Hybir v. Veeam Software: Federal Circuit Appeal Dismissed (US8051043)
Hybir, Inc. appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit against Veeam Software Corporation over US8051043B2, a patent covering backup and replication technology, asserted against Veeam Backup & Replication. The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal after 461 days, ending the matter without a merits ruling.
Federal Circuit dismisses Hybir's backup patent appeal against Veeam
Hybir, Inc. filed Case No. 25-1367 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 15 January 2025, appealing an infringement action against Veeam Software Corporation. The case centred on US8051043B2 (application number US11/744741), a patent covering data backup and replication technology, asserted against Veeam's flagship Backup & Replication product. Hybir was represented by Robert Feinland and Seth Ostrow of Meister Seelig & Schuster PLLC.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Appeal Dismissed'. The docket order states: 'THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: DISMISSED.' The case closed on 21 April 2026 after 461 days. No defendant agents or law firms are recorded in the available case data. The specific procedural grounds for dismissal are not disclosed in the available record.
The 461-day duration from filing to dismissal is consistent with Federal Circuit appellate proceedings that conclude without full merits briefing and argument. Because the dismissal did not address the substance of the infringement claims, the enforceability of US8051043B2 against Veeam Backup & Replication — or any comparable backup solution — remains an open question from the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 461 days
461 days from filing to dismissal at the Federal Circuit
US8051043B2 — Data backup and replication technology
Any organisation developing or commercialising data backup, replication, or recovery software — particularly solutions functionally comparable to Veeam Backup & Replication — should consider an FTO assessment against US8051043B2. This Federal Circuit appeal ended without a merits ruling, meaning the patent's claims have not been judicially invalidated or limited. The risk profile for the backup software sector is therefore unchanged by this proceeding.
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit's order is styled as a dismissal without any articulation of a merits finding on infringement or validity of US8051043B2. A procedural dismissal at the appellate level means neither party received a definitive ruling on the substantive patent claims; the rights and obligations of both Hybir and Veeam with respect to the asserted patent are not conclusively established by this order.
Appeal dismissed: what the Federal Circuit's order means for both parties
Procedural dismissal — no merits ruling reached
A procedural dismissal at the appellate level means the Federal Circuit declined to adjudicate the substantive infringement arguments. The court's order states 'DISMISSED' without a finding on the merits of the US8051043B2 claims. The underlying legal questions regarding Veeam Backup & Replication therefore remain unresolved by the Federal Circuit.
No merits adjudicationHybir's infringement arguments go unaddressed on appeal
With the appeal dismissed, Hybir, Inc. did not obtain a Federal Circuit ruling on its infringement claims against Veeam's backup solution. The dismissal forecloses this appellate avenue without affirming or validating Hybir's patent position. The specific terms and any conditions attached to the dismissal are not disclosed in the available record.
Appellate avenue closedVeeam avoids a Federal Circuit merits ruling on US8051043
Veeam Software Corporation benefits from the dismissal in that no appellate court has found its Backup & Replication product to infringe US8051043B2. However, because the dismissal was not on the merits, it does not constitute a definitive finding of non-infringement or invalidity. No defendant agents are recorded in the available case data.
No infringement findingUS8051043 enforcement posture remains uncertain for the backup sector
The dismissal without merits resolution leaves the enforceability and validity of US8051043B2 unadjudicated at the Federal Circuit level. Competitors and vendors operating in the data backup and replication space should note that the patent's scope has not been judicially narrowed or invalidated by this proceeding. FTO assessments against this patent remain prudent for the sector.
Patent scope unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | In re: HYBIR, INC. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Veeam Software Corporation | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Feinland | Attorney | Counsel for In re: HYBIR, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Seth Ostrow | Attorney | Counsel for In re: HYBIR, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Meister Seelig & Schuster PLLC | Law Firm | Representing In re: HYBIR, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the data backup and replication IP space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Hybir v. Veeam and the broader backup and replication technology landscape.
Hybir's patent portfolio beyond US8051043B2
Hybir's willingness to pursue an appeal to the Federal Circuit over US8051043B2 suggests a strategic commitment to enforcing its IP position in backup and replication technology. Monitoring Hybir's full patent portfolio and any continuation filings derived from application US11/744741 can signal whether further enforcement activity in this space is likely.
Portfolio enforcement riskFiling trends in backup, replication, and data protection patents
The data backup and replication sector continues to see active patent filing from both incumbent vendors and assertion entities. Tracking recent filing activity around backup methodologies, incremental replication, and recovery point objectives can reveal where the IP density is highest and where freedom-to-operate gaps may emerge for product teams.
Active filing spaceVeeam Software's patent position in the backup market
Veeam Software Corporation's own patent filing activity in backup, replication, and data protection reflects its defensive and offensive IP strategy. Understanding Veeam's portfolio depth in these areas provides context for competitive risk assessment and helps identify where Veeam has staked out proprietary technical approaches.
Veeam IP landscapeAdjacent innovation opportunities near US8051043B2's claim space
The unresolved claim scope of US8051043B2 suggests potential white-space in backup architectures, particularly around novel deduplication, cloud-native replication, and continuous data protection methods that may not be captured by existing assertions. R&D teams can use prior art searches adjacent to US11/744741 to identify filing opportunities or design-around paths.
Design-around potentialSimilar backup and replication patent appeals at the Federal Circuit
Browse Federal Circuit appeals involving data backup, replication, and storage software patents — cases structurally comparable to Hybir v. Veeam, Case No. 25-1367.
What this case signals for the backup and replication IP landscape
The Federal Circuit dismissal leaves US8051043B2's enforceability unresolved — a material signal for the enterprise backup software sector.
An appeal dismissed without merits leaves patent risk intact for the sector
The Federal Circuit's dismissal of Hybir's appeal did not narrow, invalidate, or limit the claims of US8051043B2. For backup and replication software vendors, this means the patent remains a live enforcement risk. Companies whose products overlap with the asserted technology should not interpret this dismissal as a clearance signal.
Monitor Hybir's filing activity for continuation and re-assertion signals
When an assertion entity pursues appeal-level proceedings and the case ends without merits adjudication, continuation filing activity and portfolio management decisions often signal whether re-assertion is being contemplated. Tracking Hybir's patent prosecution activity around application US11/744741 is a practical risk-management step for vendors in this space.
In v Veeam — key questions answered
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal in Case No. 25-1367. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Appeal Dismissed'. The docket order states 'ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: DISMISSED'. No merits ruling on the infringement claims concerning US8051043B2 was issued. The case closed on 21 April 2026 after 461 days.
The patent at issue is US8051043B2, filed under application number US11/744741. It covers data backup and replication technology and was asserted against Veeam Software Corporation's Backup & Replication product. The Federal Circuit dismissal did not adjudicate the patent's claim scope or validity.
No. A procedural dismissal at the appellate level does not constitute a finding of invalidity or non-infringement. The Federal Circuit's order in Case No. 25-1367 ended the proceeding without reaching the merits of the infringement claims. US8051043B2 retains its nominal legal force; its enforceability was not adjudicated in this case.
Hybir, Inc. was represented by Robert Feinland and Seth Ostrow of Meister Seelig & Schuster PLLC. No defendant agents or law firm for Veeam Software Corporation are recorded in the available case data for this Federal Circuit appeal.
Because the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits of the infringement claims, the claim scope of US8051043B2 has not been judicially narrowed or invalidated. Backup and replication software vendors should treat US8051043B2 as a live patent risk and conduct freedom-to-operate assessments, particularly for products functionally comparable to Veeam Backup & Replication.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.