circ. Won't Revive $80M Fragrance Secrets Row," Law 360 (February 12, 2016).
- Obtained a defense verdict for fragrance company Mane USA, Inc. after a five week jury trial in New Jersey federal court, dismissing claims that Mane misappropriated 600 trade secret fragrances from Swiss fragrance giant Givaudan, who sought $80 million in damages. See Fragrance Co. Loses $80M Trade Secrets Suit, Law360 (February 7, 2014) (“In a case that has been billed as the largest New Jersey has ever seen regarding misappropriation of trade secrets, the federal jury ruled James Krivda, Givaudan’s former vice president over its perfumery department, did not violate a confidentiality provision in his employment contract when he left the fragrance maker for competitor Mane USA in April 2008”). Before trial, Mane obtained summary judgment on the majority of the claims in a decision recognized as an important case for liability of subsequent employers. See Givaudan Fragrances Corp. v. Krivda, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153437 (D.N.J. Civil Action No. 3:08-cv-04409, Oct. 25, 2013), reported in "Failure to Provide Specific Information On Alleged Misappropriations Fatal to Claims," Bloomberg, BNA Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal (October 29, 2013).
- Obtained a series of federal consent judgments for UK protective case manufacturer Tech21 enforcing intellectual property rights relating to trade dress, trademark, Lanham Act, and patent claims. See, e.g., Tech 21 UK Limited et al v. Spigen Inc., Case No. 15-cv-05059 (N.D. CA) (DE# 50, Consent Judgment); Tech 21 UK Limited et al v. Doria International, Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-07144-BLF (N.D. CA) (DE# 17 Consent Judgment); Tech 21 UK Limited et al v. Rubicon Ventures LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-07147-JST (N.D. CA) (DE# 17 Consent Judgment).
- Kickback Claims
Your browser is not fully compatible with our automatic printer friendly formatting.
Please use the print button to print this profile page.