1. Home
  2. |Professionals
  3. |Hefeng Su

Hefeng Su

Counsel
Counsel
aHN1QGNyb3dlbGwuY29t
VCard
VCard

Areas of Focus

Overview

Hefeng (Hervey) Su is a counsel in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office, where he splits his time between the Patent & ITC Litigation and Patent Prosecution groups. Hefeng spares no effort to achieve clients’ objectives in his patent prosecution and litigation practice. With an extensive engineering background, Hefeng is skilled at communicating with clients effectively in their industry languages. His experienced legal practices enable him to step into the shoes of clients and align his services with clients’ business strategy.

Hefeng strives to safeguard clients’ intellectual property and business interests in representing clients in Section 337 proceedings before the International Trade Commission and civil litigations in federal district court.

He has patent drafting and prosecution experience directed to various technologies, including telecommunications, clouding computing and storage, block chain, artificial intelligence, multimedia conferencing, Internet search engines, image and video processing, network safety, mobile applications, semiconductor, medical devices, electrical control systems, and consumer electronics.

Prior to joining Crowell & Moring, Hefeng practiced Chinese patent law, representing clients in all aspects of patent prosecution before China Patent Office and patent invalidation proceedings before the Patent Reexamination Board (PRB). Before practicing law, Hefeng worked as an advisory software engineer for Sybase and IBM for seven years, conducting research and development on mobile application platforms and productivity tools supporting multiple document formats and collaborative real-time editing.

Career & Education

    • Tongji University, B.S., with honors, communication engineering, 2001
    • Shanghai Jiao Tong University, M.S., computer science, 2004
    • The George Washington University Law School, J.D., 2018
    • Tongji University, B.S., with honors, communication engineering, 2001
    • Shanghai Jiao Tong University, M.S., computer science, 2004
    • The George Washington University Law School, J.D., 2018

    • District of Columbia
    • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Limited Recognition*
    • District of Columbia
    • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Limited Recognition*

    • Mandarin
    • Mandarin

Hefeng's Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.15.26

Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim

A Kansas federal court held that inconsistent enforcement of trade secret rights can defeat a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). In Edelman Financial Engines, LLC v. Mariner Wealth Advisors LLC, No. 2:23-cv-02515-HLT (D. Kan. June 5, 2026), the court applied a selective enforcement theory, holding that when a company does not consistently pursue legal remedies against similarly situated former employees, that inconsistency can be affirmative evidence that it failed to protect its trade secrets. While the selective enforcement theory has appeared in academic hypothetical discussions, the decision appears to be one of the clearest judicial applications of a “selective enforcement” theory in a trade secret case....

View All Insights

Representative Matters

  • Secured jury verdict, judgment and eight figure damages award following weeks’ long trial in Delaware Superior Court for c3.ai, a leading Enterprise AI software and application company, in novel matter alleging its former customer, diesel engine manufacturer Cummins Inc., misappropriated c3.ai's trade secrets and breached the parties’ contract by studying c3.ai's trade secrets and replicating them into Cummins' own application.
  • Certain Oil-Vaping Cartridges, Components Thereof, And Products Containing the Same; Inv. No. 337-TA-1286. Representing Shenzhen Smoore Technology Limited in the Section 337 Proceeding. 
  • Certain Portable Battery Jump Starters & Components Thereof; Inv. No. 337-TA-1256. Representing Schumacher Electric Corp. and Schumacher Power Technology Ltd. in the Section 337 Proceeding. 
  • Certain Balanced Armature Devices, Products Containing Same, and Components Thereof; 337-TA-1186. Representing Bellsing Respondents in the Section 337 Proceeding. 
  • Certain Pickup Truck Folding Bed Cover Systems and Components Thereof; Inv. 337-TA-1143. Representing Sunwood Industries Co., Ltd. in the Section 337 Proceeding. 
  • Certain Semiconductor Devices, Integrated Circuits, and Consumer Products Containing the Same; Inv. No. 337-TA-1149. Representing Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Co. Ltd. and OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. in the Section 337 Proceeding. 
  • Photonic Imaging Solutions, Inc. v. Lorex Technology Inc., et al (D. Del 2018). Representing Lorex Technology Inc. in the patent infringement action. 
  • Micron Technology, Inc. v. United Microelectronics Corporation, et al (N.C. Cal 2017). Representing Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit Co., Ltd. in the antitrust action.

Hefeng's Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.15.26

Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim

A Kansas federal court held that inconsistent enforcement of trade secret rights can defeat a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). In Edelman Financial Engines, LLC v. Mariner Wealth Advisors LLC, No. 2:23-cv-02515-HLT (D. Kan. June 5, 2026), the court applied a selective enforcement theory, holding that when a company does not consistently pursue legal remedies against similarly situated former employees, that inconsistency can be affirmative evidence that it failed to protect its trade secrets. While the selective enforcement theory has appeared in academic hypothetical discussions, the decision appears to be one of the clearest judicial applications of a “selective enforcement” theory in a trade secret case....

View All Insights

Practices

Hefeng's Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.15.26

Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim

A Kansas federal court held that inconsistent enforcement of trade secret rights can defeat a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). In Edelman Financial Engines, LLC v. Mariner Wealth Advisors LLC, No. 2:23-cv-02515-HLT (D. Kan. June 5, 2026), the court applied a selective enforcement theory, holding that when a company does not consistently pursue legal remedies against similarly situated former employees, that inconsistency can be affirmative evidence that it failed to protect its trade secrets. While the selective enforcement theory has appeared in academic hypothetical discussions, the decision appears to be one of the clearest judicial applications of a “selective enforcement” theory in a trade secret case....

View All Insights