Veeam v. Hybir: Federal Circuit Affirms Backup Patent Unpatentable
Veeam Software Corporation successfully challenged Hybir’s US8051043B2 patent covering a group-based complete and incremental computer file backup system. The Federal Circuit affirmed the patent’s cancellation on unpatentability grounds, closing a 575-day appeal in the data backup IP space.
Federal Circuit closes backup patent dispute with unpatentability ruling
Veeam Software Corporation, a major provider of data backup and recovery software, challenged the validity of US8051043B2, a patent held by Hybir, Inc. covering a group-based complete and incremental computer file backup system. The appeal, docketed as Case No. 22-2067 in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the District of Columbia circuit, was filed on July 28, 2022 and closed on February 23, 2024. The patent in dispute describes a process and apparatus for organising backup operations across groups of files using both complete and incremental backup methods.
The Federal Circuit issued a one-word order — AFFIRMED — confirming the lower tribunal’s finding that US8051043B2 was unpatentable. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Unpatentable,’ consistent with an invalidity or cancellation action, most likely arising from inter partes review or a comparable post-grant proceeding. For Hybir, this outcome extinguishes the patent entirely as an enforceable asset. For Veeam, the affirmance removes a potentially blocking patent from its competitive landscape without the risk of a damages award.
The 575-day duration from filing to close is broadly consistent with Federal Circuit appeal timelines in patent validity disputes. The terse AFFIRMED order suggests the panel found no reversible error in the record below, offering no new claim construction or written opinion that would shift the broader landscape. What remains unknown from the public record is whether any licensing negotiations preceded the appeal and whether Hybir retains related continuation patents that could sustain future assertions in the backup and data protection space.
Filing to settlement in 575 days
575-day appeal duration — within typical Federal Circuit patent appeal range
Federal Circuit affirms: US8051043B2 is unpatentable
What ‘Affirmed — Unpatentable’ means at the Federal Circuit
An AFFIRMED disposition at the Federal Circuit means the appellate panel found no reversible error in the lower tribunal’s decision. Combined with a basis of termination recorded as ‘Unpatentable,’ this indicates the original cancellation or invalidity finding stands. US8051043B2 is no longer a valid, enforceable patent. Hybir cannot relitigate the same patentability questions for this patent in federal court.
Patent cancelled — non-enforceableInvalidity cancellation: what the record discloses
The verdict cause is recorded as ‘Invalidity/Cancellation Action,’ suggesting the underlying proceeding was a post-grant challenge — most likely inter partes review before the USPTO’s PTAB — rather than district court litigation. In such proceedings, unpatentability is typically established on prior art or obviousness grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–103. The public record does not specify the precise grounds, so the exact prior art relied upon is not confirmed here.
Likely PTAB-origin proceedingVeeam clears a potential blocking patent in its core market
For Veeam Software, a leading vendor in the enterprise backup and data protection market, the affirmance of unpatentability removes US8051043B2 as a litigation risk. The patent’s claims around group-based incremental backup are directly relevant to Veeam’s product architecture. Invalidation through appeal — rather than a licensing settlement — means no royalty obligations attach and no future re-assertion of this specific patent is possible.
No royalty exposure for VeeamHybir loses its primary IP asset in the backup technology space
For Hybir, the Federal Circuit’s affirmance is a terminal outcome for US8051043B2. The patent cannot be revived through further appeal on the same patentability record. Whether Hybir holds continuation patents, divisionals, or related applications covering adjacent claims in the group-based backup space is not disclosed in the public record but is a material question for any competitor or acquirer assessing residual IP risk from this patent family.
Terminal for US8051043B2Full party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Veeam Software Corporation | Company | Data backup and recovery software provider — challenger of US8051043B2 validitySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Hybir, Inc. | Company | Hybir, Inc. — holder of US8051043B2 covering group-based 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 / | Chief Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The Federal Circuit’s order reads simply ‘AFFIRMED,’ with no written opinion published in the public record for this case. This terse disposition confirms the lower tribunal’s unpatentability finding without introducing new claim construction, legal standards, or remand instructions. For Hybir, the affirmance is legally final for US8051043B2 — no further avenue exists to enforce this specific patent. For Veeam, the outcome closes the matter cleanly, with no damages, no royalty obligation, and no future exposure under this patent number.
