×
Go back to Martindale-Avvo ➔

Greenberg Traurig, LLPShare Holder
Valerie W. Ho
Pro

Valerie W. Ho

Not yet reviewed

1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900, Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121

Intellectual Property & Technology, Retail, Copyright Registration & Licensing and 7 more

About Valerie W. Ho

Valerie Ho is a seasoned legal advisor with over 20 years of experience counseling and representing e-commerce, retail and technology clients in the United States and Asia. Valerie represents and advises clients on various intellectual property (copyright, trademark, patent, licensing) and platform liability, regulatory and trade matters.

Valerie has served in corporate counsel roles and was General Counsel for the Americas at e-commerce company SHEIN. Valerie has robust experience working with in-house legal and business terms to design and implement multi-layer compliance programs, including those relating to IP compliance, regulatory compliance, supply chain and forced labor compliance and platform governance.

Valerie also has deep experience in both federal and state courts, having handled numerous intellectual property, platform liability, and other commercial disputes, both as outside and in-house counsel. Her litigation experience includes trials, arbitrations, and numerous court hearings and depositions.

Concentrations

•e-Commerce
•Platform governance and liability
•Regulatory compliance
•Intellectual property counseling
•Intellectual property litigation

Recognition & Leadership

Awards & Accolades

•Listed, Thomson Reuters, “Stand-Out Lawyers,” 2026
•Listed, Managing IP Magazine's World IP Handbook and Survey, 'IP Stars: Los Angeles Patent Stars and Trademark Stars,' 2014-2020
•Listed, 'IP Stars-Top 250 Women in IP,' 2013-2014
•Listed, Super Lawyers magazine, Southern California Super Lawyers, 'Rising Stars,' 2006-2009, 2011-2012

 

Valerie W. Ho (Los Angeles, California) View website

Reviews for Valerie W.

This lawyer does not have any client reviews on Lawyers.com yet

Write a Review

Services

Areas of Law

  • Intellectual Property 1
    • Trade Secrets
  • Other 9
    • Intellectual Property & Technology
    • Retail
    • Copyright Registration & Licensing
    • Anti-Counterfeiting
    • Regulatory & Compliance
    • Internet, Domain Name, E-Commerce & Social Media
    • Intellectual Property Litigation
    • Trademark & Brand Management
    • Innovation & Artificial Intelligence

