Dave Bahler is a partner in Fulbright & Jaworski's Intellectual Property & Technology Department.  His practice emphasizes intellectual property/technology litigation including patent, trade secret, copyright and contract matters.  Mr. Bahler has significant experience managing cases, serving as first chair and primary client contact, conducting direct and cross examinations before judge and jury, seeking and opposing TROs/preliminary injunctions, seeking and opposing summary judgment, arguing frequently in court, taking and defending numerous depositions (including inventors and experts), participating in ADR and mediation, negotiating and drafting settlement agreements and licenses, handling appeals (including in the Federal Circuit) and drafting opinions.  Mr. Bahler has appeared in the following forums:  W.D. Tx., E.D. Tx. N.D Tx., S.D. Tx., N.D. Cal.,  S.D. Cal., E.D. Va., N.D. Ill., ITC, 7th J.D. Idaho and before the PTO. 

Mr. Bahler has handled patent and trade secret cases involving microprocessors, DRAMs and VRAMs, PC architecture, computer graphics, Internet and e-commerce business methods, closed circuit T.V. security systems, Ethernet network systems, medical insurance software, 800 number call routing software, card-based payment systems, RFID technology, voice transcription software, integrated circuit T.V. tuners, computer storage routers, remote telephony systems, electrical connector packing compounds, weapons systems, washing machine controls, occupancy-base lighting controls, structural fabrics, blood processing machines, weigh feeding systems,  in-circuit electrical component testers, printing calibration software and acoustic ranging devices.

• Obtained summary judgment of patent invalidity in the Southern District of California.  This resulted in a complete dismissal of an e-commerce patent case involving the on-line ordering of construction materials.
• Represented several major retailers in defending against patents directed to e-commerce business methods for selling products over the Internet.  The plaintiff had sued dozens of companies in the Eastern District of Texas, and all of the clients' cases were settled on favorable terms after a claims construction hearing.
• Defended major retailer in RFID tag product labeling case in the Eastern District of Texas.  After initial discovery and extended negotiation with the patent plaintiff, the case was dismissed without any liability.
• Defended major retailer in closed circuit television security case in the Eastern District of Texas.  After initial discovery and extended negotiations with the patent plaintiff, the case was dismissed without any liability. 
• Defended major health insurance company in medical diagnostic code software case in the Eastern District of Texas.  After discovery and during claim construction proceedings, the case was dismissed without liability.
• Defended major computer manufacturer in a multiple patent case involving PC architecture. After taking several inventor depositions and expert depositions, many of the asserted patents were dismissed on summary judgment, and the case was settled with respect to the remaining patents on terms that were favorable to the client.
• Represented small start-up telephone services company against major telephone company in patent case involving remote telephony systems.  After completion of extensive discovery and claim construction proceedings, and after completion of a preliminary injunction hearing, the case settled favorably.
• Represented major  manufacturing company in patent case involving packing compounds for buried telephone cable splices.  After completion of a jury trial and appeal, the case settled on terms favorable to the client.
• Defended two different companies in a patent cases involving computer storage routers.  After conducting a claims construction hearing and completion of two different jury trials, both cases settled on terms favorable to the client.
• Defended major medical products manufacturer in case involving seven patents directed to blood processing equipment.  After extensive discovery and after separate claims construction hearing for each patent followed by successful summary judgment motions, the case settled on terms favorable to the client.  

• American Bar Association
• American Intellectual Property Law Association
• Federal Circuit Bar Association
• Travis County Bar Association
• Austin Intellectual Property Law Association
• University of Texas School of Law, Adjunct Professor in patent litigation (1996 - 1999)

• "Patent Reform - Venue and Post Grant Review: What the Future Will Bear," AIPLA Spring Meeting, May 2008
• "The Modified Local Rules of the Eastern District of Texas," ABA Section of Litigation,  Intellectual Property Litigation Committee Newsletter, Page 8 - 9, Spring 2007
• "Business Method Patents: A Victim of Their Own Success?" ACCAmerica Austin Chapter Newsletter, Page 4 - 7, December 2006
• U.S. Patent Number 4,425,612, Inventor, "Power Supply With Load-Transient Anticipation,"  Issued January 10, 1984

• "Implications of Venue Reform and Post Grant Opposition," AIPLA Spring Meeting, Houston, Texas, May 2008

1985 - J.D., Honors, George Washington University
1978 - M.S.E.E., Duke University
1976 - B.S.E.E., Purdue University

Dave is a member of the Texas and Virginia bars and is admitted to practice in several federal courts including all Texas federal district courts, the northern district of California, the eastern district of Virginia, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court.

He is also registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.