Pieczenik v. Bayer Corp.

NOTE; This order is n0nprecedentia1. United States Court of AppeaIs for the FederaI Circuit GEORGE PIECZENIK, Plain.tiff-Appellant, v. 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., l Defenclan,ts-Appellees, AND ABBOTT LABORATORIES, ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC., AND SOLVAY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendants-Appellees, AND ALLERGA_N IJsA, INC., C0RN1NG 1Nc0RP0RA'1‘ED, G1LEAD ScIENCES,1NC., H0WARD HuGHEs MED1cAL 1NST1TUTE, 1DEXX REFERENcE LABORATOR1ES, INC., QIAGEN 1Nc0RP0RATED, SH10N0G1 PHARMA SALEs, INC., sH10N0GI PHARMA,1Nc., SHI0N0G1 USA H0L1)1NGS, INC., mo SH10N0G1 USA, INC., PIECZENIK V. BAYER CORP 2 Defendan,ts-Appellees, AND AMGEN USA, INC., AMGEN, INC., PHARMACIA & UPJOHN COMPANY LLC, PHARMACIA CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC., SYNGENTA SEEDS, INC., WYE'I`H HOLDINGS CORPORATION, AND WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Defen,dants-Appellees, AND ANTYRA, INC., Defendan,t-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 DlAGNOSTICS, 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 3 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, ' Defendan,ts-Appellees, ' AND ( BRACCO DlAGNOSTICS 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., Defen.dants-Appellees, AND DYAX CORPORATION, FOREsT LABORATOR1ES, 1Nc.,GENzYME c0RP0RATI0N, GLAx0sM1THKL1NE LLC, KYOWA HAKK0 K1R1N AMER1cA, INC., KY0WA HAKK0 K1RIN PHARMA, INC., mo PERK1NELMER HEALTH sc1ENcES, INC., PIECZENIK 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., AND GE HEALTHCARE STRATEGIC SOURCING CORPORATION, Defen,dants-Appellees, AND INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHIN`ES CORPORATION, Defen.dant-Appellee, 5 AND INV'ITROGEN CORPORATION, Defendcm,t-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, 5 PIECZEN`IK V. BAYER CORP AND NOVO NORDISK, INC. AND JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 61, Defendcmts. 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 R.AoER, Chief Ju,dge, NEWMAN and BRYsoN, Circmlt Ju,d,'ges. PER CURlAM. The Defendants»Appe1lees 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 “f'1nal decision of a district cou.rt.” 28 U.S.C. § 1295. The Supre1ne Court has defined a Enal judgment as a decision by the district court that "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves PIECZENIK V. BAYER CORP 6 nothing for the court to do but execute judgment.” C'atlin 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 THATI (1) These appeals are dismissed. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. (3) All other pending motions are moot. FOR THE COURT ` HAY 03 2011 fsi J an Horbaly Date J an Horbal3F Clerk ccc Chad J. Peterman, Esq. Liza M. Walsh, Esq. Daniel J. Thomasch, Esq. Jane E. Keene, Esq. Robert L. Baechtold, Esq. Susan Haberman Griffen, Esq. David W. Field, Esq. Robert J. K0ch, Esq. Robert M. Goodman, Esq. Donald R. Ware, Esq. l\/lark 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. 13 §§-3 moon §'nI_ 1-gin 9 6 si U.S. 00 THE mm 03 2011 L8 FOR UIT .lANHiJRBALY CI.EFli 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 Michae1 D. Kaminski, Esq. Robert M. Isackson, Esq. George Pieczenik PIECZENIK V. BAYER CORP