Book a demo
Hybir v. Veeam Software — Group-Based Backup System Patent Invalidity Appeal | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID22-2056
FiledJul 2022
ClosedFeb 2024
Patent Litigation

Hybir v. Veeam Software: Federal Circuit Affirms Backup Patent Unpatentable

Hybir, Inc. failed to save US8051043B2 — a patent covering a group-based complete and incremental computer file backup system — after the Federal Circuit affirmed the underlying unpatentability ruling against Veeam Software Corporation. The appeal ran 581 days before closing in February 2024.

Resolution time
581days
581 days from appeal filing to Federal Circuit decision
Patents asserted
1
US8051043B2 — group-based complete and incremental computer file backup system
Outcome
Unpatentable
Federal Circuit affirmed unpatentability — US8051043B2 stands invalid against Veeam
Cost ruling
N/A
No cost ruling recorded in the available public case record
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Federal Circuit kills Hybir’s backup patent in Veeam appeal

Hybir, Inc. brought appeal case 22-2056 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 22 July 2022, challenging an earlier finding that US8051043B2 — its patent covering a group-based complete and incremental computer file backup system and apparatus — was unpatentable. The defendant, Veeam Software Corporation, a major player in the data protection and backup software market, successfully defended the invalidity position at the appellate level.

The Federal Circuit issued an affirmance on 23 February 2024, upholding the unpatentability determination. An affirmance at this level means the lower tribunal’s invalidity ruling is confirmed and carries binding legal weight. For Hybir, the decision extinguishes enforceable rights in US8051043B2. For Veeam, the outcome provides a strong, appellate-endorsed shield against any future assertion of the same patent.

The 581-day appellate timeline is consistent with typical Federal Circuit patent appeal durations, suggesting no expedited or unusually delayed handling. The public record does not disclose the specific invalidity grounds affirmed — whether anticipation, obviousness, or subject-matter eligibility — which limits external analysis of how the claims failed. That gap is strategically important for competitors and practitioners seeking to understand the precise doctrinal basis of the ruling.

Case at a glance
Case no.22-2056
PlaintiffHybir, Inc.
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Judge/
FiledJuly 22, 2022
ClosedFebruary 23, 2024
Duration581 days
OutcomeUnpatentable
Verdict causePatentability
BasisUnpatentable
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to settlement in 581 days

581 days from appeal filing to Federal Circuit decision

Case timeline: Complaint filed May 13 2025, MAY–JUN — 581 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Hybir, Inc. v Veeam Software Corporation from filing to voluntary dismissal. Source: PACER, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. JUL 22 2022 Complaint filed MAY–JUN 2022 Pre-trial proceedings FEB 23 2024 Resolved consent judgment 581 DAYS TOTAL
Court ruling

Federal Circuit affirms: US8051043B2 is unpatentable

Legal mechanism

What ‘affirmed’ means at the Federal Circuit

An affirmance by the Federal Circuit means the appellate panel reviewed the lower tribunal’s unpatentability finding and concluded it was legally correct. The court did not merely decline to intervene — it positively endorsed the invalidity determination. This gives the ruling persuasive weight beyond this case and closes Hybir’s appellate path on US8051043B2 absent a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Binding appellate confirmation
Patent status

US8051043B2 is now judicially invalidated

With the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of unpatentability, US8051043B2 no longer provides enforceable rights. Any party previously concerned about infringement exposure under this patent — including competitors in the backup and data protection software space — can treat the patent as neutralised. The precise claims affected depend on the scope of the invalidity proceedings below, which the public record does not fully detail.

Patent unenforceable
Defendant outcome

Veeam secures appellate-level patent clearance

Veeam Software Corporation, represented by Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox — a firm with a strong IPR and post-grant track record — successfully defended the invalidity position through the full appellate process. This outcome suggests Veeam’s invalidity arguments were sufficiently robust to withstand Federal Circuit scrutiny, potentially reflecting strong prior art or claim construction weaknesses in Hybir’s patent.

Defendant fully prevails
Sector implications

Backup software IP landscape loses a key assertion vehicle

US8051043B2 covered a foundational concept — group-based complete and incremental backup — that sits at the heart of modern enterprise backup architectures. Its invalidation removes a potential licensing or litigation pressure point for vendors in this space. Competitors and new entrants in backup, deduplication, and data protection should note this outcome when assessing their own patent exposure and portfolio strategy.

