Advertising Material

Advertising Material


Steven B. Loy

Member, Lexington

Steven is a Member in Stoll Keenon Ogden's Lexington and Louisville offices and has been with the firm since 1994. Steven has practiced at every level of United States jurisprudence including at every state court level, every federal court level, and before local, state and federal administrative agencies. He is co-chair of the Intellectual Property practice group and a member of the Business Litigation practice group with a focus on Intellectual Property Litigation, Antitrust, and Banking Litigation. Steven also is a member of the Business Torts, Securities Litigation, Trust & Estate Litigation, Eminent Domain & Real Estate Litigation and Construction Law practice groups.

In his practice, Steven had the unique honor of arguing a case before the U.S. Supreme Court in December 2013. The case, Static Control Components, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., determined who has standing to sue for false advertising under the Lanham Act, a federal trademark statute.

Steven is AV® Preeminent™ Peer Review Rated by Martindale-Hubbell®, listed in The Best Lawyers in America®, honored as a Kentucky Super Lawyer and recognized by Benchmark Litigation as a "Local Litigation Star." He is a member of the Fayette County, Kentucky and American Bar Associations, as well as the American Intellectual Property Law Association. To give back to the community, he serves on the board of directors and is past president of the Child Development Centers of the Bluegrass.

Education
University of Kentucky College of Law
1994, J.D., High Distinction
University of Kentucky
1991, B.A., High Distinction
Admissions
Kentucky Court of Appeals
Kentucky Supreme Court
U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky
U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky
United States Supreme Court

Recognition

  • Lexology Client Choice Award, Individual of the Year for Litigation in Kentucky
  • Benchmark Litigation, Local Litigation Star, Antitrust; Construction; General Commercial; Real Estate; Securities, 2013-2017
  • Best Lawyers “Lawyer of the Year,” Lexington, Litigation-Banking and Finance, 2014
  • Listed in Best Lawyers in America©  Banking and Finance Litigation, Commercial Litigation
  • AV® Preeminent™ Peer Review Rated by Martingale-Hubbell®
  • Kentucky Super Lawyer, Civil Litigation Defense
  • Order of the Coif
  • Delivered Commencement Speech in Undergraduate and Law School as Top Ranking Student
View More

Affiliations

  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Fayette County Bar Association
  • Kentucky Bar Association
  • American Bar Association
  • Child Development Centers of the Bluegrass, Inc., past-president and board of directors
View More

Work Highlights

Patent Infringement, False Advertisement & Antitrust

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Impression Products, et al., Case No. 10-564-MRB (S.D. of Ohio)

SKO, along with Sidley Austin LLP and Banner & Witcoff, represented Lexmark in a closely-watched patent case at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. In a dispute brought by Lexmark over remanufactured printer cartridges, the Federal Circuit held in Lexmark’s favor on domestic and international patent exhaustion issues.  The case is now pending before the United States Supreme Court and will be argued on March 21, 2017.

Shareholder Class Action

Margie Elstein v. Lexmark International, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 16-CI-02380 (Fayette Circuit Court)

SKO represented Lexmark in successfully dismissing a proposed class action lawsuit filed by a shareholder claiming Lexmark’s merger agreement with a consortium of investors was unfair to shareholders. The lawsuit was filed less than a month before Lexmark’s scheduled shareholder vote.  After the lawsuit was filed, the plaintiff sought a temporary injunction enjoining the shareholder vote.  Steven argued that the case should be dismissed because Lexmark’s bylaws require the case be heard in the Delaware Chancery Courts.  A mere three days before the scheduled shareholder vote, the Court dismissed the lawsuit and the shareholder vote occurred as scheduled.

Related Practices: Class Action, Business Litigation

Constitutional Law

Jerry Jamgotchian v. Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, et al., Civil Action No. 11-CI-01047 (Franklin Circuit Court)

SKO represented the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission in a dormant commerce clause challenge filed against it by a thoroughbred owner regarding an industry-standard regulation pertaining to the purchase of horses in claiming races. SKO obtained summary judgment upholding the constitutionality of the regulation, which was affirmed on appeal by the Kentucky Court of Appeals.  The Kentucky Supreme Court accepted discretionary review.  Following briefing, Steven argued the case before the Kentucky Supreme Court.  In May 2016, the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the Kentucky Court of Appeals in the Commission’s favor in a unanimous published opinion.

Constitutional Law

Latter-Day Saints v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, Civil Action No. 98-CI-1888  19 (Fayette Circuit Court). Obtained ruling that Board of Adjustment violated Equal Protection, Free Exercise and Due Process rights of church and violated 42 U.S.C. 1983 by denying conditional use permit; case settled.

