Kathryn P. Hoek

Ms. Hoek is a partner in the firm's Los Angeles office. She is a member of the firm's Practice Development  Committee and previously served on the Executive Committee, the Diversity Committee, and the Employment Committee. She has represented plaintiffs and defendants in a broad range of business litigation matters, including antitrust cases, patent and other intellectual property matters, employment and wage and hour litigation, class actions, insurance cases and securities litigation. Ms. Hoek has been named a "Rising Star" by Southern California Super Lawyers in each of the past five years based on her success representing clients. Ms. Hoek represents clients under a variety of billing arrangements including hourly, contingent fee, and flat fee arrangements.

Yale University (B.A. with Honors and Distinction in Major, summa cum laude, 1997)
Yale Law School (J.D. 2001)

Law Clerk to The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (2001-2002)

• Yale Law School Coker Fellow (2000-2001)
• Phi Beta Kappa

• State Bar of California
• Central and Northern Districts of California
• Federal Bar Association
• Beverly Hills Bar Association
• Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles
• Association of Business Trial Lawyers

• SuperSpeed LLC v. Google, Inc. (United States District Court, Southern District of Texas) (2012 to present). Ms. Hoek represents plaintiff SuperSpeed LLC in this patent litigation in which SuperSpeed accuses Google of infringing certain patents relating to caching technology through Google Docs and other programs.
• In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation (United States District Court, District of New Jersey) (2012 to present). Ms. Hoek represents defendant ACE Limited in this major multidistrict litigation brought against the largest insurance companies in the United States for alleged antitrust violations in the insurance industry.
• Tessera Technologies, Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor , Inc., et al. (Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco) (2007-2012).  Ms. Hoek represented the plaintiff Tessera in this antitrust action against DRAM manufacturer Hynix. Tessera alleged that Hynix conspired with several other DRAM manufacturers to boycott and suppress the adoption of Tessera's patented semiconductor packaging technology designed for use with the revolutionary memory chip technology known as RDRAM. Tessera successfully opposed the defendants' motion for summary judgment as to its antitrust claims, andthe parties entered into a confidential settlement in December 2012.
• Ms. Hoek represented the world's largest retailer in a major multi-district antitrust class action pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case was brought by current and former subscribers to online DVD rental services who asserted claims for illegal market allocation and attempted monopolization of the home entertainment market. The Court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims of one group of subscribers. SG negotiated a favorable settlement for its client as to the remaining group of subscribers, subject to the Court's final approval.
• Ms. Hoek also represented the retailer in several large wage and hour class actions, during which Susman Godfrey acted as national trial counsel for the retailer.
• Watts v. Sysco Corp., et al. (Superior Court of California, County of Alameda) (2010-2011). Ms. Hoek represented Sysco Corp. and several California subsidiaries in a labor dispute in which the plaintiffs sought to assert classwide claims to recover business expenses and late wage penalties under California law. Ms. Hoek negotiated a favorable settlement for her client, which was approved in September 2011.
• MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc. v. Intel and Dell (United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas) (2005). Susman Godfrey brought this patent infringement case on behalf of its client MicroUnity against Intel and Dell. The complaint alleged that Intel's Pentium III, Pentium 4, and Pentium M processors, and Dell's use of those processors, infringed several MicroUnity patents covering mediaprocessor technology. Ms. Hoek handled discovery and developing the damages case. Just weeks before trial, the parties reached a confidential settlement, the financial terms of which Intel disclosed in its Third Quarter 2005 10-Q. National media reported on the significance of the case, including articles in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and several technology news outlets.
• MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc. v. Sony (United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas) (2005-2007). Susman Godfrey also represented MicroUnity in this patent infringement case against Sony, alleging that Sony's PlayStation 2 and PlayStation Portable (PSP) game systems infringed MicroUnity's patents covering mediaprocessor and memory controller technology. Ms. Hoek again handled discovery and damages issues. The parties reached a confidential settlement in the Fall of 2007.
• Livid Holdings, Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., et al. (United States District Court, Western District of Washington) (2005-2006). In this securities lawsuit, plaintiff Livid sued the successor-in-interest to Schroeder's & Co., Inc., and several managing directors, alleging that it had relied on a Schroeder's prospectus which contained false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. Livid hired Susman Godfrey after the trial court dismissed its complaint. Susman Godfrey successfully argued before the Ninth Circuit and obtained reversal of the trial court's ruling (See Livid Holdings, Inc. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., et al.,416 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2005)), and Ms. Hoek successfully opposed a petition for rehearing en banc. Following remand to the trial court and after substantial discovery, the parties reached a confidential settlement.
• Stark v. Shapell Industries, Inc. (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles) (2005-2007). Susman Godfrey brought this class action on behalf of named plaintiff Allan Stark and others similarly situated who purchased homes from Shapell Industries, Inc. The complaint alleged that Shapell required purchasers to use Shapell's in-house escrow services as a condition of the purchase of a new home, in violation of California law. Ms. Hoek successfully argued in the Court of Appeal and defeated an extraordinary writ proceeding resulting in a published opinion on an issue of first impression of importance to California class action jurisprudence (See Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Superior Court, 132 Cal.App.4th 1101 (2005)). After obtaining class certification over vigorous opposition and defeating summary judgment, we reached a confidential settlement on behalf of the class.