NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition
is not citable as precedent. It is a public record.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
05-1271
ALL COMPUTERS, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
INTEL CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________
DECIDED: May 4, 2006
_________________________
Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and MAYER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
All Computers, Inc. (“All Computers”) appeals the grant of summary judgment of
noninfringement of United States Patent No. 5,506,981 (the “’981 patent”) to Intel Corp.
(“Intel”) by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. All
Computers, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 04-586, slip op. (E.D. Va. Feb. 9, 2005)
(“Judgment”). Because the district court did not adjudicate Intel’s invalidity and
unenforceability counterclaims, the present appeal is not from a final decision within the
meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). Nor did the district court certify the case under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction and we
dismiss the instant appeal.
I.
All Computers is the assignee of the ’981 patent, “Apparatus and Method for
Enhancing the Performance of Personal Computers,” which relates to “an accelerator
board for use in replacing the microprocessor of a slow speed system board with a
microprocessor operating at a higher clock speed.” ’981 patent, abstract. On May 20,
2004, All Computers filed suit against Intel for infringement of the ’981 patent. On June
9, 2004, Intel answered and counterclaimed “non-infringement, invalidity, and
unenforceability.” On October 28, 2004, Intel moved for “summary judgment of non-
infringement.” On November 19, 2004, oral argument was held on the summary
judgment motion. On January 11, 2005, the court “Ordered that Defendant Intel
Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted.” All Computers, Inc. v. Intel
Corp., No. 04-586, slip op. at 1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 11, 2005) (“Order”). In the February 9,
2005 Judgment, the court “Ordered that Judgment is Entered in favor of Defendant Intel
Corporation and against Plaintiff All Computers, Inc.” Judgment at 1. Neither the Order
nor the Judgment mentioned the invalidity or unenforceability claims. All Computers
filed a Notice of Appeal on March 4, 2005. Oral argument was scheduled for May 2,
2006.
On April 21, 2006, this Court requested that the parties provide documentation
that there was adjudication of the invalidity and unenforceability counterclaims. On April
24, 2006, plaintiff-appellant All Computers replied that “[t]here was no decision
concerning invalidity and unenforceability.” Defendant-appellee Intel responded that
05-1271 2
“there has been no final judgment below” and “it is appropriate that the appeal be
dismissed.”
II.
“Every federal appellate court has a special obligation to satisfy itself . . . of its
own jurisdiction. . . . Consequently, despite the fact that neither party initially raised an
objection to our jurisdiction over this appeal, we must consider whether there is a final
decision of the district court within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).” Silicon
Image, Inc. v. Genesis Microchip, Inc., 395 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations
omitted). Under section 1295(a)(1), this Court only has jurisdiction over a “final decision
of a district court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). A final judgment is one
that “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing to do but execute the
judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945).
In Silicon Image, we explained that “[a]bsent the full adjudication of all claims for
all parties, . . . there can be no ‘final decision’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1)” and
dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction under section 1295(a)(1) because “plaintiff’s
claims regarding infringement remained pending in the district court. . . .” Id. at 1362-
63. Similarly, here, all claims and counterclaims have not been fully adjudicated, as
plaintiff-appellant All Computers averred that there was no adjudication of the invalidity
and unenforceability counterclaims. Nor were such claims and counterclaims removed
from the case, whether by dismissal (with or without prejudice) or voluntary withdrawal;
nor was the partial summary judgment certified under Rule 54(b). Thus, there is no final
judgment in this case and we do not have jurisdiction. Parties must abide by and be
05-1271 3
cognizant of the jurisdictional requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) and Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 54(b).
05-1271 4