Opinion
2012-1491
08-08-2012
EVERYMD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICK SANTORUM, MITT ROMNEY, AND NEWT GINGRICH, Defendants-Appellees, AND GOLDMAN, SACHS, & CO. and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendants-Appellees, AND YAHOO, INC., AOL, INC., MICROSOFT, INC., AND GOOGLE, INC., Defendants-Appellees,
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in case no. 12-CV-1623, Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer.
ORDER
The court considers whether this appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
EveryMD appears to be appealing from an order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California staying proceedings in this patent infringement action pending inter partes reexamination of the patent-in-suit.
Ordinarily, only a final decision of a district court may be appealed, i.e., one that "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945); see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1295(a); see also Spread Spectrum Screening LLC v. Eastman Kodak Co., 657 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stay of patent infringement suit pending reexamination proceedings not a final judgment and not appealable); Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 705 F.2d 1340, 1341-42 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (because a stay pending reexamination normally does not foreclose review on the merits by a federal court such orders are only appealable if the stay "effectively disposes of the district court action."). Based only on our review, it appears that the district court's stay order may not be appealable at this time.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The parties are directed to respond within 21 days from the date of filing of this order concerning whether this petition should be dismissed.
(2) The briefing schedule is stayed.
FOR THE COURT
_________________
Jan Horbaly
Clerk
cc: Frank Michael Weyer, Esq.
John N. Zarian, Esq
Edward Daniel Robinson, Esq.
Stefani E. Shanberg, Esq.
s26