The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) does not permit entry of partial final judgment on some asserted claims of a patent while other asserted claims of the same patent remain unresolved. The Court explained that infringement of different claims of the same patent generally constitutes a single cause of action. ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., Case Nos. 26-1033; -1035 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2026) (Prost, Chen, Stark, JJ.)
ParkerVision sued Qualcomm in 2014 for infringement of two patents directed to electromagnetic signal conversion. One patent included asserted claims directed to down-conversion (receiver claims). The other patent included both receiver claims and asserted claims directed to up-conversion (transmitter claims).
In 2024, the Federal Circuit vacated an earlier summary judgment of noninfringement and remanded. Following claim construction on remand, the parties stipulated to noninfringement of the receiver claims, and the district court entered partial summary judgment. That ruling resolved all asserted claims of the patent directed only to down-conversion but left unresolved the transmitter claims of the patent covering both down-conversion and up-conversion. At ParkerVision’s request, and over Qualcomm’s objection, the district court entered judgment under Rule 54(b) as to the receiver claims and “severed and stayed” the transmitter claims pending appeal. ParkerVision appealed.
The Federal Circuit concluded that Rule 54(b) did not authorize entry of final judgment as to only some asserted claims of the patent covering both receiver and transmitter functionality. Rule 54(b) permits entry of final judgment only as to one or more “claims” for relief, coupled with an express determination that there is no just reason for delay. The Court explained that a “claim” under Rule 54(b) means a cause of action, not an individual patent claim.
Relying on 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a) and 281 and Federal Circuit precedent, the Court explained that infringement of different claims of the same patent generally constitutes a single cause of action. ParkerVision’s complaint likewise pleaded a single infringement count for the patent covering both down-conversion and up-conversion and did not separately plead causes of action directed to the receiver and transmitter claims. The Court explained that because the receiver and transmitter claims were part of the same cause of action and the transmitter claims remained unresolved, the district court had not entered a final judgment subject to appellate review.
The Federal Circuit also rejected ParkerVision’s alternative jurisdictional arguments. ParkerVision contended that the judgment was final at least as to the patent directed only to down-conversion because all asserted claims of that patent had been resolved. The Court disagreed, explaining that the district court had not been asked to enter a Rule 54(b) judgment limited to that patent and had not made the required express determination that there was “no just reason for delay” as to that patent. Without a valid Rule 54(b) judgment as to the down-conversion patent, there was also no basis for pendent appellate jurisdiction over issues involving the patent covering both down-conversion and up-conversion.
The Federal Circuit further declined to treat the appeal as a permissive interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). That statute requires district court certification that the order involves a controlling question of law, that there is substantial ground for difference of opinion, and that an immediate appeal may materially advance the termination of the litigation. Because the district court had not made those determinations, the Federal Circuit declined to “predicate appellate jurisdiction on mere speculation.”
Finally, applying Eleventh Circuit law, the Federal Circuit denied ParkerVision’s request to reassign the case to a different district judge on remand. ParkerVision pointed to the judge’s frustration with the case’s lengthy history, repeated claim-construction disputes, and multiple appeals, as well as comments critical of patent jury trials. The Court found that those circumstances did not call the judge’s impartiality into question. The district judge had followed the Federal Circuit’s claim construction mandate despite previously concluding that construction was unnecessary, and reassignment would impose substantial inefficiencies by requiring a new judge to learn the technology and extensive procedural history.
Practice note: Rule 54(b) permits entry of partial final judgment only when an entire claim for relief has been finally resolved; resolving selected patent claims within a single patent-infringement cause of action is not enough. Parties seeking immediate review of a nonfinal ruling should consider whether certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is available and ensure that the district court expressly addresses the statutory requirements. Frustration with protracted patent litigation, without more, is insufficient to warrant reassignment on remand.
