
    Morris REESE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Morris Reese, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AT & T Mobility II LLC, Defendant-Appellee. Morris Reese, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Celico Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Defendant-Appellee. Morris Reese, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tracfone Wireless, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. Morris Reese, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sprint-Nextel Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
    Nos. 2014-1519, 2014-1520, 2014-1522, 2014-1523, 2014-1524.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    July 25, 2014.
    Morris Reese, Westlake Village, CA, pro se.
    Greer N. Shaw, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for T-Mobile USA, Inc.
    Michael J. Songer, Crowell & Moring, LLP, Washington, DC, for AT & T Mobility II LLC.
    Kevin Paul Anderson, Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, DC, for Célico Partnership.
    Sharon A. Israel, Mayer Brown, LLP, Houston, TX, for Tracfone Wireless, Inc.
    Jay E. Heidrick, Attorney, Polsinelli Shugart PC, Kansas City, MO, for Sprint-Nextel Corporation.
    Before REYNA, BRYSON, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.
   ON MOTION

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

In these related appeals, Morris Reese seeks interlocutory 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.

In response to Mr. Reese’s separate charges of patent infringement, several of the defendants filed counterclaims, seeking declaratory judgment of noninfringement, 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 reconsideration of the summary judgment orders, which remain 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, 108 S.Ct. 1945, 100 L.Ed.2d 517 (1988) (quoting Gatlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S.Ct. 631, 89 L.Ed. 911 (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 defendants’ 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.  