ResMed Corp v. Cleveland Medical Devices Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00247
• Patent #: 11,872,029
• Filed: January 10, 2025
• Petitioner(s): ResMed Corp.
• Patent Owner(s): Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-19

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Networked Positive Airway Pressure (PAP) System
• Brief Description: The ’029 patent relates to a networked positive airway pressure (PAP) system for treating sleep disorders. The system collects patient data, such as symptom severity and device usage, and wirelessly transmits this information 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 1-11, 13-16, 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 a conventional PAP device with a controller and sensors capable of detecting conditions like snoring and apneas and monitoring patient compliance ("usage data"). This data was used to calculate the effectiveness of the treatment and adjust pressure accordingly, thus teaching an "index of treatment efficacy." Petitioner asserted that Kumar taught a telemedicine system for network-based monitoring of physiological data. Kumar’s system included a patient-side medical device, a computing device (e.g., a cell phone), and a remote internet server. Kumar disclosed downloading software to the cell phone to display data from the medical device. The combination of Truitt's PAP device with Kumar's telemedicine network allegedly rendered the limitations of claim 1 obvious.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Truitt's PAP device with Kumar's networking technology to achieve predictable benefits. These included improved convenience and efficiency through remote monitoring, collection of more representative data from a patient's home environment, providing broader access to healthcare, and leveraging known advancements in mobile and wireless communications.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. Kumar expressly taught that "virtually any device may be easily incorporated into [its] system," including devices for treating sleep apnea. The proposed modification was a predictable combination of known elements—adding a wireless transceiver to a PAP device—to achieve a known result (remote data transmission).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Truitt, Kumar, and Dong - Claims 14 and 15 are obvious over Truitt and Kumar in view of 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 combination of Truitt and Kumar to specifically address the "adaptive controller" of claim 14 and the "adaptive predictive controller" of claim 15. To the extent the base combination did not teach these features, Petitioner asserted that Dong disclosed an "extended horizon adaptive block predictive controller." Dong's controller was designed to improve system performance by efficiently handling input-output delays and reducing computational complexity.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Dong's more advanced controller into the Truitt-Kumar system to improve the performance, responsiveness, and stability of the PAP device's pressure control functionality.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued this was a predictable substitution, as neither Truitt nor Kumar specified a particular type of controller. Dong’s controller represented a known, superior design choice for managing a dynamic system like a PAP device, making its implementation an obvious improvement.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Truitt, Kumar, and Wright - Claims 12 and 17 are obvious over Truitt and Kumar in view of 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 added Wright to the base Truitt-Kumar combination to address limitations in claims 12 and 17 requiring the PAP device’s processor to "distinguish between and calculate the severity of both obstructive apneas and central apneas." Petitioner argued Wright explicitly taught a CPAP device with two treatment modes that could detect and distinguish between central and obstructive apneas, applying different pressure therapies for each type.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would integrate Wright's teachings to advance the core purpose of Truitt's therapy: providing effective and comfortable treatment. Because the optimal pressure therapies for obstructive and central apneas differ, distinguishing between them allows for a more tailored and effective treatment, thereby increasing patient comfort and compliance.
  • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because the modification involved implementing known software logic from analogous art (CPAP systems) into the controller of the combined Truitt-Kumar device.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges (Grounds 4-6) based on adding Mumford (Patent 7,575,005) to the combinations of Grounds 1-3. Mumford taught a "sleep efficacy algorithm" that used physiological signals to monitor sleep quality and compliance to vary CPAP treatment parameters, which Petitioner argued provided a further basis for unpatentability.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• For the purposes of this inter partes review (IPR) petition, Petitioner adopted the Patent Owner's proposed claim constructions from a parallel district court action for key disputed terms, including "calculating: i) the data of a severity of the sleep disorder symptoms..." and data "related to the subject's treatment and the treatment's efficacy." Petitioner argued that the challenged claims were unpatentable as obvious even under the Patent Owner's own interpretations of these terms.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) would be inappropriate because the primary prior art combinations asserted in the petition were never presented to or considered by the USPTO examiner during prosecution. Specifically, Kumar, Dong, Wright, and Mumford were not of record.
• Petitioner also contended that discretionary denial under Fintiv factors (35 U.S.C. §314(a)) would be inappropriate because, at the time of filing, no trial date was scheduled in the parallel district court litigation, making the Fintiv analysis inapplicable.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-19 of Patent 11,872,029 as unpatentable.