Legal Actions and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Legal Actions and Contingencies	Mar. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Actions and Contingencies	Legal Actions and Contingencies Litigation 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 final outcome will not, individually or in aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements taken as a whole. On June 2, 2021, New York University filed a complaint for patent infringement in the United States District Court, District of Delaware against ResMed Inc., case no. 1:21-cv-00813 (CFC). The complaint alleges that the AutoSet and AutoRamp features of ResMed’s AirSense 10 AutoSet flow generators infringe one or more claims of various patents. According to the complaint, the patents are directed to systems and methods for diagnosing and treating patient sleeping disorders during different sleep states. The complaint seeks monetary damages and attorneys’ fees. ResMed 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. The matter is proceeding to discovery. On January 27, 2021, the International Trade Commission instituted In Re Certain UMTS and LTE Cellular Communications Modules and Products Containing the Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-1240, by complainants Philips RS North America, LLC and Koninklijke Philips N.V. (collectively “Philips”) against Quectel Wireless Solutions Co., Ltd; Thales DIS AIS USA, LLC, Thales DIS AIS Deutschland GmbH; Telit Wireless Solutions, Inc., Telit Communications PLC, CalAmp. Corp., Xirgo Technologies, LLC, and Laird Connectivity, Inc. (collectively “respondents”). In the ITC investigation, Philips seeks an order excluding communications modules, and products that contain them, from importation into the United States based on alleged infringement of 3G and 4G standard essential patents held by Philips. On October 6-14, 2021, the administrative law judge held a hearing on the merits. The administrative law judge issued an initial determination on April 1, 2022, finding no violation of any of the Philips patents asserted in the ITC. Philips is seeking review by the full International Trade Commission, and the Commission is expected to issue its final determination on or about August 1, 2022. On December 17, 2020, Philips filed companion cases for patent infringement against the same defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, case nos. 1:20-cv-01707, 01708, 01709, 01710, 01711, and 01713 (CFC) seeking damages, an injunction, and a declaration from the court on the amount of a fair reasonable and non-discriminatory license rate for the standard essential patents it is asserting against the defendants. The district court cases have been stayed pending the resolution of the ITC proceedings. ResMed is not a party to the ITC investigation or the district court cases but sells products that incorporate some of the communications modules at issue in the cases. On October 1, 2021 ResMed acquired Ectosense, manufacturer of the NightOwl device used for home sleep testing. Prior to the acquisition, Ectosense was named as a defendant in a trademark and false advertising complaint filed by Itamar Medical Ltd. in the district court for the Southern District of Florida, case no. 20-cv-60719-WPD, based on Ectosense’s description of the NightOwl’s measurement of peripheral arterial tone and use of the acronym “PAT” in its advertising. Ectosense filed a counterclaim for cancellation of Itamar’s “PAT” trademark and for false advertising by Itamar. Each party seeks damages and injunctive relief against the other. The matter was resolved on April 5, 2022, in a confidential settlement agreement to the mutual satisfaction of the parties. Based on currently available information, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of loss or range of losses, if any, arising from matters that remain open. Contingent Obligations Under Recourse Provisions 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 nine months ended March 31, 2022 and March 31, 2021, receivables sold with limited recourse were $126.2 million and $112.2 million, respectively. As of March 31, 2022, the maximum exposure on outstanding receivables sold with recourse and contingent provision were $47.0 million and $3.4 million, respectively. As of June 30, 2021, the maximum exposure on outstanding receivables sold with recourse and contingent provision were $30.2 million and $8.2 million, respectively.