PTAB

IPR2020-01037

Veeam Software Corp v. Hybir Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Group Based Computer File Backup System
  • Brief Description: The ’043 patent describes a method for efficiently backing up files in a networked environment with multiple client devices and a central backup server. The system uses "descriptors," such as cryptographic hashes, calculated from file data to avoid transmitting and storing duplicate files that may exist on different client devices.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Field and Anderson - Claims 1-29 and 34 are obvious over Field in view of Anderson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Field (Application # 2006/0212439) and Anderson (Application # 2005/0114614).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Field teaches nearly all limitations of the challenged claims. Field discloses a group-based backup system designed to reduce network bandwidth by avoiding duplicate file transmissions. In Field, a client device generates a signature (a "descriptor") for a file and sends it to a back-end server. The server compares this signature to signatures of files already in its backup database, which contains files from multiple client devices. If a match is found, the client does not transmit the full file, as a copy is already stored. This process directly maps to the core limitations of independent claims 1 (method), 15 (device), and 25 (system), including receiving an inventory with descriptors, comparing them against a stored inventory of shared data, and determining if a match exists. Petitioner asserted that Field’s "signatures" are the claimed "descriptors," and its "back end computing device" and "backup database" are the claimed "backup server" and "backup data storage medium," respectively.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner contended that while Field discloses the mechanism for identifying duplicate files to prevent their re-transmission, it does not explicitly disclose the backup server notifying the client device that the file is already stored. Anderson, which addresses the same problem of bandwidth-efficient backup, was argued to cure this gap. Anderson explicitly teaches that when its backup service determines a file already exists, "a message is sent to the client informing the client that there is no need to transmit article contents to the server." A POSITA implementing Field’s system would combine Anderson’s explicit notification step because it represents a logical and necessary completion of the workflow implied by Field. Without such a notification, the client device in Field's system would have no indication that it should not transmit the file.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because combining Anderson's notification message with Field's system is a simple, predictable addition. Both references operate in the same technical field of data backup efficiency and use similar signature-based deduplication techniques, making the integration of a standard notification message straightforward.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner proposed constructions for several means-plus-function limitations in independent claim 25, arguing they were critical to understanding the claim scope.

  • "means for storing..." [25A]: Petitioner contended the function is "storing a first set of sharable electronic data for a plurality of remote storage mediums," and the corresponding structure disclosed in the ’043 patent is "any type of data storage medium, including those employed by database systems." This construction was used to map the limitation to the "back end computing device" and associated "backup database" in Field.
  • "means for determining..." [25C.1]: Petitioner argued the function is "determining that at least a first electronic file...is in the first set...and the second set...by comparing descriptors," and the corresponding structure is "a computing device executing software configured to perform a comparison." This was central to mapping the comparison step performed by Field's server to the claimed function.
  • "means for notifying..." [25D]: Petitioner identified the function as "notifying the first remote storage medium that the at least first electronic file already resides in the first set of electronic data," with the corresponding structure being "a computing device connected to a network." This construction was key to the argument for combining Field with Anderson, which explicitly taught sending such a notification.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-29 and 34 of the ’043 patent as unpatentable.