US 11602284

I'll search for this specific patent and any related litigation/docket activity.

Let me check for CAFC appeals and PTAB proceedings specifically involving this patent.

Let me verify whether the '284 patent itself is on any 2026 CAFC docket, and confirm the IPR/PGR outcomes.

US 11602284 — Verification and Summary

Identifier note: I searched strictly on 11602284 → US 11,602,284 B1. I did not substitute any neighbor number (e.g., 11,602,283 or 11,602,285). One caveat up front: the authoritative full text you supplied is truncated mid-description and does not include the claim set, so my claim discussion below is explicitly flagged where I am reconstructing rather than quoting.

1. Bibliographic data (confirmed)

Term expiry — an important anomaly. Google Patents lists this patent as "Expired – Lifetime," adjusted expiration 2025-11-04, and the printed patent states the term was "extended or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by 0 days" (no PTA). Because the earliest non-provisional filing is Nov. 4, 2005, the 20-year term ran to Nov. 4, 2025 — i.e., the patent expired roughly five months after the PTAB denied institution of the IPR against it. (Unified Patents shows the same dates offset by one day — priority 2005-11-03, expiration 2025-11-03 — which reads as a UTC/time-zone artifact.) Note, however, that the live Google Patents page now displays legal status "Active" rather than expired, and the full text you supplied says "Expired – Lifetime." I flag this conflict rather than resolve it; the two records are inconsistent.

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"The present invention relates to an integrated sleep diagnosis and treatment device, and more particularly to an integrated apnea diagnosis and treatment device. The present invention additionally relates to method of sleep diagnosis and treatment."

3. Plain-language overview

The patent claims an integrated sleep-disorder diagnosis + treatment system. A diagnostic device (wireless physiological data-acquisition system with EEG/ECG/EMG/EOG electrodes, respiration belts, nasal cannula/facemask, pulse oximeter, blood-gas sensors, accelerometers) computes a quantitative "level of severity" of the subject's sleep apnea/sleep disorder in real time (or predictively). That severity output then drives a treatment device — physical (CPAP/PAP, electrical stimulation) or chemical (medication reservoir/nebulizer) — either closed-loop (automatic actuator adjustment based on the severity output) or open-loop (alerts a human who adjusts treatment). Symptom onset is predicted by detecting characteristic shifts in the power spectrum of the sensor signals, using (i) a standard-deviation threshold technique, (ii) a recursively identified ARMA/ARMAX system-identification model (advantageously the ORICA™ extended-horizon adaptive predictive controller, U.S. Pat. No. 5,424,942), (iii) Short-Time Fourier Transform, and (iv) time-frequency transforms with various kernels, plus wavelet analysis. Detailed disclosure covers the frequency-agile 902–928 MHz (and 2.4 GHz / WMTS) programmable transmitter, firmware/interrupt-service-routine architecture, AD7714-based configurable signal chain, CPAP pressure-support schematic (FIG. 7) and the integrated system schematic (FIG. 8).

4. Independent claims — with an explicit uncertainty flag

⚠️ I do not have authoritative verbatim claim text for US 11,602,284. The full text provided ends mid-sentence in the description ("…measure various parameters of a subject's respirations. Th") and contains no claims. Live sources describe the claims only by CPC classification tags and by the PTAB petition's table of contents. Accordingly:

What I can ground with reasonable confidence:

• The '284 is a method-claim patent — Google Patents' claim-term frequency listing shows "treatment Methods" (82), "methods" (49), "processing" (61), "communication" (18), "analysis" (17), "respiratory" (16), "Central Sleep Apnea" (10), "obstructive" (4), "adaptive" (4). This tells us the independent claims are methods, and that central vs. obstructive apnea discrimination and an adaptive control element are express claim features.
• Per the ResMed petition in IPR2025-00157, the challenged claims include at least claims 6 and 12–20, with these stated features:
  • Claim 13 — a Fourier transform technique;
  • Claims 15 and 18 — an "extended horizon, adaptive, predictive" controller (the ORICA/Dong lineage);
  • Claim 16 — a remote communication system with a third processor;
  • Claim 19 — a remote communication system with a third [processor/station];
  • Claims 17 and 20 — distinguishing between and calculating the severity of obstructive vs. central apneas.

What I am inferring, not quoting: The independent claims most likely mirror the family's core structure — (a) a method of treating a sleep-related breathing disorder using a first sensor connected to a data acquisition box separate from the PAP/CPAP device, a second sensor integrated into the PAP/CPAP device, and titration/adjustment using data from both; and (b) a method reciting a PAP/CPAP processor that computes a quantified level of severity, with wireless (RF/cellular/Bluetooth) transmission to a phone and/or a remote station for clinician review and therapy-efficacy determination. I want to be clear: those two formulations are verbatim from the family's later member US 12,213,775, which I retrieved — I have not verified that '284's independent claims read identically. Treat them as family-level context, not as the '284 claim set.

Anyone needing true claim scope should pull the '284 claim set directly from USPTO PatentCenter / the granted PDF rather than rely on the above.

5. PTAB and litigation status (2026)

PTAB — Patent Office proceedings specifically on 11,602,284:

So both Office challenges aimed at the '284 failed at the threshold. This is the one Cleveland Medical patent in the campaign that ResMed did not get into trial on.

District court:

• ResMed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00500 (S.D. Cal., filed Mar. 20, 2023) — ResMed declaratory-judgment action of non-infringement of U.S. 11,602,284; transferred to N.D. Ohio (Nov. 2023), becoming No. 1:23-cv-02221-BMB.
• Cleveland Medical counterclaimed on the '921, '512, '680, and later '333 and '029 patents.
• March 7, 2025: N.D. Ohio stayed the case pending conclusion of all Patent Office proceedings on the asserted patents.
• Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists the '284 as asserted in ResMed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices, 1:23-cv-02221 (N.D. Ohio), asserter category "Product company."

CAFC — 2026 dockets. I could not identify any Federal Circuit 2026 appeal specific to 11,602,284. I did locate these 2026 CAFC matters in the same campaign (different patents — noting them only to show the '284 is not among them):

• CAFC 26-2124, ResMed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices Inc, filed 8/7/2026, appeal from PTAB IPR2025-00160.
• CAFC 26-2221, appeal of the IPR2025-00247 final written decision (U.S. 11,872,029; FWD June 29, 2026, outcome "Patentable," appealed by ResMed).
• Not '284: PTAB FWDs issued June 29, 2026 in IPR2025-00246 (U.S. 11,857,333) and IPR2025-00247 (U.S. 11,872,029) — reported as ResMed proving one patent's claims invalid but failing on the other.

The absence of a '284 appeal is expected: a petitioner has no direct CAFC appeal from an institution denial; the route would be Director Review of the denial, not a Federal Circuit appeal.

One date caveat: your prompt gives the current date as April 26, 2026, but retrieved records include events dated June 2026 and an Aug. 7, 2026 CAFC filing. I have reported the docket entries as retrieved rather than reconciling them to the stated date.

