Fisher & Paykel v. Vidal: Federal Circuit Affirms Unpatentability of Breathing Circuit Patent
Fisher and Paykel HealthCare, Inc. challenged the USPTO Director’s cancellation of patent application US15/633557, covering components for breathing circuits. The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability ruling on December 12, 2024, ending a 646-day appellate contest and leaving the patent invalidated.
Federal Circuit closes the door on Fisher & Paykel’s breathing circuit patent claim
Fisher and Paykel HealthCare, Inc., a medical device company and holder of patent application US15/633557 (published as US20170296769A1), brought an appeal before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 7, 2023. The appeal targeted a USPTO ruling — issued under Director Katherine K. Vidal — that had determined the claims covering components for breathing circuits to be unpatentable. The case sits within the highly competitive respiratory care device sector, where breath circuit component IP carries significant commercial value.
The Federal Circuit issued its order on December 12, 2024, affirming the USPTO’s unpatentability determination in full. An affirmance at this level means the appellate panel found no reversible legal or factual error in the agency’s reasoning. The patent application’s claims remain cancelled, and Fisher and Paykel has no further recourse at this court tier. The sole avenue remaining would be a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is rarely granted in patent validity disputes.
At 646 days, the appeal ran longer than the Federal Circuit’s typical disposition window, suggesting the panel may have engaged in substantive claim construction or prior art analysis before reaching its conclusion. The public record does not disclose the specific grounds of unpatentability upheld — whether obviousness, anticipation, or another basis — nor the identity of the inter partes review petitioner that originally triggered the USPTO proceeding. These gaps limit definitive third-party risk assessment without reviewing the full administrative record.
Filing to Unpatentable in 646 days
646 days — above average for a Federal Circuit appeal, which typically resolves in 12–18 months
Federal Circuit affirms: what the unpatentability ruling means for both parties
What ‘AFFIRMED’ means at the Federal Circuit
An affirmance by the Federal Circuit confirms that the lower tribunal — here, the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) — committed no reversible error of law or clearly erroneous finding of fact. The appellate court does not re-try the case; it reviews the record as compiled. An affirmed unpatentability finding cancels the patent claims with finality at this judicial level, having survived the most rigorous appellate scrutiny available in U.S. patent law.
No reversible error foundFisher & Paykel loses exclusive rights to breathing circuit claims
With the unpatentability ruling affirmed, Fisher and Paykel HealthCare cannot enforce US15/633557’s claims against competitors. The breathing circuit component technology covered by the application enters a legally unprotected status. Competitors and generic manufacturers may now design, manufacture, or sell products in this space without exposure to infringement liability under these specific claims. Fisher and Paykel’s only remaining option is a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court — a high bar rarely cleared in PTAB-origin patent disputes.
Patent claims cancelledUSPTO position vindicated; IPR petitioner achieves freedom to operate
The USPTO Director’s defence of the PTAB unpatentability determination has been fully upheld. The original IPR petitioner — whose identity is not disclosed in the appellate record — effectively secured freedom to operate with respect to these breathing circuit component claims. The affirmance raises the res judicata bar: the same claims cannot be relitigated in subsequent proceedings. This outcome is consistent with a broader Federal Circuit pattern of deferring to PTAB factual findings on prior art.
IPR petitioner freed from infringement riskRespiratory care IP landscape shifts as key claims fall
The affirmance removes a patent barrier in the breathing circuit components segment — a market relevant to ventilators, CPAP/BiPAP systems, and anaesthesia delivery. Competitors and OEM suppliers active in this space should audit their component designs against Fisher and Paykel’s surviving patent portfolio, as the company is likely to pursue alternative claim coverage. R&D teams should monitor continuation applications filed from the same priority chain as US15/633557, as narrowed or amended claims may still be pending.
Competitive design space opensFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Fisher and Paykel HealthCare, Inc. | Company | Medical device manufacturer — holder of US15/633557 (breathing circuit components)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Katherine K. Vidal | Individual | Katherine K. Vidal, Director of the USPTO — respondent in her official capacitySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin J. Everton | Attorney | Counsel for Fisher and Paykel HealthCare, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jarom D. Kesler | Attorney | Counsel for Fisher and Paykel HealthCare, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Fisher and Paykel HealthCare, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Amy J. Nelson | Attorney | Counsel for Katherine K. VidalSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Farheena Yasmeen Rasheed | Attorney | Counsel for Katherine K. VidalSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kakoli Caprihan | Attorney | Counsel for Katherine K. VidalSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Maureen Donovan Queler | Attorney | Counsel for Katherine K. VidalSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order — ‘AFFIRMED’ without qualification — represents the broadest possible endorsement of the USPTO’s unpatentability determination. At the appellate level, affirmance under the Administrative Procedure Act standard requires the reviewing court to find the agency’s factual determinations supported by substantial evidence and its legal conclusions free from error. The unhedged single-word disposition suggests no partial reversal or remand on any claim subset, meaning all contested claims remain cancelled. For Fisher and Paykel, no claim survives for enforcement.
