NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

NIAZI LICENSING CORPORATION,

Plaintiff

MICHAEL T. GRIGGS, SARAH M. WONG,

Sanctioned Parties-Appellants

v.

ST. JUDE MEDICAL S.C., INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2022-2271

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Minnesota in No. 0:17-cv-05096-WMW-BRT, 

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

Before DYK, BRYSON, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

BRYSON, Circuit Judge.

O R D E R

Case: 22-2271 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 12/28/2022
2 NIAZI LICENSING CORPORATION v. ST. JUDE MEDICAL S.C., INC.

Appellants Michael T. Griggs and Sarah M. Wong, 

plaintiff’s counsel in the underlying action, appeal after being sanctioned by the district court in the form of attorneys’ 

fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc., the defendant in the underlying case, moves 

to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Appellants oppose. 

This is the second time an appeal from this patent case 

has been filed in this court. In the first appeal, Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc., 30 F.4th 1339 

(Fed. Cir. 2022), we, inter alia, reversed the district court’s 

construction of several claim terms and remanded for further proceedings. Following that decision, the district 

court awarded and quantified sanctions against Appellants 

and set out the sanctions award in a formal judgment, but 

the case continues on the merits. This appeal followed. 

We agree with St. Jude that we lack jurisdiction over 

this appeal. We have long held that “an order imposing 

sanctions against an attorney is reviewable [only] after” 

the district court has reached a “final” decision, Sanders 

Assocs., Inc. v. Summagraphics Corp., 2 F.3d 394, 398 (Fed. 

Cir. 1993), i.e., one that “ends the litigation on the merits,” 

Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945). See Cunningham v. Hamilton Cnty., 527 U.S. 198, 209–10 (1999)

(affirming dismissal for lack of jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal of a sanctions order against a party’s attorney). 

Here, no final decision has been entered and no one here 

disputes that merit proceedings are ongoing. 

Appellants urge the court to find that the sanctions are 

immediately appealable because appellants are non-parties to the underlying infringement action. That argument, 

however, runs headlong into the Supreme Court’s decision 

in Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527 U.S. 198 (1999),

in which the Court determined that an order imposing 

sanctions against a party’s attorney under Rule 37 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was not appealable until 

after the district court entered a final judgment. 

Case: 22-2271 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 12/28/2022
NIAZI LICENSING CORPORATION v. ST. JUDE MEDICAL S.C., INC. 3

The Court in Cunningham concluded that “[t]he effective congruence of interests between clients and attorneys 

counsels against treating attorneys like other nonparties 

for purposes of [immediate] appeal.” Id. at 207.1 The Court 

further explained that the sanctions order was not reviewable under the collateral order doctrine, because such a

“sanctions order often will be inextricably intertwined with 

the merits of the action,” and “[t]o permit an immediate appeal from such a sanctions order would undermine the very 

purpose of Rule 37(a), which was designed to protect courts 

and opposing parties from delaying or harassing tactics 

during the discovery process.” Id. at 205–08. 

While appellants were not sanctioned under Rule 37, 

that distinction is not legally significant, as there is no material difference in the policies underlying Rule 37 sanctions and those justifying sanctions under § 1927, which 

similarly authorizes sanctions against counsel who “multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously.” See, e.g., Lippert Components Mfg., Inc. v. 

MOR/Ryde Int’l Inc., Appeal No. 2016-2151 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 

28, 2016), ECF No. 17; Stanley v. Woodford, 449 F.3d 1060, 

1064 (9th Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). 

Accordingly,

1 Appellants cite to this court’s decisions in Precision 

Specialty Metals, Inc. v. United States, 315 F.3d 1346 (Fed. 

Cir. 2003) and Nisus Corp. v. Perma-Chink Systems, Inc.,

497 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2007), but those cases are inapposite. Both cases held that an attorney may appeal from a 

trial court’s formal reprimand that lacks a monetary component; they do not hold that an attorney who is sanctioned 

for attorneys’ fees can appeal before final judgment. 

Case: 22-2271 Document: 11 Page: 3 Filed: 12/28/2022
4 NIAZI LICENSING CORPORATION v. ST. JUDE MEDICAL S.C., INC.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

December 28, 2022

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: December 28, 2022

Case: 22-2271 Document: 11 Page: 4 Filed: 12/28/2022