On June 2, 2021, New York University, or 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, or 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. Briefing has been completed and oral argument before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has been scheduled in August 2025.

On June 16, 2022, Cleveland Medical Devices Inc., or 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

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, or 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. On June 10, 2025, the PTAB denied institution of Inter Partes Review directed to U.S. Patent No. 11,602,284. On June 12, 2025, the PTAB instituted an Inter Partes Review proceeding against U.S. Patent No. 11,375,921. On June 13, 2025, the PTAB instituted Inter Partes Review proceedings against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,690,512 and 11,786,680. On July 30, 2025, the PTAB instituted Inter Partes Review proceedings against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,857,333 and 11,872,029. The PTAB’s final written decisions in the instituted Inter Partes Review proceedings are expected by July 2026.

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 year ended June 30, 2025 and 2024, receivables sold with limited recourse were $212.5 million and $206.7 million, respectively. As of June 30, 2025, the maximum exposure on outstanding receivables sold with recourse and contingent provision were $34.1 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.