XML 27 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.23.4

Legal Actions, Contingencies and Commitments | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2023
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. In December 2022, the Patent Trial and Appeal 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. In December 2023, the PTAB issued written decisions invalidating each of the challenged claims in each of the NYU patents asserted against us. On December 28, 2023, the District Court entered an order continuing its stay of all proceedings against us pending any appeal by NYU of the invalidation of its patents by the PTAB. The deadlines for NYU to appeal the PTAB’s rulings are the week of February 5, 2024. Any appeals are not expected to resolve before March 2025. 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 were not a party to the ITC investigation, and we are not a party to the district court cases, but we sell products that incorporate communications modules at issue in the district court case. The first trial in the cases by Philips against the communications module defendants is set for April 1, 2024. 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 moved to dismiss the action because Cleveland Medical sued the wrong ResMed entity, and to dismiss the indirect and willful infringement allegations by Cleveland Medical. On October 2, 2023, the court granted a portion of the motion, dismissing all Cleveland Medical claims for indirect and willful infringement, and denied the rest of the motion. On March 22, 2023, we filed a petition with the PTAB of the Patent and Trademark Office seeking review of the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,076,269. On September 25, 2023, the PTAB exercised its discretion to deny our petition challenging the validity of the U.S. Patent No. 10,076,269 in light of the August 2024 trial date in the Delaware District Court case. That discretionary denial was overturned by the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office, and the panel was ordered to reconsider the discretionary denial. That decision is pending. On March 20, 2023, ResMed Corp. filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, case no. 23-cv-00500-TWR-JLB, seeking a declaration that it does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 11,602,284 issued to Cleveland Medical. In November 2023, the case was transferred to the Northern District of Ohio for the convenience of the parties. Cleveland Medical answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim asserting that ResMed Corp. infringes three additional Cleveland Medical patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 11,375,921; 11,690,512; and 11,786,680. ResMed Corp. has challenged the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,602,284 in the PTAB. It is expected that the PTAB will determine whether to examine the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,602,284 patent by June 2024. 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, 2023 and December 31, 2022, receivables sold with limited recourse were $97.5 million and $84.3 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2023, the maximum exposure on outstanding receivables sold with recourse and the associated contingent provision were $29.2 million and $0.8 million, respectively. As of June 30, 2023, the maximum exposure on outstanding receivables sold with recourse and contingent provision were $32.6 million and $0.6 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://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//450/tableOfContent Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147480327/954-440-50-1 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 5: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration