Veeam Software Corp v. Symantec Corp

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2013-00145
• Patent #: 7,254,682
• Filed: February 13, 2013
• Petitioner(s): Veeam Software Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): Symantec Corporation
• Challenged Claims: 1, 3, 26, and 27

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Method For Using a Snapshot and Creating an Image File That Holds Selected Items
• Brief Description: The ’682 patent discloses methods for creating a backup image containing only selected files from a storage volume. The invention purports to improve upon prior art full-volume copy methods by using a space-efficient snapshot of the volume, from which undesired items are removed before the desired items are imaged.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness Over Veritas, AAPA, and VxFS - Claims 3, 26, and 27 are obvious over Veritas Database in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and VxFS.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Veritas Database (a 2000 technical overview on VERITAS File System), AAPA (Applicant Admitted Prior Art from the ’682 patent), and VxFS (a 2000 administrator’s guide for the VERITAS File System).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the ’682 patent’s only purported novelty is the use of snapshots in a selective imaging process. AAPA disclosed the basic selective imaging method: creating a copy of a volume, deleting unwanted files, and then imaging the remaining desired files. Veritas Database taught using snapshots ("Storage Checkpoints") to solve the exact problem of disk space and I/O overhead associated with the full-volume copies used in AAPA. The combination of Veritas Database and AAPA thus taught all elements of claim 1. For the more specific limitations in claims 3, 26, and 27, VxFS provided explicit implementation details for the Veritas product, including commands for mounting a snapshot with read-write permissions (allowing deletion from the snapshot view), freezing and unfreezing the file system around snapshot creation, and unmounting the snapshot.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the known selective imaging technique of AAPA with the known efficiency benefits of snapshots taught by Veritas to achieve the predictable result of a more efficient selective backup process. Because Veritas Database and VxFS described the same commercial product, a POSITA would naturally consult both to gain a complete understanding of its capabilities.
  • Expectation of Success: Combining these established technologies for their known purposes would yield predictable improvements in backup efficiency, leading to a high expectation of success.

Ground 2: Anticipation by Ohran - Claims 1 and 3 are anticipated by Ohran.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Ohran (Application # 2003/0101321).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Ohran disclosed every element of claims 1 and 3. Ohran described a method for backing up only desired data blocks to a snapshot copy. This method involved creating a static snapshot of the original data, identifying desired data blocks based on user-designated files or file types, and imaging only those desired blocks to a final snapshot copy. This process inherently creates an image of selected items from a snapshot after undesired items are excluded. Ohran further taught deleting undesired items by not copying them to the snapshot storage, which is effectively deleting them from the snapshot view from which the final image is created, thus meeting the limitations of claim 3. Ohran also disclosed clearing the snapshot map and storage after backup, which corresponds to releasing snapshot resources.

Ground 3: Obviousness Over Ohran and Barker - Claims 26 and 27 are obvious over Ohran in view of Barker.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Ohran (Application # 2003/0101321) and Barker (a 2002 book, "Storage Area Network Essentials").

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Ohran taught the fundamental method of selective backup from a snapshot, meeting the core limitations of the challenged claims. Barker, a standard text on storage networks, supplied the specific implementation details recited in claim 26 that are not explicitly detailed in Ohran. Barker taught freezing a file system by pausing I/O to create a "frozen image" (snapshot), unfreezing the system afterward for continued use, mounting the snapshot to make it available to backup applications, and modifying a frozen image (e.g., by deleting files). Barker also taught that continued use of the storage volume is possible while the snapshot exists, meeting the limitation of claim 27.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Ohran's conceptual method with the well-known, practical techniques in Barker to create a robust backup system that could operate on a live system without terminating user access. Ohran itself suggested that preferred snapshotting methods would allow for this, and Barker provided an enabling disclosure for such an implementation. The combination amounted to a simple substitution of one known snapshotting technique for another to obtain predictable results.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in applying the industry-standard snapshot management techniques from Barker to implement the backup strategy disclosed in Ohran.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional challenges, including that claim 1 is obvious over Veritas Database and AAPA alone; claims 1 and 3 are anticipated by Tretau I (a 2001 IBM technical publication); and claims 26 and 27 are obvious over Tretau I in view of Tretau II (a 2003 IBM integration guide).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "Image": Petitioner proposed construing "image" as "one or more copied data blocks, sectors, or clusters." This construction was based on the patent's explicit distinction between its claimed block-by-block approach and disclaimed file-by-file backups. The proposed construction was central to mapping prior art references that described block-level copy operations to the "imaging" limitations of the claims.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 3, 26, and 27 of Patent 7,254,682 as unpatentable.