ResMed Corp v. Cleveland Medical Devices Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00157
• Patent #: 11,602,284
• Filed: November 15, 2024
• Petitioner(s): ResMed Corp.
• Patent Owner(s): Cleveland Medical Devices
• Challenged Claims: 1-3, 6, 12-20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Networked Positive Airway Pressure (PAP) System
• Brief Description: The ’284 patent relates to a networked positive airway pressure (PAP) system for treating sleep disorders. The system transmits symptom severity and usage data from a PAP device to a cell phone and a remote internet site for monitoring and analysis.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Truitt and Kumar - Claims 1-3, 6, 12-15, and 18-19 are obvious over Truitt in view of Kumar.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Truitt (Patent 6,644,311) and Kumar (Application # 2002/0198473).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Truitt taught the core PAP device of the challenged claims, including a blower, airflow sensors, and a processor for monitoring patient conditions (e.g., snoring, apneas) and device usage. Petitioner contended that Kumar taught the claimed networking and remote monitoring features, disclosing a telemedicine system for monitoring physiological data from various medical devices, including those for sleep apnea. Kumar’s system explicitly included a patient-side device, a computing device like a wireless phone capable of downloading software, and a remote, browser-accessible internet server.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Truitt and Kumar to achieve the known benefits of telemedicine for PAP therapy. These benefits included obtaining more representative data from home use, increasing convenience and efficiency for patients and physicians by reducing in-person visits, leveraging advances in mobile computing and wireless communications, and following the market trend of connecting consumer devices to the internet.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have an expectation of success because Kumar expressly taught that "virtually any device," including sleep apnea devices, could be easily incorporated into its system. The proposed modification involved combining known elements (PAP devices and telemedicine networks) using predictable techniques to achieve a predictable result.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Truitt, Kumar, and Dong - Claims 15, 16, and 18 are obvious over Truitt in view of Kumar and Dong.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Truitt (Patent 6,644,311), Kumar (Application # 2002/0198473), and Dong (Patent 5,424,942).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Truitt-Kumar combination to address dependent claims 15 and 18, which require an "extended horizon, adaptive, predictive controller." Petitioner argued that while Truitt and Kumar provided the base networked PAP system, Dong taught the specific advanced controller. Dong disclosed an "extended horizon adaptive block predictive controller" designed for complex, time-varying systems.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would incorporate Dong's controller into the Truitt-Kumar system to improve its performance. Dong's controller specifically addressed known limitations of existing adaptive controllers, such as computational complexity and sensitivity to model prediction, which are particularly relevant for processing patient-dependent respiratory patterns.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued success was expected because neither Truitt nor Kumar specified a particular type of controller, making Dong's advanced controller one of a limited number of known, predictable design choices available to a POSITA seeking to improve the system's adaptive capabilities.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Truitt, Kumar, and Wright - Claims 17 and 20 are obvious over Truitt in view of Kumar and Wright.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Truitt (Patent 6,644,311), Kumar (Application # 2002/0198473), and Wright (Application # 2002/0185130).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims 17 and 20, which require the PAP device’s processor to "distinguish between and calculate the severity of both obstructive apneas and central apneas." Petitioner argued that Wright explicitly taught this functionality. Wright disclosed a CPAP device that could detect the presence of apneas, distinguish between central and obstructive types, and provide an appropriate pressure response for each.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would incorporate Wright's teachings to advance the therapeutic purpose of the Truitt-Kumar system. Because obstructive and central apneas are caused by different physiological mechanisms and benefit from different pressure therapies, distinguishing between them allows for more effective treatment, minimizes applied pressure, and increases patient comfort and compliance.
  • Expectation of Success: Success was expected as Truitt and Wright are analogous art, both describing CPAP systems. The proposed modification was argued to be a simple programming change based on analyzing flow sensor signals, a technique disclosed in both references, to yield the predictable result of tailored therapy.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges (Grounds 4-6) by adding Mumford (Patent 7,575,005) to the combinations of Grounds 1-3. Mumford was cited for its teaching of a sleep efficacy algorithm used to calculate an "index of treatment efficacy" based on physiological signals and patient compliance data, which Petitioner argued would have been an obvious feature to add.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial. It was asserted that denial under §325(d) is inappropriate because the primary references, Truitt and Kumar, were never presented to or considered by the USPTO during prosecution. Petitioner also argued against denial based on a prior-filed Post-Grant Review (PGR), explaining that the Board denied institution of that PGR on procedural grounds (finding the ’284 patent to be pre-AIA) without ever reaching the merits of the prior art. Finally, Petitioner contended that denial under Fintiv is inapplicable as there was no trial scheduled in the co-pending district court litigation.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-3, 6, and 12-20 of Patent 11,602,284 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.