Khan v. Artivion, Inc.

Case: 26-1364 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 03/20/2026

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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.

ORDER Artivion, Inc. moves to dismiss this appeal, which Nazir Khan opposes. We dismiss.

Case: 26-1364 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 03/20/2026

2 KHAN v. ARTIVION, INC.

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: 3 Filed: 03/20/2026

KHAN v. ARTIVION, INC. 3

IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

March 20, 2026 Date