ResMed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

Petition

Petition summary

## 1. Case Identification
- Case Number: [IPR2025-00247](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00247)
- Patent #: [11,872,029](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/11872029)
- Filed: January 10, 2025
- Petitioner(s): [ResMed Corp.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/resmed-corp)
- Patent Owner(s): [Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/cleveland-medical-devices-inc)
- Challenged Claims: 1-19

## 2. Patent Overview
- Title: Positive Airway Pressure Sleep Disorder Treatment System
- Brief Description: The [’029 patent](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1001) relates to a networked positive airway pressure (PAP) system for treating sleep disorders. The system transmits patient 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 1-11, 13-16, and 18-19 are obvious over Truitt in view of Kumar.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** Patent 6,644,311 to Truitt et al. ("[Truitt](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1007)") and Application # 2002/0198473 to Kumar et al. ("[Kumar](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1008)").
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that [Truitt](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1007) disclosed all elements of a conventional auto-titrating PAP device as claimed, including a controller that calculates patient compliance ("data of usage") and symptom severity (e.g., snoring, apneas, hypopneas). Petitioner asserted [Kumar](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1008) taught the remaining claimed features: a telemedicine system that networks a medical device with a cell phone and a remote internet server. [Kumar](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1008)’s system used downloadable software ("plug-in") on a cell phone (e.g., an IPAQ device with a wireless transceiver) to display physiological data and transmit it to a remote, browser-based engine for storage and analysis.
    - **Motivation to Combine:** A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine [Truitt](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1007)'s PAP device with [Kumar](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1008)'s telemedicine system to achieve predictable benefits. These included improved convenience and efficiency for patients and physicians, remote monitoring of chronic conditions, access to more representative data from the patient's home environment, and leveraging advancements in mobile computing, consistent with the market trend of connecting consumer devices to the internet.
    - **Expectation of Success:** A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because [Kumar](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1008) explicitly taught that "virtually any device may be easily incorporated into [its] system," including devices for sleep apnea syndrome. The integration involved combining known elements (PAP sensors, wireless transceivers, networked servers) using known techniques to achieve the predictable result of a networked medical device.

#### Ground 2: Obviousness over Truitt, Kumar, and Dong - Claims 14 and 15 are obvious over Truitt in view of Kumar and Dong.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Truitt](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1007), [Kumar](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1008), and Patent 5,424,942 to Dong et al. ("[Dong](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1014)").
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** This ground addressed the "adaptive controller" (claim 14) and "adaptive predictive controller" (claim 15) limitations. To the extent the [Truitt](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1007)-[Kumar](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1008) combination did not teach these specific controllers, Petitioner argued [Dong](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1014) supplied the missing element. [Dong](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1014) disclosed an "extended horizon adaptive block predictive controller" designed to improve performance in dynamic systems by addressing computational complexity and input-output delays.
    - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSITA would have been motivated to improve the performance of the [Truitt](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1007)-[Kumar](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1008) PAP controller by incorporating [Dong](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1014)'s more advanced controller. [Dong](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1014)'s teachings were particularly relevant for processing and identifying patient-dependent respiratory patterns, thereby enhancing the adaptive capabilities of the base system.
    - **Expectation of Success:** Success was expected because neither [Truitt](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1007) nor [Kumar](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1008) specified a particular controller type, making [Dong](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1014)'s controller one of a limited number of design choices for improving a known system.

#### Ground 3: Obviousness over Truitt, Kumar, and Wright - Claims 12 and 17 are obvious over Truitt in view of Kumar and Wright.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Truitt](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1007), [Kumar](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1008), and Application # 2002/0185130 to Wright et al. ("[Wright](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1013)").
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** This ground focused on the limitations in claims 12 and 17 requiring the system to "distinguish between and calculate the severity of both obstructive apneas and central apneas." Petitioner asserted that [Wright](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1013) taught a CPAP device with two distinct treatment modes specifically for obstructive and central apneas, thereby teaching the necessary differentiation.
    - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSITA would have sought to incorporate [Wright](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1013)'s teachings to advance the purpose of the [Truitt](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1007)-[Kumar](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1008) system. Distinguishing between obstructive and central apnea allows for more appropriate pressure adjustments (e.g., avoiding increased pressure for central apnea), which would minimize patient discomfort and improve treatment efficacy.
    - **Expectation of Success:** The proposed modification was a simple change in programming based on analogous art, combining known elements to yield predictable results.

- **Additional Grounds:** Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges (Grounds 4-6) based on combinations of the art in Grounds 1-3 in further view of Patent 7,575,005 to Mumford et al. ("[Mumford](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1009)"). [Mumford](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1009) was cited for its teaching of a "sleep efficacy algorithm" that monitors sleep quality and compliance to vary CPAP treatment parameters, further improving efficacy and comfort.

## 4. Key Claim Construction Positions
- For the purpose of the proceeding, Petitioner adopted the Patent Owner's (PO) proposed constructions from a parallel district court action to demonstrate that the claims were obvious even under the PO's own interpretations.
- Key adopted interpretations included:
    - "calculating: i) the data of a severity of the sleep disorder symptoms..." [1.b.iii] was interpreted to cover determining a subject's Apnea Hypopnea Index (AHI) severity level.
    - "related to the subject's treatment and the treatment's efficacy" [1.c] was interpreted to cover an 'index of treatment efficacy' and usage data calculated by the PAP device.
- Petitioner noted it reserved the right to argue for alternative constructions, including indefiniteness, in other proceedings.

## 5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial
- Petitioner argued that institution was appropriate and discretionary denial was unwarranted.
- **§325(d) (Advanced Bionics):** Denial was argued to be improper because the core prior art references central to the petition—[Kumar](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1008), [Dong](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1014), [Wright](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1013), and [Mumford](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1009)—were never presented to or considered by the USPTO during prosecution. While [Truitt](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1007) was of record, the Examiner never applied it in any rejection, so it was not materially considered.
- **§314(a) (Fintiv):** Petitioner contended that Fintiv factors did not support denial because, at the time of filing, no trial was scheduled in the parallel district court litigation, making Fintiv inapplicable.

## 6. Relief Requested
- Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-19 of the [’029 patent](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00247/1001) as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.

ResMed challenges networked PAP therapy patent: all 19 claims argued obvious over combining Truitt's PAP device with Kumar's telemedicine system.