In Re NAZIR KHAN, IFTIKHAR KHAN v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 2004 . To the extent the Khans are…

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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: 1 Filed: 09/29/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE KHAN 2
O R D E R
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: 2 Filed: 09/29/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE KHAN 3
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petitions are denied.
September 29, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-139 Document: 11 Page: 3 Filed: 09/29/2025

-- 3 of 3 --