Litigation

Fractus, S.A. v. ResMed Inc. et al.

Ongoing

3:25-cv-02680

Filed
2025-10-09

Patents at issue (1)

11031677PTAB challenge active

Plaintiffs (1)

Summary

Fractus, S.A. filed a complaint alleging patent infringement against ResMed Inc. and ResMed Corp. ResMed Inc. was later dismissed without prejudice, while ResMed Corp. remains a defendant and has filed a motion to dismiss.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

This patent infringement lawsuit pits Fractus, S.A. against medical equipment giant ResMed Corp., focusing on wireless antenna technology in connected health devices. Plaintiff Fractus, S.A., based in Barcelona, Spain, is primarily a technology development and intellectual property (IP) licensing company, recognized as an early pioneer in antenna technology, particularly for miniaturized, multiband antennas. Fractus has a history of asserting its extensive patent portfolio, often against large technology companies, and derives a significant portion of its revenue from licensing. Defendant ResMed Corp., headquartered in San Diego, California, is a leading global operating company that develops, manufactures, and markets cloud-connectable medical devices for the treatment of sleep apnea, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and other respiratory conditions. ResMed Inc. was initially named as a defendant but was later dismissed without prejudice.

The core of the dispute involves U.S. Patent No. 11,031,677, titled "Multiple-body-configuration multimedia and smartphone multifunction wireless devices," along with other patents initially asserted in the complaint. This patent generally describes multifunction wireless devices that incorporate specific antenna designs, often by modifying the geometry of conducting plates to achieve multi-band functionality suitable for compact devices. Fractus alleges that ResMed's sleep apnea devices and related connected therapy solutions infringe its patents, specifically targeting ResMed's use of miniaturized, high-performance, multiband antenna innovations within these products.

The case, Fractus, S.A. v. ResMed Inc. et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-02680, was filed on October 9, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. It is assigned to Presiding Judge Jill L. Burkhardt and Referring Judge Linda Lopez. The procedural posture shows that ResMed Corp. has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which Fractus S.A. has opposed, and ResMed has subsequently replied. The choice of venue in the Southern District of California is notable as it is ResMed's headquarters, placing the litigation in the defendant's home jurisdiction. This case highlights Fractus's ongoing strategy of expanding its patent licensing and enforcement activities into various connected device markets, including the significant medical device sector, underscoring the value of antenna technology in the rapidly growing internet of things (IoT) and connected health landscape.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Fractus, S.A. initiated patent infringement litigation against ResMed Inc. and ResMed Corp. on October 9, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The lawsuit, Case No. 3:25-cv-02680, involves U.S. Patent No. 11,031,677, among others, relating to antenna technology in connected health devices.

Here are the key legal developments and the current posture of the litigation:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Complaint Filed (2025-10-09): Fractus, S.A. filed a complaint with a jury demand, alleging infringement against ResMed Inc. and ResMed Corp. The initial complaint asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 8,456,365, 8,674,887, 8,593,349, 8,362,960, and 11,031,677. The case was assigned to Judge Linda Lopez and Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt.
  • Summons Issued and Served (around 2025-10-09): Summonses were returned executed for both ResMed Inc. and ResMed Corp.
  • Appearance of Counsel (2025-10-09 onwards): Attorneys from Kobre & Kim LLP, including Kimberly Kennedy, Zachary Robert Ritz, Michael Lewis Merriman, and Michael Ng, entered appearances for Fractus, S.A. Lisa K. Nguyen appeared on behalf of ResMed Corp. and ResMed Inc.
  • Joint Motion for Extension of Time (2025-10-09): Fractus, S.A. filed a joint motion for an extension of time to file an answer.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

  • Corporate Disclosure Statement (undated but prior to MTD): ResMed Corp. and ResMed Inc. filed a corporate disclosure statement.
  • Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (2026-01-05): ResMed Corp. and ResMed Inc. jointly filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
  • Voluntary Dismissal of ResMed Inc. (2026-01-26): Fractus, S.A. filed a notice of voluntary dismissal as to ResMed Inc. without prejudice. This stipulation clarified that ResMed Inc. would remain financially liable for any judgment against ResMed Corp., and any refiling against ResMed Inc. would relate back to the original filing date of the case for time-based limitations.
  • Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (2026-01-26): Fractus, S.A. filed its response in opposition to ResMed Corp.'s motion to dismiss.
  • Reply to Response to Motion to Dismiss (undated, after 2026-01-26): ResMed Corp. filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss.
  • Outcome of Motion to Dismiss: As of the current date (2026-05-29), the docket information available does not explicitly state a ruling on ResMed Corp.'s motion to dismiss.

