Merit Medical Systems Inc

General

Total Cases15

Active Cases--

Patents535

CourtsD. Utah D. Delaware D. Massachusetts

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

L2

B

PTAB

L2

B

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
12/20/24	Khan v. Merit Medical Systems Inc 2:21-CV-00337 ( D. UT )	DOCUMENTS LODGED consisting of Request for Immediate Action, submitted by Nazir Khan. Note: attached document lodged for reference purposes only; no response required unless specifically ordered by the court. (Attachments: # [1] Exhibit A, # [2] Envelope) (dle) (Entered: 12/20/2024)
12/16/24	Khan v. Merit Medical Systems Inc 2:21-CV-00337 ( D. UT )	DOCUMENTS LODGED consisting of Motion for Relief Under Rule 60(b) and Reopen Case, submitted by Nazir Khan. Note: attached document lodged for reference purposes only; no response required unless specifically ordered by the court. (Attachments: # [1] Envelope) (dle) (Entered: 12/16/2024)
12/10/24	Khan v. Merit Medical Systems Inc 2:21-CV-00337 ( D. UT )	ORDER granting [199] Motion of Merit Medical Systems, Inc. for an Order Prohibiting Plaintiffs from Further Filings on Certain Issues. Until further order of the Court, Plaintiffs, individually and jointly, are prohibited from making any argument, filing any motion, or seeking any relief as set forth in the attached Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero on 12/9/24. (dle) (Entered: 12/10/2024) ORDER granting [199] Motion of Merit Medical Systems, Inc. for an Order Prohibiting Plaintiffs from Further Filings on Certain Issues. Until further order of the Court, Plaintiffs, individually and jointly, are prohibited from making any argument, filing any motion, or seeking any relief as set forth in the attached Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero on 12/9/24. (dle) (Entered: 12/10/2024)
12/06/24	Khan v. Merit Medical Systems Inc 2:21-CV-00337 ( D. UT )	AMENDED MOTION for Relief Under Rule 60(b) and to Reopen Case, filed by Plaintiff Nazir Khan. Motions referred to Cecilia M. Romero. (dle) (Entered: 12/06/2024)
11/13/24	Khan v. Merit Medical Systems Inc 2:21-CV-00337 ( D. UT )	DOCKET TEXT ORDER. Plaintiffs have flooded the docket in this case with motions raising issues that the court has already resolved. In some of these motions, Plaintiffs seek to reargue the merits of their patent infringement claims. But the court has already granted summary judgment of non-infringement to Defendant and the Federal Circuit has affirmed the court's judgment, denied Plaintiffs' petition for rehearing, and issued its mandate. See Khan v. Merit Med. Sys., Inc., No. 23-2329, 2024 WL 3421395, at 3 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2024); Dkt. Nos. 181, 189. To the extent Plaintiffs' motions can be construed as requests to reopen the court's judgment, they have come nowhere close to showing any basis for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). In other motions, Plaintiffs argue that Iftikhar Khan should be dismissed as a party and that the court should disqualify Judge Romero, but the court has already rejected these arguments, see Dkt. Nos. 149 & 177, and Plaintiffs have failed to persuade the court that it should reconsider its ruling on these issues. Finally, Plaintiffs have repeated their objections to Judge Romero's order addressing Defendant's motion for attorney fees, but the court has made clear that it will not address these objections at this time. See id. The court accordingly DENIES the following motions: [151] Pro Se Motion to Dismiss Party Iftikhar Khan; [154] Motion to Dismiss Order [125] Issued on September 20, 2023 on the Basis of Collateral Estoppel; [158] Motion to Disqualify Judge Romero, Motion to Strike [125] Memorandum Decision/Order on Motion for Sanctions, Motion to Dismiss Party Iftikhar Khan; [169] Motion to Vacate Orders; [170] Motion to Strike [125] Order Filed on September 20, 2023; [171] Amended Motion to Vacate [149] Orders; [178] Motion for Reconsideration of 177 Order; [182] Motion for Reconsideration of [116] Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement; [186] "Errata" Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim 1, Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement in Dkt. 116; [190] Motion to Strike 177 Docket Text Order Adopting Report and Recommendations; [193] Motion for Damages; and [194] Motion to Grant Five Infringement Claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,747,344. To the extent that Plaintiffs request affirmative relief in [206] Response to [199] Defendants' Proposed Order and Objection to Biased Rulings and Procedural Errors—in addition to responding to Defendants' motion—Plaintiffs' filing is procedurally improper, see DUCivR 7-1(a)(3), and the court accordingly denies the request. Continuing to inundate the court with repetitious or frivolous motions will not lead to reconsideration of the court's previous orders. It may, however, increase the likelihood (and the amount) of eventual sanctions against the Plaintiffs. