NYU v. ResMed (Fed. Cir. 24-1437): Breathing-Pattern Patent Affirmed Unpatentable
New York University asserted US9533115B2 — covering systems and methods for diagnosing and treating a patient’s breathing pattern — against ResMed Co., a leading sleep therapy device maker. The Federal Circuit affirmed the patent’s unpatentability in a Rule 36 judgment, closing the appeal after 549 days.
Federal Circuit closes NYU’s bid to revive sleep-therapy patent against ResMed
New York University filed appeal no. 24-1437 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on February 6, 2024, challenging an earlier invalidity or cancellation determination against US9533115B2. That patent, titled ‘System and method for diagnosis and treatment of a breathing pattern of a patient,’ covers technology directly relevant to the respiratory therapy device market in which ResMed Co. is a dominant commercial player. NYU was represented by Devlin Law Firm LLC, while ResMed retained Paul Hastings LLP.
On August 8, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a summary affirmance under Federal Circuit Rule 36, a procedural mechanism used when the court finds no reversible error warranting a written opinion. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Unpatentable,’ confirming that the invalidity or cancellation finding from the lower tribunal stands in full. For NYU, this means US9533115B2 is definitively cancelled and cannot be enforced against ResMed or any other party going forward.
The 549-day duration from filing to judgment is consistent with a standard Federal Circuit briefing and argument cycle, suggesting no extraordinary procedural delays. The Rule 36 affirmance — which carries no written reasoning — leaves the public record silent on precisely which patentability grounds proved fatal, though the Verdict Cause points to an invalidity or cancellation action likely originating at the USPTO PTAB. What drove NYU’s decision to appeal rather than abandon the patent remains unknown from the public record.
Filing to Unpatentable in 549 days
549-day appeal — consistent with a typical Federal Circuit patent validity appeal timeline
Federal Circuit affirms: what the Rule 36 judgment means for both parties
A Rule 36 affirmance signals zero reversible error found
Under Federal Circuit Rule 36, the court may enter judgment affirming a lower decision without a written opinion when it finds the reasoning below was sound and no legal question merits elaboration. This is not a default or procedural shortcut — it is an affirmative finding that the prior tribunal’s unpatentability determination was correct. The absence of a written opinion means no new precedent is created, but the outcome is equally final and binding on the parties.
Procedural: Rule 36 affirmanceNYU’s US9533115B2 is permanently cancelled — no further challenge path at this level
With the Federal Circuit’s affirmance, NYU exhausts its appellate options at this court level. The patent is confirmed unpatentable, meaning all claims are cancelled and the patent cannot be enforced against any party — including ResMed or any other respiratory device manufacturer. NYU could theoretically seek certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court, but such petitions in patent validity cases are rarely granted, and the Rule 36 nature of this ruling further limits any new legal argument.
Patent cancelled; enforcement barredResMed secures a clean freedom-to-operate in its core therapy device market
The affirmance is a commercially significant win for ResMed. With US9533115B2 cancelled, ResMed’s systems and methods for diagnosing and treating patients’ breathing patterns are no longer encumbered by this patent. Because the cancellation is final, ResMed faces no residual risk of damages or injunction related to this specific patent. The ruling also strengthens ResMed’s litigation posture should NYU or a related entity assert continuation or related patents on similar technology.
FTO confirmed for ResMedSleep therapy IP landscape: university patents face higher post-grant scrutiny
This outcome is consistent with a broader pattern of PTAB and Federal Circuit scrutiny of university-held patents in the medtech and respiratory therapy space. Competitors and device makers in sleep-disordered breathing — including CPAP, BiPAP, and adaptive servo-ventilation segments — should note that even well-resourced institutions like NYU face significant hurdles sustaining broad diagnostic and treatment system claims. IP teams monitoring this space should audit any pending continuation claims from the same NYU patent family.
University patent risk: elevatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | New York University | Individual | Research university — holder of US9533115B2 covering breathing-pattern diagnosis and treatment systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Resmed, Co. | Company | ResMed Co. — global medical device company specialising in sleep and respiratory therapySearch 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 verdict reads: ‘AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.’ A Rule 36 affirmance at the Federal Circuit is a substantive judgment confirming the lower tribunal found no reversible error — legal, factual, or procedural — in the unpatentability determination. At the appellate level, the standard of review for underlying factual findings (such as anticipation or obviousness) is substantial evidence, while legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. The absence of a written opinion is significant: it forecloses any new claim-construction argument and provides no path for distinguishing the ruling in future proceedings. For NYU, the patent is conclusively cancelled; for ResMed, the affirmance is as definitive a legal clearance as the court can provide.
