This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, my conversation with Hilary Preston, partner at Vinson & Elkins and co-head of its intellectual property and technology litigation practice, underscores a fundamental shift in how sophisticated organizations approach intellectual property. What was once a reactive, litigation-centric discipline, is rapidly evolving into something far more strategic—an integrated function that sits at the intersection of technology, business, and risk management.

Preston outlines her evolution from a general litigator into a leading IP strategist, highlighting how deep technical fluency—grounded in her physics background—became a competitive differentiator in high-stakes disputes. The discussion traces structural shifts in patent litigation over the past two decades, including venue realignment, the rise of specialized judicial expertise, Judge Alan Albright’s tenure in the Western District of Texas, and the likely impact that Albright’s resignation will have on patent litigation for years to come.

The conversation then pivots to what Preston characterizes as “innovation governance”—a holistic operating model that integrates risk assessment, mitigation, licensing strategy, and, when necessary, litigation. Rather than positioning herself as a “sports” or “media” lawyer, Preston explains her practice as technology-centric problem solving across industries, which include the sports and entertainment industries. She details how legal teams must move upstream—anticipating IP risk in streaming platforms, content delivery architectures, and digital ecosystems—while maintaining alignment with core business objectives. Quinn and Preston converge on a critical insight: high-value counsel is defined less by discrete legal outputs and more by the ability to diagnose underlying business problems and deliver actionable, forward-looking solutions.

Finally, the discussion addresses emerging pressure points shaping the next phase of IP and technology. Preston identifies artificial intelligence not just as a software issue, but as an infrastructure challenge—driving massive investment in data centers, energy systems, and associated IP frameworks. This shift is already catalyzing new ownership disputes and litigation vectors. Looking ahead, both Quinn and Preston spotlight unresolved policy tensions, particularly around injunctions and their role in balancing innovation incentives against market competition. The takeaway is clear: as technology complexity scales, the IP function is transitioning from reactive enforcement to strategic governance—requiring practitioners who can operate at the intersection of law, engineering, and enterprise strategy.

From General to IP and Patent Litigation

We begin as we often do, by discussing how Preston got into IP, how she got into litigation, and which came first. Preston was initially trained as a general litigator who migrated into IP over time. Driven by a desire to re-engage with the technical complexity she first encountered studying physics, IP litigation was a natural fit. That technical grounding in general litigation and dispute resolution now informs her practice, which spans across industries—from sports and media to energy and infrastructure—yet is unified by a common framework: understanding the technology that drives business value, identifying the associated risks, and aligning legal strategy accordingly.

Over the past two decades, the litigation landscape itself has undergone structural transformation. Early in her career, multi-defendant patent cases were commonplace. Today, statutory changes and judicial developments have shifted the paradigm toward one-on-one disputes, fundamentally altering litigation strategy. Venue has also become a central battleground, with decisions reshaping where cases can be brought and adjudicated. The rise of specialized patent dockets—most notably under judges like Alan Albright and Rodney Gilstrap—has further concentrated expertise in certain jurisdictions.

As I pointed out during our discussion, the criticism directed at judges who actively cultivate patent dockets has always struck me as misplaced. Specialization is not a flaw; it is a feature. In any other professional context, attempting to be a generalist across highly technical domains would raise ethical concerns. Yet we continue to expect judges to master everything from simple personal injury matters, to antitrust to criminal law, and patents too. Preston’s response was measured but telling: “I don’t think there is… anything… wrong with creating a court that is equipped to handle patent cases.” The implication is clear—expertise enhances efficiency and predictability, two attributes the patent system desperately needs.

Proactive Innovation Governance

Perhaps the most important takeaway from our conversation was Preston’s articulation of what she calls “innovation governance.” This is not merely a rebranding of traditional IP counseling. It is a reframing of the lawyer’s role from problem-solver to strategic advisor embedded with specific knowledge of the client’s business. In practice, this means moving upstream. Rather than waiting for litigation to arise, Preston and her team engage at the earliest stages of product development. They assess the competitive landscape, identify potential patent risks, and determine whether those risks can be mitigated through design changes, licensing, or partnerships. Litigation, in this model, is the last resort—not the starting point—although still often necessary.

