PTAB

IPR2020-01038

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 discloses methods and systems for efficient data backup in a networked environment. The system reduces network bandwidth and storage requirements by using "descriptors" (e.g., cryptographic hashes) to identify files, allowing a central backup server to determine if a file from a client device has already been stored (potentially from another client), thereby avoiding redundant data transmission and storage.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over a Single Reference - Claims 30-37 and 39 are obvious over Field.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Field (Application # 2006/0212439).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Field teaches all limitations of the challenged claims, including the core concepts of the independent claims. Field discloses a system for efficiently backing up data in a networking environment by generating a "signature" (analogous to the ’043 patent's "descriptor") for a file using a hashing algorithm like SHA-1. This signature is transmitted from a client device to a "back end computing device" (a backup server). The server compares the signature to those of files it already stores to determine if the file is a duplicate. If a match is found, the full file is not transmitted, thereby reducing network bandwidth, which is the same problem and solution described in the ’043 patent. Field also discloses restoring files from the backup server to a client device, mapping to the restore-focused limitations of claims 30 and 35.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable as this ground relies on a single reference. Petitioner asserted that Field itself provides the motivation for its own features by seeking to solve the problem of inefficient bandwidth use in traditional backup systems.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Field and Anderson - Claim 38 is 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: This ground targets claim 38, which depends from claim 35 and adds the limitation that the "cryptographic signature is also computed with the metadata." Petitioner contended that while Field teaches generating a signature from "file data," it does not explicitly state whether this includes metadata. Anderson, which addresses the same field of bandwidth-efficient backup, explicitly discloses creating a more robust signature by augmenting a content-based hash with metadata, such as "article size information."
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) implementing Field's backup system, particularly in a large enterprise environment as Field describes, would have been motivated to incorporate Anderson's teaching to create a more robust and reliable file signature. This would help avoid hash collisions and better identify unique file versions. Both references address the same technical problem, making the combination logical.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success, as combining metadata with file content as an input to a standard hashing algorithm was a well-known and straightforward technique.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Field, Anderson, and Coombs - Claim 40 is obvious over Field, Anderson, and Coombs.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Field (Application # 2006/0212439), Anderson (Application # 2005/0114614), and Coombs (Application # 2004/0030852).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses method claim 40, which recites a sequence of steps including: (A) scanning for new or changed files; (C) generating cryptographic signatures for those files; (E) transmitting an inventory of these signatures to a backup server; (H) comparing the signatures to a list of those already stored; and (I) generating a second inventory of signatures for files that are not already stored. Petitioner argued that Field teaches the core backup process of generating signatures and comparing them at a server to avoid duplication. Coombs was cited for its explicit teaching of performing "incremental backups" by first scanning a client's file system to identify files that are new or have changed since the last backup, directly mapping to limitation [40B]. Anderson was cited for teaching the generation and transmission of an "article request list" from the server back to the client. This list, containing identifiers for files the server needs, functions as the "second inventory" of limitation [40I], which efficiently informs the client which files to upload.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA seeking to implement Field's method for automatic backups would have naturally looked to a reference like Coombs to learn how to efficiently identify which files needed to be backed up (i.e., only new and changed files). To further optimize the data transfer process that Field describes, the POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Anderson's "article request list" mechanism. This would create a more efficient system where the server explicitly tells the client which files to send in a single communication, rather than having the client infer this information or engage in piecemeal communication, thereby further reducing network bandwidth.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The combination would have been predictable and successful, as it involves integrating well-understood, complementary modules for incremental backup (Coombs) and efficient client-server communication (Anderson) into a base de-duplication backup system (Field).

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 30-40 of Patent 8,051,043 as unpatentable.