NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

HYBIR, INC.,

Appellant

v.

VEEAM SOFTWARE CORPORATION,

Cross-Appellant

______________________ 

2022-2055, 2022-2056, 2022-2066, 2022-2067

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-

01037, IPR2020-01038.

______________________ 

Decided: February 23, 2024

______________________ 

SETH OSTROW, Meister Seelig & Fein PLLC, New York, 

NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by ROBERT 

FEINLAND. 

 STEVEN PAPPAS, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, 

PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for cross-appellant. Also 

represented by DANIEL S. BLOCK, BYRON LEROY PICKARD. 

 ______________________ 

Before DYK, CLEVENGER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

Case: 22-2055 Document: 54 Page: 1 Filed: 02/23/2024
2 HYBIR, INC. v. VEEAM SOFTWARE CORPORATION

CHEN, Circuit Judge. 

Hybir, Inc. (Hybir) appeals two decisions by the Patent 

Trial and Appeal Board (Board) determining that certain 

claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,051,043 (’043 patent) are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0212439 (Field) alone and in combination 

with U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0114614 (Anderson). In particular, Hybir appeals the Board’s invalidity 

determinations as to claims 30, 32, 33, 35, and 37–39.1 

Veeam Software Corporation (Veeam) cross-appeals the 

Board’s decision upholding the patentability of claims 3, 4,

7, 16, 17, and 20 over the same references. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). 

Hybir argues that the Board erred because “Field 

teaches away from using and transmitting signatures from 

a backup data storage medium to a remote storage medium 

during a restore process.” Appellant’s Br. 49. We reject 

this argument because nothing in those claims requires 

transmitting an electronic signature from the backup storage medium to the remote storage medium during a restore 

process. Hybir has not shown that the Board’s findings 

lack substantial evidence support. 

As to Veeam’s cross-appeal, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Veeam failed to prove Field 

discloses or suggests “removing” electronic data associated 

with a first descriptor from a list as required by claims 3, 

4, 16, and 17. The Board relied on Hybir’s expert witness 

1 Although Hybir originally raised arguments with 

respect to other claims, see Hybir Ltr. (Jan. 29, 2024), ECF 

No. 52, Hybir agrees that its appeal is limited to independent claims 30 and 35 and the related dependent claims. 

Oral Arg. at 6:10–7:10 (available at https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=22-2055_020620

24.mp3). 

Case: 22-2055 Document: 54 Page: 2 Filed: 02/23/2024
HYBIR, INC. v. VEEAM SOFTWARE CORPORATION 3

and Field to distinguish Field’s operation from what is required by the claims. J.A. 99–100 (citing J.A. 729 ¶ 130). 

Specifically, the Board found that Field not transmitting a 

file is not removal of that file from a list, J.A. 99, and because Field checks files one at a time to see if they have 

been submitted before transmitting them, there is no reason for Field to “create a second list that omits the recited 

first descriptor from the first list.” J.A. 100. Substantial 

evidence also supports the Board’s finding that Veeam 

failed to prove Field discloses or suggests restricting access

to electronic data as required by claims 7 and 20. The 

Board found Field’s disclosure that a user can retrieve a 

file using a descriptor to be distinct from restricting access

and additionally relied on expert testimony that participating users in Field have access to some shared data without 

having access restrictions to conclude that Field does not 

disclose or suggest this limitation. J.A. 106–07 (citing 

J.A. 730–31 ¶¶ 134–35). 

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we 

affirm. 

The parties shall bear their own costs.

AFFIRMED

Case: 22-2055 Document: 54 Page: 3 Filed: 02/23/2024