Resmed Corp. v. Fractus, S.A.

Resmed Corp., a medical equipment company based in San Diego, California, and founded in Australia, is a global leader in cloud-connected medical devices for treating sleep apnea, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and other respiratory conditions. Fractus, S.A., based in Barcelona, Spain, is an early pioneer in antenna technology and primarily operates as an IP licensing company, holding a portfolio of over 40 inventions related to compact, high-performance, multi-band antennas. Fractus has a history of patent assertion and licensing, particularly in the telecommunications and IoT sectors, and has previously sued major electronics manufacturers for patent infringement.

The present case is an inter partes review (IPR) initiated by Resmed Corp. against Fractus, S.A., challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,031,677. This patent broadly covers a multifunction wireless device having at least one of multimedia and smartphone functionality, including a receiver for sound signals, an image recording system, and data storage means, with a focus on specific antenna designs for wireless connectivity in handheld devices. Fractus, S.A. previously filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Resmed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (3:25-cv-02680-LL-JLB) on October 13, 2025, alleging that Resmed's sleep apnea devices and related connected therapy solutions infringe multiple Fractus patents, including those covering miniaturized antenna innovations.

The IPR, IPR2026-00191, is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The filing of this IPR by Resmed is a direct response to the earlier patent infringement lawsuit filed by Fractus, aiming to challenge the validity of Fractus's patent claims in a specialized forum. This IPR linkage is notable given the recent shifts in PTAB policy, which have seen a tightening of access to IPRs and increased discretionary denials, particularly concerning parallel litigation and "settled expectations." The outcome of this IPR could significantly impact the ongoing district court litigation between the parties concerning Resmed's connected medical devices for sleep apnea.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

The patent infringement litigation between Fractus, S.A. and Resmed Corp., Case No. 3:25-cv-02680-LL-JLB in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, and the parallel IPR2026-00191 at the PTAB, have seen several key developments.

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2025-10-13: Fractus, S.A. filed a patent infringement complaint against Resmed Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleges infringement of multiple Fractus patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,031,677, by Resmed's sleep apnea devices and related connected therapy solutions. The original filing date on the docket is October 9, 2025, with a public announcement on October 13, 2025. The complaint included a jury demand and cited patents 8,456,365, 8,674,887, 8,593,349, 8,362,960, and 11,031,677. Fractus is represented by Kobre & Kim LLP.
• 2025-10-09 - 2025-10-14: Summons were issued and executed for ResMed Inc. and ResMed Corp.
• 2025-10-xx: Resmed Inc. was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by Fractus, S.A. (Specific date not available, but occurred before ResMed Corp.'s motion to dismiss).

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• 2025-11-xx: ResMed Corp. filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. (Specific filing date not available, but occurred before Fractus's response).
• 2025-12-xx: Fractus, S.A. filed a Response in Opposition to ResMed's Motion to Dismiss. (Specific filing date not available, but occurred before ResMed's reply).
• 2025-12-xx: ResMed Corp. filed a Reply to Fractus's Response to the Motion to Dismiss. (Specific filing date not available).

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• 2026-01-02: Resmed Corp. filed an IPR petition, IPR2026-00191, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,031,677, which is one of the patents asserted in the district court litigation. The PTAB docket for this IPR includes a copy of the complaint from the district court case as an exhibit.
• The IPR is currently pending. As of May 13, 2026, a "Petitioner's Status Report and Update" was filed in a related PGR proceeding (PGR2025-00059), which may be indicative of general activity at the PTAB. There has not been a decision on institution for IPR2026-00191 as of the current date.

Present Posture:
The patent infringement litigation in the Southern District of California is still active, with ResMed Corp.'s Motion to Dismiss pending. The IPR challenging one of the asserted patents is also pending before the PTAB. The outcome of the IPR could significantly impact the district court litigation, potentially leading to a stay of the district court case, or narrowing the scope of the claims to be litigated if the PTAB institutes and subsequently invalidates claims of the '677 patent.

I'll research counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, ResMed Corp., in both the PTAB proceeding and the parallel district court case.

Strong leads. Let me dig into the PTAB docket details, the joinder motion, and the individual Paul Hastings attorneys.

Counsel of Record for the Plaintiff/Petitioner Side — ResMed Corp.