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr., on 11/13/2024. No attached document. (edu) Modified by editing docket text to reflect edit of cited docket numbers to Dkt. Nos. 149 & 177, on 11/14/2024 (dle). Modified on 11/14/2024 (dle). (Entered: 11/13/2024) DOCKET TEXT ORDER. Plaintiffs have flooded the docket in this case with motions raising issues that the court has already resolved. In some of these motions, Plaintiffs seek to reargue the merits of their patent infringement claims. But the court has already granted summary judgment of non-infringement to Defendant and the Federal Circuit has affirmed the court's judgment, denied Plaintiffs' petition for rehearing, and issued its mandate. See Khan v. Merit Med. Sys., Inc., No. 23-2329, 2024 WL 3421395, at 3 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2024); Dkt. Nos. 181, 189. To the extent Plaintiffs' motions can be construed as requests to reopen the court's judgment, they have come nowhere close to showing any basis for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). In other motions, Plaintiffs argue that Iftikhar Khan should be dismissed as a party and that the court should disqualify Judge Romero, but the court has already rejected these arguments, see Dkt. Nos. 149 & 177, and Plaintiffs have failed to persuade the court that it should reconsider its ruling on these issues. Finally, Plaintiffs have repeated their objections to Judge Romero's order addressing Defendant's motion for attorney fees, but the court has made clear that it will not address these objections at this time. See id. The court accordingly DENIES the following motions: [151] Pro Se Motion to Dismiss Party Iftikhar Khan; [154] Motion to Dismiss Order [125] Issued on September 20, 2023 on the Basis of Collateral Estoppel; [158] Motion to Disqualify Judge Romero, Motion to Strike [125] Memorandum Decision/Order on Motion for Sanctions, Motion to Dismiss Party Iftikhar Khan; [169] Motion to Vacate Orders; [170] Motion to Strike [125] Order Filed on September 20, 2023; [171] Amended Motion to Vacate [149] Orders; [178] Motion for Reconsideration of 177 Order; [182] Motion for Reconsideration of [116] Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement; [186] "Errata" Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim 1, Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement in Dkt. 116; [190] Motion to Strike 177 Docket Text Order Adopting Report and Recommendations; [193] Motion for Damages; and [194] Motion to Grant Five Infringement Claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,747,344. To the extent that Plaintiffs request affirmative relief in [206] Response to [199] Defendants' Proposed Order and Objection to Biased Rulings and Procedural Errors—in addition to responding to Defendants' motion—Plaintiffs' filing is procedurally improper, see DUCivR 7-1(a)(3), and the court accordingly denies the request. Continuing to inundate the court with repetitious or frivolous motions will not lead to reconsideration of the court's previous orders. It may, however, increase the likelihood (and the amount) of eventual sanctions against the Plaintiffs. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr., on 11/13/2024. No attached document. (edu) Modified by editing docket text to reflect edit of cited docket numbers to Dkt. Nos. 149 & 177, on 11/14/2024 (dle). Modified on 11/14/2024 (dle). (Entered: 11/13/2024)
11/07/24	Khan v. Merit Medical Systems Inc 2:21-CV-00337 ( D. UT )	RESPONSE to [199] Defendants' Proposed Order and Objection to Biased Rulings and Procedural Errors, filed by Plaintiffs Iftikhar Khan, Nazir Khan. (dle) Modified by correcting filing date on 11/7/2024 (dle). (Entered: 11/07/2024)
11/04/24	Khan v. Merit Medical Systems Inc 2:21-CV-00337 ( D. UT )	MEMORANDUM in Opposition re [197] MOTION filed by Defendant Merit Medical Systems, Inc.. (Lorimer, Brent) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
11/04/24	Khan v. Merit Medical Systems Inc 2:21-CV-00337 ( D. UT )	MEMORANDUM in Opposition re [196] MOTION for Sanctions filed by Defendant Merit Medical Systems, Inc.. (Lorimer, Brent) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
11/04/24	Khan v. Merit Medical Systems Inc 2:21-CV-00337 ( D. UT )	MEMORANDUM in Opposition re [195] MOTION for Sanctions filed by Defendant Merit Medical Systems, Inc.. (Lorimer, Brent) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
11/04/24	Khan v. Merit Medical Systems Inc 2:21-CV-00337 ( D. UT )	MEMORANDUM in Opposition re [194] MOTION filed by Defendant Merit Medical Systems, Inc.. (Lorimer, Brent) (Entered: 11/04/2024)