Court Opinion

ID: 9943421
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 16:02:24.709343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:59.957477
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-2055    Document: 54    Page: 1   Filed: 02/23/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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: 2    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 un-
 patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over U.S. Patent Publi-
 cation No. 2006/0212439 (Field) alone and in combination
 with U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0114614 (Ander-
 son). 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 juris-
 diction 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 stor-
 age 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 sup-
 ports 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 independ-
 ent claims 30 and 35 and the related dependent claims.
 Oral Arg. at 6:10–7:10 (available at https://oralargu-
 ments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=22-2055_020620
 24.mp3).
Case: 22-2055     Document: 54     Page: 3     Filed: 02/23/2024

 HYBIR, INC. v. VEEAM SOFTWARE CORPORATION                   3

 and Field to distinguish Field’s operation from what is re-
 quired 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 be-
 cause Field checks files one at a time to see if they have
 been submitted before transmitting them, there is no rea-
 son 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 participat-
 ing 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