Suzanne Konrad
Overview
A registered attorney with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Suzanne Konrad focuses her practice on patent prosecution and litigation, helping clients create thoughtful and effective strategies to both protect and maximize the value of marketable products and services. She applies her technical training and professional background in chemical engineering to assist clients in securing and defending intellectual property rights in highly sophisticated areas of business.
Suzanne has successfully prosecuted U.S. and international patent applications involving batteries, semiconductor devices, display technologies, and mechanical systems. Her prosecution work includes preparing and responding to office actions, drafting pre-appeal and appeal briefs, and managing reexamination proceedings from initiation through appeal.
In addition to the prosecution practice, Suzanne can handle all phases of patent litigation. She has represented clients in matters involving fact and expert discovery, motion practice, and claim construction.
Suzanne played a key role in two victories before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, defending the validity of client patents challenged in inter partes reexaminations. She helped guide both matters from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to successful appellate outcomes, preserving the strength and scope of the asserted patent rights.
Credentials
Education
- Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2007 (J.D.)
- Case Western Reserve University, 2002 (B.A., B.S.), magna cum laude
Court Admissions
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
- Encouraged client to file a patent application after initial hesitation around the subject matter. Advised client to disclose prior subject matter and explain in application how product/process was different. The patent was granted.
- Recommended an interview for an application that had multiple previous rejections. During the interview, discovered that the examiner was interpreting the claims differently than intended, explained claim interpretation, and suggested amendments to address that. The patent was then granted.
- “Building the Patent Portfolio You Need and Can Afford,” IPWatchdog LIVE 2023, September 18, 2023
- “Getting to Yes: Strategies for Streamlining Patent Prosecution,” IPWatchdog LIVE 2024, October 1, 2024
- “Where Do We Go from Here? Teva’s Impact on IPR and District Court Practice,” IPFrontline, April 14, 2015
- “Teva and Its Potential Impact on Patent Litigation,” IP Litigation Alert, January 28, 2015
- “Shortcuts on the Patent Prosecution Highway,” IP Procurement and Portfolio Management Alert, February 26, 2014
- “The United States First to Invent System: Economic Justifications for Maintaining the Status Quo,” Chicago-Kent Law Review, 2007; reprinted in Intellectual Property Law Review, 2008
- “Development of a Sustainable Liquid Fuels Infrastructure Based on Biomass,” Environmental Progress, 23, issue 4, pp. 334-341, 2003
- Patent: U.S. Patent No. 7,033,421 B1