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

Conference

2nd Annual Forum on Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation USA & Canada

October 14-16, 2026

New York

Articles

Who Is a “Consumer?” The Supreme Court Takes Up the Video Privacy Protection Act

October 12, 2026

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Federal Court Orders Rebel Creamery to Redesign Packaging and Disgorge $23.8 Million in Van Leeuwen Trade Dress Case

October 7, 2026

Articles

U.S. and European Automotive Updates: Installment 2

October 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Distinguishes Patent Eligibility Among Different Communications Systems Claims

October 5, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms Written Description Support, Vacates Mooted Non-Obviousness Finding

October 5, 2026

Articles

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update, March 2026

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: August 2026

September 29, 2026

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Finding a Lack of Bona Fide Use, TTAB Affirms Cancellation of Everwise Credit Union Registration Under the Lanham Act’s Reexamination Procedure

September 24, 2026

Articles

Trade Secret Litigation Checklist for Defendants

September/October 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