XML 28 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.1

Legal Actions, Contingencies and Commitments | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2025
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, 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. On January 31, 2024, NYU appealed the PTAB’s rulings to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeals are not expected to be resolved before June 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 sought 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, however, the ITC affirmed the administrative law judge’s determination that there was no violation of asserted Philips' patents and thereafter 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 asserted against the communications module defendants. The district court cases were stayed pending the resolution of the ITC proceedings but recommenced following the ITC termination. We were not a party to the ITC investigation, nor were we 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 was originally set for August 12, 2024. On August 5, 2024, the court issued an order vacating the trial date. On August 19, 2024, Philips and the Thales parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing all claims and counterclaims against one another in the District of Delaware case. On June 16, 2022, Cleveland Medical Devices Inc. ("Cleveland Medical") filed suit for patent infringement against Resmed 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 seven Cleveland Medical patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 10,076,269; 10,426,399; 10,925,535; 11,064,937; 10,028,698; 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, ResMed Corp. filed a petition with the PTAB seeking review of the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,076,269. On May 6, 2024, the PTAB granted the petition and instituted an Inter Partes Review proceeding against the patent. On June 21, 2024, the District Court of Delaware granted Resmed's motion to stay the case until the PTAB issues its final written decision in the Inter Partes Review proceeding. The PTAB decision is expected by May 6, 2025. 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. On April 9, 2024, Cleveland Medical filed a second amended answer and counterclaims accusing ResMed Corp. of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 11,857,333 and 11,872,029. ResMed Corp. filed a petition with the PTAB for post-grant review of the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,602,284, which the PTAB denied on June 24, 2024. On October 17, 2024, the PTAB denied ResMed Corp.’s request for rehearing of its decision to deny the petition for post-grant review of U.S. Patent No. 11,602,284. On October 11, 2024, ResMed Corp. filed a request for ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 11,375,921, and on November 15, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the "Patent Office") ordered reexamination of the patent. On October 17, 2024, ResMed Corp. filed a request for ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 11,786,680, and on December 3, 2024, the Patent Office ordered reexamination of the patent. Between November 15, 2024, and January 10, 2025, ResMed Corp. filed petitions with the PTAB seeking Inter Partes Review of the validity of all six patents asserted by Cleveland Medical in the District Court of the Northern District of Ohio proceedings. On March 7, 2025, the District Court of the Northern District of Ohio granted ResMed Corp.'s motion to stay the case pending the conclusion of all Patent Office proceedings related to the asserted patents. It is expected that the PTAB will determine whether to examine the validity of the patents by the summer of 2025. 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 nine months ended March 31, 2025 and March 31, 2024, receivables sold with limited recourse were $155.9 million and $148.3 million, respectively. As of March 31, 2025, the maximum exposure on outstanding receivables sold with recourse and the associated contingent provision were $35.5 million and $0.7 million, respectively. As of June 30, 2024, the maximum exposure on outstanding receivables sold with recourse and contingent provision were $35.8 million and $0.8 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/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: 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 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: 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/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: 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 6: 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