Claim Construction (Markman) and Discovery:

  • The case is still in the early stages, with a motion to dismiss pending. Therefore, it has not yet reached the claim construction (Markman) stage or significant discovery milestones.

Trial, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

  • These events have not occurred given the early procedural posture of the case.

Final Disposition or Present Posture:

  • ResMed Inc. has been dismissed without prejudice. The case remains active against ResMed Corp., with a motion to dismiss currently pending before the court.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • A search of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) for U.S. Patent No. 11,031,677, as well as the other asserted patents (8,456,365, 8,674,887, 8,593,349, 8,362,960), does not currently reveal any instituted Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the plaintiff's counsel of record, building on the Kobre & Kim names mentioned in the earlier section.

Good — the docket confirms a Kobre & Kim team. Let me verify individual attorneys and one anomaly (Michael Merriman listed with "Hilgers PLLC" on the docket aggregator).

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Fractus, S.A.

Bottom line: Fractus is represented entirely by Kobre & Kim LLP — there is no separate local-counsel firm or in-house attorney appearing on the docket. The team spans the firm's San Francisco, New York, and Miami offices, with California-barred attorneys appearing as of record and two New York attorneys admitted pro hac vice. Fractus's own October 2025 press release identified the team as "led by Michael Ng, Daniel Zaheer, and George Stamatopoulos." (Fractus/PR Newswire release; HME News)

Attorney Role Firm / Office Admissions & docket footing
Michael K. Ng (SBN 237915) Lead counsel / lead trial counsel (heads Kobre & Kim's IP & Technology Disputes practice) Kobre & Kim LLP — San Francisco (150 California St., 19th Fl.) Appears on the signature block of Fractus's filings as "Attorneys for Plaintiff"; filed the opposition to the motion to dismiss (ECF 25)
Daniel A. Zaheer (SBN 237118) Lead counsel (co-lead of IP team) Kobre & Kim LLP — San Francisco Signed Fractus's filings; named in firm press materials as co-lead on this matter
George (Giorgos) Stamatopoulos Counsel / trial team (NY-barred, admitted pro hac vice) Kobre & Kim LLP — New York (800 Third Ave.) Pro hac vice approved by clerk 11/24/2025 (ECF 19–20); NY Bar No. 5163340
Jessica K. Fender (NY Bar No. 5385299) Counsel (NY-barred, admitted pro hac vice) Kobre & Kim LLP — New York Pro hac vice approved 11/20/2025 (ECF 17–18); filed the voluntary dismissal of Resmed Inc. (ECF 23) and the motion to withdraw ECF 27
Kimberly ("Kim") Kennedy (SBN 305499) Associate/counsel of record Kobre & Kim LLP — San Francisco Listed on Fractus's signature blocks in this case and related PTAB filings
Zachary Robert Ritz (SBN 301281) Associate/counsel of record Kobre & Kim LLP — Miami (201 Biscayne Blvd., #1900) Listed on Fractus's signature blocks
Tammy Su Former counsel — withdrew Kobre & Kim LLP Notice of appearance 01/26/2026 (ECF 24); withdrawn by ECF 27, granted by Judge Lopez 04/24/2026 (ECF 28) — do not treat as current counsel of record

Docket/signature-block sources: PacerMonitor case page (S.D. Cal. 3:25-cv-02680); Docket Alarm copy of ECF 23, Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Resmed Inc. (showing the full Fractus signature block).

Experience notes (one line each)

  • Michael Ng — Long-time lead patent/trade-secret trial counsel; before Kobre & Kim was partner and head of the IP practice at Kerr & Wagstaffe; led the CSIRO Wi-Fi enforcement campaign that produced US$400M+ in payments; co-lead on the $604.9M Propel Fuels verdict; Daily Journal "Top Intellectual Property Lawyers" (2025) and IAM Patent 1000-ranked. (Kobre & Kim bio)
  • Daniel Zaheer — Patent/trade-secret litigator; ex-Quinn Emanuel, ex-Kerr & Wagstaffe; clerked for Judge Charles R. Breyer (N.D. Cal.) and Judge Raymond C. Fisher (9th Cir.); has represented Fractus and CSIRO; Daily Journal Top IP Lawyers (2025), IAM Patent 1000 and Chambers ranked. (Kobre & Kim bio; IAM profile)
  • George Stamatopoulos — Named in Fractus's announcement as one of the three "seasoned trial lawyers in intellectual property disputes" leading the case; Kobre & Kim New York. Note: I located no standalone firm bio for him in this search, so his individual track record is not well sourced here.
  • Jessica K. Fender — Kobre & Kim New York; Law360 lists her as counsel on this case (filed 10/09/2025), the dismissal stipulation, and the attorney-withdrawal motion. (Law360 attorney page)
  • Kim Kennedy and Zachary Ritz — Firm IP associates appearing on Fractus's district-court and PTAB signature blocks; no independent track record is well sourced.
  • Tammy Su — Brief appearance (Jan–Apr 2026) for Fractus before withdrawal.