Banking

Furlong Development, LLC et al. v. United Bank and Trust Company, et al., Civil Action No. 11-CI-00111 (Scott Circuit Court)

SKO defended United Bank and Trust Company, as well as affiliate EGT Properties, Inc., in a dispute over bond proceeds that were in place to cover public improvements in a residential subdivision. SKO obtained summary judgment in a ruling that found the bonding company liable.  The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the Scott Circuit Court’s decision. The Kentucky Supreme Court accepted discretionary review.  Steven argued the case before the Kentucky Supreme Court in February 2016 and won in a near unanimous, published decision.

Related Practices: Business Litigation

Building Dispute/Injunctive Relief

Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. v. Saul Subsidiary I Limited Partnership, Ky. App., 159 S.W.3d 339 (2005)

Represented owner of Lexington Mall and obtained injunction requiring Home Depot to remove its store and restore the Mall structure because Home Depot violated restrictive covenants; case settled.

Patent Infringement

Lexmark International, Inc., et al. v. Pitney Bowes Inc., et al., Case No. 001-237-JMH (E.D. Ky.)

Successful litigation involving patent infringement claims against Lexmark relating to print quality enhancement technology. Lexmark obtained summary judgment, dramatically limiting the products at issue on the basis of failure to mark or provide actual notice under 35 U.S.C. § 287. The case was settled after the Court’s ruling.

Patent Infringement

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Laserland, Inc., 304 F.Supp.2d 913 (E.D. Ky. 2004)

Represented Lexmark in a patent infringement lawsuit, and established new personal jurisdiction law in the Sixth Circuit relating to interactive websites; case settled.

Trademark Infringement

Staxx is Eat BBQ LLC, et al. v. Thomas Walters, Case No. 12-71-GFVT (E.D. Ky.) 
Represented Staxx BBQ, a central Kentucky restaurant, in a trademark infringement case against a former employee who alleged an ownership interest in the restaurant and trademarks. SKO obtained a preliminary injunction after a contested evidentiary hearing and the case settled.

Breach of Fiduciary Duty

James D. Duff v. David A. Duff et al., Case No. 04-345-USF (E.D. Ky.)

Obtained summary judgment on behalf of executor/trustee in a breach of fiduciary lawsuit by beneficiaries of an estate/trust where the ownership of a coal company was at issue.

Protecting Corporation’s Control of Assets from Shareholder Interference

Paul R. Plante, Jr. v. Frank D. Marcum, et al., Civil Action No. 12-CI-0040 (Fayette Circuit Court)

When minority shareholders in a closely-held corporation caused a bank to file an interpleader action regarding control of the corporation’s funds, SKO represented the corporation, and over the objection of the minority shareholders, ensured that the corporation controlled its funds, allowing the business to continue to operate.  

Successful Defense of Veil-Piercing Claim

Spradlin v. Beads and Steeds Inn, LLC (In re Howland), Case No. 16-5499 (Jan., 2017) (unpublished)

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court rulings SKO obtained in a matter involving novel Kentucky corporate law claims centered on reverse veil piercing and substantive consolidation claims under bankruptcy law. SKO successfully defended the client against efforts by a Chapter 7 trustee to avoid the transfer of a parcel of real property. In this case, the client purchased a farm from an LLC, which leased it back to continue operating its business at the location. When the individual members of the LLC later sought bankruptcy relief, the trustee filed a complaint, alleging the client was the recipient of a fraudulent transfer. SKO proved the property transfer was made to our client by the LLC, not the individual debtors. Efforts by the trustee to amend and consolidate the complaint on appeal, as well as invoke reverse veil-piercing, were unsuccessful in federal Bankruptcy Court, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Related Practices: Appellate

Patent Infringement, False Advertisement & Antitrust

Static Control Components, Inc., et al. v. Lexmark International, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-84-GFVT (Consolidated with Action No. 02-571) (E.D. Ky) (multiple published decisions)

This multi-party, complex litigation involved Lexmark, a major provider of printing and imaging products and services. Lexmark asserted claims for, among other things, patent infringement and inducement to commit patent infringement. The lead opposing party, Static Control Components, asserted claims against Lexmark for, among other things, antitrust violations under the Sherman Act and Clayton Act and false advertising claims under the Lanham Act. Lexmark obtained dismissal of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act antitrust claims and a favorable ruling upholding Lexmark’s single-use restriction on its printer cartridges under the Uniform Commercial Code. On June 3, 2013 the United States Supreme Court granted Lexmark’s petition for writ of certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the proper test for standing to assert Lanham Act false advertising claims.  Steven argued the case in front of the Supreme Court on December 3, 2013.

News Publications Seminars
"Ensuring Your Arbitration Agreements are Valid," Presented at Client Offices,, "What Every In-House Lawyer Needs to Know about Antitrust and Competition Law," co-presenter, KBA In-house Lawyers Section