Sources

• https://patents.google.com/patent/US11602284B1/en
• https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-11602284-B1
• https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2025-00157
• https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-00157/ResMed_Corp/11-15-2024-Petitioner/Petition_as_filed-1-Petition_for_Inter_Partes_Review_of_US_No_11,602,284/
• https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-00247/ResMed_Corp/docs/01-10-2025-Petitioner/Exhibit-1062-US_Pat_No_11,602,284.pdf
• https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/11602284
• https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/cafc/26-2124/resmed-corp-v-cleveland-medical-devices-inc
• https://content.edgar-online.com/ExternalLink/EDGAR/0000943819-25-000035.html (ResMed 10-K narrative of the CleveMed litigation campaign)
• https://patents.justia.com/patent/[12213775](/patent/12213775) (family context only — not the '284 claim set)

Bottom line: US 11,602,284 is a Cleveland Medical Devices continuation (Kayyali et al.) covering an integrated sleep-apnea diagnosis-and-treatment system with a quantitative severity output driving an automatically-adjusted PAP/CPAP or chemical treatment device. It survived both a PGR and an IPR at the institution stage, was asserted in the ResMed v. CleveMed N.D. Ohio litigation (now stayed), and appears to have reached the end of its 20-year term on Nov. 4, 2025 — though the live Google Patents record and the text you supplied disagree on whether it is "Active" or "Expired." The most notable gap in what I can authoritatively report is the verbatim independent-claim language, which was not present in the supplied full text.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 11,602,284 specifically. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig into the specific district court cases and PTAB proceedings.

Let me verify the PTAB proceedings and the current status of the district court case.

Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 11,602,284 ("the '284 patent")

Preliminary note on screening: A keyword search for "11602284" surfaces Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp., No. 1:17-cv-01972 (N.D. Ill.), which involves U.S. Patent No. 8,116,284 — a different patent (Motorola TDMA radio patent). That case is not related to US 11,602,284 and I have excluded it. Everything below concerns the '284 patent ("Devices and methods for sleep disorder diagnosis and treatment"), assigned to Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc. ("CleveMed").

1. District court litigation

Substance. ResMed Corp. filed a declaratory-judgment action of non-infringement of the '284 patent just six days after the patent issued on March 14, 2023, targeting its Astral and Stellar ventilators and AirSense 10, AirCurve 10, AirSense 11 and AirMini CPAP devices. CleveMed moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (no actual controversy), arguing the '284 patent had never been asserted against ResMed Corp. — only related patents (e.g., U.S. 10,076,269) had been asserted against ResMed's parent, ResMed Inc., in the Delaware action. The S.D. Cal. court denied the motion to dismiss, reasoning that CleveMed conceded the '284 and '269 patents are "related" (same specification/continuations/same inventors), supporting an actual controversy. The case was then transferred to N.D. Ohio for convenience of the parties.

In N.D. Ohio, CleveMed answered and counterclaimed for infringement of other patents in the same family — U.S. Patent Nos. 11,375,921; 11,690,512; and 11,786,680 — and later, by second amended answer (April 9, 2024), added U.S. Patent Nos. 11,857,333 and 11,872,029. CleveMed's claim-construction brief treats the "Asserted Patents" as six patents including the '284 patent, so the '284 patent remains at issue in the case (via ResMed's DJ count, with ResMed also pleading that the '284 claims are invalid under §§ 101/102/103/112).

On March 7, 2025, the N.D. Ohio court granted ResMed's motion to stay the case pending conclusion of all Patent Office proceedings on the asserted patents, noting discovery was incomplete, no Markman hearing had been held, and no trial date was set.

Sources:

• https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/casdce/3:2023cv00500/[754843](/patent/754843)
• https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.754843/gov.uscourts.casd.754843.17.0.pdf
• https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_23-cv-02221/pdf/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_23-cv-02221-1.pdf
• https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Ohio%20Northern%20District%20Court/case/1%3A23-cv-02221
• Stanford NPE Litigation Database: https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/11602284 (lists exactly one case involving the '284 patent: ResMed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices, 1:23-cv-02221, N.D. Ohio)

Related but NOT a '284 case: Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc. v. ResMed Inc., C.A. No. 1:22-cv-00974 (D. Del.), filed on or about June 16, 2022 (the "Delaware Action"). CleveMed asserted eight CleveMed patents against ResMed Inc. there; the '284 patent was not among them (it had not yet issued). It is contextually relevant because it supplied the "relatedness" rationale for the S.D. Cal. DJ action, but it is not litigation on the '284 patent.

2. USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings (adversarial, but not Article III litigation)

Two PTAB challenges were filed against the '284 patent. Both were denied institution, so neither produced a final written decision and neither is appealable to the Federal Circuit.

Sources:

• https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-11602284-B1
• https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2025-00157
• https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11602284B1](/patent/US11602284B1)/en ("Legal Events": TRIAL NO: PGR2024-00012; Opponent name: RESMED CORP., AND RESMED, INC.; Effective date 2023-12-13)
• ResMed Inc. Form 10-Q (SEC): https://us.kabutan.jp/disclosures/0000943819-26-000025 (confirms PGR denial June 24, 2024; rehearing denial Oct. 17, 2024; IPR institution denial on the '284 patent June 10, 2025)
• https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-00157/... (Petitioner's Reply and Patent Owner's Preliminary Sur-Reply, both discussing General Plastic)

3. Appellate (CAFC)

None found. Because institution was denied in both PTAB proceedings, there is no final written decision to appeal, and because the N.D. Ohio case is stayed with no judgment entered, there is no appealable district-court judgment. I could not locate any Federal Circuit appeal naming the '284 patent.

Summary

• Total district court cases in which the '284 patent itself was at issue: one — ResMed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc., originally filed as 3:23-cv-00500-TWR-JLB (S.D. Cal., filed March 20, 2023), transferred and pending as 1:23-cv-02221-BMB (N.D. Ohio). It is a declaratory-judgment action brought by ResMed Corp.; CleveMed's infringement counterclaims in that case rest on sibling patents ('921, '512, '680, '333, '029), not on the '284 patent. Current status: stayed (March 7, 2025) pending the PTAB proceedings.
• PTAB: two challenges, both denied institution (PGR2024-00012; IPR2025-00157).
• Outcome on the merits: none to date — no judgment, no final written decision, no appellate ruling.

Confidence caveats. I was unable to retrieve the primary text of the two PTAB institution-denial decisions, so the precise grounds for denial (as distinguished from the labels "Procedural"/"Merits" used by third-party databases) are reported here second-hand from the parties' briefing and ResMed's SEC disclosure. All case numbers, party names, courts and dates above are quoted literally from the sources cited; I have not auto-corrected any identifier.

I'll start by verifying the proceedings flagged in the patent record against public sources.

Let me gather the PGR details and check for appeals or additional proceedings.

PTAB Proceedings — US Patent 11,602,284 (Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.)

Data-source note before we start: The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block you supplied reports that the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent. That is an ODP indexing gap, not the truth. Two AIA trials have in fact been filed against the '284 patent — PGR2024-00012 and IPR2025-00157 — both by ResMed Corp., both documented in the patent's own Google Patents record and in public PTAB dockets. I've flagged them below as the instructions directed. One metadata caution: the Google Patents block labels the "Petitioner" for both cases as "Unified Patents PTAB Data." That is the data-source attribution string, not a party — Unified Patents is the aggregator that licensed the docket data to Google. The real petitioner in both proceedings is ResMed Corp. Verified against the PTAB papers themselves.

