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 Stat es Patent No. 5,506,981 (the “’981 patent”) to Intel Corp. (“Intel”) by the United States District Co urt 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 In tel’s invalidity and unenforceability counterclaims, t he present appeal is not from a final decision within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). Nor did t he district court certify the case underFederal Rule of Civ il Procedure 54(b). Therefore, thi s court lacks jurisdiction and we dismiss the instant appeal.
I. All Comput ers is the a ssignee of the ’981 patent, “A pparatus and Method for Enhanc ing the Performance of Personal Comput ers,” which relates to “an accelerator board for use in replacing the microproce ssor 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 paten t. 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 Januar y 11, 2005, t he court “Ordered that Def e ndant Intel Corporation’s Motion for Su mmary 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 J udgment, the court “Ordered that Judgment is Entered in favor of Defendant Intel Corporation and against Plaintiff All Computers, Inc.” Judgment at 1. Neith e r the Order nor the Judgment mentioned the invalidity or unenforceability claims. All Computers filed a Notice of Appeal on March 4, 2005. Oral argument wa s scheduled for May 2,
2006. On April 21, 2006, this Court requested that the parties provide document ation that there was adjudication of the invalidity and unenf orceability counterclaims. On April 24, 2006, plaintiff-appellant All Computers replied that “[t]here was no decis ion concerning invalidit y and unenf orceability.” Defend ant-appellee Intel responded that

05-1271 2“there has been no final judgm ent below” and “it is appropriat e that the appea l b e dismissed.”
II. “Every federal appellate court has a special obligation to satisfy itself . . . of its own jurisdiction. . . . Consequen tly, despite the fact that neit her party initially raised an objection to our jurisdiction over this appeal, we must consider whether there is a fina l decision of the distric t court within th e meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).” Silico n 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 jurisdic tion over a “final dec i sion of a district court of the United St ates.” 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 Silico n Image , we explained that “[a]bsent the full adjudication of all claim s for all parties, . . . there can be no ‘final dec ision’ 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 p ending in t he district court. . . .” Id. at 1362- 63. Similarly, here, all cl aims and counter claims hav e not been fully adjudicated, as plaintiff-appellant All Co mputers averred that there was no a d judicati on of the invalidity and unenforceability counterclaims. Nor w e re such claims and counterclaims removed from the case, whether by dism is sal (with or witho ut prejudice) or vo luntary withdrawal; nor was the partial summary judgm ent certi f ied under Rule 54(b). Thus, there is no final judgment in this case and we do not have juri sdiction. Parties must abide by and be

05-1271 3cognizant of the jurisdictiona l requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1295( a )(1) and F ederal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

05-1271 4