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

Webinar

U.S. Discovery for Foreign Proceedings—28 USC § 1782 Requirements and Practice Tips

September 2, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

PTAB Developments and Their Impact on Parallel Litigation: Strategic Considerations

August 26, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

A Year of Change for Post-Grant Patent Challenges: Key PTAB and CRU Developments, and Strategic Implications

August 19, 2026

Webinar

At the PTAB Blog

Squires Issues Precedential Decision Clarifying Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Rejections

August 17, 2026

Articles

Privacy Law Mid-Year Update: Key EU and UK Data Protection Decisions

August 13, 2026

European IP Blog

UPC Action Permissibly Lodged Prior to the Grant of a European Patent

12 August 2026

Articles

The PTAB Under the Squires Administration: New Trends in Discretionary Denial and Implications for Corporate Practice

July 2026

Articles

Blaker v. NetScout Systems: A Narrow Reading of the Pen Register and Trap and Trace Provisions of the California Invasion of Privacy Act in California State Court

July 29, 2026

IP Updates

Too Concrete to Fail: Ceiva’s Guidance on the Use of Sufficiently Concrete Structures to Overcome Section 101 Rejections

July 28, 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