Practice Areas - Litigation/Trial Practice
- Intellectual Property Litigation
- Business Litigation
- Financial Crisis Advisory and Litigation
- Media and First Amendment Litigation
- Real Estate and Construction Litigation
| - Internet, E-Commerce, Domain Names and Social Media
- Social Media
- Trademarks, Advertising and Brand Management
- Energy Litigation
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
|
|
|
|
| Contact Info | Telephone: 214-651-5247
Fax: 214-200-0463
http://www.haynesboone.com/david_harper/
|
|
| University | Baylor University, B.B.A., Economics/Finance, summa cum laude, 1988 |
|
| Law School | Harvard Law School, J.D., cum laude, 1991 |
|
| Admitted | 1991, Texas; 1992, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth and Tenth Circuits; U.S. District Court, Northern, Eastern, Southern, and Western Districts of Texas |
|
| Born | Dallas, Texas |
|
| ISLN | 901494397 |
|
| Transactions | Intellectual Property: Successful defense at trial of claims of copyright infringement, breach of license agreement and misappropriation of name brought by nationally syndicated radio show host against stage play production company and DVD distributor. Part of successful TSMC trial team winning claims of theft of semiconductor trade secrets as plaintiff against Chinese fab, SMIC. Successfully trying claims of breach of copyright license and distribution agreement for creator of BarneyÃ,® children's television series. Leading a copyright enforcement campaign for major software company, including litigation. Successful defense of multiple patent infringement lawsuits related to many technologies, including telecommunications and semiconductors. Enforcing e-commerce trademarks against alleged cybersquatters (Carrot Bunch Co., Inc. v. Computer Friends, Inc., 218 F.Supp. 2d 820 (N.D. Tex. 2002)). Defeating copyright claims about television reality series against a major sports league. Securing summary judgment on claims that domain name registrar did not violate federal Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999 and Texas trademark anti-dilution statute (Lockheed Martin v. Network Solutions, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 2d 648 (N.D. Tex. 2001)). Enforcing e-commerce forum selection clause in a case of first impression in Texas (Barnett v. Network Solutions, Inc., 38 S.W.3d 200, (Tex. App. - Eastland, pet. denied 2001)). Securing injunctive relief against employees to prevent their use of stolen trade secrets. Defense of major telecommunications company in false advertising disputes and trademark oppositions before TTAB. Complex Business Disputes: Defense of claims of shareholder oppression and breach of fiduciary duty at trial and appeal brought against privately held software company. Defending a trust against multi-million dollar claims of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy in a real estate transaction. Successful defense and resolution of complex partnership dispute and business separation. Software: Trying and defeating claims of software copyright infringement brought by former employee against major car rental company (Wood v. Cendant Corporation and Avis Holdings Group, Inc., 2006 WL 2045839 (N.D. Okla.). Prosecuted and resolved software copyright infringement and breach of license agreement claims for software provider against Fortune 5 company. Representing both software providers and customers in complex disputes over implementations of software. Media, Libel and Invasion of Privacy: Obtained summary judgment for financial publisher over alleged violations of federal and state securities laws. Multiple successful defenses of author of Stolen Valor in libel claims brought by individuals making false claims of military service and honors. Regularly advise media companies on pre-publication review issues. |
|
Documents by this lawyer on Martindale.com | |
The Status Quo Wins: Clear and Convincing Proof is Still Required to Invalidate Patent ClaimsDavid H. Harper,Steven M. Levitan,Kyle Musgrove,Kenneth G. Parker,Phillip B. Philbin, June 15, 2011 The Supreme Court ruled last week in Microsoft Corporation v. i4i Limited Partnership that “clear and convincing evidence” is still the standard of proof required to invalidate a patent. Section 282 of the Patent Act states that “a patent shall be presumed valid” and that... |
View Ratings & Reviews |
Profile Visibility  | | #300 in weekly profile views out of 15,825 lawyers in Dallas, Texas | | #25,998 in weekly profile views out of 1,447,639 total lawyers Overall |
|
|