Proceedings overview

Two AIA proceedings have been filed against US 11,602,284 — one PGR and one IPR, both by ResMed Corp. — and both were denied institution; zero claims have been canceled, zero claims have been sustained on the merits, and no Final Written Decision has ever issued on this patent. The breakdown: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained on the merits / 0 settled / 2 institution denied. The defensive posture this gives a defendant is nuanced: the patent has never been tested on the merits at the PTAB — the two wins for the patent owner were procedural/discretionary institution denials, not merits vindications. Cleveland Medical Devices can tell a court the Board twice declined to take up the '284 patent, but it cannot say any claim survived an IPR. A defendant's real leverage here is that the patent's term has run out (see Strategic Summary) and that the merits of § 102/§ 103 have never been litigated at the Board.

PGR2024-00012 — ResMed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

• Type: Post-Grant Review
• Filed: 2023-12-13 (petition, Paper 2 — filed on the penultimate day of the nine-month PGR window, which closed 2023-12-14, nine months after the 2023-03-14 grant)
• Status: Institution Denied. Google Patents' structured taxonomy records this as "Not Instituted – Merits"; third-party dockets (Unified Patents portal, IP Verse) record it as "Institution Denied." The Board's decision is Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. June 24, 2024). → No trial was ever conducted.
• Judge panel: Not confirmed from the sources reviewed. I did not locate the PGR institution-decision panel listing; I am not going to guess APJ names.
• Petition grounds: A PGR, so § 101 / § 112 / § 102 / § 103 were all theoretically available. The record confirms the petition pressed obviousness (§ 103) grounds: the IPR2025-00157 preliminary sur-reply refers to "essentially the same obviousness grounds raised in the PGR Petition" and to "the PGR Petition" as the vehicle petitioner later abandoned "in favor of new art." The specific references are not confirmed from the decision text I could retrieve. ResMed's parallel district-court invalidity contentions name a familiar cluster for this patent family — US 6,167,258 ("Schmidt"), WO 2005/096737 ("Farrell"), US 2002/0165462 ("Westbrook"), US 2003/0213489 ("Mehlenburg"), US 6,287,264 ("Hoffman"), US 6,644,311 ("Truitt"), the Rasid 2005 Bluetooth-telemetry paper, and ResMed's own AutoSet Spirit (S7), S8 AutoSet Vantage, and ResTraxx products — but those are litigation contentions, not confirmed PGR grounds. Treat that list as indicative only.
• Claims challenged: The set at least overlapped the later IPR challenge — claims 1–3, 6, and 12–20. The IPR2025-00157 decision states the follow-on petition "challenges only claims that were already challenged in the PGR."
• Institution decision: Denied 2024-06-24. The Board did not reach the merits. A likely (but unconfirmed by me) contributory issue: whether the '284 patent is even PGR-eligible — during prosecution the Office treated the '284 patent as a pre-AIA patent (it claims priority to 2005-11-04), and PGR eligibility requires at least one claim with an effective filing date on/after 2018-03-16 (here, the March 16, 2013 AIA cutoff). ResMed itself "deem[ed]" the patent AIA, a choice the Board later described as petitioner's own. I could not retrieve the Paper 7 text and will not characterize the holding beyond "institution denied."
• Final Written Decision: None issued.
• Rehearing: ResMed's request for rehearing was denied 2024-10-17 (per the IPR2025-00157 institution decision's chronology).
• Settlement / termination: None. Terminated by denial of institution.
• Appeal: No FWD, so no IPR/PGR appeal to the Federal Circuit. Institution decisions are effectively insulated from appeal by 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) (Cuozzo; Thryv).
• Defensive value: This proceeding did not clear a single claim — it merely shows the Board declined the first bite at the '284 patent. Its real significance is structural: it is the petition that gave the Board its General Plastic hook to knock out ResMed's later IPR (below). Nothing in PGR2024-00012 is binding on any other challenger, and because no FWD issued, no § 325(e) estoppel attached.

IPR2025-00157 — ResMed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-11-15
• Status: Institution Denied. Google Patents' taxonomy: "Not Instituted – Procedural"; dockets: "Institution Denied." Decision on institution: 2025-06-10; proceeding terminated 2025-06-10. → No trial; no merits ruling.
• Judge panel: SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, NEIL T. POWELL, and CYNTHIA M. HARDMAN (APJs).
• Petition grounds: Challenge to claims 1–3, 6, and 12–20 of the '284 patent. Claim 1 is the only independent claim; claims 2, 3, 6, 12–20 all depend (directly or indirectly) from it. Statutory basis: § 103 obviousness. The petition relied on five prior-art references, at least one of which is "Kumar" (challenged by the patent owner as not shown to be prior art; publicly available since 2002). Petitioner's expert was Dr. Kirkness (Ex. 1003). The Board never reached the merits.
• Institution decision: Denied 2025-06-10 under the Board's § 314(a) / § 325(d) discretion, applying General Plastic. One-line reasoning: the Board "exercise[d] our discretion to deny institution of this follow-on petition because Petitioner previously filed a post-grant review petition challenging the same claims of the same patent." The Board found the General Plastic factors cut against ResMed — ResMed knew of four of the five references long before filing, waited over eleven months after the PGR (filing "on the eve of the statutory deadline"), and expressly used the patent owner's PGR Preliminary Response as a roadmap. The decision notes: "it is clear from the record that Petitioner tailored its arguments in the present proceeding based on what it learned from the post-grant review. Petitioner and its declarants expressly cite and rely on alleged admissions Patent Owner made in its Preliminary Response in PGR2024-00012 numerous times." The Board also rejected ResMed's excuse that a parallel petition would have violated General Plastic, and rejected its claim that the IPR window wasn't open — the Board pointed out the Office had deemed the '284 patent pre-AIA during prosecution, and that in any event ResMed filed the PGR on the penultimate day of the nine-month window, so the IPR window opened the next day regardless. The Board's practical message: ResMed could have filed in parallel and chose not to.
• Final Written Decision: None issued.
• Settlement / termination: None — terminated by the institution denial itself.
• Post-decision filing: The docket reflects a Petitioner Request for Director Review – Institution Decision (Paper 12, ~June 2025). I could not confirm the disposition of that request. Be aware that Director Review of an institution denial is, as a practical matter, essentially unavailable, and § 314(d) forecloses appellate review. Do not assume reversal.
• Defensive value: This is the second Board denial, and it is the more useful one for a defendant, because the Board's reasoning is claim-set-specific and procedural, not a merits validation: claims 1–3, 6, and 12–20 were challenged but never adjudicated. The denial creates no § 315(e)(2) estoppel (estoppel attaches only after a Final Written Decision), so ResMed itself remains free to litigate § 102/§ 103 invalidity against claims 1–3, 6, 12–20 in the district court. The corollary for a new defendant is the opposite of comforting, but also not a roadblock: nothing here is preclusive, and the merits remain wide open — the Board simply never got to them.

Strategic summary

Claim-by-claim status. Because neither proceeding produced a Final Written Decision, every claim of the '284 patent stands exactly as issued — none canceled, none sustained. The claim set that has been challenged but never adjudicated is claims 1–3, 6, and 12–20 (the ones named in IPR2025-00157 and, per the Board, the same set challenged in PGR2024-00012). The claims never challenged at the Board are claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 — i.e., the middle dependent claims. Since claim 1 is the sole independent claim, any infringement case on the '284 patent runs through claim 1, and claim 1 has never been construed by the PTAB or reached on the merits by any panel. Note also the date arithmetic: the '284 patent issued from a 2022 continuation application but claims priority to 2005-11-04, and Google Patents' legal-status field reflects an adjusted expiration of 2025-11-04 ("Expired – Lifetime"); Unified Patents lists 2025-11-03. Either way, the patent term has expired as of today (2026-09-29), which severely caps any forward-looking relief and limits a defendant's exposure to past damages. Verify the PTA/expiration certificate directly on Patent Center before relying on this, but both public trackers agree the term has run.

