Holly Gaudreau focuses her practice on commercial litigation, including antitrust, unfair competition, trademark, and copyright. She also advises clients on compliance and litigation matters involving California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Proposition 65).
Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Gaudreau was an associate at a California-based litigation boutique. She also served as a judicial extern for the Honorable Ming W. Chin of the California Supreme Court. In addition, Ms. Gaudreau participated in her law school’s international human rights clinic and lobbied delegates of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, Switzerland.
Prior to law school, Ms. Gaudreau worked as a senior legislative aide for a member of Congress in Washington, D.C. and was responsible for legislation involving international trade, science and technology, telecommunications, the environment, energy and small business.
Ms. Gaudreau is a member of the firm's Pro Bono Committee. She was recognized as a 2017 Northern California “Super Lawyer” for Intellectual Property Litigation by Super Lawyers magazine. Ms. Gaudreau is the recipient of Iranian American Bar Association Northern Chapter 2014 Pro Bono Award.
Represented plaintiff in predatory pricing, tying, price and services discrimination claims against rival provider of San Francisco Bay Cruises. Favorable settlement at trial after successful appeal. Fisherman's Wharf Bay Cruise Corp. v. Blue & Gold Fleet, 7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 628 (2004); 114 Cal. App. 4th 309 (2003).
Succeeded in winning a jury verdict for a small San Francisco marketing firm against a subsidiary of the $55-billion News Corporation empire, operated by Rupert Murdoch. The firm proved to the jury that News America used steep discriminatory price discounts to corner the United States market for promotional circulars that were distributed through newspapers around the nation. The federal court affirmed the jury's verdict as a violation of the California antitrust laws, which prohibit the use of discriminatory price discounts to lock out competitors. Theme Promotions, Inc. dba Theme Co-Op Promotions vs. News America Marketing FSI, Inc., 546 F 3d 991 (2008); 731 F. Supp. 2d 937 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
Representing leading online retailer in litigation brought against other retailers under the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). Moorberg v. 1-800-Flowers.com Inc. (State of California, San Francisco County Superior Court, No. CGC-14-541129) (2014).
Represented global chemical products company in antitrust and unfair competition lawsuits against a number of the client's suppliers that were accused of participating in a conspiracy to fix prices and restrain trade in the carbon fiber market. Cytec Engineered Materials, Inc. v. Hercules, et al., No. 8:07-cv-00528-FMC-RNBx (C.D. Cal. 2007). Cytec Engineered Materials Inc. v. Hercules, et al., No. BC370895 (State of California, Los Angeles Superior Court (2010).
Represented Sony Network Entertainment International LLC in patent infringement action related to authorizing access to digital content. William Grecia v. Sony Network Entertainment International LLC, No. 3:14-cv-00969-EMC (N.D. Cal. 2014) (Consolidated lead case 3:14-cv-00775-EMC).
Represented plaintiffs in action involving copyright restoration under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Golan, et al. v. Ashcroft, et al., No. 01-1854 (D. Colo. filed Sept. 19, 2001).
Represented GO Computer, Inc. in antitrust action alleging exclusionary practices. GO Computer Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation (State of California, San Francisco Superior Court, No. CGC-05-442684) (2005).
Represented SCEA in a Lanham Act, unfair competition, misappropriation and tortious interference action involving SCEA's fictional character used to promote PlayStation® products. Sony Computer Entm't Am. LLC v. Bridgestone Americas, Inc., No. C12-04753 CRB (N.D. Cal. filed Sept. 11, 2012).
Achieved a settlement on behalf of Bassett Furniture Industries, Inc. in litigation brought against Bassett and over 150 other furniture manufacturers and retailers under the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). In Re Proposition 65 Flame Retardant Cases (consolidated action) (State of California, Alameda County Superior Court, No. R13673678) (2013).
Represented a green technology company in licensing dispute and prosecuted cross-claim for breach of warranty and fraud. Clean Heat LLC v. Enviro-Log Inc. (State of California, Shasta County Superior Court, No. 173130) (2011).
University of San Francisco School of Law, J.D. (2000) Moot Court Award for Best Oral Argument; Journal of Law and Social Challenges, Staff Editor; Intellectual Property Law Bulletin, Staff Editor; Saul Leftowitz Intellectual Property Moot Court Competition, Participant
Hanover College, B.A., International Studies and Communication (1991)
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
American Bar Association, Litigation and Antitrust Sections, Member
The Bar Association of San Francisco, Antitrust and Business Regulation, Intellectual Property Section, International Human Rights Section, Member
The Bar Association of San Francisco, Justice & Diversity Center, Board Member
University of San Francisco School of Law, LL.M. Student Mentor
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.