Note: This order is nonprecedential. GQnited States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
GEORGE PIECZENIK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
Vv.
BAYER CORPORATION, BAYER CROPSCIENCE (NEW JERSEY) INC., BAYER HEALTHCARE
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
BAYER HEALTHCARE, LLC, BAYER
MATERIALSCIENCE LLC,
BAYER PHARMA CHEMICALS INC., BAYER
PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, AND
SCHERING BERLIN INC.,
Defendants-Appellees,
AND
ABBOTT LABORATORIES, ABBOTT
LABORATORIES, INC., AnD SOLVAY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees,
AND
ALLERGAN USA, INC., CORNING
INCORPORATED, GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.,
HOWARD HUGHES MEDICAL INSTITUTE,
IDEXX REFERENCE LABORATORIES, INC.,
QIAGEN INCORPORATED, SHIONOGI PHARMA SALES, INC., SHIONOGI PHARMA, INC.,
SHIONOGI USA HOLDINGS, INC.,
AND SHIONOGI USA, INC.,
2PIECZENIK v. BAYER CORP 2
Defendants-Appellees,
AND
AMGEN USA, INC., AMGEN, INC., PHARMACIA & UPJOHN COMPANY LLC, PHARMACIA
CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC., SYNGENTA SEEDS, INC., WYETH HOLDINGS CORPORATION, AND WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS
INC.,
Defendants-Appellees,
AND
ANTYRA, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee,
AND
ASTELLAS PHARMA US, INC., ASTRAZENECA LP, ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP,
AVENTIS INC., AVENTIS PHARMACEUTICALS
INC., BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
VETMEDICA, INC., BOEHRINGER
INGELHEIMROXANE, INC., CANON U.S.A., INC., DAIICHI SANKYO, INC., DAINIPPON SUMITOMO PHARMA AMERICA HOLDINGS, INC., DAINIPPON SUMITOMO PHARMA AMERICA, INC.,
MEDIMMUNE LLC, MITSUBISHI TANABE
PHARMA AMERICA, INC., MITSUBISHI TANABE PHARMA DEVELOPMENT AMERICA,
INC., MITSUBISHI TANABE PHARMA HOLDINGS AMERICA, INC., NOVARTIS CORPORATION,
NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION, NOVARTIS VACCINES AND DIAGNOSTICS, INC., OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. INC., SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, SCHERING CORPORATION, SCHERING-PLOUGH
BIOPHARMA, SCHERING-PLOUGH
INTERNATIONAL, INC., SCHERING-PLOUGH
33 PIECZENIK v. BAYER CORP PRODUCTS, INC., SIEMENS CORPORATION,
SIEMENS DIAGNOSTICS FINANCE CO. LLC,
SIEMENS HEALTHCARE DIAGNOSTICS INC., AND SIEMENS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS USA, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees,
AND
BAXTER DIAGNOSTICS INC., BIOGEN IDEC INC., BIOGEN IDEC U.S. CORPORATION, MEDAREX, INC., MILLENIUM PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., MONSANTO AG PRODUCTS LLC,
MONSANTO COMPANY, ONYX
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ZYMOGENETICS,
INC., AND ZYMOGENETICS, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees,
AND
BRACCO DIAGNOSTICS INC., .
Defendant-Appellee,
AND
CENTOCOR ORTHO BIOTECH PRODUCTS, L.P., CENTOCOR ORTHO BIOTECH SERVICES,
CENTOCOR ORTHO BIOTECH, INC.,
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ORTHO-MCNEIL
JANSSEN SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS, LLC, ORTHO-MCNEIL PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
AND ORTHO-MCNEIL, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees,
AND
DYAX CORPORATION, FOREST LABORATORIES,
INC., GENZYME CORPORATION,
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC, KYOWA HAKKO
KIRIN AMERICA, INC., KYOWA HAKKO KIRIN
PHARMA, INC., AND PERKINELMER HEALTH
SCIENCES, INC.,
4PIECZENIK v. BAYER CORP
Defendants-Appellees,
AND
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee,
AND
GE HEALTHCARE BIOSCIENCES BIOPROCESS CORP., GE HEALTHCARE BIOSCIENCES CORP., GE HEALTHCARE INC., anp GE HEALTHCARE STRATEGIC SOURCING CORPORATION,
Defendants-Appellees,
AND
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee,
AND
INVITROGEN CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee,
AND
SOLVAY CHEMICALS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee,
AND
TAIHO PHARMA U.S.A., INC.,
Defendant-Appellee,
AND
THE DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC, THE DOW
CHEMICAL COMPANY (DELAWARE), AND THE
DOW CORNING CORPORATION,
Defendants-Appellees,
55 PIECZENIK v. BAYER CORP
AND
NOVO NORDISK, INC. anp JOHN DOES 1
THROUGH 61,
Defendants.
2011-1121, -1153
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in case no. 10-CV-2230, Judge Joel A. Pisano.
ON MOTION
ORDER .
Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and BRYSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.
The Defendants-Appellees move to dismiss George Pieczenik’s appeals. Pieczenik opposes.
Pieczenik has appealed from orders denying his motion “in limine to expunge plaintiffs copyright lecture proffered by defendants’ counsel and to charge them with digital copyright infringement,” denying his motion for mediation, and his motion for reconsideration. Proceedings before the trial court remain ongoing. With the exception of certain interlocutory orders not at issue here, this court only has . jurisdiction to decide appeals only from a “final decision of a district court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1295. The Supreme Court has defined a final judgment as a decision by the district court that “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves
6PIECZENIK v. BAYER CORP 6 nothing for the court to do but execute judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945). Because the district court has not entered final judgment, the appeals are dismissed as premature.
Accordingly, It Is ORDERED THAT: (1) These appeals are dismissed. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. (3) All other pending motions are moot.
For THE CouRT
MAY 03 2011
/s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly
Clerk
ce: Chad J. Peterman, Esq.
Liza M. Walsh, Esq. FILED oR Daniel J. Thomasch, Esq. 8 S. COURT OF AFEEALST Jane E. Keene, Esq. Robert L. Baechtold, Esq. MAY 03 2011 Susan Haberman Griffen, Esq. David W. Field, Esq. HORB: Robert J. Koch, Esq. bir Robert M. Goodman, Esq. Donald R. Ware, Esq. Mark A. Pals, Esq. Alexander A. Anglim, Esq. Lisa A. Schneider, Esq. Christopher J. Harnett, Esq. Matthew M. Wolf, Esq. Robert J. Schoenberg, Esq. Matthew Daniel Murphey, Esq.
7PIECZENIK v. BAYER CORP William F. Lee, Esq. Eric J. Marandett, Esq. David Keith Barr, Esq. David E. De Lorenzi, Esq. Keith J. Miller, Esq. Kevin J. McKenna, Esq. Joseph A. Mahoney, Esq. Heather D. Redmond, Esq. Michael D. Kaminski, Esq. Robert M. Isackson, Esq. George Pieczenik s19