Susan Koegel

Direct: 202-822-4109
Email: skoegel@fostermurphy.com

Susan Koegel is counsel at Foster, Murphy, Altman & Nickel, PC.

Dr. Koegel’s intellectual property litigation practice focuses entirely on unfair trade practice cases under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), including post-Order enforcement issues before Customs and Border Protection. She has represented complainants and respondents in patent, copyright and trademark infringement investigations as well as in trade secret misappropriation and false designation of origin investigations. Dr. Koegel has appeared in over 60 investigations, including recent victories for Masteel, Segway, Skechers, and The Walt Disney Company.

Professional Affiliations

  • ITC Trial Lawyers Association
  • American Bar Association
  • American Veterinary Medicine Association
  • American Veterinary Medicine and Law Association
  • Texas State Bar Association

Court Admissions

  • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • District of Columbia Court of Appeals
  • United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Education

  • 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

Bar Admissions

  • District of Columbia
  • Texas

Selected Publications

  • 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

Representative Engagements

  • Disposable Vaporizers, Inv. No. 337-TA-1381 (R.J. Reynolds v. Pastel Cartel, Funyin, et al.).  Representing the Pastel and Funyin respondents in a novel investigation against allegations of false advertising and violations of the PACT Act. Obtained withdrawal of the complaint before the evidentiary hearing.
  • Data Transmission Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1150 (Data Scape v. Apple, Amazon, Verizon, et al.). Successfully represented respondent Amazon against allegations of patent infringement. Complainants withdrew the complaint and terminated the investigation.
  • Ink Toner Cartridges, Inv. No. 337-TA-1106 (Canon v. Aster Graphics, et al.). Successfully represented the Aster respondents. The Commission affirmed the ALJ’s decision granting summary determination of non-infringement, found no violation, and terminated the investigation. Currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit.
  • LED Lighting Devices, 337-TA-1081 (Phillips v. WAC, et. al.) Represented the WAC respondents against allegations of patent infringement. Settled favorably during the discovery phase.
  • Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel, No. 337-TA-1002 (U.S. Steel against the Chinese Steel Industry). Successfully represented the Masteel respondents against allegations of antitrust violations and false designation of origin. No violation.
  • Certain Protective Cases for Electronic Devices and Components Thereof, 337-TA-955 (Otter v. Tech21). Successfully represented respondent Tech21 U.K. Limited in patent infringement allegations brought by Otter Products, LLC.; Otter withdrew the complaint and terminated the investigation.
  • Certain Antivenom Compositions and Products Containing the Same, No. 337-TA-903 (BTG v. Veteria Laboratories, BioVeteria Life Sciences, LLC, Laboratorios Silanes, Instituto Bioclon S.A. de C.V. and Rare Disease Therapeutics, Inc.). Represented complainant BTG in charges of patent infringement against respondents producing an antidote to snakebites. The investigation settled favorably.
  • Certain Endoscopic Probes for Use in Argon Plasma Coagulation Systems, 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; 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, 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 Laminated Floor Panels, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-545 (Unilin Beheer B.V., Unilin Flooring N.C. LLC, et al. v. Power DekorGroup 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 our legal 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 Point of Sale Terminals and Components Thereof, 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.
  • Certain Digital Image Storage and Retrieval Devices, No. 337-TA-520 (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.