Charles E. Fowler, Jr.

Charles Fowler leads McKool Smith’s appellate practice. Charles handles appeals and supports trial teams in commercial, intellectual property, and criminal cases. An experienced first-chair appellate advocate, Charles has been lead counsel in well over 100 appeals and writ proceedings and has presented 25 appellate oral arguments spanning the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Federal Circuits, the Texas Court of Appeals, and the New York Appellate Division. Charles also has substantial trial experience in state and federal courts across the country.

Charles routinely scores appellate wins for clients in complex, high-stakes cases. Recent examples include a successful interlocutory appeal to the New York Appellate Division of an order denying a motion to dismiss CMBS put-back claims; the appellate court rendered a complete defense judgment for the firm’s client. See Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. UBS AG, --- N.Y.S.3d ----, 2026 WL 110549 (N.Y. App. Div. Jan. 15, 2026). Charles also recently secured affirmance by a Texas Court of Appeals of an eight-figure breach-of-contract judgment, see Santander Consumer USA Inc. v. Enter. Fin. Grp., Inc., No. 05-23-00770-CV, 2025 WL 1712081 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 18, 2025, pet. filed), and denial of mandamus by the Federal Circuit in a venue dispute, see In re Apple Inc., No. 2024-111, 2024 WL 1153977 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 18, 2024).

A former federal prosecutor, Charles rejoined McKool Smith in 2023 after three and a half years as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Central District of California (Los Angeles) and Western District of Texas (Austin). In both districts, Charles was a member of the appellate section, where he handled appeals often raising novel statutory or constitutional issues.

Charles clerked for Judge Harris Hartz of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. At the University of Texas School of Law, Charles was named Grand Chancellor for holding the top class rank at the end of his second year, the only time students are ranked. Charles participated in the law school’s Supreme Court Clinic. He was also a member of the Texas Law Review and Chairperson of the Legal Research Board.

Charles frequently writes and comments on a wide range of appellate topics.

• In re Apple Inc., No. 2024-111, 2024 WL 1153977 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 18, 2024). As lead appellate counsel, secured denial of Apple’s petition for writ of mandamus in a venue dispute.
• Santander Consumer USA Inc. v. Enter. Fin. Grp., Inc., No. 05-23-00770-CV, 2025 WL 1712081 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 18, 2025, pet. filed). As lead appellate counsel, secured affirmance of eight-figure breach-of-contract judgment obtained by the firm following a jury trial.
• Haug v. 417 N. Comanche St., LLC, No. 24-0370 (Tex.). Secured denial of discretionary review—after full merits briefing—in dispute over balance due on a commercial real-estate loan.
• Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. UBS AG, 245 A.D.3d 541 (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dep’t 2026). Brought successful interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s order denying UBS’s motion to dismiss CMBS put-back claims as time-barred.
• Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 2024-2234 (Fed. Cir.). As lead appellate counsel, represent Evolved Wireless in appeal of a partial summary judgment and a jury verdict.
• Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc., No. 2024-2381 (Fed. Cir.). As lead appellate counsel, represent Parus in Google’s appeal of a PTAB win obtained by the firm.
• Piranha Media Distrib. LLC v. Hulu, LLC, No. 2025-1038 (Fed. Cir.). As lead appellate counsel, represent Piranha in appeal of dismissal under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
• DoDots Licensing Sols. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Nos. 2025-1263, -1264, -1265 (Fed. Cir.). As lead appellate counsel, represent DoDots in appeals of PTAB decisions.
• Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, Inc., No. 2025-1460, -1532, -1539, -1870 (Fed. Cir.). As lead appellate counsel, represent Autonomous devices in appeals of PTAB decisions.
• TexasLDPC Inc. v. Broadcom Inc., No. 2025-1074 (Fed. Cir.). Represent Broadcom in appeal of dismissal of patent and copyright claims for lack of standing and failure to join a required party.
• Carbyne Biometrics LLC v. Apple Inc., 2026-1470 (Fed. Cir.). As lead appellate counsel, represent Carbyne in appeal of summary judgment under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
• Carbyne Biometrics LLC v. Apple Inc., 2025-2161, -2163 (Fed. Cir.). As lead appellate counsel, represent Carbyne in appeals of PTAB decisions.
• ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 2026-1033 (Fed. Cir.). As lead appellate counsel, represent ParkerVision in claim-construction appeal.
• Xerox Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 2023-1911, 2025 WL 1122542 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 16, 2025). Represented Xerox at oral argument in appeal of a PTAB decision.
• 417 N. Comanche St., LLC v. EMRES II Texas, LLC, 246 N.Y.S.3d 14 (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dep’t 2025). As lead appellate counsel, represented 417 N. Comanche in appeal of the trial court’s dismissal of tortious-interference claims.
• Soaring Wind Energy, L.L.C. v. Catic USA Inc., 946 F.3d 742 (5th Cir. 2020). Wrote brief successfully defending $63 million arbitral award against complex jurisdictional and due-process challenges.
• Photographic Illustrators Corp. v. Orgill, Inc., 953 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2020). As lead appellate counsel in “case of first impression in the circuit courts,” represented Photographic Illustrators in appeal of summary judgment on copyright claims.
• Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 145 S. Ct. 149 (2024). Co-wrote petition for writ of certiorari for Eolas challenging the district court’s summary judgment of patent-ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
• Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524 (2019). Co-wrote merits briefs for Henry Schein in case concerning arbitrator’s power to decide whether a dispute is arbitrable.

