
    George PIECZENIK, Plaintiff-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., 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., 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 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 Braceo 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., 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, 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, and Novo Nordisk, Inc. and John Does 1 Through 61, Defendants.
    Nos. 2011-1121, 2011-1153.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    May 3, 2011.
    Chad J. Peterman, Patterson, Belknap Webb & Tyler, LLP, Daniel J. Thomasch, Orriek, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Joseph Evall, Orriek, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Robert L. Baechtold, Nicholas M. Cannella, Bruce C. Haas, Lisa B. Pensa-bene, Fitzpatrick, Celia, Harper & Scinto,-Christopher J. Harnett, James F. Haley Jr., Pablo D. Hendler, Ropes & Gray, LLP, New York, NY, Liza M. Walsh, Con-nell Foley, LLP, David W. Field, Lowen-stein Sandler, P.C., Robert M. Goodman, Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis, Rose-land, NJ, Sheila F. McShane, Gibbons P.C., Newark, NJ, Jane E. Keene, Plevy & Keene, LLP, Trenton, NJ, Susan Haber-man Griffen, Finnegan, Henderson, Fara-bow, Robert J. Koch, Jay I. Alexander, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, Matthew M. Wolf, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Washington, DC, Donald R. Ware, Jeremy A. Younkin, Foley Hoag, LLP, Boston, MA, Mark A. Pals, Tiffany P. Cunningham, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Lisa A. Schneider, Constantine Koutsoubas, Sidley Austin, LLP, Chicago, IL, Alexander J. Anglim, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Flor-ham Park, NJ, Jennifer A. Sklenar, How-rey, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    George Pieczenik, Stockton, NJ, pro se.
    Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.
   ON MOTION

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

The Defendants-Appellees move to dismiss George Pieczenik’s appeals. Pieczen-ik 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 nothing for the court to do but execute judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S.Ct. 631, 89 L.Ed. 911 (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.  