Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Parkervision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated, No. 22-1755 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2024)

Dismissed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 22-1755
Decided
July 16, 2024
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

PARKERVISION, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, QUALCOMM

ATHEROS, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

2022-1755

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in No. 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-LHP, Judge Paul G. Byron.

SUA SPONTE

Before LOURIE, MAYER, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

On June 27, 2024, we entered an Order requesting supplemental briefing on whether there is an appealable judgment in this case. ECF No. 57. On July 8, 2024, the parties filed a joint response, in which they contended there is a final judgment, but if we find otherwise we should dismiss2 2 PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

the appeal subject to reinstatement as outlined in the June 27 Order. ECF No. 58.

Having considered the parties’ joint response, we determine that there is no final judgment. We are not persuaded that the district court’s grant of Qualcomm’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement also “effectively” dismissed Qualcomm’s pending counterclaims for invalidity. Because Qualcomm’s counterclaims for invalidity remain unadjudicated, there is no final judgment and we lack jurisdiction over ParkerVision’s appeal. See Nystrom v. TREX Co., 339 F.3d 1347, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“If a case is not fully adjudicated as to all claims for all parties . . . there is no ‘final decision’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) and therefore no jurisdiction.”).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, subject to reinstatement under the same docket number without the payment of an additional filing fee if, by no later than August 15, 2024, ParkerVision appeals from the entry of an appealable order.

(2) If the appeal is reinstated, it will be decided by the present panel, based on the briefs already filed and the oral argument heard on November 6, 2023.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs. (4) The mandate shall issue forthwith.

FOR THE COURT

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

July 16, 2024 Date

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Parkervision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated, No. 22-1755 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2024).

Record ID
CAFC-22-1755-20240716
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-22-1755-20240716

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.