Flags and caveats

  1. Contradiction with the earlier-generated "Key legal developments" section. That section states that "Michael Lewis Merriman" of Kobre & Kim entered an appearance for Fractus. The PacerMonitor entry shows Michael Lewis Merriman adjacent to "Hilgers PLLC" (not Kobre & Kim), and I could not confirm he represents Fractus. Per the operating rule, I flag this rather than repeat it — treat Merriman's party affiliation as unverified and, if he does represent a party, he most likely belongs on the defense side (Hilgers, not Kobre & Kim).
  2. No in-house counsel appears of record. Fractus is a Barcelona-based licensing company; nothing on the docket indicates an in-house attorney entering an appearance. Fractus's principal address of record is Av. Alcalde Barnils 64-68, Sant Cugat del Vallès, Barcelona.
  3. No separate San Diego local counsel. Because the appearing Kobre & Kim attorneys are California-barred (state bar numbers on file for Ng, Zaheer, Kennedy, and Ritz) and the two New York attorneys were admitted pro hac vice, no local-counsel firm is needed or reflected on the docket. This contrasts with the defense side, where San Diego-based Paul Hastings counsel (Lisa K. Nguyen) handles the lead role.
  4. Keep PTAB counsel separate from district-court counsel. In parallel IPRs on the '677 patent (e.g., IPR2026-00191), Fractus's Patent Owner Power of Attorney appoints Mark J. DeBoy (Reg. No. 66,983) and attorneys under Customer Number 27896, with Larry Shatzer applying pro hac vice — a different team from the Kobre & Kim litigators. (USPTO P-TACTS, Patent Owner's Power of Attorney, IPR2026-00191)
  5. Docket currency. The docket data I could retrieve runs through the April 2026 withdrawal order (ECF 28). If appearances have changed since then, that is not reflected here; the last-checked timestamp on the PacerMonitor page is 2026, and additional substitutions may have occurred.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Defendant representatives

Bottom line up front: A single law firm, Paul Hastings LLP, is defending this case. The only defense attorney formally appearing on the S.D. Cal. docket as of the last docket pull is Lisa K. Nguyen (Palo Alto), who is lead counsel and who signed both the motion to dismiss (Doc. 22, filed Jan. 5, 2026) and the reply (Doc. 26, filed Feb. 2, 2026). She is supported by a Paul Hastings team drawn from the firm's Palo Alto, Washington D.C., and San Diego offices — the same team that has represented ResMed in its parallel PTAB and Federal Circuit matters, including the IPR against the '677 patent that is the sole patent remaining in this case.

Counsel of record for Defendants (ResMed Corp.; formerly also ResMed Inc.)

Attorney Role Firm / Office Bar / Reg. No. Experience note
Lisa K. Nguyen Lead counsel — sole defense attorney listed as counsel of record on the S.D. Cal. docket; filed the Rule 12(b)(6) motion (Doc. 22) and reply (Doc. 26) Paul Hastings LLP, Palo Alto, CA (1117 S. California Ave.) Cal. SBN not shown; USPTO Reg. No. 58,018 Partner, IP litigation; defense-side NPE practice, ITC and PTAB. ResMed's long-time lead patent counsel — lead counsel in NYU v. ResMed (Fed. Cir. 2024-1433 et al.) and in ResMed's IPRs against Cleveland Medical Devices (IPR2025-00160, -00247). Listed among Patexia's top PTAB attorneys.
Eric E. Lancaster Counsel — signed the Jan. 26, 2026 joint stipulation of dismissal of ResMed Inc. (Doc. 23) on behalf of both ResMed entities Paul Hastings LLP, Palo Alto, CA Cal. SB# 244449 (no USPTO Reg. No. visible) Named on ResMed's Federal Circuit response brief in NYU v. ResMed and as back-up counsel in ResMed's PTAB petitions.
David M. Tennant Supporting counsel — named back-up counsel on the ResMed v. Fractus '677 IPR power of attorney; no separate S.D. Cal. appearance located Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, D.C. (2050 M St. NW) USPTO Reg. No. 48,362 PTAB-focused patent litigator on the NYU and Cleveland Medical Devices ResMed matters.
Kamilah Alexander Supporting / local-office counsel — San Diego-based; named back-up counsel on the '677 IPR power of attorney; no separate S.D. Cal. appearance located Paul Hastings LLP, San Diego, CA (4655 Executive Dr., Ste. 350 — the firm's local office) USPTO Reg. No. 57,210 LEAP practitioner (first-chair PTAB argument experience); on the NYU v. ResMed Federal Circuit brief. San Diego presence functionally covers the "local counsel" role, though S.D. Cal. does not require local counsel.
Michael Rider In-house, not counsel of record — signed the Petitioner's Power of Attorney as ResMed's Global General Counsel (dated Jan. 1, 2026) ResMed Corp., San Diego n/a Executive signature authority only; no appearance in the district court case.

