Nazir Khan v. Artivion, Inc.

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
NAZIR KHAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant
IFTIKHAR KHAN,
Plaintiff
v.
ARTIVION, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2026-1364
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia in No. 1:21-cv-02291-SCJ,
Judge Steve C. Jones.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before DYK, REYNA, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Artivion, Inc. moves to dismiss this appeal, which
Nazir Khan opposes. We dismiss.
Case: 26-1364 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 03/20/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

KHAN v. ARTIVION, INC. 2
This court previously affirmed the dismissal of
Mr. Khan’s complaint against Artivion. Khan v. Artivion,
Inc., No. 2023-2347, 2024 WL 3419942 (Fed. Cir. July 16,
2024). On June 4, 2025, the district court denied several of
Mr. Khan’s post-judgment motions. Dkt. No. 110. Both
parties then filed additional motions, some of which remain
pending. On January 13, 2026, the court deferred Artiv-
ion’s motion for a protective order and relieved it from hav-
ing to respond to Mr. Khan’s filings unless further ordered.
Dkt. No. 140. On January 20, 2026, Mr. Khan filed a no-
tice of appeal from the June 2025 and January 2026 orders.
Our jurisdiction over decisions from district courts in
patent infringement cases is limited in ways that preclude
our review of these orders. As for the June 2025 order:
Mr. Khan failed to file his appeal within the 30 day statu-
tory deadline. 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); see Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a)(1)(A). As that deadline is jurisdictional and cannot
be waived or otherwise excused, we must dismiss. Bowles
v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). As for the January
2026 order: this is not “an appeal from a final decision,” 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1), because there are ongoing related pro-
ceedings before the district court (regarding at least mo-
tions for attorney fees and to reverse the judgment). See,
e.g., Acheron Capital, Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 987
(11th Cir. 2022) (citing 15B Charles Alan Wright et al.,
Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 3916 (rev. 2d. 2021)). We have consid-
ered Mr. Khan’s arguments but find he has not established
our jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
Case: 26-1364 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 03/20/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

KHAN v. ARTIVION, INC. 3
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.
March 20, 2026
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 26-1364 Document: 11 Page: 3 Filed: 03/20/2026

-- 3 of 3 --