rowens2019-01-20T22:57:47+00:00

Ryan R. Owens

Managing Partner and Co-Founder

ryan.owens@spearheadlegal.com

Download vCard

+1 949-409-8401

Bar Qualification

California
New York
US Patent and Trademark Office

Education

JD, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2004
BS, Chemistry, Utah State University, magna cum laude, 1998

Overview

Ryan Owens is the managing partner and a co-founder of Spearhead Legal LLP.  His practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and litigation management.  Ryan has experience in all stages of litigation from pre-suit investigations through appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He has been involved in successfully dismissing several cases against his clients and in obtaining summary judgments of non-infringement and invalidity. He has successfully litigated actions in numerous U.S. jurisdictions.

Ryan earned his law degree from the University of California, Berkeley, where he was a Senior Articles Editor for the Berkeley Technology Law Journal and a member of boalt.org. For his extensive studies in the field of intellectual property law and technology, Ryan was awarded the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology’s Certificate in Law and Technology.

Ryan is a member of the State Bars of California and New York.  He is admitted to practice before the Central District of California, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Experience

Prior Experience

Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP, 2014-2017

Associate, Latham & Watkins LLP, 2010-2013

Associate, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, 2004-2009

Representative Matters

The following is a list of selected, representative cases Ryan has handled:

  • Sensor Electronic Technology, Inc. v. Bolb, Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal.): Representing plaintiff SETi in patent litigation involving ultraviolet light-emitting diodes.
  • Lexington Luminance LLC v. Feit Electric Co. (D. Mass.): Represented defendant Feit Electric in patent litigation involving light-emitting diodes.
  • Monsanto Co. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, Inc. (E.D. Mo.): Represented plaintiff / counterclaim defendant Monsanto in patent litigation involving DNA sampling and analysis.
  • Sprint Comm. Co. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. (D. Kan.): Represented defendant Time Warner Cable in patent litigation involving digital phone services.
  • Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co. Ltd. (C.D. Cal.): Represented defendant Seoul Semiconductor in patent litigation related to light-emitting diodes.
  • Rembrandt Data Storage, LP v. Western Digital Co. (D. Wis.): Represented defendant Western Digital in patent litigation related to hard disk drives.
  • Data Recovery Solutions LLC v. Symantec Co. (C.D. Cal.): Represented defendant Symantec in patent litigation related to data back-up and restoration.
  • Helicos Biosciences Co. et al. v. Illumina et al. (D. Del.): Represented defendant Life Technologies in patent litigation related to DNA sequencing technology.
  • Prism Tech. v. Adobe Systems Inc. et al. (D. Neb.): Represented defendant Symantec in patent litigation related to network security.
  • Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Westell Technologies, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represented defendant Broadcom in patent litigation related to DSL, WiFi, and Bluetooth telecommunication devices.
  • Rothschild v. Cree, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.): Represented defendant Cree in patent litigation related to light-emitting diode manufacturing.
  • Rambus Inc. v. Micron Tech. (N.D. Cal.): Represented defendant Micron in patent litigation related to DRAM technology.
  • Bridgelux, Inc.  v. Cree, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex. / N.D. Cal.): Represented defendant / counterclaim plaintiff Cree in patent litigation related to light-emitting diodes.
  • Vertical Computer Systems Inc. v. Microsoft Co. (E.D. Tex.): Represented defendant Microsoft in patent litigation related to software architecture.
  • Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Applera Corp. (D. Conn.): Represented defendant Applera in patent litigation related to DNA sequencing and labeled polynucleotide probes.
  • Bookham, Inc. v. Unaxis Balzers AG (N.D. Cal.): Represented defendant Unaxis Balzers in patent litigation related to DLP television technology.
  • Palomar Medical Tech v. Altus Medical, Inc. (D. Mass.): Represented defendant Altus in patent litigation related to laser-based medical devices.
  • Telcordia Tech. Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc. (D. Del.): Represented defendant CISCO in patent litigation related to digital data transmission technology.
  • Yeda Research and Development Co. v. ImClone Systems Inc. (S.D.N.Y.): Represented plaintiff Yeda in patent litigation related to cancer treatments.