Representative Appeals (at DOJ)

• United States v. Quiroz, 125 F.4th 713 (5th Cir. 2025). In case of first impression, successfully defended statute prohibiting receipt of a firearm while under felony indictment against a Second Amendment challenge under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022).
• United States v. Olsen, 995 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2021). In case of first impression, secured reversal of order dismissing indictment under the Speedy Trial Act while trials were suspended due to COVID-19.
• United States v. Canada, No. 20-50188, 2021 WL 3630230 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2021). Secured affirmance of wire-fraud and false-statement convictions following a three-week jury trial arising from a scheme to steal funds from charter schools.
• United States v. Aloba, No. 19-50343, 2022 WL 808208 (9th Cir. Mar. 16, 2022). Secured affirmance of wire-fraud and identity-theft convictions following a three-day jury trial arising from a phishing attack on the Los Angeles Superior Court.
• United States v. Armendariz, 80 F.4th 546 (5th Cir. 2023). Secured affirmance in case resolving unsettled questions concerning defense counsel’s duty to advise a defendant on the immigration consequences of a guilty plea.
• United States v. Choulat, 75 F.4th 489 (5th Cir. 2023). Secured affirmance in case raising unsettled question of when courts must defer to the Sentencing Commission’s interpretations of the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Valencia, 66 F.4th 1032 (5th Cir. 2023). Secured affirmance in case raising unsettled question whether a sentence under Armed Career Criminal Act requires that the defendant admit, or a jury find, that the defendant’s prior crimes were committed on different occasions.
• United States v. Saini, 23 F.4th 1155 (9th Cir. 2022). Secured affirmance in case raising novel question of statutory interpretation concerning credit-card fraud.
• United States v. Davalos, No. 22-50763, 2023 WL 453395 (5th Cir. July 13, 2023). Secured affirmance of forfeiture order in case raising novel question of whether the criminal-forfeiture statute limits recovery to the defendant’s net profits from an illegal scheme.
• United States v. Song, No. 21-51229, 2023 WL 4906646 (5th Cir. Aug. 1, 2023). Secured affirmance of child-pornography conviction in case raising unsettled questions concerning the permissible breadth and procedures for cellphone searches.
• United States v. Flint, 848 F. App’x 313 (9th Cir. 2021). Secured affirmance in case raising novel questions of statutory interpretation and venue concerning prosecution for evading TSA security requirements.
• United States v. Castellanos, No. 19-50342, 2022 WL 153187 (9th Cir. Jan. 18, 2022). Successfully urged novel theory to deny the defendant Fourth Amendment standing to challenge a warrantless seizure.
• United States v. Melendez, 57 F.4th 505 (5th Cir. 2023). Successfully urged per se rule applying sentencing enhancement for “reckless endangerment” whenever the defendant threw drugs from a moving vehicle.

• Recognized in the guide to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America (2025, 2026)