Kristin Hucek is not just an experienced litigator; she is an ardent advocate known for her tenacity and creativity in solving her clients’ most difficult legal challenges. Whether representing Fortune 100 companies in cutting-edge intellectual property disputes or fighting for the Constitutional rights of incarcerated individuals, Kristin thrives on delivering results-oriented, bottom-line strategies.
A problem solver at heart, Kristin's practice is centered around three core areas: intellectual property, antitrust, and civil rights. In the realm of intellectual property, she boasts a substantial track record litigating diverse cases involving patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets. Notably, she recently led the defense for Google and its Nest thermostat products in a patent case in the Western District of Texas, securing a jury verdict of non-infringement on one patent and invalidating another on summary judgment. She has also helped secure a complete victory for Qualcomm in cases brought by the Federal Trade Commission and a putative class of 250 million cellphone users challenging Qualcomm’s licensing practices. Kristin represented Qualcomm at a month-long bench trial in the FTC action and helped obtain two Ninth Circuit victories, which overturned both a nationwide injunction and class certification.
In her pro bono practice, Kristin has represented a group of San Quentin prisoners in a habeas corpus action challenging the conditions of their confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic. After an evidentiary hearing, Kristin and her team secured a ruling that the prisoners’ constitutional rights were violated by the state’s actions.
Prior to joining Keker, Van Nest & Peters, Kristin was a trial attorney for the special litigation section of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and an attorney advisor to the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Pardon Attorney. She also gained valuable experience an associate at a Washington, D.C.-based law firm, focusing her practice on antitrust disputes.
Kristin's passion for knowledge and competitive spirit extend beyond the courtroom and onto the T.V. studio soundstage as a three-time Jeopardy! champion.
Kristin graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School and cum laude from the University of Virginia with a B.A. in Economics and French.
EcoFactor v. Google
We are defending Google in a series of patent cases brought by EcoFactor targeting Google’s Nest products, which are pending in the Northern District of California, which have been stayed pending inter partes review proceedings before the PTAB. We previously defended Google at trial in the Western District of Texas against patent claims brought by EcoFactor that involved four asserted patents, one of which EcoFactor dropped, and another of which we invalidated before trial. Two remaining patents proceeded to trial before Judge Albright. We obtained a jury verdict of non-infringement on one patent, and although the jury found one claim of the other infringed, we limited damages and eliminated running royalties.
Apple v. Williams
We defended Gerard Williams, a celebrated chip designer, in a case brought by Apple claiming that he breached contractual agreements and misappropriated trade secrets when he founded Nuvia, Inc., a leading-edge microchip company ultimately acquired by Qualcomm. The case was successfully resolved before trial.
Left Field v. Google
We defeated a class action lawsuit against Google, in which a putative nationwide class of restaurants alleged that Google’s food ordering products violated the Lanham Act and constituted counterfeiting. When granting our motion to dismiss, the court strongly implied that it would consider sanctioning the plaintiffs’ lawyers who had brought the case, identifying them by name in the court’s order. Plaintiffs thereafter dismissed their case with prejudice in exchange for an agreement that Google would not seek sanctions or fees.
Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm
We represent Qualcomm in a case brought by the FTC alleging that Qualcomm had failed to license its standard-essential patents at fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) royalty rates and that Qualcomm had engaged in exclusionary conduct that increased its competitors’ costs and reduced their ability and incentive to innovate. Following a month-long bench trial, the district court issued an injunction that would have forced Qualcomm to license rival chip suppliers and renegotiate its existing licenses with cellphone makers. In August of 2020 the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and vacated the injunction.
In Re: Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation
We represent Qualcomm with respect to claims brought by a putative class of 250 million cellphone users alleging that Qualcomm inflated mobile device prices through its standard-essential patent licensing practices. We successfully overturned a nationwide class certification order before the Ninth Circuit and eliminated much of the case on a subsequent motion to dismiss.
State of California v. Sutter Health
We defended Sutter Health from an antitrust lawsuit filed by California’s Attorney General in San Francisco Superior Court. The suit alleges that Sutter exploited its size and reach to extract “illegally inflated prices” from insurers, employers, and patients.
08/15/2024
The 2025 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America featured 25 KVP attorneys. Read more
01/17/2023
Keker, Van Nest & Peters is pleased to announce that the firm has elevated associates Bailey Heaps, Katie Lynn Joyce, and Chris Sun to Partners, and Kristin Hucek and Ian Kanig to Of Counsel, effective January 1, 2023. Read more
02/09/2022
The Daily Journal has included the firm's win, undoing class certification in an antitrust suit against Qualcomm, among the Top Appellate Reversals of 2021. Read more
December 31, 2019
When it came to challenging a controversial felony murder bill that went into effect Jan. 1, 2019, Southern California prosecutors took a harder line than many of their counterparts in the rest of the state. But since November, when the 4th District Court of Appeal published two opinions affirming the validity of SB 1437, the state's largest local prosecutor's office has stopped disputing the bill altogether. Read more