Practice Details

  • Languages
    Chinese (Cantonese)
    Native; Chinese (M
    arin)
    Conversational
  • Firm Information
    Position
    Shareholder
    Firm Name
    Greenberg Traurig, LLP
  • Representative Cases & Transactions
    Cases
    Experience: Patent Litigation: Braun Melsungen AG, et al. v. Becton, Dickinson
    Company, et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware): Representation of B. Braun in a litigation involving infringement by Becton, Dickinson
    Company of 10 patents generally relating to IV catheter safety systems.
    CareFusion 303, Inc. v. B. Braun Medical, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California): Represented B. Braun in patent infringement suit involving medical devices. Case was dismissed on the eve of trial after Court awarded terminating sanctions.
    Fastek, LLC v. Steco, et al. (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California): Represented Fastek
    Advanced Steel Technology in patent infringement suit involving container loading machinery. Obtained favorable Markman Fastek, LLC v. Steco, 2011 WL 4499101 (Sept. 27, 2011)
    Fastek, LLC v. Steco, 2011 WL 1304606 (April 6, 2011).
    Innovation First Labs, Inc. v. Toysmith Group (Northern District of Texas): Represented Innovation First in patent infringement suit involving robotic toys.
    Philips LCD Co. Ltd. v. Tatung Company, et al. (U.S. District Court for District of Delaware): Represented major computer
    electronic home appliance company in patent litigation involving flat panel display technology. Obtained Markman victory followed by favorable settlement.
    Philips LCD Co. Ltd. v. Tatung Company, et al. (U.S. District Court for Central District of California): Litigated patent infringement action involving liquid crystal display mounting technology on behalf of major computer
    electronic home appliance company.
    Silverlit Toys Manufactory
    Spin Master LLC v. Innovage LLC
    MerchSource LLC (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California): Obtained permanent injunction
    product recall in design patent
    trade dress case involving remote controlled toys.
    Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al. (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas): Represented Samsung in patent litigation involving pedometer application on mobile devices. Won Daubert motion on the eve of trial which excluded most of plaintiff's damages
    case subsequently was dismissed. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00651-JRG, 2019 WL 2267212 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2019).
    Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al. (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas): Represented Samsung in patent litigation involving wireless communications technologies.
    Uniloc 2017, LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al. (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas): Represented Samsung in patent litigation involving video processing technology.
    Uniloc 2017, LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al. (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas): Represented Samsung in patent litigation involving lock screen security in mobile devices.
    Trademark
    Copyright Litigation: TI Beverage Group, Ltd. et al. v. eBay Inc., et al. (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California): Represented eBay in suit involving claims of trademark infringement, dilution
    unfair competition. Obtained dismissal of action.
    BB Online UK Limited v. 101domain, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California): Represented 101domain in domain name
    trademark dispute, which resulted in global transfer of domains
    marks to 101domain.
    Brown-Forman v. Barton, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky): Obtained national product recall on behalf of large alcoholic beverages company in trademark
    trade dress infringement case after two week trial. Defeated counterclaim for false advertising under the Lanham Act.
    Hansen Beverage Company v. National Beverage Corp., et al. (U.S. District Court for Central District of California): Represented large beverage company in trade dress action involving popular energy drinks.
    Jimmy Buffett v. Cheeseburger in Paradise, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California): Obtained permanent injunction in trademark infringement
    breach of contract action.
    Aqua Products, Inc. v. Innovation First, Inc., et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey): Represented Innovation First, Inc.
    Innovation First Labs, Inc. in trademark infringement
    unfair competition suit.
    Spin Master Ltd., et al. v. Your Store Online LLC, et al. (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California): Represented toy manufacturers
    distributors in patent, trademark
    copyright infringement action against online retailer. Obtained consent permanent injunction
    monetary recovery.
    Spin Master Ltd., et al. v. Ecoman Corp. (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California): Represented toy manufacturers
    distributors in patent
    copyright infringement action involving patent mismarking counterclaims. Obtained consent permanent injunction.
    Spin Master Ltd., et al. v. Raiden Technology, et al. (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California): Represented toy manufacturers
    distributors in copyright
    trademark infringement action. Obtained temporary restraining order, consent permanent injunction
    monetary recovery.
    Spin Master Ltd., et al. v. Hobbytron, et al. (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California): Represented toy manufacturers
    distributors in patent, copyright, trademark
    false advertising action. Obtained consent permanent injunction
    monetary recovery.
    Spin Master Ltd., et al. v. Rooftop Br
    s (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California): Represented toy manufacturers
    distributors in patent
    copyright infringement action. Obtained favorable settlement.
    Mario Valentino S.p.A. v. MDG International, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California): Represented clothing
    accessories designer/retailer in trademark enforcement action. Obtained consent permanent injunction
    monetary recovery.
    Lomax v. Apple, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California): represented Apple in copyright dispute.
    Oracle America Inc. v. Google Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California): Represented Google in software copyright infringement suit.
    UMG Recordings Inc. v. Crackle Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California): Represented user-generated content website in copyright infringement suit.
    Grecco v. Movie Market (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California): Litigated copyright infringement case on behalf of well-known celebrity photographer.
    Tech-4-Kids v. Sports Dimension (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California): Represented Tech-4-Kids in trade secret misappropriation
    breach of contract action.
    Entertainment Litigation: CatchPlay Inc. v. Studio Solutions Group, Inc., et al. (Central District of California): Represented Taiwan motion picture distributor in contract
    fraud action involving a library of over 1000 works
    obtained preliminary
    permanent injunction.
    Emperor v. NBC Universal (California State Court): Defeated request for injunction in contract
    interference action involving The Mummy 3.
    Yu v. Asia-Pacific California, Inc. (California State Court
    Court of Appeal): Won Anti-SLAPP motion
    obtained dismissal of defamation action
    attorneys' fees. Argued
    won appeal before California Court of Appeal.
    In-House Experience: General Counsel for the Americas, SHEIN, 2021-2024
  • Additional Links
    https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/h/ho-valerie-w

Experience

  • Bar Admission & Memberships
    Admissions
    1999, 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 Northern District of California
    U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
    U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
    Memberships

    Professional & Community Involvement

    •Member, American Intellectual Property Law Association
    •Member, American Bar Association
    •Member, California State Bar, Intellectual Property Section
    •Member, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association
    •Board Member, Barristers, Los Angeles, Board of Directors, 2005-2006

  • Education & Certifications
    Law School
    University of California at Los Angeles, School of Law
    Class of 1998
    J.D.
    Other Education
    University of California at Berkeley
    Class of 1994
    B.A.
    Psychology

    University of California at Berkeley
    Class of 1994
    B.A.
    Legal Studies
  • Personal Details & History
    Age
    Born in 1972
    Canton, China, 1972

Email Valerie W. Ho

Case type is required.
I am is required.
First name is required.
Last name is required.
A valid zip code is required.
Country is required.
State is required.
A valid city is required.
A valid email address is required.
A valid phone number is required.
Message is required.
0/1000 characters

By clicking the Submit button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Lawyers.com and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA. See Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Thank you! Your message has been successfully sent.

For your records, a copy of this email has been sent to test@test.com.

Summary of Your Message
Case Type:
I am a/an:
First Name:
Last Name:
City:
Zip Code or Postal Code:
State:
Country:
Phone Number:
Message:
Return to Profile Reset Form

Attorneys FAQs

  • What year was this attorney first admitted to the bar?
    Valerie W. Ho was admitted in 1999 to the State of California.
  • Is this attorney admitted to practice in any U.S. Federal Courts?
    Valerie W. Ho is admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Central District of California, United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, United States District Court for the Northern District of California and United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
  • Does this attorney speak any other languages?
    Valerie W. Ho speaks Chinese (Cantonese), Native; Chinese (Mandarin) and Conversational.
  • What law school did this attorney attend?
    Valerie W. Ho attended University of California at Los Angeles, School of Law.
  • What year was this attorney's law firm established?
    Greenberg Traurig, LLP was established in 1967.

Attorney information displayed in this FAQ section is based upon information the lawyer has included on their profile, in addition to the information we collect from state bar associations and other organizations that license legal professionals.

These FAQs include information about a lawyer's background, but do not evaluate their knowledge of the law, past performance on individual cases, personality, or communication skills.

It is solely the responsibility of lawyers and law firms to ensure that any information they provide complies with all applicable laws and rules of professional conduct.

You should be aware that the information we rely upon may not be comprehensive, or frequently updated.

Always research the lawyer further to get a better understanding of their license credentials, disciplinary status, background, and experience.

Lawyers.com Client Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review Ratings™ display reviews submitted by individuals who have either hired or consulted the lawyers or law firms.

The Client Review Rating score is determined through the aggregation of validated responses. People who submit reviews are either individuals who consulted with the lawyer/law firm or who hired the lawyer/law firm and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be anyone who consults or hires a lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals.

Martindale-Hubbell validates that a reviewer is a person with a valid email address. As part of the review process, respondents must affirm that they have had an initial consultation, are currently a client or have been a client of the lawyer or law firm identified, although Martindale-Hubbell cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship as it is often confidential. The content of the responses is entirely from reviewers.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review. For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings, please visit our Client Review Page

Martindale Peer Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ are the gold standard in attorney ratings, and have been for more than a century. These ratings indicate attorneys who are widely respected by their peers for their ethical standards and legal expertise in a specific area of practice.

The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings process is the gold standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness. Lawyers solicited for peer reviews include both those selected by the attorney being reviewed and lawyers independently selected by Martindale-Hubbell. All reviewers are verified as attorneys through Martindale-Hubbell’s extensive attorney database. Only attorneys practicing at least three years and receiving a sufficient number of reviews from non-affiliated attorneys are eligible to receive a Rating.

What are the different Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings?*

• AV Preeminent®: The highest peer rating standard. This rating signifies that a large number of the lawyer’s peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards.

• Distinguished: An excellent rating for a lawyer with some experience. This rating indicates the attorney is widely respected by their peers for high professional achievement and ethical standards.

• Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards.

Lawyers who have received peer reviews after 2009 will display more detailed information, including practice areas, summary ratings, detailed numeric ratings and written feedback (if available). Details for individual reviews received before 2009 are not displayed.

Attorneys that receive reviews from their peers, but not a sufficient number to establish a Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating, will have those reviews display on our websites.

For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings™, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked Questions