Another PTAB proceeding has been filed against ResMed, with IPR2026-00341 entering the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on June 12, 2026. The petition places one of ResMed’s patents under inter partes review, opening a new front in what could become an important dispute for companies operating in the sleep-disorder and respiratory-device space.
At this stage, the publicly available docket identifies the proceeding by the title Resmed Corp., but practitioners will want to monitor the case record closely as the petition, mandatory notices, and related filings further clarify the specific patent claims at issue, the identity of all real parties in interest, and any parallel district court or ITC litigation that may shape the Board’s discretionary-review analysis.
As with any newly filed IPR, the key issues will center on which patent is being challenged, which claims are targeted, and what prior-art grounds are asserted. Typically, petitioners rely on anticipation and obviousness grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, supported by combinations of patents, printed publications, and expert declarations. Once the petition materials are fully available, counsel will be looking for whether the challenge focuses on device architecture, therapy algorithms, mask or airflow systems, remote monitoring functionality, or another feature relevant to ResMed’s product portfolio.
For patent owners and challengers alike, this case is worth following because medical-device IPRs often turn on highly technical claim constructions and nuanced teachings in prior art. That makes institution briefing especially significant. If the challenged patent relates to core sleep-therapy technology, the Board’s treatment of claim scope, motivation to combine, and secondary considerations could provide useful guidance beyond this single proceeding.
IP counsel should also watch for any signs that discretionary denial could become part of the fight. If there is parallel infringement litigation involving the same patent, the parties may brief the familiar Fintiv-style considerations, including trial timing, overlap of invalidity issues, and the petitioner’s stipulations. Those strategic choices frequently influence whether a case proceeds to institution and can affect broader enforcement and defense strategy.
For now, IPR2026-00341 is a newly filed matter, but it is already one that in-house counsel, PTAB practitioners, and medical-device litigators should keep on their radar. The upcoming petition papers should reveal the patent, the asserted prior art, and the themes likely to define the proceeding.