Threshold clarification on who the "plaintiff" is here. In this proceeding the caption Resmed Corp. v. Fractus, S.A., IPR2026-00191 makes ResMed Corp. the petitioner — i.e., the plaintiff-side party before the PTAB. Fractus, S.A. appears as patent owner. (Note the roles invert in the co-pending district court action, Fractus, S.A. v. ResMed Inc. et al., No. 3:25-cv-02680-LL-JLB (S.D. Cal.), where Fractus is plaintiff and ResMed is defendant. The prior "Defendant representatives" section of this case file in fact addressed Fractus's counsel, so there is a labeling inconsistency worth flagging — see the "Contradictions" note at the end.) The attorneys below represent ResMed in both forums.

---

A. PTAB counsel of record (IPR2026-00191)

Source: Petitioner's Power of Attorney for U.S. Patent No. 11,031,677, dated January 1, 2026 and filed with the January 2, 2026 Petition (P-TACTS petition record, Petition No. 1558791). All four practitioners are appointed under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) to transact all business before the Board. Served/contact email of record: PH-Resmed-Fractus@paulhastings.com.

B. In-house counsel (signatory)

• Michael Rider — Global General Counsel, ResMed Corp. He executed the Petitioner's Power of Attorney on behalf of ResMed Corp. (signature block on the January 1/2, 2026 POA). He is the client-side representative of record, not outside counsel. (Separately, an unrelated Paul Hastings filing in ResMed v. Cleveland Medical Devices, IPR2025-00160, identifies ResMed's CEO as Michael Fliss — the general counsel is the relevant in-house figure here.)

C. District court (S.D. Cal.) counsel for ResMed

Per the PacerMonitor docket sheet for Fractus, S.A. v. ResMed Inc. et al., 3:25-cv-02680, Resmed Corp. is "represented by Lisa K. Nguyen, Paul Hastings LLP," consistent with the January 26, 2026 stipulation of dismissal signed by Eric Lancaster for "Defendants Resmed Inc. and Resmed Corp." (that stipulation, dated January 26, 2026, is also docketed as an exhibit in the ResMed/Cleveland Medical PTAB matters). So the same Paul Hastings team is running both the IPR and the defense of the district court case — a coordinated multi-forum strategy consistent with the firm's IAM and firm-bio descriptions.

The PacerMonitor entry also lists Michael Lewis Merriman (Hilgers PLLC) among the appearances on that docket; the snippet's formatting does not make clear which party he represents, and I could not verify his role. It is most plausibly a local-counsel appearance on the Fractus (plaintiff) side, but I flag it as unconfirmed rather than attribute it to ResMed.

---

Procedural context confirming this team is active

• Jan. 12–14, 2026: Ms. Nguyen, writing as "Lead Counsel for Resmed Corp. (IPR2026-00191)," requested a conference call with the panel in IPR2025-01026 regarding ResMed's Motion for Joinder; the Director's office (Director_DI) denied the call on Jan. 14, 2026 because IPR2026-00191 was awaiting institution and the Director had jurisdiction. The email cc list shows the Paul Hastings team (Tennant, Lancaster, Alexander) and the PH-Resmed-Fractus service address.
• Joinder posture: ResMed's petition and motion seek an "understudy" joinder to Geotab Inc. v. Fractus, S.A., IPR2025-01026 (instituted Dec. 3, 2025 on all challenged claims), with substantively identical grounds, prior art, and the same expert (Dr. Daniel van der Weide). ResMed filed a Reply to Patent Owner's Opposition to the joinder motion.
• Apr. 8, 2026: "Petitioner's Motion to Seal" appears on the Docket Alarm PTAB docket — the only sealing activity I located; the substantive briefing largely appears to be public.

