Veeam v. Hybir: Federal Circuit Affirms Backup Patent Unpatentable (575 Days)
Veeam Software Corporation successfully challenged Hybir’s US8051043B2 — a patent covering group-based complete and incremental computer file backup technology — at the Federal Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the unpatentability finding, closing a 575-day appellate proceeding with a definitive ruling against the patent’s validity.
Federal Circuit kills Hybir’s incremental backup patent on appeal
Veeam Software Corporation, a major player in data protection and backup solutions, brought this appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 22-2066), filed 28 July 2022. The dispute centred on US8051043B2, a patent held by Hybir, Inc. claiming a group-based complete and incremental computer file backup system, process, and apparatus — technology directly relevant to the enterprise backup software market in which Veeam operates.
The Federal Circuit issued its ruling on 23 February 2024, affirming the lower tribunal’s finding of unpatentability. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Unpatentable,’ consistent with an invalidity or cancellation action in which the challenged claims were found not to meet the statutory requirements for patentability. For Hybir, affirmance means the patent is cancelled and unenforceable — the company loses its ability to assert US8051043B2 against any party, including Veeam or future competitors.
The 575-day duration is consistent with the typical pace of Federal Circuit patent appeals, which often run 18–24 months from docketing to decision. The case reached the appellate level having already survived or concluded an underlying validity challenge — likely an inter partes review or similar proceeding — suggesting Hybir had previously contested the unpatentability finding before exhausting appellate options. What the public record does not reveal is the specific claim grounds relied upon or whether any claims survived review.
Filing to settlement in 575 days
575-day appellate proceeding — typical Federal Circuit patent appeal
Federal Circuit affirms: Hybir’s backup system patent is unpatentable
Affirmance means the unpatentability finding is final
The Federal Circuit’s ‘AFFIRMED’ order confirms the lower tribunal’s unpatentability determination without modification. In patent invalidity proceedings, affirmance at the appellate level exhausts the primary judicial review path. Hybir’s remaining option would be a petition to the Supreme Court, which grants certiorari in a small fraction of patent cases. For practical purposes, this ruling is final.
Judgment affirmedUS8051043B2 is cancelled and unenforceable
A finding of unpatentability — distinct from a district court invalidity judgment — results in cancellation of the affected claims. Once the Federal Circuit affirms, the USPTO cancels those claims and they are treated as though they never existed. Hybir cannot assert US8051043B2 against Veeam, new market entrants, or any third party. Competitors previously concerned about this patent’s reach may now operate freely with respect to those cancelled claims.
Claims cancelledVeeam removes a litigation threat from its backup portfolio
By securing affirmance of unpatentability, Veeam eliminates the risk of future infringement actions tied to US8051043B2. For a company whose core products include incremental and group-based backup functionality, this outcome has direct product-line implications. Other vendors offering similar backup architectures also benefit from the cleared IP landscape, as the cancelled claims can no longer be used to extract licensing fees or injunctions across the sector.
Threat neutralisedIncremental backup IP faces sustained patentability scrutiny
This outcome is consistent with a broader pattern of post-grant challenges successfully invalidating data backup and storage method patents, particularly where claims involve well-known incremental or group-based techniques. The USPTO and Federal Circuit have applied Alice/Mayo and prior art challenges robustly in this space. Patent holders in backup and recovery technology should audit claim scope proactively to assess vulnerability to similar challenges.
Post-grant risk flaggedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Typ | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kläger | Veeam Software Corporation | Unternehmen | Enterprise backup and data protection software company — challenger of US8051043B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Beklagter | Hybir, Inc. | Unternehmen | Hybir, Inc. — holder of US8051043B2 covering group-based incremental file backup technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel S. Block | Attorney | Counsel for Veeam Software CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Seth Ostrow | Attorney | Counsel for Hybir, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Oberster Richter | Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The Federal Circuit’s order — ‘ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED’ — is unqualified, indicating no partial reversal or remand on any claim subset. This phrasing suggests the appellate panel found no reversible error in the tribunal below, affirming both the legal framework applied and the factual determinations on unpatentability. For Hybir, an unqualified affirmance forecloses any argument that surviving claims remain valid. For Veeam, it provides the strongest possible appellate outcome short of an en banc or Supreme Court review, which is statistically unlikely to be sought successfully.
