United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ALEXANDER SHUKH,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, LLC, A DELAWARE 

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, SEAGATE 

TECHNOLOGY, INC., A DELAWARE 

CORPORATION, SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, A 

HOLDING COMPANY OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS,

SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY PLC, AN IRISH PUBLIC 

LIMITED COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees

UNKNOWN OWNERS AND ASSIGNEES,

Defendant

______________________ 

2014-1406

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Minnesota in No. 0:10-cv-00404-JRT-JJK, 

Judge John R. Tunheim.

______________________ 

Decided: October 2, 2015 

______________________ 

 CONSTANTINE JOHN GEKAS, Gekas Law LLP, Chicago, 

IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant. 
2 SHUKH v. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, LLC

 CHAD DROWN, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Minneapolis, MN, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by DAVID J.F. GROSS, ELIZABETH COWAN WRIGHT,

AARON D. VAN OORT, CHARLES FEENEY KNAPP, JEYA PAUL;

CALVIN L. LITSEY, East Palo Alto, CA. 

______________________ 

Before MOORE, WALLACH, and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges.

MOORE, Circuit Judge. 

Alexander Shukh appeals from the district court’s 

dismissal of some of his claims for failure to state a claim 

and its grants of summary judgment on his remaining 

claims in favor of the defendants, Seagate Technology, 

LLC; Seagate Technology, Inc.; Seagate Technology; and 

Seagate Technology PLC (collectively, “Seagate”). 

Dr. Shukh also appeals from several of the court’s discovery orders and other ancillary orders. For the reasons 

discussed below, we vacate and remand the court’s grant 

of summary judgment on Dr. Shukh’s claim for correction 

of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256 and affirm its

remaining holdings. 

BACKGROUND

Dr. Shukh, a native of Belarus, is a leading scientist 

in the field of semiconductor physics, with a Ph.D. in 

Condensed Matter Physics and a B.S. and an M.S. in 

Electronics and Electronic Engineering. In 1997, Seagate 

recruited Dr. Shukh to move to the United States and 

work for it. Dr. Shukh was employed at Seagate from 

September 1997 until his termination in early 2009. 

During his employment, Seagate sponsored Dr. Shukh for 

an H-1B work visa, a visa extension, and eventually 

permanent residency. At Seagate, Dr. Shukh was named 
SHUKH v. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, LLC 3

as an inventor on 17 patents.1 He received numerous 

awards for his achievement and innovation generally and 

on specific products, and was named to the Seagate 

Technology Inventor’s Hall of Fame. The district court 

found that Dr. Shukh had a reputation as “an extremely 

successful innovator in the hard disk drives engineering 

community.” Shukh v. Seagate Tech., LLC, No. CIV. 10-

404 JRT/JJK, 2013 WL 1197403, at *3 (D. Minn. Mar. 25, 

2013) (“Summary Judgment Order”).

When he was hired, Dr. Shukh executed Seagate’s 

standard At-Will Employment, Confidential Information, 

and Invention Assignment Agreement (“Employment 

Agreement”), in which Dr. Shukh agreed to “hereby 

assign to [Seagate] all [his] right, title, and interest in and 

to any inventions” made while at Seagate. J.A. 600. 

Seagate policy prohibited Seagate employees from filing

patent applications themselves for their inventions. 

Instead, they were required to submit Employee Invention Disclosure Forms to Seagate’s Intellectual Property 

(“IP”) Department. Inventors were responsible for identifying co-inventors of their inventions on these forms. The 

IP Department would then forward the form to the internal Patent Review Board, which would determine whether, for example, to pursue a patent application for the 

invention or to protect it as a trade secret. 

Dr. Shukh’s time at Seagate was undisputedly tumultuous. His performance evaluations indicated that he did 

not work well with others due to his confrontational style. 

Moreover, Dr. Shukh’s conduct interfered with his

productivity. For example, Dr. Shukh applied a “threestrikes” rule to interactions with his coworkers, under 

1 Dr. Shukh was also awarded fifteen patents by 

the former Soviet Union and a number of U.S. patents for 

inventions not at Seagate. 

 
4 SHUKH v. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, LLC

which he would stop communicating with coworkers who 

had engaged three times in behavior he considered dishonest. Dr. Shukh also frequently accused others of 

stealing his work, and his managers criticized him for his 

insistence on receiving credit for his work. To avoid 

accusations of plagiarism, some Seagate employees refused to attend presentations by Dr. Shukh. 

In 2009, Seagate terminated Dr. Shukh and 178 other 

employees. Although he has submitted many job applications to other potential employers, Dr. Shukh has not yet 

secured employment. Dr. Shukh claims that the hiring 

manager of Hitachi, a company to which he applied, 

contacted a Seagate employee to discuss rumors the 

Hitachi manager had heard about Dr. Shukh. Moreover, 

a Hitachi engineer told Dr. Shukh during his interview 

that he would never find employment at Hitachi with his 

reputation. 

This lawsuit stems, in part, from Dr. Shukh’s allegations that Seagate has not properly credited him for his 

inventions. Specifically, Dr. Shukh alleges that during 

his tenure at Seagate, Seagate wrongfully omitted him as 

an inventor from six patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,233,457; 

7,684,150; 6,525,902; 6,548,114; 6,738,236; and 7,983,002)

and four pending patent applications, all relating to

semiconductor technologies. He also claims that Seagate 

discriminated against him and wrongfully terminated 

him both on the basis of his national origin and in retaliation for complaining about the discrimination. 

In his original complaint, Dr. Shukh asserted thirteen 

claims against Seagate, including claims for correction of 

inventorship of the disputed patents pursuant to 

35 U.S.C. § 256, rescission of his Employment Agreement, 

breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust 

enrichment, and federal and state retaliation and national origin discrimination claims. He also sought a declara-
SHUKH v. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, LLC 5

tory judgment that certain provisions of his Employment 

Agreement were unenforceable. 

Seagate moved to dismiss Dr. Shukh’s § 256 claim for 

lack of standing. Dr. Shukh alleged three distinct interests in the patents: an ownership interest, a financial 

interest, and a reputational interest. At the motion to 

dismiss stage, the district court held that Dr. Shukh had 

no ownership or financial interest in the patents because 

he automatically assigned all of his inventions to Seagate

in his Employment Agreement. The court left open the 

possibility that Dr. Shukh had standing to sue based on

reputational harm caused by his omission from the disputed patents. The district court also dismissed for

failure to state a claim Dr. Shukh’s claims for rescission of 

his Employment Agreement, breach of contract, breach of 

fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. 

Two years later, Seagate moved for summary judgment on Dr. Shukh’s § 256 claim. The court granted 

Seagate’s motion, holding that there was no genuine 

dispute of material fact as to whether Dr. Shukh suffered 

reputational harm from not being named an inventor on 

the patents. Summary Judgment Order at *13. It also 

granted Seagate’s motion for summary judgment on Dr. 

Shukh’s fraud claim. One week later, the district court 

granted Seagate’s motion for summary judgment on Dr. 

Shukh’s federal and state retaliation and national origin 

discrimination claims. Throughout the course of the case, 

the district court made rulings on discovery and other 

ancillary issues. Dr. Shukh has appealed many of the 

district court’s decisions. Because the district court had 

jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1338(a) and 1367, we have jurisdiction over this appeal 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
6 SHUKH v. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, LLC

DISCUSSION

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment under the law of the regional circuit. Grober v. 

Mako Prods., Inc., 686 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 

The Eighth Circuit reviews a grant of summary judgment 

de novo. Wilson v. Spain, 209 F.3d 713, 716 (8th Cir.

2000). Summary judgment is appropriate if “the movant 

shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material 

fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “The evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are 

to be drawn in his favor.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 

477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

We review standing de novo. Rack Room Shoes v. 

United States, 718 F.3d 1370, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2013). To 

establish standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he 

suffered an injury-in-fact, that the injury is traceable to 

the conduct complained of, and that the injury is redressable by a favorable decision. Chou v. Univ. of Chi., 254 

F.3d 1347, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The alleged harm must 

be concrete and particularized. Lujan v. Defenders of 

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). 

Dr. Shukh challenges the district court’s decision that 

he lacked standing to pursue his § 256 claim on two 

grounds. First, he argues that we should overrule our 

holding in Filmtec Corp. v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 939 F.2d 

1568 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Under Filmtec, Dr. Shukh’s assignment in the Employment Agreement of his ownership 

and financial interests in his inventions conveyed legal 

title in those inventions to Seagate. Id. at 1573. Because 

of this conveyance, the district court found that Dr. Shukh 

has no ownership interest or financial interest in the 

patents that would give him standing to pursue his § 256 

claim. See DDB Tech., L.L.C. v. MLB Advanced Media, 

L.P., 517 F.3d 1284, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2008). As a panel, we 
SHUKH v. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, LLC 7

are bound by Filmtec; we cannot overrule that holding 

without en banc action.

Dr. Shukh also argues that the district court erred in 

granting summary judgment to Seagate on his § 256 

claim for lack of standing. He argues that a trier of fact 

could conclude that his reputation was damaged because 

he was not recognized as the inventor of the patents. In 

the past, we have declined to decide whether reputational 

injury, standing alone, may satisfy the constitutional 

standing requirements for a § 256 claim. Chou, 254 F.3d 

at 1359 (declining to consider whether reputational injury 

could satisfy Article III standing requirements because 

the claimed inventor had alleged a concrete financial 

interest in the patent); Larson v. Correct Craft, Inc., 569 

F.3d 1319, 1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (declining to decide 

whether reputational injury could satisfy Article III

standing requirements because the claimed inventor had 

not alleged any reputational injury). 

Today, we hold that concrete and particularized reputational injury can give rise to Article III standing. As we 

noted in Chou, “being considered an inventor of important 

subject matter is a mark of success in one’s field, comparable to being an author of an important scientific paper.” 

254 F.3d at 1359. We reasoned that “[p]ecuniary consequences may well flow from being designated as an inventor.” Id. This is particularly true when the claimed 

inventor is employed or seeks to be employed in the field 

of his or her claimed invention. For example, if the 

claimed inventor can show that being named as an inventor on a patent would affect his employment, the alleged

reputational injury likely has an economic component

sufficient to demonstrate Article III standing. 

We find that there is a question of material fact as to 

whether Dr. Shukh’s omission as a named inventor on the 

disputed patents caused him reputational injury. 
8 SHUKH v. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, LLC

Dr. Shukh presented evidence such that a trier of fact 

could conclude that this omission injured his reputation in 

at least two ways: first, it harmed his reputation as an 

inventor in the field of semiconductor physics, and second,

it contributed to his reputation for poor teamwork due in 

part to his accusations that others were stealing his work. 

Moreover, Dr. Shukh presented evidence from which a 

trier of fact could conclude that these reputational harms 

had economic consequences—namely, that Dr. Shukh was 

unable to find employment after he was terminated from 

Seagate. We address these three issues in turn.

I. Dr. Shukh’s Reputation as an Inventor

First, a genuine dispute exists as to whether 

Dr. Shukh’s omission as a named inventor on the disputed patents harmed his reputation as an inventor. 

Dr. Shukh presented evidence supporting his contention 

that a scientist’s professional reputation is influenced by 

the number of patents on which that scientist is named. 

He provided an expert report explaining that being 

named on a patent means that the inventor’s “standing 

and reputation in the related technology community has 

been enhanced, including among their employers or 

potential employers.” J.A. 8817. The expert also wrote 

that “inventors take great pride in their inventorship 

abilities and accomplishments” and that named inventors’ 

contributions on patents are “considered positively when 

a technology professional is being considered for a promotion.” J.A. 8816; see also J.A. 5592 (expert report stating 

that adding the disputed patents to Dr. Shukh’s portfolio 

would have “significantly strengthened” his claim to the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service that he was an 

“outstanding professor or researcher” and therefore 

merited permanent residency).

Dr. Shukh also showed that Seagate itself valued the 

number of patents its employees were named on. For 
SHUKH v. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, LLC 9

example, Seagate gave financial rewards, J.A. 5215, and 

enrolled employees in its Inventor’s Hall of Fame, J.A. 

5214, based on an employee’s number of named patents. 

Dr. Shukh’s Fiscal Year 2007 Performance Evaluation 

further reinforces this conclusion. In the performance 

evaluation, Dr. Shukh’s manager wrote that Dr. Shukh 

“has a significant patent portfolio; however, I am concerned that the number of patent applications has been 

reduced over the last two years—albeit, partially due to 

issues with the [Seagate Patent Review Board] and 

Seagate policy.” J.A. 5222. He concluded that he would 

“like to see [Dr. Shukh] increase his patent portfolio in

[Fiscal Year 2008].”2 Id. 

The district court acknowledged this evidence, but 

nonetheless concluded that Dr. Shukh did not raise a 

genuine issue of material fact with respect to his reputation as an inventor. In doing so, it relied on undisputed 

testimony from Dr. Shukh and his former manager and 

coworkers that Dr. Shukh had a reputation as a leading 

scientist in his field. Summary Judgment Order at *10. 

The court also noted that Dr. Shukh testified that his 

reputation for “honesty, good organization, openness and 

2 The district court discounted this evidence because the manager “clarified in his deposition testimony 

that he was concerned with the decrease in the number of 

invention disclosures that [Dr.] Shukh made to Seagate, 

and not concerned with the decrease in the total number 

of patent applications filed with the USTPO that listed 

[Dr.] Shukh as an inventor.” Summary Judgment Order

at *12. In doing so, the district court improperly made a 

factual finding on summary judgment. Cf. Anderson, 477 

U.S. at 249–50. Moreover, this interpretation contradicts 

the plain language of the evaluation. The district court 

erred when it discounted Dr. Shukh’s performance evaluation at this stage. 

 
10 SHUKH v. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, LLC

straightforwardness and communications, good technical 

abilities, innovation and extreme competitiveness did not 

change from 2002 until 2012.” Id. (quoting J.A. 8962–64) 

(alteration omitted). Finally, the court wrote that 

Dr. Shukh’s former co-workers testified that their impression of Dr. Shukh as an “excellent inventor with good 

technical skills” would not change based on the number of 

patents he was named on. Id. at *12. From all this, the 

district court concluded that Dr. Shukh’s professional 

reputation had not been harmed by his omission from the 

disputed patents.

In coming to this conclusion, the district court improperly made findings of fact on summary judgment and 

did not make all factual inferences in Dr. Shukh’s favor. 

A trier of fact could conclude that Dr. Shukh’s omission 

from the disputed patents had a concrete impact on his 

reputation in his field. There is significant evidence that 

the number of patents an inventor is named on influences 

his reputation in the field of the patents. Dr. Shukh’s 

professional reputation is based on his work in semiconductor physics—the same field as the disputed patents. 

Moreover, Dr. Shukh is named as an inventor on seventeen issued patents for work done at Seagate; he argues 

here that he should be named as an inventor on an additional six issued patents and four pending applications. 

The disputed patents would therefore form a significant 

portion of the patents granted to Dr. Shukh during his 

tenure at Seagate. 

True, it is undisputed that Dr. Shukh had a reputation as an excellent inventor, and that this reputation did 

not decrease while he was at Seagate. However, this does 

not mean that Dr. Shukh’s omission from the patents did 

not harm his reputation. The evidence supports the 

conclusion that Dr. Shukh’s reputation as an inventor 

would have been higher had he been named on the patents. Likewise, the testimony of Dr. Shukh’s coworkers 
SHUKH v. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, LLC 11

that additional patents would not change their impression 

of Dr. Shukh’s technical abilities does not speak to whether additional patents would improve Dr. Shukh’s reputation in the eyes of potential employers. Dr. Shukh’s 

coworkers had years of experience working directly with 

Dr. Shukh, unlike potential employers, who likely lack

that first-hand knowledge and are therefore more likely to 

rely on their knowledge of Dr. Shukh’s reputation in 

evaluating their impression of him. Considering all of the 

evidence, we find there is a genuine dispute of material 

fact as to whether Dr. Shukh’s reputation as an inventor 

was harmed by his omission from the disputed patents.

II. Dr. Shukh’s Reputation for Seeking Credit for 

His Inventions

There is also a genuine dispute of material fact as to 

whether Dr. Shukh’s omission from the disputed patents 

worsened his reputation as an employee, and whether his 

reputation would improve if he prevailed in this lawsuit. 

The record shows that Dr. Shukh had a negative reputation at Seagate, in part because he aggressively sought

credit for his inventions. In his Fiscal Year 2007 Performance Evaluation, Dr. Shukh’s manager wrote:

[Dr. Shukh’s] insistence on getting appropriate 

credit for all design ideas and implementations 

stifles open discussion and adoption of his ideas. 

Since this issue has become more important to 

[Dr. Shukh] as time goes on, and since he believes 

he has not been fairly recognized for his past contributions, it’s an emotional issue. Most unfortunately, it appears to others that [Dr. Shukh] is 

more interested in being right and in getting credit than in ensuring that Seagate wins. 

[Dr. Shukh] will become more effective, and his 

contributions will increase significantly, if he can 

find ways to let others see that he truly is inter-
12 SHUKH v. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, LLC

ested primarily in Seagate’s success, rather than 

in his own advancement or preventing theirs.

J.A. 5222. Dr. Shukh’s manager also indicated that 

Dr. Shukh demonstrated “unsatisfactory” teamwork 

skills, explaining that he “is often insistent on getting 

appropriate or complete credit for his work” and that he

“repeatedly accused” Seagate workers of “stealing his 

work.” J.A. 5223; see also Summary Judgment Order

at *4. Dr. Shukh argues that if he is named an inventor 

on the disputed patents, it may rehabilitate his reputation for seeking credit for his ideas. 

On summary judgment, the district court held that 

Dr. Shukh’s “reputation for being antagonistic toward his 

employer and coworkers regarding ownership of patents . . . is too attenuated to confer standing.” Summary 

Judgment Order at *11. It found that this harm was not 

traceable to Seagate’s omission of Dr. Shukh as an inventor because Dr. Shukh first developed this reputation in 

2005, before he learned of his omission from the disputed 

patents. Id. at *11. Moreover, it reasoned that this harm 

was not redressable by a § 256 claim because adding 

Dr. Shukh’s name to the disputed patents would not 

“dispel [Dr.] Shukh’s reputation for accusing others of 

stealing his work in a manner that disrupts effective 

collaboration.” Id. at *11 n.13. 

We disagree with the district court’s conclusions. 

First, we find there is a genuine dispute of material fact 

as to whether Dr. Shukh’s negative reputation for seeking 

credit for his inventions is traceable to Seagate’s omission 

of Dr. Shukh as an inventor from the disputed patents. In 

deciding that the harm was not traceable, the district 

court relied on the fact that “[Dr.] Shukh’s reputation for 

accusing others of stealing his work and insisting on 

credit for all of his ideas was established well before the 

disputed patents became an issue between [Dr.] Shukh 
SHUKH v. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, LLC 13

and Seagate.” Id. It is true that Dr. Shukh did not know 

of the disputed patents before his reputation for seeking

credit for his inventions began to develop. However, his

disputes with Seagate over his omission from the patents 

and this subsequent lawsuit have likely significantly 

worsened Dr. Shukh’s reputation on this front. Moreover, 

the fact that Dr. Shukh did not know of his omission did 

not mean he was not responding (directly or indirectly) to 

Seagate’s actions in not crediting him as an inventor. 

There is evidence that Dr. Shukh’s accusations of plagiarism and insistence on receiving credit for his ideas 

stemmed from his concerns about not receiving proper 

credit for his inventions—concerns acknowledged by 

Dr. Shukh’s manager as valid. See J.A. 5223 (“I have 

come to see over the past 6 months that [Dr. Shukh] 

sometimes doesn’t receive proper credit for work he has 

done in the past.”). And Dr. Shukh’s omission from the 

disputed patents occurred before he developed this reputation—five of them were filed before 2005. Certainly, the 

record suggests that an element of Dr. Shukh’s reputation 

arises from his own combative personality. But there is a 

genuine dispute of material fact as to whether 

Dr. Shukh’s negative reputation is traceable to Seagate’s 

actions. In deciding to the contrary, the district court 

improperly made factual inferences in Seagate’s favor. 

There is also a genuine dispute of material fact as to 

whether finding for Dr. Shukh on his § 256 claim would 

rehabilitate his reputation for accusing others of stealing 

his work. If Dr. Shukh prevails in this lawsuit, outsiders

may conclude that Dr. Shukh’s reputation on this point

stemmed from Seagate’s failure to properly credit him. 

His reputation could change from an inventor with a 

“reputation for accusing others of stealing his work in a 

manner that disrupts effective collaboration,” Summary 

Judgment Order at *11 n.13, to that of an inventor 

wronged by his employer, properly seeking credit for his 
14 SHUKH v. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, LLC

own work. Here, the district court improperly made 

factual findings on summary judgment and made factual 

inferences in Seagate’s favor when it found this harm was 

not redressable. 

III. Dr. Shukh’s Unemployment

Finally, Dr. Shukh presented evidence that his alleged reputational harm had an economic component. 

Dr. Shukh has been unemployed since 2009, and he seeks 

a job in the field of technology covered by the disputed 

patents. A trier of fact could infer that the stronger 

Dr. Shukh’s reputation as an inventor, the more likely he 

is to be hired. This is particularly true in light of his 

difficult personality. Furthermore, there is evidence tying

Dr. Shukh’s negative reputation at Seagate—including, 

one presumes, his reputation for seeking credit for his 

own inventions—to his unemployment. Summary Judgment Order at *5 (writing that an engineer at a company 

Dr. Shukh interviewed with allegedly told Dr. Shukh that 

he would never get a job there because of his reputation 

at Seagate). Thus, a trier of fact could conclude that Dr. 

Shukh’s employment prospects have been harmed by the 

impact of his alleged omission from the disputed patents 

on his reputation as an inventor and his reputation for 

seeking credit for his own ideas. Moreover, a trier of fact 

could infer that Dr. Shukh’s employment prospects would

improve if the inventorship of the disputed patents was 

corrected. Dr. Shukh’s inability to obtain employment is 

a concrete and particularized financial harm that suffices 

to create Article III standing. 

To be sure, we sympathize with the district court. It 

issued a number of thoughtful and thorough orders in 

what must have been a very difficult case. All things 

considered, the district court has done an admirable job

dealing with the many issues raised below. We have 

considered Dr. Shukh’s remaining arguments, and find no 
SHUKH v. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, LLC 15

merit in them. We therefore vacate and remand this case 

only with respect to the court’s ruling on reputational 

injury, and affirm the rest of the district court’s holdings

challenged on appeal. 

CONCLUSION

We vacate and remand the district court’s grant of 

summary judgment on Dr. Shukh’s claim for correction of 

inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256 and affirm its remaining holdings.

VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART, AFFIRMED 

IN PART

COSTS

No costs.