Reduced assertion risk in sector
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 22-2056 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffHybir, Inc.CompanyData backup technology IP holder — asserting US8051043B2 for group-based backup systemsSearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantVeeam Software CorporationCompanyVeeam Software Corporation — enterprise data protection and backup software providerSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselSeth OstrowAttorneyCounsel for Hybir, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselDaniel S. BlockAttorneyCounsel for Veeam Software CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge /Chief JudgeCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Stipulation of dismissal — official text

“AFFIRMED”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 22-2056, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Filed February 23, 2024

The Federal Circuit’s single-word disposition — ‘AFFIRMED’ — on the basis of unpatentability is unambiguous in scope: the appellate panel found no reversible error in the lower tribunal’s determination that US8051043B2 fails to satisfy patentability requirements. For Hybir, this forecloses further enforcement of these claims. For Veeam and the broader backup software market, it constitutes appellate-grade clearance. The absence of a published opinion, if applicable, limits precedential reach but not the binding effect on these parties.

PACER case 22-2056 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US8051043B2 — Group-Based Incremental Computer File Backup System

Publication No.US8051043B2
Application No.US11/744741
Patent details
AssigneeHybir, Inc.
ProductUS8051043B2 — group-based complete and incremental computer file backup system
Publication typeB2 — grant (with prior publication)
Cited in actionJuly 22, 2022

US8051043B2, filed under application number US11/744741, protects a system, process, and apparatus for group-based complete and incremental computer file backup. The patent’s core concept — organising backup operations around logical groups of files rather than individual file-level or volume-level snapshots — represents an architectural approach to backup efficiency that was commercially relevant at the time of filing. The patent issued as a granted B2 publication, indicating it survived initial examination before being challenged on validity.

Group-based and incremental backup methodologies are foundational to the enterprise data protection market, which includes products from vendors such as Veeam, Commvault, Veritas, and others. A valid, enforceable patent in this space could function as a significant licensing or litigation asset. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of unpatentability suggests the claims did not sufficiently distinguish over prior art in this densely populated technical domain — a signal to patent drafters in adjacent backup and storage technologies to ensure robust claim differentiation.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should you run an FTO against US8051043B2?

While US8051043B2 has been judicially declared unpatentable, R&D and product teams building group-based, incremental, or deduplication-based backup systems should still conduct a freedom-to-operate review across Hybir’s broader patent portfolio. Related continuations, divisionals, or continuation-in-part applications may share specification language with US8051043B2 and could present overlapping claim coverage that has not yet been challenged.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full patent family surrounding US8051043B2, identify any surviving related claims, and flag prosecution history that may affect claim scope interpretation. For backup software vendors, integrators, and cloud storage providers, claim monitoring on adjacent Hybir filings ensures that a single invalidation does not create a false sense of complete clearance in this technology area.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8051043B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar Federal Circuit backup and storage patent invalidity appeals

PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Hybir, Inc. patent enforcement history, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case history, Hybir, Inc.’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Commvault backup patent IPRVeritas storage system appealIncremental backup § 101 casesVeeam prior Federal Circuit cases
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the data backup IP landscape

The Federal Circuit’s affirmance in Hybir v. Veeam has practical consequences for how backup software vendors and IP holders manage patent risk.

Backup system patents face heightened invalidity scrutiny

The affirmance of unpatentability for a group-based backup system claim suggests that foundational backup architecture patents may be particularly vulnerable to invalidity challenges — likely due to a deep prior art pool predating many such filings. Patent holders in this space should audit claim specificity before asserting.

Veeam’s IPR-specialist counsel choice signals a deliberate defensive strategy

Veeam’s retention of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox — consistently ranked among the top post-grant and IPR firms — is consistent with a strategy of attacking patent validity at the root rather than defending on non-infringement alone. This approach proved effective through two levels of review.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Includes sector IP trends, Judge Treadwell’s case history, and FTO risk assessment for the truck equipment space
Hybir portfolio mapRelated continuation riskSector invalidity rate data
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Hybir v Veeam — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Run your own backup patent litigation analysis

Use PatSnap Eureka to conduct FTO searches across active backup system patents, monitor related Hybir or competitor filings, and track Federal Circuit invalidity trends in the data protection sector.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.