Federal Circuit Dismisses Non-Infringement Appeal of Only Certain Patent Claims, Denies Judge Reassignment

In ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 26-1033 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2026), the Federal Circuit dismissed ParkerVision’s appeal of non-infringement and denied ParkerVision’s request to reassign the case to a different judge on remand.

ParkerVision sued Qualcomm for infringement of two patents related to the conversion of electromagnetic signals. The district court granted partial summary judgment of non-infringement for asserted “receiver claims” and severed and stayed the remaining “transmitter claims.” ParkerVision appealed the grant of summary judgment only as to the receiver claims and requested that the case be reassigned on remand.

The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, explaining it can hear an appeal of a partial judgment under Rule 54(b), only if the judgment is final and the district court expressly determines there is no just reason for delay of appellate review. For the ’940 patent (containing both receiver and transmitter claims), the Court held that the judgment was not final because non-infringement was found for only some patent claims, while others remain unresolved. Although the judgment had resolved all asserted claims of the ’907 patent (containing only receiver claims), the district court only assessed whether there was a just reason for delaying an appeal regarding the receiver claims of both patents together, not with respect to an appeal regarding the ’907 patent alone. The Court thus lacked jurisdiction to review the judgment as to only the ’907 patent. The Court also declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction or to certify an interlocutory appeal. The Court denied ParkerVision’s request to reassign the case, finding that ParkerVision failed to show that reassignment was warranted.