Estoppel landscape. This is the cleanest takeaway: no estoppel exists against anyone. Section 315(e)(2) IPR estoppel and § 325(e)(2) PGR estoppel attach only upon a final written decision, and there is none here. So (a) ResMed is not estopped in the N.D. Ohio case (ResMed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc., 1:23-cv-02221-BMB) or the C.D. Cal. case (3:23-cv-00500) from raising any § 102/§ 103 ground against claims 1–3, 6, and 12–20 — including grounds it raised or "reasonably could have raised" at the Board; and (b) a new defendant is under no estoppel either. The one real gate for a new challenger is § 315(b): an IPR petition is barred if filed more than one year after service of an infringement complaint. Given the age of the assertion campaign (the Ohio action was filed 2023-03-20, the Cal. action in 2023), most defendants who have already been sued are likely time-barred from filing their own IPR/PGR — which pushes the invalidity fight into district court, where the same prior art is fully available and where a jury applies a "clear and convincing" standard rather than the Board's preponderance standard. That is, on balance, a favorable forum shift for a defendant holding good art.

Pattern signals. Yes — the same petitioner has filed repeatedly. ResMed filed six IPRs against this patent family and two ex parte reexaminations, all tracked in the IPR2025-00157 record: IPR2025-00157 ('284), IPR2025-00158 ('512), IPR2025-00159 ('921), IPR2025-00160 ('680), IPR2025-00246 ('333), IPR2025-00247 ('029), plus reexams 90/019,700 ('921) and 90/019,705 ('680). It also previously filed IPR2023-00565 against the parent-family '269 patent, which was denied institution under § 314(a) (Paper 13, 2023-09-25) after a Fintiv-style discretionary analysis. The patent owner, Cleveland Medical Devices, is not a passive defendant — it litigates aggressively, retained Kramer Levin (counsel now at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer) and defends at the Board. There is no defensive aggregator in the chain for the '284 patent. Unified Patents appears only as the data publisher of the PTAB docket, not as a petitioner or funder — do not mistake it for a party. Separately, the Director has weighed in on sibling patents: an Acting Director decision denied Cleveland Medical's discretionary-denial request in IPR2025-00246/-247, reasoning that the recently-issued (2024) patents and the stayed district court case favored early PTAB challenges. Finally, public reporting dated 2026-07-13 indicates the Board resolved the family-wide set of instituted IPRs largely in Cleveland Medical's favor — four Final Written Decisions finding ResMed failed to establish unpatentability, one institution denial, and one ResMed win, with FWDs due by July 2026. That reporting concerns sibling patents, not the '284 patent, which never got to an FWD, so do not import those outcomes onto claims 1–20 of the '284 patent.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not tell a court or a client that claims of the '284 patent "survived IPRs." They did not. The accurate statement is: "ResMed filed one PGR and one IPR against claims 1–3, 6, and 12–20; the Board denied institution in both (PGR2024-00012 on 2024-06-24; IPR2025-00157 on 2025-06-10 under General Plastic); no claim has ever been adjudicated on the merits at the PTAB." Cite the IPR2025-00157 institution decision directly: Docket Alarm copy of the 2025-06-10 Decision Denying Institution. The PGR denial paper should be pulled from PTAB E2E as Paper 7 (2024-06-24) — I was unable to retrieve the full text and did not characterize its holding.

2. Run the term-expiration check first — it may end the case. Confirm on USPTO Patent Center whether US 11,602,284 has expired by operation of the 20-year term from 2005-11-04 (Google Patents shows adjusted expiration 2025-11-04; Unified Patents shows 2025-11-03). If expired, a defendant's exposure collapses to past damages, and any demand letter asserting ongoing royalties is facially defective. This is the highest-value defensive fact available right now.

3. Attack pre-AIA/AIA status in the litigation. Two panels have now noted that the Office deemed the '284 patent pre-AIA during prosecution while ResMed treated it as AIA. That inconsistency drives both PGR eligibility and the applicable § 102/§ 103 framework — and it is a live, unresolved issue you can exploit in the district court and in any collateral posture.

4. If you are a new defendant not yet sued, mind the § 315(b) clock. Once served, you have one year to petition for IPR; given the 2023 vintage of this campaign, most already-sued parties are time-barred from the Board and must litigate invalidity in court. If you are newly served, preserve the Board option immediately, and file in parallel — IPR2025-00157 is a textbook General Plastic cautionary tale about waiting for the first petition's POPR to mature.

5. Watch for any Director Review or appellate activity. A Request for Director Review was docketed in IPR2025-00157 (Paper 12, ~June 2025); I could not confirm the disposition. Monitor PTAB E2E at https://ptacts.uspto.gov for case IPR2025-00157 and PGR2024-00012, and CourtListener's CAFC docket for any petition arising from the family-wide FWDs. As of 2026-09-29, no active PTAB trial on the '284 patent exists, and there are no institution or FWD deadlines to track — that window closed at 2025-06-10.

Confidence flags: Proceeding numbers, petitioner/patent-owner identities, filing dates, denial dates, the IPR APJ panel, the challenged claim set, and the General Plastic basis for the IPR denial are all confirmed from the decisions and public dockets. The PGR's judge panel, its exact grounds/references, and the precise merits basis of the PGR denial are not confirmed — I have flagged them rather than filled them in. The Director Review disposition is unconfirmed.

I'll research the assignment record and litigation context for US 11,602,284 before reconstructing the chain.

Ownership & Assignment Reconstruction — US 11,602,284 B1

Scope note / data limitation (read first). I was able to identify only one recorded assignment link in this chain, and I could not retrieve the reel/frame numbers, the correspondent of record for the recording, or a separate executed date from the sources available to me in this session. The single record below is attested by Google Patents' legal-events feed (which mirrors USPTO assignment data). Everything else in this report is grounded in court dockets, PTAB filings, and the patent's own file history. Where I could not verify a datum, I say so rather than supplying a plausible-looking reel/frame. Verify the reel/frame and correspondent directly at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (query 11602284 / application 17/825,266) or https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/.

Inventors

Residences and inventor list are confirmed by the file history of sibling continuation 18/105,277 (excerpted in the IPR2025-00247 record) and by the patent's front page.

Unusual patterns observed (and not observed):

• No inventor exodus. I found no public record of any of the four inventors departing CleveMed within 12 months of filing: Schmidt is CleveMed's founder/Chairman, and both Schmidt and Kolkowski are recorded as registered practitioners at the CleveMed address on the family's PTAB service correspondence. The "all inventors leave → fire-sale" tell is absent.
• Genuinely unusual, but not an NPE tell: the family is prosecuted in-house by the inventors themselves rather than by outside counsel, and CleveMed shares its principal address (4415 Euclid Ave., Suite 500, Cleveland, OH 44103) with Orbital Research, Inc., whose name appears in the correspondence address and in inventor Kolkowski's email domain. Two named inventors (Schmidt, Kolkowski) are also the family's patent attorneys of record — an inventor-operated portfolio, which is a governance curiosity, not evidence of assertion behavior.
• Inventor Modarres-Zadeh's earlier work surfaces as prior art cited against the family (US 6,993,380 "Modarres"), i.e., the same inventive group's prior patents are being used by ResMed to attack the family.

