In the normal course of business, we are subject to routine litigation incidental to our business. While the results of this litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe that their outcome will not, individually or in aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements taken as a whole.

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 Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or PTAB, of the Patent and Trademark Office seeking review of the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,076,269. 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 IPR proceeding. On May 2, 2025, the PTAB issued its decision finding all claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,076,269 unpatentable. On August 27, 2025, Cleveland Medical appealed the PTAB's ruling on U.S. Patent No. 10,076,269 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal is pending.

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. Cleveland Medical answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim asserting that ResMed Corp. infringes three additional patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 11,375,921; 11,690,512; and 11,786,680. On April 9, 2024, Cleveland Medical asserted infringement of two additional patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 11,857,333 and 11,872,029.

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 that 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. On March 7, 2025, the District Court granted ResMed Corp.'s motion to stay the case pending the conclusion of all Patent Office proceedings. On June 10, 2025, the PTAB denied institution of Inter Partes Review directed to U.S. Patent No. 11,602,284. In May and June 2026, the PTAB issued decisions finding the challenged claims of U.S. Patent Nos.

On November 5, 2025, Cleveland Medical filed suit for patent infringement against Resmed Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, case no. 1:25-cv-1351. Cleveland Medical asserts that the ApneaLink Air device, in combination with the AirView Cloud Platform and ApneaLink software, and the Phillips Respironics’ Alice NightOne device, in combination with our subsidiary VirtuOx’s software platform Sleepifi, infringe one or more of six Cleveland Medical patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 10,426,399; 10,925,535; 11,064,937; 10,028,698; 11,202,603; and 11,234,637. The complaint is centered on VirtuOx’s use and sales of the above-listed accused products. On January 15, 2026, we filed a motion to dismiss the new Delaware action. On April 24, 2026 Resmed Inc. filed a request for ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 11,064,937, and on June 3, 2026, the Patent Office ordered reexamination of the patent. On June 18, 2026, we moved to stay the new Delaware case pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. Both motions remain pending before the court.

On October 9, 2025, Fractus, S.A., or Fractus, filed suit for patent infringement against ResMed Corp. and ResMed Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, case no. 3:25-cv-02680. Fractus asserts that Resmed’s AirSense 10, AirSense 11, AirCurve 10 and AirCurve 11, as well as the Resmed Connectivity Module used on its Astral and Stellar Ventilators, infringe one or more of five Fractus patents relating to antenna technology, including U.S. Patent Nos. 8,362,960; 8,456,365; 8,593,349; 8,674,887; and 11,031,677. The complaint seeks monetary damages, a permanent injunction, and attorneys’ fees. On January 2, 2026, we filed a petition with the PTAB seeking IPR of U.S. Patent No. 11,031,677. In January 2026, we also filed a partial motion to dismiss in the litigation, which remains pending before the court. On June 2, 2026, the PTAB instituted the IPR proceeding for U.S. Patent No. 11,031,677. On June 15, 2026, Resmed Corp. filed a petition with the PTAB seeking Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,362,960.

In December 2025, Resmed learned of the unsealing of an alleged whistleblower complaint filed on February 24, 2021, in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, by Veteran Marketing LLC, on behalf of the United States, case no. 2:21-cv-00853-WB, against Respironics, Inc, Koninklijke Philips N.V., First Nation Group, LLC f/k/a Jordan Reses Supply Company LLC, or First Nation, Fisher & Paykel Healthcare, Inc., ResMed Inc., Paul Evans, Eric Pauls, and John Doe Entities 1-25, alleging an action under the False Claims Act based on an alleged conspiracy to use First Nation to overcharge the United States on sales of CPAP products to the Veterans Administration. The complaint was unsealed after the United States declined to intervene and take on the case. On April 20, 2026, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the complaint, without prejudice, against Resmed; on May 15, 2026, the government consented to the dismissal.

We use independent financing institutions to offer some of our customers financing for the payment of outstanding accounts receivable. Under these arrangements, if the customer qualifies under the financing institutions’ credit criteria and finances the transaction, the financing institution pays us for the outstanding accounts receivable less a fee, and the customers repay the financing institution on a fixed payment plan. The customer’s receivable balance is with limited recourse whereby we are responsible for repaying the financing company should the customer default under a loss pool arrangement. We record a contingent provision, which is estimated based on historical default rates. This is applied to receivables sold with limited recourse and is recorded in accrued expenses. There are no arrangements with full recourse.

As of June 30, 2026, the maximum loss pool exposure on outstanding receivables sold with limited recourse and contingent provision were $34 million and $1 million, respectively. As of June 30, 2025, the maximum loss pool exposure on outstanding receivables sold with limited recourse and contingent provision were $34 million and $1 million, respectively.