Important nuances and sourcing notes

  1. "ResMed Inc." vs. "ResMed Corp." representation. Paul Hastings represented both defendants: the firm's appearance was entered for both parties on the MTD (Doc. 22, MOTION to Dismiss … by ResMed Corp., ResMed Inc.), and the joint stipulation (Doc. 23) is captioned "Attorneys for Defendants Resmed Inc. and Resmed Corp." After ResMed Inc.'s dismissal without prejudice (Jan. 26, 2026), the active defense is for ResMed Corp. only. Note that the parties stipulated to use ResMed's preferred capitalization ("Resmed") in the case caption per a footnote in Doc. 23.

  2. No separate local-counsel firm. Unlike the plaintiff side (Kobre & Kim LLP, including a San Francisco-based team plus Hilgers PLLC in Texas), no independent San Diego local-counsel firm appears for the defense; Paul Hastings covers that through its own San Diego office.

  3. Additional Paul Hastings personnel seen on related ResMed matters but not confirmed in this docket. Names appearing on ResMed's Federal Circuit brief in NYU v. ResMed (Grace Wang, New York; Alan M. Billharz, D.C.) and in ResMed PTAB papers (Rachel Wu Hankinson, pro hac vice) could plausibly be involved here, but I found no S.D. Cal. appearance or signature tying them to 3:25-cv-02680, so I am not listing them as counsel in this case. Treat them as a likely bench, not a confirmed appearance.

  4. Sealed/limited docket caveat. The docket snapshot I could access (PacerMonitor, case page last updated ~Nov. 2026) lists only Nguyen under "Represented By" for Resmed Corp. It is possible additional pro hac vice appearances for Lancaster, Tennant, or Alexander exist but are not reflected in the cached attorney list; I could not verify a PHV order for any defense attorney. I also found no defense-side notice of appearance document beyond the attorney-added entries on Docs. 21–22.

  5. Continuity from Allen & Overy. Nguyen, Tennant, Lancaster, and Alexander previously appeared for ResMed under Allen & Overy LLP banner (e.g., the IPR2022-00988–00994 power-of-attorney correspondence and briefs). That work migrated to Paul Hastings following the 2024 A&O Shearman combination — relevant context for why the defense team is consistent across ResMed's patent portfolio litigation.

⚠️ Contradiction with the previously generated case summary

The earlier "Key legal developments" section states that a P-TACTS search "does not currently reveal any instituted Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR)" concerning the '677 patent. That is no longer accurate and should be corrected:

  • ResMed Corp. v. Fractus, S.A., IPR2026-00191 (U.S. Pat. No. 11,031,677) — petition filed Jan. 2, 2026; institution decision June 2, 2026, IPR status "Trial Instituted." Lisa K. Nguyen is lead counsel; Tennant, Lancaster, and Alexander are back-up counsel. (Source: GreyB/ipverse PTAB case page, https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2026-00191; USPTO P-TACTS Petitioner's Power of Attorney, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558791](/patent/1558791)/download-documents; Patent Owner's Power of Attorney naming Mark J. DeBoy and Larry Shatzer, Customer No. 27896, for Fractus.)
  • This is significant because '677 is now the only patent remaining in suit, and it is simultaneously before the PTAB — a fact the case overview does not capture. The district court case number appearing in the IPR papers is 3:25-cv-02680, confirming the link.

By contrast, the earlier section's statement that the complaint asserted five patents (8,456,365; 8,674,887; 8,593,349; 8,362,960; 11,031,677) is confirmed by the joint stipulation (Doc. 23), which also lists the accused products (AirSense 10/11, AirCurve 10/11, Connectivity Modules). Separately, Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination against U.S. Pat. No. 8,593,349 (Feb. 21, 2025) — https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2025/2/25/fractus-lte-antenna-patent-challenged.

Key source URLs: PacerMonitor docket, https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/60530898/Fractus,_SA_v_ResMed_Inc_et_al; Joint Stipulation (Doc. 23) full text via Docket Alarm, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-00247/ResMed_Corp._v._Cleveland_Medical_Devices_Inc/03-05-2026-Petitioner/Exhibit-1082-Fractus_Stipulation/; Best Lawyers profile for Lisa K. Nguyen, https://www.bestlawyers.com/lawyers/lisa-k-nguyen/[355591](/patent/355591).