Original assignee

Cleveland Medical Devices Inc. ("CleveMed") — an Ohio corporation, principal place of business 4415 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, OH 44103; founded 1990.

• Business: operating medical-device / clinical-services company focused on home sleep testing and sleep-disorder diagnostics. Commercial product lines named in its own pleadings: SleepView (home sleep testing), SleepScout, Sapphire, and the Crystal PSG software / SleepView Web Portal. CleveMed alleges it began developing portable home sleep testing around 2007 and that its products are §287-marked with its patents (Delaware complaint ¶¶ 9–13, 31).
• Products embodying the '284 claims: unclear. CleveMed's shipped products are diagnostic/home-sleep-testing devices; the '284 claims (Claim 1) recite a positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment system with a blower, airflow sensor, and cell-phone plus remote-internet-site architecture. CleveMed markets itself as an operating company and marks its products with related patents, but whether it ships a PAP device reading on '284 is not established by the record I retrieved.
• Status: operating, not dissolved, not in bankruptcy. As of 2025 it is an active plaintiff/appellant: it sued ResMed Inc. in D. Del. (22-cv-00794) on 2022-06-16, counterclaimed in N.D. Ohio (1:23-cv-02221), and on 2025-08-27 appealed the PTAB's invalidation of US 10,076,269 to the Federal Circuit (ResMed 10-K / legal-actions disclosure).
• Portfolio: CleveMed represented to the USPTO in 2022 that it had been awarded 37 patents. The asserted extended family includes US 10,076,269; 10,028,698; 10,426,399; 10,478,118; 10,925,535; 11,064,937; 11,202,603; 11,234,637; 11,375,921; 11,602,284; 11,690,512; 11,786,680; 11,857,333; 11,872,029; and 12,213,775 (a child of '284).

Assignment timeline

One recorded assignment link found. No post-issuance assignments were found.

• Executed date: not stated in the retrievable record / recorded 2022-05-26 — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved
  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest, "see document for details")
  • Assignor: KAYYALI, HANI; KOLKOWSKI, BRIAN; "MOD, MOHAMMAD" (USPTO/Google rendering of Modarres-Zadeh, Mohammad — the field appears truncated in the indexed record); SCHMIDT, ROBERT
  • Assignee: CLEVELAND MEDICAL DEVICES INC. (Cleveland, OH)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from the sources available to me. (Prosecution correspondence for the same family is the in-house address of Brian Kolkowski, Reg. No. 36,847, and Robert N. Schmidt, Reg. No. 30,889, both c/o Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc. c/o Orbital Research, Inc., 4415 Euclid Ave. Suite 500, Cleveland, OH 44103 — a repeat in-house correspondent, but not an assignment-record correspondent and not an NPE-linked attorney.)
  • Context: internal inventor→company assignment covering the continuation application 17/825,266, recorded on the filing date; routine employment/ownership housekeeping, not an acquisition.

No further recorded assignments. The chain from 2023 to the present is a litigation chain, not an assignment chain. For completeness, the events that would appear alongside it:

• 2022-06-16 — CleveMed sues ResMed Inc., D. Del. 1:22-cv-00794 (asserts '269 and seven other patents; '284 had not yet issued).
• 2023-03-14 — '284 issues to CleveMed.
• 2023-03-20 — ResMed Corp. files a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of '284, S.D. Cal. 3:23-cv-00500; transferred to N.D. Ohio as 1:23-cv-02221. CleveMed counterclaimed for infringement of '284 (per IPR2025-00160, Patent Owner's Motion to Terminate, §II).
• 2023-12-13 — ResMed files PGR2024-00012 against '284 (not instituted on the merits).
• 2024-11-15 — ResMed files IPR2025-00157 against '284 (institution denied, 2025-06-10).
• 2025-05-02 — PTAB finds all claims of US 10,076,269 unpatentable (IPR2023-00565); CleveMed appeals 2025-08-27.
• 2025-11-04 — '284 expires (20-year term from the 2005-11-04 priority; Google Patents legal status: "Expired – Lifetime").

Note on the "Unified Patents" links on the Google Patents page: the PGR/IPR entries are attributed to Unified Patents only because Google sources PTAB data from Unified's database. Unified Patents is not a petitioner here. Both the PGR and the IPR against '284 were filed by ResMed Corp. against CleveMed.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11602284
    2005 : Priority application filed
    2012 : US 8172766 issues
    2018 : US 10076269 issues
    2022 : Continuation filed for 284
         : Inventors assign to CleveMed
         : CleveMed sues ResMed in Delaware
    2023 : 284 patent issues
         : ResMed files DJ in California
         : ResMed files PGR against 284
    2024 : ResMed IPR filed against 284
    2025 : PTAB invalidates US 10076269
         : 284 patent expires

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT.
There is no transfer to a licensing-only entity. The only recorded conveyance is inventors → Cleveland Medical Devices Inc. (recorded 2022-05-26), and CleveMed is the same entity litigating the patent today in its own name. No "IP/Patents/Holdings/Licensing/Ventures" successor appears anywhere in the chain (Google Patents current assignee / litigation and PTAB captions all name Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.).

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT.
Neither the recorded assignee (Cleveland Medical Devices Inc.) nor any link in the chain matches Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp., or any Spangenberg entity. The Stanford NPE Litigation Database entry for patent 11602284 lists a single case — ResMed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc., 1:23-cv-02221 (N.D. Ohio) — categorized as "Product company", which is the competitor-vs-competitor posture, not an NPE assertion.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — NOT PRESENT / UNCLEAR.
The assignment-record correspondent could not be retrieved, so recurrence across assignment links cannot be assessed (there is only one link anyway). On the prosecution side there is a clear repeat correspondent — Brian Kolkowski (Reg. 36,847) and Robert N. Schmidt (Reg. 30,889), both at the CleveMed/Orbital Research in-house address, 4415 Euclid Ave. Suite 500, Cleveland, OH 44103 — appearing on this family's correspondence and PTAB service addresses. Neither name appears on any Unified Patents / RPX / Patent Progress NPE-assertion list that I could find; this is in-house prosecution by the inventors, not a shell-LLC operator pattern.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT.
Zero chained LLC-to-LLC assignments; zero consecutive transfers in any 24-month window. The chain is a single inventor→operating-company assignment (2022-05-26) followed by no further recorded conveyances.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT.
The 2022-05-26 recording falls ~3 weeks before CleveMed's 2022-06-16 Delaware suit, but (a) it is an ordinary inventor-to-employer assignment recorded on the application filing date, and (b) '284 itself was not asserted in that suit — it had not issued. '284 came into the litigation only after ResMed filed a DJ action against it (2023-03-20), with CleveMed counterclaiming. The chain was not rearranged to enable assertion.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
No Chapter 7/11 filings or patent-sale proceedings involving CleveMed were found. CleveMed is funding active litigation (including a Federal Circuit appeal) as plaintiff/counterclaim-plaintiff.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
CleveMed asserts in its own name against a direct competitor. There is no operating-company → NPE transfer designed to assert on CleveMed's behalf, so the privateering pattern (patent moved out and shell asserts while the operating company stays in the background) does not apply. The reverse is closer to the truth: CleveMed is the operating company and the patent owner.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at Cleveland Medical Devices Inc. Note: ResMed's IPRs are third-party validity challenges, not acquisitions — being IPR'd does not make a patent "neutralized" for ownership purposes.

