New York University v. ResMed: Federal Circuit Affirms Patent Invalidity
New York University asserted US9867955B2 — a patent covering a system and method for diagnosing and treating abnormal breathing patterns — against ResMed Co., a leading manufacturer of respiratory therapy devices. The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower tribunal’s finding of unpatentability under Rule 36, closing the appeal after 549 days without a written opinion on the merits.
Federal Circuit seals ResMed’s win as NYU’s breathing-tech patent falls
New York University filed appeal No. 24-1438 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 6 February 2024, challenging a finding that US9867955B2 — a patent directed to a system and method for diagnosing and treating a patient’s breathing pattern — was unpatentable. The underlying invalidity or cancellation action had been resolved against NYU, and this appeal represented the university’s final effort to preserve the patent’s enforceability against ResMed Co., a global leader in connected respiratory care devices including CPAP and ventilation systems.
On 8 August 2025 the Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 judgment — a one-line affirmance without a written opinion — confirming that the lower tribunal’s unpatentability determination was free from reversible error. For NYU, the ruling extinguishes enforceable rights in US9867955B2 against ResMed and, practically, against the broader market. For ResMed, the affirmance provides strong procedural finality: the patent that formed the basis of this dispute is no longer a live enforcement threat.
At 549 days the appeal sat toward the longer end of Federal Circuit timelines, consistent with cases requiring panel deliberation on substantive patentability questions even where the ultimate disposition was a Rule 36 summary affirmance. Because Rule 36 provides no written reasoning, the public record does not disclose which specific invalidity grounds — anticipation, obviousness, or otherwise — proved determinative. NYU’s litigation strategy, the underlying claim construction, and any secondary considerations of non-obviousness raised on appeal remain opaque from publicly available materials.
Filing to Unpatentable in 549 days
549 days — above average for a Federal Circuit patent appeal, which typically resolves in 12–18 months
Federal Circuit affirms: what the Rule 36 judgment means for both parties
A Rule 36 affirmance: finality without written reasoning
Under Federal Circuit Rule 36, the court may enter judgment affirming the decision below without a written opinion when it finds no reversible error. This does not mean the case lacked merit — it means the panel was unanimously satisfied the lower tribunal reached the correct result. The affirmance carries full precedential weight for the parties but creates no citable precedent on the underlying legal questions for third parties.
No new precedent createdNYU loses enforceability: US9867955B2 confirmed unpatentable
The affirmance conclusively confirms that US9867955B2 is unpatentable, stripping NYU of the ability to assert the patent against ResMed or any other party going forward. Unless a separate reexamination or continuation patent survives, NYU’s IP position in the breathing-pattern diagnosis and treatment space covered by this specific patent is extinguished. Further appellate options — such as en banc rehearing or certiorari to the Supreme Court — exist but are statistically unlikely to succeed following a Rule 36 affirmance.
Patent rights extinguishedResMed secures appellate finality on a key breathing-tech patent
ResMed Co. emerges from this appeal with the patent threat fully resolved at the highest available level short of the Supreme Court. The Rule 36 affirmance closes the invalidation record, meaning ResMed’s products in the breathing-pattern diagnosis and treatment space are no longer encumbered by US9867955B2. This outcome strengthens ResMed’s freedom-to-operate posture and removes a litigation overhang that could have affected product roadmap and licensing negotiations.
Freedom-to-operate strengthenedCleared IP landscape for respiratory device makers — with caveats
The cancellation of US9867955B2 removes one barrier in the breathing-pattern diagnosis and treatment patent landscape, but competitors should not assume broad clearance. NYU and other research institutions commonly hold continuation families and related applications in adjacent claim spaces. ResMed and other respiratory device manufacturers should verify whether continuation patents derived from the same priority chain remain in force — a single Rule 36 affirmance does not extinguish a family.
Monitor continuation familyFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | New York University | Individual | Research university — holder of US9867955B2 covering patient breathing-pattern diagnosis and treatment systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Resmed, Co. | Company | ResMed Co. — global manufacturer of CPAP, ventilation, and connected respiratory therapy devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cedric Tan | Attorney | Counsel for New York UniversitySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael A. Siem | Attorney | Counsel for New York UniversitySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Devlin Law Firm LLC | Law Firm | Representing New York UniversitySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David M. Tennant | Attorney | Counsel for Resmed, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Grace Wang | Attorney | Counsel for Resmed, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lisa K. Nguyen | Attorney | Counsel for Resmed, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Paul Hastings, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Resmed, Co.Search 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 one-line Rule 36 judgment — ‘AFFIRMED’ — confirms that the panel identified no reversible error in the tribunal’s unpatentability finding against US9867955B2. Rule 36 affirmances are issued where the result is clear and a written opinion would add nothing new to the body of law; they signal appellate consensus rather than a close call. Under the applicable standard of review, factual findings underpinning invalidity are reviewed for substantial evidence, while legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. The absence of a written opinion means no claim construction, prior art analysis, or obviousness reasoning enters the public record from this proceeding.
