XML 27 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.4

Legal Actions, Contingencies and Commitments | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Legal Actions, Contingencies and Commitments | Legal Actions, Contingencies and Commitments Litigation In the normal course of business, we are subject to routine litigation incidental to our business. While the results of this litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe that their final outcome will not, individually or in aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements taken as a whole. On June 2, 2021, New York University ("NYU") filed a complaint for patent infringement in the United States District Court, District of Delaware against ResMed Inc., case no. 1:21-cv-00813 (JPM). The complaint alleges that the AutoSet or AutoRamp features of ResMed’s AirSense 10 AutoSet flow generators infringe one or more claims of various NYU patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 6,988,994; 9,108,009; 9,168,344; 9,427,539; 9,533,115; 9,867,955; and 10,384,024. According to the complaint, the NYU patents are directed to systems and methods for diagnosis and treating sleeping disorders during different sleep states. The complaint seeks monetary damages and attorneys’ fees. We answered the complaint on September 30, 2021 and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the patents are invalid because the subject matter of the patents is not patentable under the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent. The motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. We have also requested that the court dismiss the case based on NYU’s license of the patents to Fisher & Paykel and Fisher & Paykel’s prior settlement with us. The matter is proceeding to discovery while the court considers our request. In December 2022, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) of the Patent and Trademark Office granted our request to review the validity of the claims in the patents asserted by NYU against us, determining that there is a reasonable likelihood that we will prevail. The PTAB’s final written decisions on the validity of the asserted claims is expected by December 2023. On January 27, 2021, the International Trade Commission ("ITC") instituted In Re Certain UMTS and LTE Cellular Communications Modules and Products Containing the Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-1240, by complainants Philips RS North America, LLC and Koninklijke Philips N.V. (collectively “Philips”) against Quectel Wireless Solutions Co., Ltd; Thales DIS AIS USA, LLC, Thales DIS AIS Deutschland GmbH; Telit Wireless Solutions, Inc., Telit Communications PLC, CalAmp. Corp., Xirgo Technologies, LLC, and Laird Connectivity, Inc. (collectively “respondents”). In the ITC investigation, Philips seeks an order excluding communications modules, and products that contain them, from importation into the United States based on alleged infringement of 3G and 4G standard essential patents held by Philips. On October 6-14, 2021, the administrative law judge held a hearing on the merits. The administrative law judge issued an initial determination on April 1, 2022, finding no violation of any of the Philips' patents asserted in the ITC. Philips sought review by the full ITC. On July 6, 2022, the Commission affirmed the administrative law judge’s determination that there was no violation of asserted Philips' patents. The Commission terminated the ITC proceedings. Philips did not appeal the ITC’s decision. On December 17, 2020, Philips filed companion cases for patent infringement against the same defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, case nos. 1:20-cv-01707, 01708, 01709, 01710, 01711, and 01713 (CFC) seeking damages, an injunction, and a declaration from the court on the amount of a fair reasonable and non-discriminatory license rate for the standard essential patents it is asserting against the communications module defendants. The district court cases were stayed pending the resolution of the ITC proceedings. The parties have returned to the district court for further proceedings. We are not a party to the ITC investigation or the district court cases, but we sell products that incorporate some of the communications modules at issue in the district court case. On June 16, 2022, Cleveland Medical Devices Inc. ("Cleveland Medical") filed suit for patent infringement against ResMed Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, case no. 1:22-cv-00794. Cleveland Medical asserts that numerous ResMed connected devices, when combined with certain ResMed data platforms and/or software, including AirView and ResScan, infringe one or more of eight Cleveland Medical patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 10,076,269; 10,426,399; 10,925,535; 11,064,937; 10,028,698; 10,478,118; 11,202,603; and 11,234,637. We have moved to dismiss the action because Cleveland Medical sued the wrong ResMed entity. We have also moved to dismiss all claims based on U.S. Patent No. 10,076,269, as well as indirect and willful infringement allegations as to the remaining patents asserted against ResMed. Based on currently available information, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of loss or range of losses, if any, arising from matters that remain open. Contingent Obligations Under Recourse Provisions We use independent financing institutions to offer some of our customers financing for the purchase of some of our products. Under these arrangements, if the customer qualifies under the financing institutions’ credit criteria and finances the transaction, the customers repay the financing institution on a fixed payment plan. For some of these arrangements, the customer’s receivable balance is with limited recourse whereby we are responsible for repaying the financing company should the customer default. We record a contingent provision, which is estimated based on historical default rates. This is applied to receivables sold with recourse and is recorded in accrued expenses. During the six months ended December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, receivables sold with limited recourse were $84.3 million and $94.2 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2022, the maximum exposure on outstanding receivables sold with recourse and contingent provision were $24.1 million and $1.0 million, respectively. As of June 30, 2022, the maximum exposure on outstanding receivables sold with recourse and contingent provision were $24.2 million and $2.1 million, respectively.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration