Hector G. Gallegos

Hector G. Gallegos

Partner

Los Angeles, (213) 892-5255

Education

Loyola Marymount University (BSEE, 1984)
Loyola Marymount University (M.S.E.E., 1988)
University of California, Los Angeles (J.D., 1994)

Bar Admissions

California
U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
District of Columbia

Hector Gallegos is a litigation and trial partner in the firm’s Intellectual Property Group. His practice focuses on patent litigation and other complex disputes on behalf of leading technology companies. Mr. Gallegos represents foreign and domestic businesses in patent litigation in United States District Courts, before the International Trade Commission, and before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He has successfully tried numerous patent cases involving a range of technologies including programmable logic devices, integrated circuits, software, video processors, and mobile imaging systems. He also counsels clients in support of licensing intellectual property rights worldwide.

Mr. Gallegos was formerly head of the firm’s Los Angeles Litigation Department. In addition to his patent litigation practice, he has tried or litigated a broad range of complex business matters involving copyright infringement, software development disputes, misappropriation of trade secrets, brand value, executive compensation, and business valuation. Mr. Gallegos also has considerable experience with government contracts in the defense procurement area and has represented clients in connection with government investigations under the federal False Claims Act.

Mr. Gallegos’s effectiveness in advocacy on behalf of technology companies is bolstered by his technical education and seven years’ experience as an engineer with Hughes Aircraft Company, where he developed specific expertise designing and supervising design teams in the areas of computer hardware and software architecture, communication systems, digital and analog electronics, and digital signal processing. Mr. Gallegos holds undergraduate and graduate degrees in electrical engineering.

Active in several professional organizations, Mr. Gallegos served on the Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association’s Committee on Local Patent Rules for the Central District of California. He is a frequent speaker on intellectual property issues both in the United States and internationally. He has also served on the UCLA Law Alumni Board and is a trustee of the Mexican American Bar Foundation. From 2009 to 2012, Mr. Gallegos served on the Board of Commissioners for the Los Angeles Convention Center. Mr. Gallegos also maintains an active pro bono practice, and he was awarded the Pro Bono Civil Liberties Award by the ACLU Foundation of Southern California in 2000.

Lambeth Magnetic Structures, LLC v. Toshiba Corporation et al.
(Western District of Pennsylvania). Represent Toshiba defendants in patent infringement action involving hard disk drives.
In re Certain Computing or Graphics Systems, Components Thereof and Vehicles Containing Same
(International Trade Commission, 337-TA-984). Represented Honda and Fujitsu Ten Respondents in patent-based ITC Section 337 investigation involving integrated circuits.  Case terminated based on favorable settlement.
Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices
(ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-898). Led the firm’s patent litigation teams on behalf of Raymarine respondents in ITC Section 337 investigation involving sonar systems.  Case terminated based on favorable settlement.
In re Certain Electronic Imaging Devices
(International Trade Commission, 337-TA-850). Successfully defended Huawei Technologies through trial in a patent infringement case involving mobile imaging technology used in handsets, tablets, and other mobile devices.  The Commission affirmed the determination of non-infringement.  
Amado v. Microsoft Corporation
(Central District of California, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). Secured jury verdict in a software patent infringement trial against Microsoft Corporation. Judgment of infringement was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Norton v. Norton
(Los Angeles County Superior Court). Won a favorable decision in a protracted trial involving software development and copyright ownership, brand value, executive compensation, and business valuation.
Xilinx Inc. v. Altera Corporation
(Northern District of California, International Trade Commission, 337-TA-441). Successfully defended Altera Corporation in patent infringement trials in district court and the International Trade Commission involving programmable logic devices. The district court granted judgment to Altera, and a favorable settlement was reached before a post-trial decision was rendered by the judge in the ITC action.
Centillion Data Systems v. Qwest Corporation, et al.
(Southern District of Indiana, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). Prevailed on summary judgment of patent non-infringement involving telephone billing systems.
Computer Cache Coherency Corporation v. Intel Corporation
(Northern District of California, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). Prevailed on summary judgment of patent non-infringement involving interface circuits in multiprocessor systems. Affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Angeion Corporation v. Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc.
(District of Minnesota). Prevailed on summary judgment of patent infringement involving implantable defibrillator technology and subsequently obtained a $35 million settlement.
Lambeth Magnetic Structures, LLC v. Toshiba Corporation et al.
(Western District of Pennsylvania). Represent Toshiba defendants in patent infringement action involving hard disk drives.
In re Certain Computing or Graphics Systems, Components Thereof and Vehicles Containing Same
(International Trade Commission, 337-TA-984). Represented Honda and Fujitsu Ten Respondents in patent-based ITC Section 337 investigation involving integrated circuits.  Case terminated based on favorable settlement.
Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices
(ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-898). Led the firm’s patent litigation teams on behalf of Raymarine respondents in ITC Section 337 investigation involving sonar systems.  Case terminated based on favorable settlement.
In re Certain Electronic Imaging Devices
(International Trade Commission, 337-TA-850). Successfully defended Huawei Technologies through trial in a patent infringement case involving mobile imaging technology used in handsets, tablets, and other mobile devices.  The Commission affirmed the determination of non-infringement.  
Amado v. Microsoft Corporation
(Central District of California, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). Secured jury verdict in a software patent infringement trial against Microsoft Corporation. Judgment of infringement was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Norton v. Norton
(Los Angeles County Superior Court). Won a favorable decision in a protracted trial involving software development and copyright ownership, brand value, executive compensation, and business valuation.
Xilinx Inc. v. Altera Corporation
(Northern District of California, International Trade Commission, 337-TA-441). Successfully defended Altera Corporation in patent infringement trials in district court and the International Trade Commission involving programmable logic devices. The district court granted judgment to Altera, and a favorable settlement was reached before a post-trial decision was rendered by the judge in the ITC action.
Centillion Data Systems v. Qwest Corporation, et al.
(Southern District of Indiana, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). Prevailed on summary judgment of patent non-infringement involving telephone billing systems.
Computer Cache Coherency Corporation v. Intel Corporation
(Northern District of California, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). Prevailed on summary judgment of patent non-infringement involving interface circuits in multiprocessor systems. Affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Angeion Corporation v. Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc.
(District of Minnesota). Prevailed on summary judgment of patent infringement involving implantable defibrillator technology and subsequently obtained a $35 million settlement.

Email Disclaimer

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our Privacy Policy, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.

©1996-2017 Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved.