PTAB Chief Accusing Former Employer of Sexual Orientation, Disability Bias
Chief Judge David Ruschke alleges he was laid off from Medtronic's in-house department for pretextual reasons in 2015.
June 13, 2018 at 10:11 PM
5 minute read
The chief judge of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is suing his former employer, Medtronic Inc., alleging the company wrongfully terminated him because of his sexual orientation and a heart condition.
David Ruschke's 34-page complaint, which also names longtime Medtronic Chief Patent Counsel Michael Jaro as a defendant, was filed in California state court last fall but recently removed to federal court in Oakland. It alleges that Medtronic terminated Ruschke without notice or cause in a single-person reduction in force in November 2015, despite 12 productive years with the company.
The layoff was “mere pretext,” Ruschke alleges, for “a pattern and practice of unlawful sexual orientation discrimination” against him as an openly gay man. Medtronic also failed to engage with him about accommodating a heart condition that required treatment during 2015 and 2016.
Medtronic and Jaro are represented by Winston & Strawn partner Laura Petroff and associate Raquel Mason. They filed an answer in April denying each allegation and called the suit a “frivolous, unfounded, and unreasonable action.” They're requesting attorneys' fees under California law.
Ruschke is represented by Dow Patten of Los Angeles' Smith Patten.
➤➤ Want IP news that goes deeper? Geek out with Scott Graham's email briefing, Skilled in the Art. Sign up now.
Ruschke brought a prestigious background to the role of chief judge when he was hired in May 2016. The PTO introduced him as the manager of patents at Medtronic's Coronary and Structural Heart business unit. He also was secretary of the board of the American Intellectual Property Association at the time. It was not widely known that he'd been laid off from Medtronic.
The PTAB has been under fire for years from patent owners, who've called it a “death squad” that mows down patent rights. But Ruschke himself hasn't been the focus of much criticism. Under his leadership, patent owners have statistically fared somewhat better than under his predecessors.
In his complaint, Ruschke claims to have “singlehandedly identified defects in certain competitors' patents” that saved Medtronic $50 million in royalty payments, while protecting Medtronic patents that generate more than $30 million in annual revenue. Overall, he claims his efforts “resulted in well over $100 million to the bottom line of Medtronic.”
But the complaint goes on to detail a litany of corporate politicking that allegedly cost Ruschke his job. The trouble seems to have started around 2012, when an attorney Ruschke describes as “a polarizing figure” was added to his team. Ruschke complained to HR that his supervisor and HR were undermining his authority and creating a hostile work environment for him as a manager. The employee was eventually dismissed, but not before a meeting with Jaro and other supervisors that left him feeling the work environment “was becoming increasingly hostile.”
Jaro and Ruschke's new supervisor, Betsy Van Hecke, confronted Ruschke during his July 2015 performance review about being noncommunicative, but Van Hecke allegedly could provide only a single example, the complaint alleges.
“After Ms. Van Hecke left the room visibly angry and waving her finger at Dr. Ruschke, Mr. Jaro fist-bumped Dr. Ruschke and said that he had done a great job of defending himself,” the complaint states. Nevertheless, Jaro informed him that his annual bonus would be reduced 10 percent, the complaint states.
Jaro did not respond to an email sent to the address he has registered with the State Bar of California.
Afterward, Ruschke was issued a warning about his delayed reporting of expenses, and a memo detailing expectations regarding response time to emails, attendance at “coordination meetings” with other supervisors and the like, all of which were to be addressed in his annual review objectives.
Ruschke complained to HR that the restrictions were “so unprecedented and out of the ordinary for someone of Dr. Ruschke's experience and performance, that Dr. Ruschke could only conclude that they were being imposed because of his sexual orientation.” An HR rep abruptly stopped the conversation, but the department never conducted an investigation, the complaint alleges.
Instead, Jaro and HR told Ruschke in November he was being let go to free up money for other positions. “This 'reduction in force' apparently applied to a single person—Dr. Ruschke—which in and of itself is highly suspect,” the complaint states. It goes on to contend that Ruschke's business unit had already achieved substantial cost savings by terminating one attorney and by accepting a poor performer from Jaro's group whom Jaro allegedly didn't want to fire because she was an Asian-American woman.
Ruschke's complaint outlines a history of heart trouble, including a 1999 stroke and subsequent surgery to replace a faulty aortic valve. Around 2013, he began experiencing renewed difficulties, and in January 2015 he was told he'd need a second open-heart surgery.
“Medtronic knew at all relevant times that Dr. Ruschke was disabled, yet it failed to take any action whatsoever to engage with Dr. Ruschke to accommodate his disabilities after becoming aware of them,” the complaint alleges.
Medtronic let Ruschke remain on its payroll for two months following the RIF, the complaint states, but served out-of-office voice and email messages indicating that he'd left the company. “These actions caused Dr. Ruschke to be portrayed as having fallen off the face of the earth or abandoned his job,” the complaint states. “Such a no-notice departure would be highly out-of-character for such a distinguished patent counsel.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Something Else Is Coming': DOGE Established, but With Limited Scope
Supreme Court Considers Reviving Lawsuit Over Fatal Traffic Stop Shooting
US DOJ Threatens to Prosecute Local Officials Who Don't Aid Immigration Enforcement
3 minute readUS Judge Cannon Blocks DOJ From Releasing Final Report in Trump Documents Probe
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Data Disposition—Conquering the Seemingly Unscalable Mountain
- 2Who Are the Judges Assigned to Challenges to Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order?
- 3Litigators of the Week: A Directed Verdict Win for Cisco in a West Texas Patent Case
- 4Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 5Womble Bond Becomes First Firm in UK to Roll Out AI Tool Firmwide
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250