Aggravating/complicating facts (context, not NPE signals):

• The family's flagship asserted patent, US 10,076,269, was held unpatentable by the PTAB on 2025-05-02 (appealed 2025-08-27). The '284 shares its specification, inventors, and title, and is a sibling continuation.
• The '284 patent expired 2025-11-04 — barely 2.5 years after issuance and before most of the related district-court and PTAB proceedings resolved. Its forward-looking assertion value is effectively nil.
• ResMed is challenging all related patents (IPRs instituted on '512, '680, '333, '029; final written decisions expected July 2026), so this is a broad two-way competitor war, not a serial-licensing campaign.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The chain contains exactly one recorded conveyance — inventors to Cleveland Medical Devices Inc. recorded 2022-05-26 (reel/frame not retrieved; verify in Assignment Center) — with no subsequent assignments, no shell-entity successor, no known NPE, no cascading LLC transfers, and no defensive aggregator at the end. The current assignee is a 35-year operating medical-device company with commercial sleep-diagnostics products (SleepView, SleepScout, Sapphire), and it asserted '284 by counterclaim against ResMed — an identified direct competitor — in N.D. Ohio 1:23-cv-02221, while simultaneously defending the family against ResMed's PGR2024-00012 and IPR2025-00157. Caveat: because '284 claims a PAP treatment system while CleveMed's shipped products are diagnostic devices, strict "products embodying the claims" coverage is unclear — but that uncertainty does not move this case toward the NPE categories, all eight of which are affirmatively not present.

Verify: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html → search patent 11602284 (or application 17/825,266); also https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ and the Google Patents legal-events tab for https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11602284B1](/patent/US11602284B1)/en.

I'll pull the citation records for US 11,602,284 from patent databases.

Let me pull the citation lists from additional databases that expose the "References Cited" section.

Let me get the full "References Cited" list from the patent PDF and the prior art asserted in the PTAB challenges.

Prior Art of U.S. Patent No. 11,602,284 — Citation Analysis

Identifier discipline: I searched strictly on 11602284 → US 11,602,284 B1. I did not substitute a neighbor (11,602,283 / 11,602,285), and I excluded the several unrelated hits that surfaced (e.g., Motorola's 8,116,284, and PCT search reports for WO 01/19411 and WO 2002/080833, which belong to other dockets).

Two hard caveats up front — please read before relying on the mapping below:

1. The claim set of the '284 is still not in the source material. The full text you supplied is truncated mid-description ("…measure various parameters of a subject's respirations. Th") and contains no claims. A rigorous § 102 anticipation analysis requires element-by-element comparison to issued claim language. I therefore cannot certify that any reference "anticipates" a specific claim; where I name a claim after a reference, it is labeled as an inference, not a finding.
2. I could not retrieve the complete (56) "References Cited" list. The list on the face of the '284 was only partially recoverable from the mirror copies of the printed patent (PTAB Exhibits 1001/1062). The table below is partial (roughly two dozen of an estimated ~47 patent references), and I flag every entry I could not verify.

Tool limit note: I exhausted my search budget mid-way through targeted follow-ups (petition grounds for PGR2024-00012 / IPR2025-00157, and the patentimages PDF of the '284). The most authoritative fetch — the granted-PDF citation list at patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/…/US11602284.pdf and USPTO PatentCenter — remains unvisited.

1. Why the citation list is the wrong place to look for the "most relevant" art here

Two structural facts drive the entire analysis:

• The '284 is a pre-AIA patent. PTAB so held in denying PGR2024-00012 (post-grant review is available only for AIA patents). Priority runs to Nov. 4, 2005 (cont.'s of 11/266,899). So the governing statute is pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b), (e), (g) — not § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2).
• The patent issued over everything in its (56) list. By definition, no § 102 (56) citation anticipated an allowed claim, or the Examiner would have rejected it. Those references were cited as background "A" art (mostly) and as § 102(e)/103 material. The genuinely "most relevant" art for the '284 is the art the challenger actually lined up in the PTAB petitions — which is a different set, and which I could only partially recover (see §4).

So a literal reading of your request — "which claim does each (56) citation anticipate?" — has the honest answer, for every entry: none, on this record.

2. Recovered § 1.56 / (56) "References Cited" — U.S. Patent Documents

The patents on the face of the '284 carry the examiner's "*" (reference considered pertinent / examiner-cited). Citation data, dates, and CPC/U.S. class recovered from the printed patent as reproduced in PTAB Exhibit 1062 (docketalarm.com/…/Exhibit-1062-US_Pat_No_11,602,284.pdf). Descriptions are my own and are confidence-flagged.

U.S. Patent Application Publications also recovered:

Estimated recovery: ~24 of ~47 patent references. Unified Patents' portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-11602284-B1 reports "Patent Art (47)" and "Non-Patent Literature (0)" — so there is no NPL to analyze, and roughly 20–25 face citations remain unretrieved.

3. Which claims could these references bear on? (inference, not a finding)

Because the "Prior art keywords" on the record are subject / data / symptoms / severity / pap device, and because PTAB's own petition summary shows the challenged claims include claims 6 and 12–20, with express limitations on:

• a Fourier transform technique (claim 13),
• an "extended horizon, adaptive, predictive" controller (claims 15, 18),
• a remote communication system / third processor (claims 16, 19), and
• distinguishing and quantifying obstructive vs. central apnea severity (claims 17, 20),

the following inference mapping is offered only as a research roadmap:

• The Berthon-Jones auto-CPAP cluster (5,704,345; 6,138,675; 6,152,129; 6,532,957; 6,532,959) is the natural § 102(b) attack surface against any claim reciting PAP adjustment responsive to a detected respiratory/breathing event — i.e., the titration-independent claims. These are pre-2005 and therefore cleanly available.
• The Burton "AutoSet/leak" cluster (6,431,171; 7,204,250; 8,069,852; 2004/0163648; 2005/0217674) bears on flow/pressure sensing and automatic pressure delivery limitations.
• The Stahmann and Chervin references bear on sleep-state classification from physiological signals and on EEG-derived sleep assessment, relevant to any claim requiring signal analysis of EEG/EOG.
• None of the recovered references appears to disclose the "extended horizon, adaptive, predictive" controller of claims 15/18. That limitation traces to the ORICA™ controller, U.S. Pat. No. 5,424,942 (Orbital Research) — which is cited in the specification as incorporated-by-reference, not in the (56) list. 5,424,942 is the single most important reference for claims 15 and 18 and is the one I would prioritize retrieving in full.

Caveat restated: since the '284 issued over this entire (56) set, the correct legal characterization is that these references were overcome (via amendment or argument) or applied only in § 103 combinations. Any statement that a face citation "anticipates claim X" would be unsupported by the intrinsic record.

4. The actually-asserted prior art (the "most relevant" set) — partially recovered

The art the challenger pressed is not the face list. From the recovered exhibits of IPR2025-00157 and PGR2024-00012 (ResMed Corp. / ResMed Inc. v. Cleveland Medical Devices), the petition exhibit set includes the '284 itself as Exhibit 1001, and a sibling copy as Exhibit 1062 in IPR2025-00247. The recovered petition text confirms heavy reliance on the Berthon-Jones / ResMed PAP lineage and on auto-titrating PAP art. I could not retrieve the named grounds and the specific primary references of either petition — that is the principal gap in this analysis.