US8051043B2 — Group-Based Complete and Incremental File Backup System
US8051043B2, filed under application number US11/744741, covers a system, process, and apparatus for performing group-based complete and incremental computer file backups. The patent addresses a core challenge in enterprise data protection: efficiently managing backup operations across grouped file sets, reducing redundancy and recovery time. Its claims span both the method of grouping files for backup and the technical architecture of the apparatus implementing those operations — placing it squarely in the infrastructure software and storage technology domain.
Group-based incremental backup is a foundational concept for enterprise backup vendors, and patents in this space attract attention from both operating companies and non-practising entities. US8051043B2’s cancellation removes one assertion vector in this crowded landscape, but the underlying technical approach — organising backup workflows by file groups rather than individual file enumeration — remains an active area of product development and patent prosecution. Vendors building or acquiring backup technology should audit the surviving patent landscape around this method carefully.
Should you run an FTO analysis referencing US8051043B2?
US8051043B2 has been cancelled and affirmed unpatentable by the Federal Circuit — it is not an enforceable barrier for backup software developers or vendors. However, any product team building group-based or incremental file backup systems should still investigate the broader patent family originating from application US11/744741, as continuation or related patents may carry similar claims with active status. The cancellation of one patent in a family does not extinguish the entire family’s enforcement risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product teams to map the full patent family around US11/744741, identify active related patents, and monitor new filings in the group-based backup technology space. Claim-level monitoring can flag any continuation applications that enter prosecution or grant, ensuring your freedom-to-operate assessment remains current as the landscape evolves beyond this specific cancelled patent.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8051043B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit patent invalidity appeals in data backup and storage technology
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 recovery IP landscape
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance in Veeam v. Hybir underscores the vulnerability of incremental backup patents to post-grant challenge — a pattern worth tracking.
Post-grant review remains a powerful weapon against backup IP assertions
Veeam’s success in cancelling US8051043B2 via what appears to be a post-grant invalidity route — affirmed at the Federal Circuit — demonstrates that group-based incremental backup patents are susceptible to prior art challenges. Companies facing similar assertions should evaluate IPR petition viability before engaging in licensing negotiations.
A terse AFFIRMED order signals a clean prior art record below
The absence of a written Federal Circuit opinion suggests the panel found the invalidity case straightforward. For IP strategists monitoring this space, this typically signals that the prior art cited in the underlying proceeding was strong and broadly applicable — potentially useful in challenging related patents in the same family.
Veeam v Hybir — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of US8051043B2, Hybir’s patent covering a group-based complete and incremental computer file backup system. The case closed on February 23, 2024, after 575 days. The patent is cancelled and no longer enforceable.
US8051043B2 covers a system, process, and apparatus for group-based complete and incremental file backup — a method directly relevant to enterprise backup software products like those Veeam develops. Veeam challenged the patent’s validity, most likely through an inter partes review or similar post-grant proceeding, and prevailed at both the tribunal level and on Federal Circuit appeal.
For Hybir, the affirmance is a final legal outcome for US8051043B2. The patent is cancelled and cannot be re-asserted or enforced. Hybir has no further appellate avenue to challenge the unpatentability finding on this patent. Any residual IP position would depend on surviving related patents in the same family.
The cancellation of US8051043B2 removes that specific patent as a risk. However, freedom to operate in the group-based backup space requires a full audit of the US11/744741 application family, including any continuations or divisionals that may carry related claims and remain active. The public record for this case addresses only US8051043B2.
Veeam Software was represented by attorney Daniel S. Block of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, PLLC — a firm well known for PTAB and appellate patent work. Hybir was represented by Seth Ostrow of Meister Seelig & Fein, PLLC. No other agents or firms are disclosed in the public case record.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.