直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Inventor Breakups: Reputational Injury Can Provide Standing

October 08, 2015

Authored and Edited by Sonja W. Sahlsten; Kevin D. Rodkey; Elizabeth D. Ferrill

In Shukh v. Seagate Technology, LLC, No. 14-1406 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 2, 2015), the Federal Circuit held that reputational injury can confer standing in correction of inventorship claims under 35 U.S.C. § 256.

Dr. Shukh, a former employee of Seagate and a named inventor on seventeen patents, was fired by Seagate in 2009 and was unable to obtain a new job. Dr. Shukh then filed several claims against Seagate, including a claim to correct inventorship, alleging that Seagate failed to list him as an inventor on six patents and four pending patent applications. The district court granted summary judgment for Seagate and dismissed Dr. Shukh’s claims, finding that an alleged reputational injury did not confer standing.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that reputational injury can provide standing if the injury is concrete and particularized. The Court then reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, concluding that there were questions of material fact whether omitting Dr. Shukh as a named inventor on the disputed patents caused him reputational injury. The Court explained that the fact finder could also determine that inventorship could affect employment prospects and result in an economic harm sufficient to confer standing. It further explained that a finding that Dr. Shukh was an inventor could rehabilitate his reputation in the industry. Based on these issues of fact, the Court remanded the inventorship claims to the district court.

Tags

summary judgment

Contacts

Sonja W. Sahlsten
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4329
Email
Kevin D. Rodkey
Partner
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6484
Email
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2015 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 2026

Articles

COPPA’s Amended Rule Is Now in Full Effect: What Operators Need to Know

May 15, 2026

Charitable

2026 National Inventors Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony

May 7, 2026

Washington, DC

Panel Discussion

Global Patent Strategies & Litigation: An Exclusive Off-the-Record Conversation with Experienced In-House Leaders

May 5, 2026

London

Articles

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update, March 2026

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: March 2026

May 4, 2026

Ad Law Buzz Blog

How to Survive a Section 230 Defense: Recent Cases Provide Guidance

May 1, 2026

European IP Blog

T 0137/24 and Securing Effective Protection for Biologics

May 1, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP