Susan Koegel is counsel at Foster, Murphy, Altman & Nickel, PC. She concentrates on intellectual property litigation.
Dr. Koegel's intellectual property litigation practice focuses primarily on unfair trade practice cases under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 at the U.S. International Trade Commission and on patent litigation in federal district court. Dr. Koegel has represented complainants and respondents in numerous Section 337 investigations including recent victories for Toshiba and Seagate. Dr. Koegel also represents individuals and corporations in trade secret disputes and unfair business practices actions and she has represented clients before U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Section 337 cases.
- District of Columbia
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
- United States District Court for the District of Columbia
- D.V.M., The Ohio State University College of Veterinary Medicine, 1999
- J.D., The University Of Texas School Of Law, 1988
- B.A., Miami University, 1984
- Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-665, (Qimonda AG v. LSI Corporation, Seagate Technology, et al.): Represented Seagate Technology against allegations of patent infringement with regard to semiconductor integrated circuit chips and downstream products containing those chips. The ITC found in Seagate's favor that the patents were invalid, not infringed and that Qimonda had no domestic industry. In a Rule 36 affirmance, the Federal Circuit rejected Qimonda AG's appeal and affirmed the ITC's ruling that found respondents Seagate and LSI did not infringe Qimonda AG's patents and that Qimonda did not have a domestic industry.
- Certain Tunable Laser Chips, Assemblies and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-662, (JDS Uniphase Corporation v. Bookham, Inc., Syntune AB, et al.): Represented complainant JDSU, a California-based company and leading provider of optical products for the telecommunications industry. Asserted the infringement of patents involving tunable laser chips used to transmit optical data signals at various wavelengths. The investigation was terminated based on favorable settlement agreements with the respondents taking limited licenses.
- Certain Short-Wavelength Light Emitting Diodes, Laser Diodes and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-640, (Gertrude Neumark Rothschild v. LG Electronics, Pioneer Corporation, Toshiba Corporation, et al.): Represented Toshiba Corporation against allegations of patent infringement involving a process for making wide-band gap semiconductors capable of emitting certain wavelengths of light. Many respondents settled; however, the complaint against Toshiba was withdrawn just prior to trial.
- Certain Hard Disk Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-616, (Steven F. Reiber and Mary L. Reiber v. Western Digital Corporation, Hewlett-Packard Company, Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., et al.): Represented Toshiba America Information Systems against allegations of patent infringement for a process involved in making hard disk drives. The complaint was withdrawn by the complainants prior to trial.
- Certain Endoscopic Probes for Use in Argon Plasma Coagulation Systems, Inv. No. 337-TA-569, (ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH and ERBE USA, Inc. v. Canady Technology LLC, Canady Technology Germany GmbH, et al.): Represented Canady against allegations of patent and trademark infringement with regard to medical devices. After trial, the complainants' patent was found not to be infringed by Canady and there was also a finding of no domestic industry. The Administrative Law Judge's finding of no violation was affirmed by the Commission. The Commission decision was affirmed on appeal by the Federal Circuit.
- Certain Foam Footwear, Inv. No. 337-TA-567, (Crocs, Inc. v. Australia Unlimited, Double Diamond Distribution Ltd., Holey Soles Holding Ltd., et al.): Represented Australia Unlimited against allegations of trade dress and design patent infringement related to foam shoes. Succeeded in having trade dress allegations dismissed and negotiated a settlement based on cross-licensing of design patents.
- Certain Devices for Determining Organ Positions and Certain Subassemblies Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-555, (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. and SAS Praxim v. Resonant Medical Inc.): Represented start-up company Resonant in this matter involving alleged patent infringement. The investigation was terminated on the basis of a settlement agreement which permitted Resonant to continue selling the accused complex medical device.
- Certain Laminated Floor Panels, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-545(UnilinBeheer B.V., Unilin Flooring N.C. LLC, et al. v. Power Dekor Group Co., Vohringer Wood Product (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Yekalon Industry, Inc., et al.): Achieved a 337 victory for Yekalon in this wood flooring investigation. The Administrative Law Judge found that the new product design developed by the Steptoe team with the client during the early part of the investigation did not infringe the three asserted patents. This non-infringing product allowed Yekalon to continue selling in the U.S. market when other respondents' products were excluded.
- Certain Digital Image Storage and Retrieval Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-527 (Ampex Corp. v. Sony Corp.): On behalf of complainant, Ampex, obtained an initial licensing fee of $40 million, and an agreement for continuing licensing payments from Sony Corp., settling ITC action and federal court suit over digital camera image-related patents. An additional complaint against Sanyo on the same patents was settled by Sanyo taking a license prior to institution of the investigation.
- Certain Point of Sale Terminals and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-524 (Verve LLC v. Thales e-Transactions, Inc., Hypercom Corporation, Lipman USA, Lipman Electronic Engineering, et al.): Represented respondents Lipman USA and Lipman Electronic Engineering against allegations of patent infringement on point of sale terminals (e.g., for swiping credit cards). Succeeded in forcing patent owner to withdraw complaint and persuaded the Administrative Law Judge to issue a seven figure sanction against the complainant.
- Co-Author, "E-Commerce Patents," in E-Commerce Law & Business, Vol. I (2003), Aspen Publishers
- Contributor, "Section 337 Litigation Strategies," in ABA/BNA Patent-Litigation Strategies, 3rd Edition
- Texas State Bar Association
- International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association
- Intellectual Property Owners Association
- American Veterinary Medicine Association
- American Veterinary Medicine and Law Association