116 S.Ct. 1114 (‘[M]any of those cases arose in the context of a statute passed under the Fourteenth Amendment, where Congress’ authority to abrogate is undisputed.”). The United States intervened as of right under 28 U.S.C. § 2403(a) (1994) to defend the constitutionality of the Patent Remedy Act. The district court denied Florida Prepaid’s motion to dismiss, because it concluded that Congress had unambiguously abrogated the states’ sovereign immunity in the Patent Remedy Act and had acted pursuant to a valid exercise of power under the Fourteenth Amendment. Florida Prepaid took this appeal over which we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (1994). See Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 147, 113 S.Ct. 684, 121 L.Ed.2d 605 (1993) (<HOLDING>); see also Swint v. Chambers County Comm’n, 514
holding that states may take advantage of the collateral order doctrine to appeal district court orders denying claims of eleventh amendment immunity holding that pursuant to the collateral order doctrine and 28 usc  1291 a state may appeal from a district court order denying it eleventh amendment immunity holding that a district court order denying anonymity to the parties is a collateral order holding that order denying motion to dismiss a bankruptcy petition is final under 28 usc  1291 holding that a bankruptcy court order denying a trustees claim to immunity was final and appealable under the collateral order doctrine