Case Name: PROVERIS SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION (formerly known as Image Therm Engineering, Inc.), Plaintiff-Appellee, v. INNOVASYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-27
Citations: 423 F. App'x 982
Docket Number: No. 2011-1043
Parties: PROVERIS SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION (formerly known as Image Therm Engineering, Inc.), Plaintiff-Appellee, v. INNOVASYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GAJARSA, MAYER, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 423
Pages: 982–983

Head Matter:
PROVERIS SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION (formerly known as Image Therm Engineering, Inc.), Plaintiff-Appellee, v. INNOVASYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 2011-1043.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
May 27, 2011.
Timothy J. Szuhaj, Becker Meisel LLC, Cherry Hill, NJ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Gerard F. Diebner, Troutman Sanders LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Before GAJARSA, MAYER, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ON MOTION
ORDER
GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.
Proveris Scientific Corporation moves to dismiss Innovasystems, Inc.'s appeal. In-novasystems opposes. Proveris replies.
In May of 2007, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered final judgment against Inno-vasystems for infringement of a Proveris patent. As part of the judgment, the district court entered a permanent injunction prohibiting Innovasystems from "making, using, selling, offering, for sale or importing into or exporting out of the United States" its infringing products. On March 3, 2010, Proveris filed a motion for contempt asserting that Innovasystems violated the injunction. The court determined that it would first rule on the issue of liability for contempt and then, if necessary, consider the issue of sanctions. Subsequently, the district court found In-novasystems to be in contempt. Innova-systems appealed that order to this court.
Proveris asserts that because the district court has not yet adjudicated the issue of sanctions, the district court's order is not final and the present appeal is premature. We agree with Proveris that In-novasystems' appeal is premature because there is no final disposition regarding sanctions. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1), we have jurisdiction over a final decision of a district court. A final decision is one that "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Nystrom v. TREX Co., 339 F.3d 1347, 1350 (Fed.Cir.2003). Thus, this appeal is premature and must be dismissed.
Accordingly,
It Is Ordered That:
(1) The motion to dismiss is granted. Any other pending motions are moot.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.