Morris Reese v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MORRIS REESE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________
2014-1519
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in No. 2:13-cv-05199-ODW,
Judge Otis D. Wright, II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MORRIS REESE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
AT&T MOBILITY II LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________
2014-1520
______________________
Case: 14-1519 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 07/25/2014

-- 1 of 4 --

REESE v. T- MOBILE USA, INC. 2
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in No. 2:13-cv-05198-ODW,
Judge Otis D. Wright, II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MORRIS REESE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON
WIRELESS,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________
2014-1522
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in No. 2:13-cv-05197-ODW,
Judge Otis D. Wright, II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MORRIS REESE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TRACFONE WIRELESS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________
2014-1523
______________________
Case: 14-1519 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 07/25/2014

-- 2 of 4 --

REESE v. T- MOBILE USA, INC. 3
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in No. 2:13-cv-05196-ODW,
Judge Otis D. Wright, II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MORRIS REESE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SPRINT-NEXTEL CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________
2014-1524
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in No. 2:13-cv-03811-ODW,
Judge Otis D. Wright, II.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before REYNA, BRYSON, and WALLACH , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
In these related appeals, Morris Reese seeks interloc-
utory review of orders of the District Court for the Central
District of California granting summary judgment and
holding that the doctrine of laches barred the underlying
complaints. Because these appeals are premature, we
grant appellees’ motions to dismiss.
Case: 14-1519 Document: 5 Page: 3 Filed: 07/25/2014

-- 3 of 4 --

REESE v. T- MOBILE USA, INC. 4
In response to Mr. Reese’s separate charges of patent
infringement, several of the defendants filed counter-
claims, seeking declaratory judgment of non-
infringement, patent invalidity, and inequitable conduct.
After the district court granted the defendants’ motions
for summary judgment, he directed the parties to file a
joint status report detailing what issues remain for the
court to resolve. Mr. Reese then filed motions for recon-
sideration of the summary judgment orders, which re-
main pending.
Section 1295(a)(1) of Title 28 authorizes this court to
review “a final decision” of a district court in a patent
infringement case, i.e., a decision that “‘ends the litigation
on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but
execute the judgment.’” Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486
U.S. 517, 521-22 (1988) (quoting Catlin v. United States,
324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945)). That has not yet occurred in
this case. The district court was clear that the summary
judgment orders did not call an end to the litigation, and
Mr. Reese’s motions for reconsideration and the defend-
ants’ counterclaims are still unadjudicated. Thus, Mr.
Reese’s notices of appeal were clearly premature.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The motions to dismiss are granted.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court
s19
ISSUED AS A MANDATE: July 25, 2014
Case: 14-1519 Document: 5 Page: 4 Filed: 07/25/2014

-- 4 of 4 --