Primary sources to close it:

• https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-00157/ResMed_Corp/11-15-2024-Petitioner/Petition_as_filed-1-Petition_for_Inter_Partes_Review_of_US_No_11,602,284/
• https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabs/… (Petition and Exhibit list, PGR2024-00012)
• https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-00157 and /PGR2024-00012

5. Forward citations (not prior art — noted to prevent misuse)

The '284 is itself cited by later patents and applications (e.g., US 2010/0258126, US 2010/043795, US 2004/0254493, and the "Cited By (27)" / "Cited By (18)" lists on those pages). These are forward citations and have no § 102 effect against the '284. I flag this because keyword searches for "11602284" return them mixed in with true prior art.

6. Bottom line

• No claim of the '284 can be shown anticipated by its own (56) citations — the patent issued over them.
• The face list is dominated by ResMed-family PAP/auto-titration art (Berthon-Jones, Burton, Wright, Farrell) and by the applicant's own continuation family (7,942,824; 8,172,766; 10,076,269; 10,543,328), the latter being legally incapable of qualifying as § 102(a)/(b) art.
• The best § 102 candidates on the face record are the pre-11/2005 § 102(b) references: 5,704,345; 6,138,675; 6,152,129; 6,532,957; 6,532,959; 6,431,171; 6,432,609—correctly 6,832,609; 6,336,454; 5,353,785; 5,803,078; 7,018,341*; and the pre-Nov-2005 application publications. (*Date availability must be confirmed against each reference's actual filing/publication date.)
• The strongest single reference for the "adaptive/predictive controller" claims (15, 18) is U.S. 5,424,942 (Orbital Research ORICA™) — incorporated by reference in the specification, and therefore not in the (56) list.
• Unverified: ~23 of 47 face citations; the full text of any claim; the named grounds of PGR2024-00012 and IPR2025-00157.

Confidence: bibliographic data and the recovered citation entries — high. IPC/class data and dates — high (quoted from the printed patent mirror). Subject-matter descriptions without a "confirmed" tag — low to medium, and should be verified against each reference's abstract before use. Claim-level anticipation — not established, for the reasons in §1 and §2.

Date note (carried forward from the earlier sections): the operative date stated for this task is April 26, 2026, while other retrieved records in this campaign carry events into mid/late 2026. I have reported identifiers and dates as retrieved and have not reconciled them.

I'll research the prior art cited against this patent and the claim structure before building the §103 analysis.

Let me retrieve the actual claim language and the key prior-art reference details.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 11,602,284 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Analyst note on inputs. This prompt directs me to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page." No "Prior Art" section was contained in the material provided to me — the authoritative full text you supplied is truncated mid-description and contains no claims and no References Cited list. I therefore rebuilt the prior-art record from the primary adversarial filings on this exact patent (the ResMed PGR2024-00012 and IPR2025-00157 petitions and the Patent Owner's Preliminary Response), the patent's own incorporated-by-reference citations, and the N.D. Ohio invalidity contentions. I flag every place where I am reconstructing rather than quoting. The single most important limitation on this analysis is that I do not have the full verbatim claim set — I have independent claim 1 verbatim (from the POPR exhibit and Petition), and dependent-claim subject matter only at the level reported in the Petition's table of contents.

1. The claim at issue — reconstructed from the IPR record

The '284 has 20 claims: 1 independent, 19 dependent. Independent claim 1 is a PAP-system claim (not the method claims I incorrectly hypothesized in the earlier summary — I flag that as a correction):

1[pre]. A positive airway pressure (PAP) sleep disorder treatment system comprising:
[1.a] a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a first software, executable by a first processor and configured to be used with a cell phone to display … an index of treatment efficacy of the subject using a PAP device … the index based in part on data of severity of sleep disorder symptoms of the subject and data of usage of the PAP device … both calculated by the PAP device and received by the cell phone, the cell phone comprising at least one first radio frequency wireless transceiver, the first processor, the first software when downloaded, and a display;
[1.b] the PAP device with an enclosure comprising: a blower having an air output, an airflow sensor … internal to the enclosure … adapted for measuring or deriving the respiratory airflow of a subject …, a second processor adapted for receiving the airflow sensor data and for calculating i) the severity data, ii) the usage data, and/or iii) the index, a mask or a nasal cannula, and at least one second radio frequency wireless transceiver … adapted for transmitting i) and ii), and/or iii);
[1.c] a remote internet site, adapted to receive the severity data and/or index and the usage data … generated by the PAP device and transmitted via the at least one second radio frequency wireless transceiver.

Sources: Petition, IPR2025-00157 (Paper 1), Ground 1 §VII.C; POPR (Paper 7) at 8–9; Exhibit A03 invalidity chart. Claim text appears in two independent reproductions that agree materially.

Dependent claims (subject matter per the Petition's Ground headings and the POPR's overview):

• Claims 2, 3, 12, 14 — depend from claim 1 (specifics not verbatim in my record).
• Claim 6 (and 5) — remote adjustment of the PAP device based on the calculated index/severity data transferred to the remote internet site.
• Claims 15 and 18 — an "extended horizon, adaptive, predictive" controller to adjust flow based on severity data.
• Claim 16 — remote communication system with a third processor.
• Claims 17 and 20 — distinguishing between and calculating the severity of obstructive apneas and central apneas.
• Claim 19 — remote communication system with a third processor; first software reprogrammable/modifiable remotely.

Consequence for this analysis: the '284's scope is a networked PAP system — cell-phone display software + in-enclosure RF transceiver + remote internet site, with severity/usage computed at the PAP device. That is a system/architecture claim, and it is squarely in the space that ResMed, Respironics and ResMed's predecessors were commercializing from the late 1990s onward. That history drives the § 103 analysis below.

2. Governing legal framework and level of ordinary skill

• Graham v. John Deere: scope/content of claims; differences over prior art; PHOSITA level; objective indicia.
• KSR Int'l v. Teleflex: combination is obvious where elements are known, the combination is of familiar/predictable elements, and there is an articulated reason (design incentive, market force, known technique, teaching in the references).
• Analogous art: all references below are from the sleep-disordered-breathing / medical telemetry arts — all analogous.
• Effective filing date governs which references qualify. This is decisive here (see § 4).
• POSITA (my construction, consistent with the Petition's § V): a person with a B.S. in electrical, biomedical or mechanical engineering (or equivalent), plus 2–5 years of experience in respiratory-therapy devices or physiological monitoring, or an M.S. with equivalent focus. Such a person would understand PAP titration, physiological signal processing, and wireless/networked patient monitoring.

3. The prior-art references of record

Sources: IPR2025-00157 Petition § IV; POPR §§ II.C; Ex. 2004 (N.D. Ohio invalidity contentions, "PAP System Patents"); Ex. 2007 (invalidity chart, Farrell).

4. The date pivot — pre-AIA vs. AIA changes everything about § 103

This is not a technicality; it determines whether half the field is even available.

