Nazir Khan v. Iftikhar Khan
Infringement action filed 22 Jan 2026 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 20 Mar 2026, with US8747344B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: appeal dismissed.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US8747344B2
- Application no.
- US13/645862
- Case no.
- 26-1364
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Court level
- Court of Appeals
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Appeal
- Filed – Closed
- 22 Jan 2026 – 20 Mar 2026
- Duration
- 57 days
- Basis of termination
- Appeal Dismissed
- Products & marks
- Hybrid arteriovenous shunt
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Hybrid arteriovenous shunt
An apparatus for positioning a graft and catheter operable for subcutaneous access to the vascular system of a patient. A surgically created, hybrid arteriovenous shunt is provided which comprises a flexible graft and a venous outflow catheter connected to the graft via surgical anastomosis over a cuff. The graft is connected to an arterial source and then to a single lumen venous outflow catheter which deposits dialyzed blood directly into the heart at the right atrium. Methods of surgical placement and performing hemodialysis using embodiments of the apparatus are provided.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 10 Jun 2014
- Est. expiry
- 29 Mar 2024
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- KHAN, NAZIR, A.
- Classification
- A61B19/00
- Examiner
- DEAK, LESLIE
Parties of record
Nazir Khan
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Nazir Khan
- Firm
- Not recorded
Iftikhar Khan
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Nazir Khan | Nazir Khan | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) Each party shall bear its own costs.”
Case 26-1364 · Fed. Cir. · closed 20 March 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 26-1364?
26-1364 is a patent infringement action brought by Nazir Khan against Iftikhar Khan, filed on 22 Jan 2026 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 20 March 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 26-1364?
US8747344B2 (“Hybrid arteriovenous shunt”), assigned to KHAN, NAZIR A., currently inactive. The record also lists Hybrid arteriovenous shunt.
How was case 26-1364 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is appeal dismissed. The termination text reads: “IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) Each party shall bear its own costs.”
How long did case 26-1364 take?
57 calendar days, from filing on 22 Jan 2026 to closure on 20 March 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 26-1364?
Nazir Khan is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Nazir Khan.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 26-1364 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.