US9867955B2 — breathing pattern diagnosis and treatment system
US9867955B2, filed under application number US14/633535, protects a system and method for the diagnosis and treatment of a patient’s breathing pattern. The patent sits at the intersection of respiratory medicine and medical device software, covering the detection, characterisation, and therapeutic response to abnormal breathing events — a technical domain central to devices such as CPAP machines, adaptive ventilators, and connected sleep therapy platforms. The application’s filing date positions it within a period of rapid innovation in home sleep-testing and algorithm-driven respiratory management.
For a company of ResMed’s scale — whose core business depends on freedom to operate in exactly this algorithmic breathing-treatment space — US9867955B2 represented a meaningful litigation risk. University-held patents in sensor-based diagnostic methods have historically proved challenging for device manufacturers because the claims often read on software and algorithmic steps rather than hardware, making design-arounds difficult. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of unpatentability now removes this specific patent from the competitive landscape, though companies developing competing respiratory therapy systems should assess whether related continuation applications from NYU’s portfolio survive.
Should you run an FTO against US9867955B2 and its patent family?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or distributing systems that diagnose or treat patient breathing patterns — including CPAP devices, adaptive pressure ventilators, sleep-diagnostic platforms, and connected respiratory wearables — should assess the full NYU patent family around the US14/633535 priority chain. Although US9867955B2 has been confirmed unpatentable, continuation and divisional applications sharing its priority date may carry amended or narrower claims that survived or were not at issue in this proceeding. Product teams should not assume broad clearance without a targeted family-level FTO.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the complete priority family of US9867955B2, identify live continuation applications, and surface related patents from NYU’s respiratory portfolio that may present residual infringement risk. By running a structured claim chart against your product’s core features — particularly any algorithmic detection or auto-titration functions — Eureka can help legal and engineering teams prioritise design-around investments or freedom-to-operate opinions before committing to product launches in the respiratory therapy space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9867955B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit cases: respiratory device and medical-method patents
Cases before the Federal Circuit involving medical diagnostic method patents and respiratory device manufacturers, including IPR outcomes and Rule 36 affirmances in the same technical domain.
What this case signals for the respiratory device IP landscape
A Federal Circuit Rule 36 affirmance of unpatentability is a high-stakes outcome for university patent holders — and a template for how device makers defend.
University patents in med-tech face escalating validity scrutiny
This case is consistent with a broader pattern in which research-university patents asserted against commercial medical device companies — particularly in software-adjacent diagnostic methods — face strong invalidity challenges. R&D leaders in respiratory care should monitor whether pending NYU continuation applications in this space carry similar claim vulnerabilities.
Rule 36 outcomes limit licensing leverage going forward
A Rule 36 affirmance of unpatentability provides no written claim construction or invalidity rationale, but its practical effect is absolute: the patent cannot be licensed or enforced. Companies that received demand letters or were engaged in licensing negotiations based on US9867955B2 can now treat those obligations as extinguished.
University v Resmed — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance on 8 August 2025, confirming the lower tribunal’s finding that US9867955B2 — NYU’s patent covering a system and method for diagnosis and treatment of a patient’s breathing pattern — was unpatentable. The one-line judgment contains no written reasoning.
A Rule 36 affirmance is a judgment entered without a written opinion, used when the panel unanimously finds no reversible error in the decision below. It is binding on the parties and fully resolves the appeal, but it does not create citable precedent on the underlying legal issues for third parties in future cases.
No. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of the unpatentability finding means US9867955B2 cannot be enforced against ResMed or any other party. Companies that received licensing demands based on this patent may treat those obligations as extinguished, subject to any separate proceedings on related continuation applications.
CPAP machines, adaptive pressure ventilators, home sleep-testing devices, and algorithm-driven respiratory management platforms could be within scope of related NYU continuation or divisional patents sharing the US14/633535 priority chain. A family-level FTO is advisable before concluding that the Federal Circuit ruling provides full clearance for breathing-pattern treatment systems.
The appeal ran 549 days from filing (6 February 2024) to closure (8 August 2025). This is toward the longer end of Federal Circuit patent appeal timelines, which typically average 12–18 months. The duration is consistent with cases where substantive patentability arguments required panel consideration before a Rule 36 summary affirmance was issued.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.