This approach is particularly critical in industries like sports and digital media, where the monetization of content depends on complex technological ecosystems. Streaming platforms, content delivery networks, encryption protocols—these are not just technical components; they are potential sources of IP exposure. As Preston explained, the task is to “look at what the ultimate goal is of the client” and then align legal strategy with that objective.

The broader lesson here is that labels like “sports lawyer” or “entertainment lawyer” are largely meaningless. These are industries, not legal disciplines. The real differentiator is domain expertise—understanding the technology that underpins those industries and the accompanying legal risks. For younger lawyers, this presents both a challenge and an opportunity. Developing a marketable skill set requires more than mastering legal doctrine. It requires a deep understanding of the client’s business and the ability to translate that understanding into actionable advice. As Preston puts it, “You have got to have some core part of whatever your job is… that lights you up.” That intellectual curiosity is what drives expertise—and, ultimately, value.

Building Lasting Client Relationships

Our conversation also touches on the mechanics of building client relationships, an area where many practitioners struggle. Too often, lawyers view client interactions as transactional. But the reality is that long-term success depends on trust and relevance. As I said during the discussion, “If they don’t know who you are, they’re never going to hire you.” Visibility is the first hurdle; credibility is the second.

Preston’s advice is refreshingly pragmatic. Start small. Deliver excellence on discrete tasks. Then expand the relationship incrementally by demonstrating awareness of the client’s broader challenges. Over time, this builds the foundation for more strategic engagement. No shortcuts available.

That compounding effect is particularly evident in how clients come to rely on outside counsel. In many cases, the initial engagement is narrowly defined—a lawsuit, a contract, a specific issue. But as Preston notes, the real value emerges when lawyers anticipate problems before they arise. When I asked how often clients misunderstand their own needs—they come asking for X and really need Y—she simply said “every day.” The implication is that proactive counsel is not just beneficial—it is essential because all too often clients think they know what they need what what they want isn’t actually likely to solve the real, underlying problem they have.

Artificial Intelligence Infrastructure

No discussion would be complete without addressing artificial intelligence in some way or fashion. Here, Preston offers a perspective that is often overlooked. While much of the conversation around AI focuses on algorithms and data, she emphasized the infrastructure required to support it. Data centers, energy generation, cooling systems—these are the physical foundations of AI, and they present a host of new legal challenges.

This infrastructure build-out is already driving significant IP activity. Questions around ownership, licensing, and enforcement are emerging in real time, often in high-stakes contexts. As Preston observed, the scale and complexity of these projects make them fertile ground for disputes. At the same time, they create opportunities for lawyers who can navigate both the technical and legal dimensions.

Injunctions and Incentivizing Innovation

Looking ahead, Preston believes one of the most consequential issues in patent law may be the role of injunctions. The current regime, shaped in large part by the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay v. MercExchange, has limited the availability of injunctive relief. This has shifted the balance toward monetary remedies, raising questions about whether the system adequately incentivizes innovation. Preston highlighted this as an area deserving greater attention, particularly in competitor-versus-competitor disputes. The question is not simply whether injunctions should be more or less available, but how they influence behavior. Do they encourage settlement and licensing, or do they stifle competition? The answer is likely context-dependent, but the stakes are high.

From my perspective, the loss of injunctive leverage has had unintended consequences. As I explained during our conversation, “I would rather it come to a conclusion or boardroom than at the Federal Circuit.” Litigation should be a means to an end, not an end in itself. The goal is resolution—ideally one that aligns with the business interests of all parties involved.

The Bottom Line

Ultimately, what emerged from this discussion is a vision of IP practice that is far more integrated and strategic than the traditional model. It is a shift from courtroom to boardroom counselor—from reactive defense to proactive governance. For practitioners, this requires a broader skill set and a willingness to engage deeply with technology and business. For clients, it offers the promise of more effective risk management and better alignment between legal strategy and commercial objectives.

More IPWatchdog Unleashed

You can listen to the entire podcast episode by downloading it wherever you normally access podcasts or by visiting IPWatchdog Unleashed on Buzzsprout. You can also listen to IPWatchdog Unleashed conversations on the IPWatchdog YouTube channel. For more IPWatchdog Unleashed, see below for our growing archive of previous episodes.