US15/633557 — Components for Breathing Circuits
Patent application US15/633557 (published as US20170296769A1) covers components for breathing circuits — the tubing, connectors, and related hardware that form the gas-delivery pathway between a respiratory therapy device and a patient. Filed in June 2017, this application falls within the respiratory care technology domain, which encompasses CPAP, BiPAP, ventilator, and anaesthesia circuit hardware. The USPTO’s PTAB determined the claims to be unpatentable, a finding now affirmed by the Federal Circuit. The specific grounds of unpatentability — whether anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or obviousness under § 103 — are not publicly disclosed in the appellate record.
For the respiratory device sector, breathing circuit component patents represent a strategically important layer of IP. Fisher and Paykel HealthCare is a major OEM in humidified respiratory therapy, and circuit component claims can effectively lock out generic and third-party accessory manufacturers from the aftermarket. The cancellation of these claims opens design freedom for competitors but does not neutralise Fisher and Paykel’s broader portfolio. Companies developing or commercialising breathing circuit components — particularly those compatible with Fisher and Paykel platforms — should assess the full patent family before assuming freedom to operate.
Should you run an FTO against US15/633557 and related breathing circuit patents?
Any company developing, sourcing, or commercialising components for breathing circuits — including connectors, tubing assemblies, heated wire circuits, and expiratory valves — should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against Fisher and Paykel’s active portfolio. While US15/633557’s claims have been cancelled, the underlying disclosure is shared with related family members that may still be in prosecution or granted. OEM suppliers, hospital procurement teams, and medical device startups entering this space carry meaningful infringement exposure if adjacent claims remain active.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and legal teams to map the Fisher and Paykel breathing circuit patent family in minutes — identifying granted claims, pending continuations, and expired or cancelled applications across jurisdictions. Upload a product specification or bill of materials, and Eureka will flag claim overlaps, suggest design-around options, and surface the prior art that drove the PTAB unpatentability finding — giving your team the intelligence needed to move quickly and confidently into this newly opened design space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US20170296769A1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals: respiratory device and PTAB unpatentability cases
Cases where the Federal Circuit reviewed PTAB unpatentability findings in the respiratory care and medical device circuit component sector.
What this case signals for the respiratory device IP landscape
A Federal Circuit affirmance of PTAB unpatentability is a high-stakes outcome — here is what IP and R&D teams should take away.
Affirmed PTAB cancellations clear competitive design space — but watch continuations
When the Federal Circuit affirms a PTAB unpatentability finding, the cancelled claims cannot be reasserted. However, patent families frequently include continuation or divisional applications with overlapping disclosures. Competitors entering the breathing circuit component space should map Fisher and Paykel’s full continuation tree before treating the design space as permanently clear.
646-day Federal Circuit timeline suggests substantive merits engagement
Appeals at this level that take well over a year often involve contested claim construction, complex prior art combinations, or amicus activity. The extended duration here suggests the panel did not issue a straightforward summary affirmance, which may signal that the unpatentability grounds were legally nuanced — relevant context for any party evaluating similar breathing circuit claims in parallel proceedings.
Fisher v Katherine — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO’s unpatentability determination on December 12, 2024. All claims of patent application US15/633557, covering components for breathing circuits, remain cancelled. The affirmance means no reversible error was found in the PTAB’s underlying ruling.
The patent at issue is U.S. application number US15/633557, published as US20170296769A1. It covers components for breathing circuits — the hardware elements that form the gas-delivery pathway in respiratory therapy systems such as CPAP, BiPAP, and ventilator setups.
An affirmed unpatentability ruling cancels the patent claims with finality at the Federal Circuit level. Fisher and Paykel cannot enforce those claims against competitors. The only remaining recourse is a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, which is rarely granted. Competitors may now operate in the space covered by those claims without infringement risk from this specific application.
The defendant is Katherine K. Vidal in her official capacity as Director of the USPTO. In appeals from PTAB inter partes review or ex parte proceedings, the USPTO Director is the nominal respondent representing the agency’s patentability determination. The Director does not have a personal stake in the outcome.
Yes. While the cancellation of US15/633557’s claims removes one specific barrier, Fisher and Paykel holds a broader respiratory care portfolio that may include granted patents and pending continuations with overlapping subject matter. An FTO covering the full patent family — including any continuation or divisional applications sharing the US15/633557 priority date — is advisable before commercialising breathing circuit components in markets where Fisher and Paykel operates.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.