Patent litigators often lean on expert witnesses to translate the complex technology at the heart of a case. Across a 30-year legal career, retired Dallas-based intellectual property litigator Hilda Galvan ’93 didn’t have to lean quite as hard.
Galvan began her career as an electrical engineer at Southwestern Bell before earning her J.D. from Texas Law. During nearly 28 years at Jones Day, Galvan served as partner-in-charge of Jones Day’s Dallas office and partner in its Intellectual Property practice. Her electrical engineering background became a major asset in her IP litigation work, allowing her to dig into the technical details, sharpen experts’ testimony, and build trial strategy from a deep understanding of the underlying technology.
Early in her practice, Galvan’s patent litigation work centered on hardware-heavy technologies like semiconductor processes, telecommunications systems, computer architecture, and circuit design. In recent years, she shifted toward artificial intelligence and blockchain technology, advising clients not only on defending IP in court, but also on strategy: how AI could disrupt business models and how to protect and position intellectual property as the technology evolves.
She’s represented companies in complex technology litigation in courts across the country, winning major cases for IBM, Charles Schwab, Motorola, and Compass Bank, and has also handled proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, where she helped clients challenge or defend patent validity outside traditional courtroom trials.
Galvan retired from Jones Day in 2024 to pursue tech startup consulting, corporate board work, and nonprofit advising. She’s this year’s Texas Law Alumni Association Outstanding Alumna honoree. We recently caught up with her.
A piece of advice my dad always gave me was, ‘Don’t let others define you,’ and that’s been a big part of how I’ve approached my career.
You trained as an engineer before going to law school. Why make that switch?
The decision to go to law school actually came before I started working as an engineer. As an undergrad at UTEP, I had a part-time job as a receptionist for a solo practitioner, then became his legal assistant. I’d go to trial with him, and that’s when I fell in love with the law. Most of the cases were family law-related, immigration-related, or small business disputes. The family law cases were challenging emotionally—the importance of succeeding felt much more real and more stressful. I wanted to go to law school, but first I needed to make some money, so I joined Southwestern Bell.
What was your role at Southwestern Bell, and what did you take from it?
My job involved helping the company use its computer and telecommunications network to provide service to customers. In my first role, I had a group of ten technicians who had 30-plus years of experience reporting to me. I was a 22-year-old woman right out of college, and I learned a lot from them. They knew I wanted to go to law school and, as I was moving up the management ranks, it was one of them who said to me, “Hilda, the worst thing in life is to say ‘I wish I had.’” Once I made the decision, I wanted to go to the top school, so I chose Texas Law.
What stands out to you most from your time at Texas Law?
I remember like it was yesterday the first time I was called on by a professor in the Socratic method—contracts with Professor Hamilton. I don’t remember the question, but I think it went all right because he moved on! It was my civil procedure professor who taught me how to think like a lawyer—that there isn’t one answer to a question, but a range. As an engineer, you tend to think in black and white and look for the most efficient answer. In law, you have to take what you have and make the most of it to argue your client’s position. That’s a skill I’ve used throughout my career and still use in my nonprofit work when addressing difficult issues.
How did law school shape the legal career you pursued?
My first-year summer, I worked in the mergers and acquisitions group at Strasburger and Price, and I decided that’s what I wanted to do—become a corporate lawyer. Out of school, I started as an M&A associate at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, but ended up doing a lot of copyright and trademark work. Disney was a client; we sued people making counterfeit Disney products. I wrote some patent applications, too. My favorite work really was patent litigation because I got to use my technology background. When you’re fighting about cutting-edge technology, you’re always learning, and I loved that intellectual challenge. I enjoyed working with experts, often professors, and opposing counsel was always really smart. In fact, Texas Law graduate Mike McKool ’74 became a mentor after we were opposing counsel. Now, at Gibson, we didn’t have a lot of patent litigation, so I joined Jones Day, which is known for that work. A piece of advice my dad always gave me was, “Don’t let others define you,” and that’s been a big part of how I’ve approached my career.
At Jones Day, you helped clients navigate the arrival of AI. What legal challenges did you see emerging, and what advice would you give the next generation of lawyers?
We were looking at the intellectual property questions of: Who owns the technology? Was AI involved in developing it? Can you patent something created with an AI system? We also dealt with employment issues and data privacy concerns when companies were using customers’ information. People need to understand AI and know how to use it, but not rely on it to the detriment of their own thinking. You’re not going to be replaced by AI, but you are going to be replaced by the lawyer who knows how to use it. For law firms, the bigger question is how to train lawyers and develop judgment when clients expect AI to review contracts and handle work that used to be done by junior associates. We’ve got to figure out how to use AI while still building that judgment. That’s really critical.
Tell us about bringing a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office regional office to Dallas.
It was over a decade ago when the Patent and Trademark Office started opening regional offices. I was president of the intellectual property section of the Dallas Bar Association and spent a lot of time pulling together data to support opening an office in Dallas. New technology companies were coming to Texas, and it was great to have patent examiners on the Patent Office side based here so you didn’t have to travel to Washington for an interview with an examiner. Before COVID and remote work, that was a really big deal. The office has created tremendous opportunities for IP lawyers in Texas—you don’t have to move to D.C.!
What has retirement looked like for you so far?
There are a lot of women-owned businesses with great ideas that don’t always get the financial support they need to grow. I’m investing in these startups and advising them on intellectual property. Hopefully it makes a difference in their businesses, and if they’re successful, I’m happy to have helped. Most of the companies are Dallas-based healthcare startups. Software in that space has always raised the question: Do you protect it through a patent or through copyright? Sometimes it’s copyright, sometimes it’s a patent. It depends, in part, on whether there’s something truly new and unique about it.
What is something you’re especially excited about this year outside the law?
I won a raffle to be a conductor with the Dallas Symphony Orchestra for its Christmas program this year. You get a couple of lessons to prepare, so I’ll be doing that in December. I love the performing arts. I’d also love to learn to sing. I have this dream that if I take voice lessons, I might eventually be able to sing well enough to not embarrass myself.