Resmed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices Inc.

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) involves two operating companies in the medical technology sector: Resmed Corp. and Cleveland Medical Devices Inc. Resmed, a global leader, specializes in cloud-connected medical devices and digital health solutions for sleep apnea, COPD, and other respiratory conditions, including various CPAP machines, masks, and ventilators. Cleveland Medical Devices Inc., also known as CleveMed, designs, develops, manufactures, and markets biomedical signal processing and instrumentation devices, with a focus on portable sleep systems and home sleep apnea testing monitors like their "SleepView" line. Resmed initiated this IPR (IPR2025-00247) to challenge US Patent 11872029, owned by Cleveland Medical Devices Inc. While the IPR itself directly challenges the patent's validity, it is part of a larger patent dispute where Cleveland Medical Devices has asserted its patents, including those related to PAP and CPAP products, against Resmed's commercial sleep and respiratory therapy device lines, such as its AirSense, AirCurve, AirMini, and Astral products. The patent at issue, US 11872029, is generally described as covering technology related to Positive Airway Pressure (PAP) and Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) products, services, and solutions for sleep disorder treatment.

The case is currently before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO and the petition has been instituted. This IPR is one of several filed by Resmed against patents owned by Cleveland Medical Devices, forming a defensive strategy in response to a patent infringement lawsuit, ResMed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02221-BMB, pending in the Northern District of Ohio. The district court litigation has been stayed awaiting the outcome of these USPTO proceedings, highlighting the strategic importance of the PTAB as a venue for resolving patent disputes. The case is notable as it represents a clash between two operating companies over intellectual property in the competitive sleep and respiratory care market, often termed the "CPAP patent wars." Furthermore, this IPR falls under the recent procedural changes at the PTAB, where the USPTO Director now directly reviews and issues decisions on IPR institution, adding another layer of scrutiny and potential for precedential guidance on discretionary denial factors.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Resmed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices Inc.

This case involves a patent infringement dispute initiated in district court, alongside parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

District Court Litigation: ResMed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc. (N.D. Ohio)

Filing & Initial Pleadings:
ResMed Corp. filed a patent infringement action against Cleveland Medical Devices Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on November 16, 2023. The case is identified as 1:23-cv-02221-BMB. The complaint initially asserted U.S. Patent No. 11,602,284B1, which pertains to positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy device technology. ResMed alleged infringement across its AirSense, AirCurve, AirMini, and Astral device lines. Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc. was also named as a counter-claimant and counter-defendant in the case.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:
The district court litigation did not reach a merits verdict due to a stay.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:
There is no indication that a Markman hearing or claim construction order was issued in this specific case prior to its stay.

Discovery Milestones:
Given the case was stayed, significant discovery milestones would likely not have been completed or become strategically significant in the district court.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:
No trial events or verdict occurred due to the stay.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal – Final Disposition:
On August 14, 2025, Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan entered an order staying the case pending USPTO proceedings concerning the asserted patent and removed it from the active docket. The stay is not a dismissal, and the underlying claims remain active. ResMed retains a 30-day window to move to reopen the case after the USPTO proceedings become final, or it risks outright dismissal.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

IPR Filing (IPR2025-00247 for US Patent 11,872,029):
ResMed Corp. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-00247, against Cleveland Medical Devices Inc. concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,872,029 B1 on January 10, 2025. This IPR proceeding explicitly identified the Northern District of Ohio case, ResMed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc., 1:23-cv-02221-BMB, as a related matter involving the '029 patent.

IPR Institution:
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted an Inter Partes Review for claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,872,029 B1 on July 30, 2025. The Board determined there was a reasonable likelihood that ResMed Corp. would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.

Effect on Litigation:
The institution of IPR2025-00247, along with other IPRs filed by ResMed against Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc. for other patents (e.g., IPR2025-00157 for US 11,602,284), directly led to the stay of the related district court litigation in the Northern District of Ohio. The district court case, 1:23-cv-02221-BMB, was stayed on August 14, 2025, pending the outcome of these USPTO proceedings.

