Case Name: Timothy L. TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-07-11
Citations: 256 F.3d 1315
Docket Number: No. 670
Parties: Timothy L. TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Petitioner.
Judges: Before MAYER, Chief Judge, SCHALL and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 256
Pages: 1315–1318

Head Matter:
Timothy L. TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Petitioner.
No. 670.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
July 11, 2001.
Russell J. Stutes, Jr., Scofield, Gerard, Veron, Singletary & Pohorelsky, of Lake Charles, LA, for plaintiff-respondent Timothy L. Taylor. Of counsel were John B. Scofield and John C. Guillet.
Darrel C. Karl, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L .L.P., of Washington, DC, for defendant-petitioner PPG Industries, Inc. Of counsel was Ford F. Farabow, Jr.
Before MAYER, Chief Judge, SCHALL and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.
PPG Industries, Inc. ("PPG") petitions for permission to appeal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), (c)(1), the portion of an April 20, 2001 judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana determining that federal patent law does not preempt certain state law claims brought by Timothy L. Taylor. Taylor opposes.
Taylor brought suit against PPG, alleging federal antitrust violations and asserting numerous state law claims arising under Pennsylvania, Louisiana and California law. Taylor also sought a declaratory judgment that he is the sole inventor of two patents for which he is the registered owner.
PPG moved for summary judgment with respect to all claims except the claim for declaratory relief (involving the inventor-ship issue). PPG argued, inter alia, that Taylor's state law claims were preempted by federal patent law. The district court granted PPG's motion for summary judgment on Taylor's federal antitrust claim and, after determining that Louisiana law governed the state law claims, dismissed the claims brought under Pennsylvania and California law. The district court denied PPG's motion with respect to the Louisiana state law claims, concluding that the claims were not preempted by federal patent law.
The district court certified portions of its decision for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), (c)(1). Specifically, in the judgment on motion for summary judgment, the district court certified its ruling that federal patent law does not preempt Taylor's Louisiana state law claims. PPG petitions for permission to appeal that portion of the district court's decision. The district court also entered final judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) with respect to other portions of the April 20, 2001 decision, i.e., the dismissal of the California and Pennsylvania state law claims and the dismissal of the antitrust claims. Taylor has appealed that judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), appeal no. 01-1363. Thus, the only issues that remain in the district court are the Louisiana state law claims and the claim for declaratory relief regarding inventorship.
This is a highly unusual case. As noted above, the district court ruled on various matters in this case in a single order. The district court entered final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) with respect to some portions of the order, and Taylor has appealed the Rule 54(b) judgment. The district court certified other portions of the order for immediate appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), (c)(1). PPG has petitioned for permission to appeal those portions of the order. Allowing the appeals to proceed simultaneously will promote judicial efficiency.
Further, we conclude that the district court's decision regarding the preemption of Taylor's state law claims "involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
I. PPG's petition for permission to appeal is granted.
II. The clerk is directed to consolidate this case with appeal no. 01-1363.