US8051043B2 — Group-Based Incremental Computer File Backup System
US8051043B2 (application number US11/744,741) claims a group-based complete and incremental computer file backup system, process, and apparatus. The patent covers mechanisms for organising files into groups and selectively performing full or incremental backups based on that grouping — a technique designed to optimise storage efficiency and recovery granularity. The application was filed in the mid-2000s, a period of active patenting in enterprise backup architectures as organisations transitioned from tape-based to disk-based and network backup models. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of unpatentability indicates the claimed approach likely lacked novelty or inventive step over prior art in this space.
Strategically, US8051043B2 targeted core functionality present in many commercial backup products — group-based and incremental backup are foundational capabilities in platforms offered by Veeam, Commvault, Veritas, and others. A live, enforceable version of this patent could have supported licensing demands or injunctive threats across a broad competitive field. Its cancellation removes a potential toll gate on widely-deployed backup architectures. For sector participants, this outcome underscores the importance of monitoring post-grant proceedings against patents that read broadly on standard enterprise backup workflows.
Should your backup product be cleared against US8051043B2?
US8051043B2 has been declared unpatentable and its claims cancelled following Federal Circuit affirmance, which means the patent no longer poses a direct infringement risk. However, R&D and product teams building group-based, incremental, or snapshot backup solutions should confirm whether Hybir holds related continuation or divisional patents with overlapping claim scope before treating this space as fully clear. A single cancelled patent does not guarantee freedom across an entire patent family.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your backup system’s technical features against the full Hybir patent family, identify any live related applications, and flag claim language that may still present risk. Automated claim monitoring ensures your team is alerted if Hybir or related assignees file new continuation claims in the backup space — keeping your product roadmap clear of future enforcement exposure.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8051043B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit backup and storage patent invalidity cases
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the data backup and storage IP landscape
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance confirms that incremental backup patents face real invalidation risk — with direct consequences for licensing strategies and product clearance.
Vendors with backup patents should audit claim scope now
The invalidation of US8051043B2 signals that group-based and incremental backup claims are vulnerable to post-grant challenge. Patent holders in adjacent spaces — deduplication, snapshot-based recovery, cloud backup orchestration — should proactively assess whether their claim language survives an IPR-style validity test before asserting those patents.
Cleared IP landscape benefits the entire enterprise backup sector
With US8051043B2 cancelled, competitors who may have taken design-around measures or avoided certain backup architectures can reassess their product roadmaps. R&D teams building incremental or group-based backup features should document this outcome as part of their FTO record, but should still audit for other live patents in the same cluster.
Veeam v Hybir — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of US8051043B2 on 23 February 2024. The court issued an unqualified affirmance, confirming the lower tribunal’s cancellation of Hybir’s group-based incremental computer file backup patent. The patent is now cancelled and unenforceable.
Affirmance of unpatentability results in cancellation of the affected claims by the USPTO. The claims are treated as though they never validly existed. Hybir cannot assert US8051043B2 against Veeam or any other party. The only further avenue would be a petition to the Supreme Court, which is rarely granted in patent matters.
The public record identifies the case as an invalidity or cancellation action, consistent with Veeam seeking to neutralise a patent that potentially reads on its group-based and incremental backup product features. Veeam’s core data protection products involve backup architectures closely aligned with the technology described in US8051043B2, making the patent a direct commercial risk.
US8051043B2 (application US11/744,741) covers a group-based complete and incremental computer file backup system, process, and apparatus. It claims methods for grouping files and selectively performing full or incremental backups — a foundational technique in enterprise backup software. The patent was filed in the mid-2000s during active patenting in disk-based and network backup technologies.
Not automatically. While US8051043B2 is cancelled, Hybir may hold continuation or divisional patents with overlapping claim scope. Companies building incremental or group-based backup products should conduct a full patent family search and FTO analysis to confirm no related live claims present infringement risk before treating the space as fully clear.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.