Case: 25-139 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 09/29/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ In Re NAZIR KHAN, IFTIKHAR KHAN, Petitioners ______________________ 2025-139 ______________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of Utah in No. 2:21-cv-00337- HCN-CMR, Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. -------------------------------------------------- In Re NAZIR KHAN, IFTIKHAR KHAN, Petitioners ______________________ 2025-140 ______________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in No. 1:21-cv-02291-SCJ, Judge Steve C. Jones. ______________________ ON PETITION ______________________ Before LOURIE, PROST, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Case: 25-139 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 09/29/2025

2 IN RE KHAN

ORDER This court previously affirmed final judgments against Nazir Khan and Iftikhar Khan on their claims of patent infringement.1 The Khans now petition this court for a writ of mandamus seeking various relief, including to declare “all dispositive rulings issued” in the cases “void” and to “[a]knowledge and confirm that all facts and legal argu- ments presented by Petitioners are correct in law and sup- ported by the uncontested record.” Pets. at 9–10 (emphasis omitted).

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only where the petitioner shows: (1) a clear and indisputable right to relief; (2) no adequate alternative avenue for relief; and (3) that mandamus is appropriate under the circum- stances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). To the extent the Khans are attempting to relitigate the earlier judgments, they lost the first time around on appeal and mandamus does not afford them a second bite at the apple. To the extent they are attempting to challenge rulings since that time, they have not shown a timely direct appeal would be inadequate. We have also considered their arguments to compel the trial court to take further action but find nothing in them that would warrant granting this extraordinary relief.

Accordingly,

1 Khan v. Merit Medical Sys., Inc., No. 2023-2329, ECF No. 69 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2024); Khan v. Artivion, Inc., No. 2023-2347, ECF No. 43 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2024).

Case: 25-139 Document: 11 Page: 3 Filed: 09/29/2025

IN RE KHAN 3

IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petitions are denied.

FOR THE COURT

September 29, 2025 Date