Federal Circuit Affirms Ruling in Khan v. Khan HeRO® Graft Patent Dispute
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Nazir Khan v. Iftikhar Khan |
| Case Number | 23-2347 (Fed. Cir.) |
| Court | Federal Circuit, Appeal from D.C. Circuit |
| Duration | Aug 2023 – Jul 2024 320 days |
| Outcome | Defendant Win — Appeal Dismissed, Affirmed |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | HeRO® Graft Vascular Device |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff-Appellant
Initiated this infringement action, appearing to represent himself (pro se) based on available case data, as no plaintiff law firm is identified in the record.
🛡️ Defendant-Appellee
Mounted the defense, represented by Katrina M. Quicker of Quicker Law LLC. The HeRO® Graft is a commercially established vascular access device.
Patents at Issue
This landmark case involved U.S. Patent No. 8,747,344 B2 (Application No. US13/645,862) covering technology associated with outflow graft systems designed to improve patency and reliability in hemodialysis patients — the clinical and commercial foundation underlying the **HeRO® Graft** product line.
- • US8747344B2 — Hemodialysis Reliable Outflow (HeRO®) Graft technology
Developing a medical device?
Check if your innovation might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The Federal Circuit issued a direct disposition: “THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED”. The appeal was dismissed and the lower court’s ruling affirmed. No damages figures were publicly disclosed in the available case data. No information regarding injunctive relief was specified in the record.
Key Legal Issues
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance — particularly when paired with an appeal dismissal — typically signals deference to the lower court’s claim construction and infringement findings, or procedural deficiencies in the pro se appeal. This outcome reinforces the high bar for appellants and the court’s consistent deference to lower court findings when procedural standards are met.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in medical device development. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- Review claim scope for US8747344B2
- Analyze medical device patent landscape
- Understand medical device litigation trends
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Hemodialysis vascular access technology
US8747344B2
Patent and its family involved
Design-Around Options
Crucial for new device development
✅ Key Takeaways
Pro se appellate representation in Federal Circuit patent matters carries significant procedural risk and rarely succeeds.
Explore pro se litigation data →Affirmance-on-dismissal outcomes reinforce the importance of building a comprehensive, well-documented district court record.
Analyze litigation strategies →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved U.S. Patent No. 8,747,344 B2 (Application No. US13/645,862), covering technology related to the HeRO® Graft vascular access device used in hemodialysis treatment.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the appeal on July 16, 2024, approximately 320 days after filing.
The affirmance reinforces that patent infringement findings involving commercially deployed medical devices are difficult to overturn on appeal, particularly when the appellant lacks experienced legal representation.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Case 23-2347
- US8747344B2 on Google Patents
- USPTO Patent Center — Application US13/645,862
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.