Current Posture of IPR2025-00247:
As of June 30, 2026, IPR2025-00247 has been instituted, but a final written decision has not been publicly reported in the search results. IPRs typically conclude with a final written decision within 12 to 18 months of institution. The institution date was July 30, 2025, indicating that a final written decision may be pending or recently issued.

USPTO Director's Role:
It is notable that the institution of IPR2025-00247 occurred on July 30, 2025, prior to the USPTO Director assuming full personal control over all IPR institution decisions, which became effective on October 20, 2025.

The ultimate outcome of the district court litigation is dependent on the final results of the ongoing IPR proceedings at the PTAB.

Resmed Corp., the plaintiff in IPR2025-00247, is represented by counsel from Paul Hastings LLP. Based on related Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings involving Resmed Corp. and Cleveland Medical Devices Inc., the following attorneys are identified:

• Lisa K. Nguyen

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Paul Hastings LLP, Palo Alto, CA
  • Note: Lisa Nguyen is a partner in Paul Hastings' Intellectual Property practice. She represents technology companies in IP matters, including litigation against non-practicing entities, and has substantial experience with cases before District Courts, the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). She has a proven track record of obtaining successful trial verdicts, summary judgment rulings, and dismissals.

• Howard Herr

  • Role: Of Counsel (admitted pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Paul Hastings LLP (office location not specified, but firm is based in Palo Alto for Lisa Nguyen)
  • Note: Howard Herr is an experienced patent litigation attorney with over nine years of experience, involved in various aspects of Inter Partes Review proceedings and patent litigation before district courts. He has substantial familiarity with the subject matter at issue and has been actively involved in analyzing and assisting with petitions.

• Rachel Wu Hankinson

  • Role: Of Counsel (admitted pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Paul Hastings LLP (office location not specified, but firm is based in Palo Alto for Lisa Nguyen)
  • Note: Rachel Wu Hankinson is a junior patent litigation attorney with two years of experience, supporting various aspects of Inter Partes Review proceedings and patent litigation before the district courts.

While the specific filings linking these attorneys directly to IPR2025-00247 were not found in the search snippets, they are identified as counsel for Resmed Corp. in IPR2025-00160, another IPR proceeding against Cleveland Medical Devices Inc., and IPR2025-00247 is listed as one of several IPRs filed by Resmed against Cleveland Medical Devices for related patents. This suggests a consistent legal team for Resmed in its IPR challenges against Cleveland Medical Devices.

Cleveland Medical Devices Inc., the Patent Owner in IPR2025-00247, is represented by attorneys from Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP. The counsel of record appearing for Cleveland Medical Devices Inc. in related IPR proceedings (IPR2025-00160 and IPR2025-00246), which are part of a broader dispute with Resmed Corp., include:

• James Hannah

  • Role: Lead Counsel (in IPR2025-00160)
  • Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP
  • Office Location: Redwood Shores, CA
  • Experience Note: James Hannah is a partner at Herbert Smith Freehills and focuses on intellectual property, particularly patent litigation and PTAB proceedings. His practice often involves complex technology disputes.

• Jeffrey H. Price

  • Role: Lead Counsel (in IPR2025-00246)
  • Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP
  • Office Location: New York, NY
  • Experience Note: Jeffrey Price is a partner at Herbert Smith Freehills with experience in patent litigation and inter partes reviews before the PTAB, particularly in technology and life sciences sectors.

• Jenna Fuller

  • Role: Attorney for Patent Owner
  • Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP
  • Office Location: New York, NY
  • Experience Note: Jenna Fuller is an attorney at Herbert Smith Freehills, focusing on patent litigation and other intellectual property disputes.

• Jeffrey Eng

  • Role: Attorney for Patent Owner
  • Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP
  • Office Location: New York, NY
  • Experience Note: Jeffrey Eng is an attorney at Herbert Smith Freehills, with a practice that includes patent litigation and intellectual property matters.