Contradictions / gaps to flag

1. Institution status conflicts with the earlier section. The prior "Key legal developments" section states "There has not been a decision on institution for IPR2026-00191 as of the current date." Both Docket Alarm (status: "Trial Instituted") and IPVerse (institution decision date June 2, 2026) indicate the proceeding has been instituted. These aggregator statuses are secondary sources and I could not open the underlying institution paper, so I would verify against PTAB Paper before relying on it — but the earlier "pending, no institution decision" statement is likely stale.
2. Fractus's PTAB counsel is not Kobre & Kim. The prior "Defendant representatives" section lists only Kobre & Kim. The PTAB record shows Fractus's Patent Owner's Power of Attorney (filed Jan. 23, 2026) appointing attorneys at Erise IP (Mark J. DeBoy, Reg. No. 66,983; Larry Shatzer, pro hac vice to be filed; Patrick Finnan) under Customer Number 27896, and the Director's conference-call email also copies Wolf Greenfield attorneys (A. Wichman, M. Parsons). Kobre & Kim (Ng, Zaheer, Kennedy, Stamatopoulos, Fender, Ritz) is Fractus's district court trial team. This is a forum-specific split the earlier section missed.
3. Sealed/limited-record caveat: The only attorney information I could not corroborate from primary documents is a substantive biography for Kamilah Alexander; no PTAB or firm materials describing her patent litigation history surfaced. I have not invented any credentials for her.

Primary sources: Petitioner's Power of Attorney, IPR2026-00191 (P-TACTS, Petition 1558791, filed Jan. 2, 2026) — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1558791/download-documents?artifactId=i4CQi5z7SYyNAn4c2eR1oskOViYr6ShnbZClYMMIrkZ5R55Wlb7Xusg ; Motion for Joinder and Petitioner's Reply (same P-TACTS record); Director conference-call email, Jan. 14, 2026 (Petition 1557926); PTAB docket, Resmed Corp. v. Fractus, S.A., IPR2026-00191 — https://sandbox.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2026-00191/Resmed_Corp._v._Fractus_S.A/ and https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2026-00191 ; PacerMonitor docket sheet, 3:25-cv-02680 — https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/60530898/Fractus,_SA_v_ResMed_Inc_et_al ; Paul Hastings attorney bios (Nguyen, Tennant) and firm announcement of the March 2024 IP team — https://www.paulhastings.com/zh/%E4%B8%93%E4%B8%9A%E4%BA%BA%E5%91%98/lisanguyen and https://www.paulhastings.com/zh/%E4%B8%93%E4%B8%9A%E4%BA%BA%E5%91%98/davidtennant .

Fractus, S.A. is represented by attorneys from Kobre & Kim LLP. Kobre & Kim is a global law firm specializing in disputes and investigations, and has a recognized intellectual property litigation practice. They represent both patent holders and accused infringers, and have a history of working with Fractus in enforcing its patent portfolio.

Here are some of the counsel of record representing Fractus, S.A.:

• Daniel A. Zaheer (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Kobre & Kim LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Note: Recognized as a top patent litigator by IAM Patent 1000, lauded for expertise in patent litigation, good judgment, and superb communication skills. He was also involved in a significant trade secrets verdict for Propel Fuels.
• Michael M. Rosen (Counsel)
  • Firm: Kobre & Kim LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Note: Practiced at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP before joining Kobre & Kim, focusing on complex commercial litigation, arbitration, and government investigations. He has experience representing Fractus S.A. in patent infringement actions against major U.S. cellular carriers.
• Michael Ng (Lead Counsel/Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Kobre & Kim LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Note: Head of Kobre & Kim's intellectual property department, recognized as a top global patent litigator, praised for impeccable judgment, strategic mindset, and in-depth knowledge of IP and litigation finance. Named to IAM Strategy 300 Global Leaders 2026. He led a team that secured one of the largest trade secret verdicts in U.S. history for Propel Fuels.
• Hugham Chan (Counsel)
  • Firm: Kobre & Kim LLP, Washington DC.
• Kimberly Perrotta Cole (Counsel)
  • Firm: Kobre & Kim LLP, Washington DC.
• George Stamatopoulos (Counsel)
  • Firm: Kobre & Kim LLP, New York, NY.
  • Note: Experienced trial lawyer in patent and trade secrets disputes across various technologies, including mobile devices and network infrastructure. He advises on complex patent-related matters, drawing on his background as a structural engineer.
• Benjamin J.A. Sauter (Counsel)
  • Firm: Kobre & Kim LLP, New York, NY.
• Steven W. Perlstein (Counsel)
  • Firm: Kobre & Kim LLP, New York, NY.
• Christen M. Martosella (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Kobre & Kim LLP.
  • Note: Represents clients in high-stakes commercial disputes and investigations, including intellectual property disputes. She has experience representing Fractus S.A. in patent infringement actions.

Kobre & Kim has offices in several U.S. locations, including New York, Washington D.C., and San Francisco, as well as numerous international offices. The firm is known for taking on high-stakes matters on behalf of patent owners.