Hybir, Inc. v. VEEAM SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Cross-Appellant 2022-2055, 2022-2056, 2022-2066,…

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 O STROW , Meister Seelig & Fein PLLC, New York,
NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by ROBERT
F EINLAND.
STEVEN P APPAS , Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox,
PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for cross-appellant. Also
represented by D ANIEL S. BLOCK, BYRON L EROY P ICKARD.
______________________
Before D YK, CLEVENGER , and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
Case: 22-2055 Document: 54 Page: 1 Filed: 02/23/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

HYBIR, INC. v. VEEAM SOFTWARE CORPORATION 2
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: 2 Filed: 02/23/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --