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 noninfringement.” 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