N OTE : This o rder is non precedential. 

# 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: 07/25/2014REESE 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, I NC. , Defendant

- Appellee.

______________________
2014

- 1523

______________________ Case: 14-1519 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 07/25/2014REESE 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, Jud ge 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 R EYNA , B RYSON , and W ALLACH , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R In these related appeals, Mor ris Reese seeks interlo cutory review of orders of the District Court for the Central District of California granting summary jud gment and holding that the doctrine of laches barred the underlying complaints . Because t he se appeals are premature, we grant appellees’ motions to dismiss. Case: 14-1519 Document: 5 Page: 3 Filed: 07/25/2014REESE v. T

- MOBILE USA , INC

. 4

In response to Mr. Reese’s separate charges of patent infringement, several of the defendants filed counte rclaims, 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 repor t detailing what issues remain for the court to resolve. Mr. Reese then filed motions for reco nsideration of the summary judgment orders , which r emain 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 litiga tion 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 reconsidera tion and the defen dants’ counter claims are still unadjudicated

. Thus, Mr. Reese’s notices of appeal were cle arly 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 C OURT

/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