ResMed Inc said it has filed legal action to stop the alleged infringement of its patented technology by New Zealand-based medical device manufacturer Fisher & Paykel Healthcare.
ResMed said in a statement it filed legal action with the U.S. International Trade Commission and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego, as well as courts in New Zealand and Germany.
ResMed is calling for an injunction banning importation of Fisher & Paykel Simplus full face mask, Eson nasal mask and Eson 2 nasal mask. It asserts the masks infringe ResMed’s patents. The masks, which provide continuous airway pressure, are used to treat obstructive sleep apnea, a condition where airways are blocked during sleep.
It is also calling on the court to invalidate patents that Fisher & Paykel recently asserted against ResMed, to declare that ResMed does not infringe those patents, or both.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare intends to “vigorously defend” the allegations, it said in a statement to the New Zealand stock exchange.
The move comes after Fisher & Paykel Healthcare filed patent infringement proceedings against ResMed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California earlier this week.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare argues that several of ResMed’s breathing masks and air flow products infringe its patents.
The New Zealand company specifically cites the Air Sense 10 and Air Curve 10 range of flow generator products, Climate Line Air heated air tubing for use with such flow generator products and Swift LT and Swift FX masks.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Chief Executive Lewis Gradon said “we believe we have good and valid defenses to the claims filed by ResMed and we will vigorously contest these claims. We are also confident in our infringement and validity positions with respect to our own patents.”
ResMed global general counsel and chief administrative officer David Pendarvis said his company “is confident that when the courts hear all the evidence, ResMed will prevail on its case and defeat any claims asserted by Fisher & Paykel.”