Case: 14-1519         Document: 5          Page: 1       Filed: 07/25/2014




             NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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: 2       Filed: 07/25/2014



2                                  REESE    v. T-MOBILE USA, INC.



   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: 3       Filed: 07/25/2014



 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.
PER CURIAM.
                               ORDER
    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: 4      Filed: 07/25/2014



4                            REESE   v. T-MOBILE USA, INC.



    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,
      IT IS ORDERED THAT:
      (1) The motions to dismiss are granted.
      (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

                                       FOR THE COURT

                                       /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
                                       Daniel E. O’Toole
                                       Clerk of Court
s19
ISSUED AS A MANDATE: July 25, 2014