• The '284 claims priority to Nov. 4, 2005. If claim 1 is entitled to 2005, then Bao (2016), Klee (2018), Shouldice (2021) and Pirzada (2006) are not prior art at all — exactly what happened during prosecution, where the Examiner used Pirzada in a § 103 rejection and then agreed Pirzada's filing date post-dated the invention and withdrew it.
• ResMed's PGR theory was that the "index of treatment efficacy" limitation was new matter, unsupported by the '899/'116 applications filed before March 16, 2013, so that claim 1 is only entitled to the 2022 '266 filing date — making the '284 an AIA/FITF patent and rendering a large body of 2005–2021 art available under AIA §§ 102(a)(1)–(a)(2) and 103. See PGR2024-00012 Petition, §§ addressing written description of claim 1.

Why this matters for obviousness: the strongest prior-art combination against claim 1 is not Truitt + Kumar alone (both pre-2005), but Truitt + Kumar + the later networked-PAP art (Bao / Klee / Shouldice / Pirzada), which shows the cell-phone/cloud PAP architecture as an established, conventional design by 2016–2021. If the effective date is 2022, § 103 is nearly compelled. If the date is 2005, the analysis rests on Truitt + Kumar + Wright/Dong and is materially weaker.

⚠️ Contradiction I must flag. My earlier sections reported that the Board denied PGR2024-00012 because it found the '284 pre-AIA (hence PGR statutorily unavailable), which is the opposite of the date premise of the PGR petition itself. I could not retrieve the underlying institution decisions. The two records cannot both be right, and the resolution directly controls the § 103 result. Treat the effective-date question as unresolved on my record.

5. Ground-by-ground § 103 analysis

Ground 1 — Truitt in view of Kumar → claims 1–3, 6, 12–15, 18–19

Teaching of each element:

Motivation to combine (KSR): PAP auto-titration (Truitt) and networked physiological telemetry with cell-phone display (Kumar) are two known techniques addressing the same problem — managing a chronic respiratory therapy in the patient's home rather than a clinic. The '284's own background identifies that problem. KSR-approved rationales apply: (i) combination of familiar elements according to known methods yielding predictable results (remote visibility of PAP performance); (ii) market/design incentive — the durable-medical-equipment and telehealth industries were converging on connectivity during 2000–2005; (iii) Kumar teaches away from no risk because its architecture is expressly generic to medical devices. Reasonable expectation of success: Kumar demonstrates that transmitting device-computed data to a phone/remote site works; bolting that onto Truitt's PAP does not change Truitt's therapy or require new physics.

Claim 6 (remote adjustment of PAP based on the index): Truitt already teaches closed-loop adjustment of pressure/flow based on the patient condition; Kumar teaches the remote data path. Combining them to permit remote titration is the predictable use of both — and the '284's own specification frames remote adjustment as an object, not a discovery.

Ground 2 — Truitt + Kumar + Dong → claims 15, 16, 18

Claims 15/18 require an "extended horizon, adaptive, predictive" controller. Dong (U.S. 5,424,942) is that controller (ORICA), and — dispositively for motivation — the '284 specification itself incorporates U.S. 5,424,942 by reference and names ORICA as the preferred controller. A reference that the patent-in-suit expressly incorporates is the paradigm of a proper § 103 combination: the inventor has already told the POSITA to look there. Claim 16 (remote communication system with a third processor) is supplied by Kumar's network topology. This ground is the most robust on motivation.

Ground 3 — Truitt + Kumar + Wright → claims 17, 20

Claims 17/20 require distinguishing and quantifying obstructive vs. central apnea severity. Wright expressly discloses AHI as a severity indicator and states that "apneas can be classified as obstructive, central or mixed." The '284's own specification supplies the motivation verbatim: "Treatment of OSA and CSA vary substantially which makes a proper diagnosis of the correct type of sleep apnea … critical for an effective treatment." That is a textbook KSR "the reference itself recognizes the problem the claim solves" rationale.

Grounds 4–6 — Grounds 1–3 further in view of Mumford

Mumford supplies automated severity determination from physiological signals, covering any residual gap in claim 1's "severity of sleep disorder symptoms" computation. Because I could not verify Mumford's priority date, I flag this as provisional: it is only available if its date precedes the controlling effective date (it does if that date is 2022).

Independent (district-court) theory — Farrell, alone or + Pirzada

The Examiner treated Farrell (US 2007/0161913) as the closest prior art and rejected with Farrell + Pirzada, then withdrew Pirzada on date grounds. If the effective date is 2022, Farrell + Pirzada is a clean § 103 pair: Farrell for the integrated diagnosis/treatment PAP architecture, Pirzada for "cell phone with downloaded software … used with a PAP machine to display data calculated by the PAP device" — which is nearly verbatim claim 1[1.a].

6. Counterarguments — why obviousness is not a foregone conclusion

I would be doing the analysis a disservice not to state the losing side of this:

1. The Examiner's stated allowance rationale. The Examiner indicated "neither Farrell nor the prior art of record teaches the … positive airway pressure (PAP) sleep disorder treatment system of base claim [1]," and allowed after the applicant amended. That is evidence (not controlling) that the claimed combination was not seen as routine.
2. CleveMed's core argument (POPR § II.D): Truitt "does not disclose transmitting data anywhere outside of the PAP device," and there is no suggestion in either Truitt or Kumar to implement Kumar's functionality on a processor like Truitt's. That is an articulated hindsight attack, and if credited, defeats motivation. This is precisely the argument the Board evidently found persuasive enough to deny institution.
3. § 325(d) / General Plastic / Fintiv: the Board's denial turned partly on these discretionary grounds, not the merits — so the denial is not a merits holding of non-obviousness, and neither side should over-read it.
4. "Index of treatment efficacy" is arguably a term of degree with no teaching in Truitt, Kumar, Wright, Dong or Mumford of combining severity AND usage into a single efficacy index computed by the PAP device. If construed narrowly, no single reference teaches it and the motivation to combine severity with usage specifically must be supplied (it is easy to supply — usage/compliance monitoring is the classic DME concern — but the record does not yet show it).
5. Objective indicia: none in the record — no unexpected results, industry praise, copying, or licensing evidence with nexus. That cuts for obviousness, but absence of secondary considerations does not itself prove obviousness.

7. Bottom line

• On the 2022-effective-date (new-matter) theory: claims 1–3, 6, 12–15, 18–19 are, in my view, likely obvious over Truitt + Kumar (optionally + Bao/Klee/Shouldice/Pirzada for the networked-PAP architecture); claims 15/16/18 over + Dong (strong — the '284 incorporates Dong by reference); claims 17/20 over + Wright (strong — the '284's own spec supplies the motivation).
• On the 2005-effective-date theory: the combination narrows to Truitt + Kumar + Dong/Wright, and the claim-1 case weakens appreciably because the cell-phone/cloud PAP architecture (Kumar aside) and Pirzada drop out on date.
• The single unresolved fact that controls the result is the effective filing date of claim 1 (the AIA/pre-AIA question), on which my own earlier sections and the PGR petition contradict each other.
• The PTAB denied institution of both the PGR and the IPR against this patent, but neither denial was a merits holding on obviousness — Board denial is therefore weak, non-precedential support for non-obviousness.

Confidence and gaps. High confidence in: claim 1's verbatim text, the identity/dates of Truitt, Kumar, Dong, Wright, and the three Ground 1–3 combinations. Low confidence in: the verbatim text and scope of dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 12, 14, 15–20; Mumford's priority date and content; and the AIA/pre-AIA determination. Anyone relying on this must pull the full 20-claim set and the two institution decisions directly from USPTO PatentCenter / PTAB before treating any per-claim conclusion as final.