Sophie Hood handles complex litigation, regularly arguing in both federal and state court. She has represented clients in civil and criminal cases involving intellectual property, fraud, breach of contract, antitrust, and securities disputes. Ms. Hood also devotes her time to pro bono matters, including high-impact appellate cases.
Prior to joining Keker, Van Nest & Peters, Ms. Hood was a fellow at the Information Law Institute of New York University, where she focused on privacy and technology. Before attending law school, Ms. Hood worked as an analyst in Morgan Stanley’s Institutional Securities division and as a research associate at Harvard Business School. Ms. Hood speaks Spanish and grew up in San Francisco.
On behalf of a venture capital firm and its general partners, we defeated aggressive litigation filed by one of the firm’s portfolio companies. Our client had invested in the plaintiff company more than 25 years prior to the litigation, and was the plaintiff’s largest minority shareholder. The case began when our client exercised its contractual right to compel the plaintiff’s IPO so it could finally liquidate its investment. The plaintiff retaliated by accusing a firm partner who had exercised his stock options of breach of contract, conversion, and fraud. After successfully getting the case moved from Orange County to San Mateo, we battled with the plaintiff over the sufficiency of its pleadings and defeated a succession of attempts by the plaintiff to uncover in discovery our clients’ confidential and irrelevant business strategies concerning its investment. Ultimately, despite repeated efforts by the plaintiff to expand and delay the litigation, we convinced the San Mateo Superior Court to grant our clients’ motion for summary judgment in its entirety.
We defended Veeva Systems from patent infringement allegations brought by its competitor in the Northern District of California. The patents relate to the creation of email messages using multiple layers and/or content available on servers. We successfully narrowed the scope of the case from five patents to two, and further narrowed the case when the court agreed one of the claims was invalid. After that, we secured a very successful settlement for a fraction of the original demand.
On April 26 District Court Judge Edward Chen granted a statewide preliminary injunction in Essential Access Health v. Azar, et al., a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s sweeping changes to the federal Title X family planning program. Read more
Representing Essential Access Health and Dr. Melissa Marshall, Keker, Van Nest & Peters filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent the Department of Health and Human Services from enforcing sweeping changes to the Title X Family Planning Program. Read more
Following the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ finalization of sweeping changes to the Title X Family Planning Program, Keker, Van Nest & Peters has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Essential Access Health and Dr. Melissa Marshall, a family medicine doctor practicing at a Title X-funded health center in Yolo County, California. Read more
Gene Paige, Christa Anderson and their KVN team convinced a federal judge to invalidate patents as indefinite because they do not provide information about what falls outside the claims. Read more