New York University v. ResMed: Federal Circuit Affirms CPAP Patent Invalid
New York University asserted US6988994B2 — covering positive airway pressure (PAP) systems for sleep disorder treatment — against ResMed Co., a leading respiratory device maker. The Federal Circuit affirmed the finding of unpatentability, ending NYU’s enforcement attempt. The appeal resolved in 549 days across the District of Columbia circuit.
Federal Circuit closes the door on NYU’s PAP sleep-therapy patent
New York University, as patent holder, appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 24-1440) seeking to overturn a lower-tribunal determination that US6988994B2 was unpatentable. The patent covers a positive airway pressure system and method for treating sleeping disorders in patients — technology central to the CPAP and APAP device market dominated by companies including ResMed Co. The appeal was filed on 6 February 2024 and closed on 8 August 2025.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability finding, meaning the lower decision stands in full. Affirmance at this level signals the court identified no reversible error — whether on claim construction, prior art analysis, or procedural grounds — in the original invalidity determination. For ResMed, the ruling removes the patent as an enforcement threat. For NYU, all appellate options at the Federal Circuit level are exhausted on this finding.
At 549 days, the appeal’s duration is broadly consistent with Federal Circuit timelines for patentability disputes, which can extend given the technical complexity of medical device claims. The basis of termination — ‘Unpatentable’ — suggests the invalidity challenge, likely an inter partes review or post-grant proceeding, succeeded on its merits. The public record does not disclose whether anticipation, obviousness, or another §102/§103 ground drove the finding, nor whether NYU retains any continuation or related patent coverage in the PAP therapy space.
Filing to Unpatentable in 549 days
549 days — appeal-level proceedings typically resolve in 12–18 months
Federal Circuit affirms: what the unpatentability ruling means for both parties
Affirmance: the lower unpatentability finding stands
When the Federal Circuit ‘affirms’, it has reviewed the record and concluded there is no reversible error in the decision below. The original unpatentability determination — likely from a PTAB inter partes review or post-grant proceeding — is now final at this appellate tier. The claims of US6988994B2 are cancelled or otherwise unpatentable, and no further Federal Circuit review is available absent en banc rehearing or Supreme Court certiorari.
No reversible error foundNYU loses enforcement rights on US6988994B2
For New York University, affirmance extinguishes the enforceability of US6988994B2 as affirmed. The patent can no longer be asserted against ResMed or any other party in the PAP therapy space on the invalidated claims. NYU’s options are limited to seeking en banc rehearing at the Federal Circuit or petitioning the Supreme Court for certiorari — both considered low-probability paths. Any related continuation patents in NYU’s portfolio are unaffected by this ruling but face heightened scrutiny given the prior art record established here.
Enforcement rights extinguishedResMed secures freedom to operate in PAP therapy
ResMed Co. obtains a cleared path with respect to US6988994B2. The affirmance confirms that the claims covering the positive airway pressure system and method are unpatentable, removing a litigation overhang on its core CPAP and APAP product lines. This outcome is commercially significant given ResMed’s market position in sleep-disordered breathing devices. The invalidated patent can no longer form the basis of injunctive relief or damages claims against ResMed’s existing or future PAP products.
Freedom to operate confirmedPrecedent raises the bar for PAP therapy patent enforcement
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance strengthens the prior art record against broad PAP system claims. Competitors and new entrants in the CPAP, APAP, and BiPAP device market now have a Federal Circuit-backed invalidity finding to cite in any future enforcement attempts based on similar claim architectures. For the sleep therapy device sector broadly, this outcome suggests that foundational PAP therapy patents asserted by non-practising entities or research institutions face a meaningful validity hurdle when challenged through post-grant proceedings.
Sector-wide FTO implicationsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | New York University | Individual | Research university — holder of US6988994B2 covering PAP sleep therapy systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Resmed, Co. | Company | ResMed Co. — global manufacturer of CPAP, APAP, and 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 counsel | Robert J. Gajarsa | 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 | ALAN BILLHARZ | Attorney | Counsel for Resmed, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David M. Tennant | Attorney | Counsel for Resmed, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | ERIC E. LANCASTER | Attorney | Counsel for Resmed, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Grace Wang | Attorney | Counsel for Resmed, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | KAMILAH ALEXANDER | 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 single-word verdict — AFFIRMED — carries significant legal weight at the Federal Circuit. It means the court conducted its de novo review of claim construction and substantial evidence review of factual findings, and concluded the PTAB or lower tribunal committed no reversible error in finding US6988994B2 unpatentable. The basis of termination (‘Unpatentable’) confirms the invalidity is on the merits, not procedural. For NYU, the claims are dead at this appellate tier; for ResMed, the ruling is a durable shield against reassertion of these specific claims.
US6988994B2 — Positive airway pressure system for sleep disorder treatment
US6988994B2, filed under application number US10/642459, covers a positive airway pressure system and method specifically designed for the treatment of sleeping disorders in patients — the foundational technology class underlying CPAP, APAP, and BiPAP devices. The patent belongs to the respiratory therapy domain, a medically and commercially significant field where device efficacy is closely tied to algorithm-driven pressure delivery. As a granted US utility patent, its claims define the scope of protectable subject matter that NYU sought to enforce against ResMed’s product lines.
PAP therapy patents occupy a strategically sensitive position in the sleep medicine device market. ResMed, Philips Respironics, and Fisher & Paykel collectively dominate global CPAP/APAP sales, making foundational system-and-method patents a frequent target for both assertion and post-grant challenge. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of unpatentability for US6988994B2 removes this particular asset from the enforceable patent landscape, but signals that the underlying prior art field is well-documented — a relevant consideration for any competitor or new entrant developing PAP system innovations or seeking to license similar technology.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US6988994B2 and related PAP patents?
Companies designing or commercialising positive airway pressure devices — including CPAP, APAP, BiPAP, and adaptive servo-ventilation systems — should note that while US6988994B2 has been found unpatentable, NYU and other research institutions may hold continuation patents or related family members covering overlapping PAP therapy methods. Any product team developing pressure-modulation algorithms, patient-interface systems, or sleep-disorder detection technology should conduct a current FTO analysis before market entry.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and legal teams to map the full patent family of US6988994B2, identify any surviving continuations or divisional applications, and benchmark claim scope against the prior art record established in this Federal Circuit proceeding. Eureka’s AI-assisted claim charting can flag technical overlaps across your product specifications in hours rather than weeks — giving product and IP teams a defensible clearance baseline before launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US6988994B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals involving medical device patent invalidity
Federal Circuit appeals affirming PTAB unpatentability in the PAP therapy and respiratory device sector — cases with comparable claim scope and invalidity grounds.
What this case signals for the sleep therapy device IP landscape
A Federal Circuit affirmance of PTAB unpatentability is one of the strongest IP clearance signals available. Here is what it means for market participants.
Post-grant proceedings remain the sharpest tool against PAP therapy patents
The unpatentability basis of termination suggests an IPR or PGR was the vehicle that invalided US6988994B2. This case reinforces that inter partes review at the PTAB, followed by Federal Circuit appeal, is an effective and durable path for device makers seeking to clear foundational sleep therapy patents asserted by research institutions or NPEs.
ResMed’s FTO position on PAP systems is materially stronger post-affirmance
With US6988994B2 confirmed unpatentable, ResMed and its OEM or licensing partners face one fewer patent obstacle in positive airway pressure system design. Competitors monitoring this space should note that the prior art record established through this proceeding may also be available to challenge related continuation or family patents that NYU may hold.
University v Resmed — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of US6988994B2, which covers a positive airway pressure system and method for treating sleeping disorders. The affirmance means the lower tribunal’s invalidity finding stands, and NYU’s patent can no longer be enforced against ResMed or any third party on the adjudicated claims.
US6988994B2 is a US utility patent held by New York University, filed under application US10/642459. It covers a positive airway pressure system and method for treating sleeping disorders in patients — the core technology underlying CPAP, APAP, and related respiratory therapy devices. The Federal Circuit confirmed the patent’s claims are unpatentable following a lower invalidity proceeding.
At the Federal Circuit, ‘affirmed’ means the appeals court found no reversible error in the decision below and upholds it in full. For NYU, the affirmed unpatentability finding extinguishes the enforceability of US6988994B2’s claims. Remaining options are limited to en banc rehearing or a Supreme Court petition for certiorari, both considered low-probability outcomes.
The ruling directly invalidates only the asserted claims of US6988994B2. Any continuation patents, divisional applications, or related family members NYU holds are not automatically affected. However, the prior art record established in this proceeding could be cited in future challenges to claims of similar scope within NYU’s PAP therapy patent family.
The affirmance of unpatentability for US6988994B2 clears this specific patent from the FTO landscape for PAP device manufacturers. However, companies should conduct a current FTO analysis against any surviving NYU continuations or related third-party patents covering PAP system architectures, pressure-delivery algorithms, and sleep-disorder detection methods before product launch or market expansion.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.