US9533115B2 — Breathing-Pattern Diagnosis and Treatment System
US9533115B2, filed under application number US15/019347, protects a system and method for diagnosing and treating a patient’s breathing pattern — technology at the core of sleep-disordered breathing therapy, including conditions such as obstructive sleep apnea, central apnea, and Cheyne-Stokes respiration. The patent’s claims cover both diagnostic logic and treatment response, making it potentially broad enough to implicate automatic positive airway pressure (APAP) and adaptive servo-ventilation (ASV) device architectures widely deployed in the respiratory therapy market.
From a strategic standpoint, US9533115B2 was commercially significant precisely because ResMed occupies a dominant position in the global sleep therapy market. A valid and enforceable patent of this scope, held by a major research university, would have created substantial licensing leverage. Its cancellation removes that leverage entirely. Competitors and device developers in the CPAP, BiPAP, and ASV segments should note this outcome when assessing whether NYU or similar academic institutions hold residual enforceable IP in adjacent breathing-pattern diagnosis and treatment claims.
Should you run an FTO analysis referencing US9533115B2?
Any company developing or commercialising systems for automated diagnosis and treatment of breathing patterns — including CPAP controllers, adaptive ventilation algorithms, remote patient monitoring platforms, or integrated sleep therapy devices — should confirm their FTO position with respect to the broader NYU patent family. Although US9533115B2 is now cancelled, continuation or related applications sharing specification language may still be in prosecution or asserted. A targeted FTO review remains commercially prudent before product launch or licensing negotiations.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map all active claims in the NYU breathing-pattern patent family, identify continuation applications, and benchmark claim scope against your specific product architecture. Eureka’s landscape analysis can surface related university-held patents in the sleep therapy and respiratory monitoring space, giving your team a consolidated risk picture before go-to-market decisions are finalised.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9533115B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals on respiratory therapy and medtech patentability
Explore Federal Circuit cases involving PTAB unpatentability affirmances in respiratory therapy, sleep-disordered breathing devices, and adjacent medtech patent validity disputes.
What this case signals for the respiratory therapy IP landscape
The Federal Circuit’s summary affirmance closes a key NYU patent and sets a practical benchmark for sleep-therapy device freedom-to-operate.
ResMed’s FTO in breathing-pattern diagnosis is now confirmed at the appellate level
The Federal Circuit’s Rule 36 affirmance means the unpatentability of US9533115B2 has survived every level of review. ResMed and any competitor in the adaptive ventilation or sleep-disordered breathing device market can treat this specific patent as extinguished. Product teams should still audit related family members before drawing broader FTO conclusions.
University patent assertions in medtech face strong headwinds at the Federal Circuit
NYU’s failure to obtain even a written opinion — let alone a reversal — suggests the original invalidity grounds were robust. IP counsel for medical device OEMs facing university-originating patent assertions should examine whether PTAB IPR or PGR proceedings remain the most efficient defensive path, given the strong affirmance rate for unpatentability findings at this court.
University v Resmed — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of US9533115B2 under Rule 36, meaning it found no reversible error in the lower tribunal’s cancellation of NYU’s patent covering systems and methods for diagnosis and treatment of a patient’s breathing pattern. The decision was issued on August 8, 2025, and is final at the appellate level.
A Rule 36 affirmance is a summary judgment entered without a written opinion, used when the Federal Circuit finds the reasoning below was correct and no legal question warrants elaboration. For NYU, it means US9533115B2 is conclusively cancelled — all claims are void and unenforceable against any party, including ResMed. The lack of a written opinion also means no new legal argument can be derived from the ruling.
The affirmance confirms that US9533115B2 specifically cannot be enforced against ResMed or any party. However, complete FTO in the broader breathing-pattern treatment space requires a separate analysis of any related continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part applications that share specification language with the cancelled patent. Practitioners should audit the full NYU patent family before drawing broader clearance conclusions.
The Verdict Cause is recorded as an Invalidity/Cancellation Action, which strongly suggests the underlying proceeding was an inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Federal Circuit appeals from adverse PTAB final written decisions are the most common pathway matching these case characteristics, though the public record in this case does not explicitly confirm the originating PTAB proceeding number.
NYU could file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is the only appellate avenue above the Federal Circuit. However, the Supreme Court grants certiorari in a very small fraction of patent cases, and a Rule 36 affirmance — which produces no written circuit court opinion — provides little legal basis for a certiorari petition. The cancellation of US9533115B2 should be treated as final for commercial and strategic planning purposes.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.