PTAB

IPR2020-01039

Veeam Software Corp v. Hybir Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Group Based Complete And Incremental Computer File Backup System, Process and Apparatus
  • Brief Description: The ’545 patent discloses a group-based computer file backup system designed for efficiency. The system uses a "cryptographic signature" or "descriptor" for each file to determine if an identical file has already been backed up by any user in the group, thereby avoiding redundant data transmission and storage to reduce network bandwidth and server space requirements.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12-20 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 taught the core inventive concept: a client-server backup system where a client generates a file "signature" (descriptor), sends it to a server to check for duplicates, and only transmits the full file if no match is found, thus saving bandwidth. Petitioner contended that Field’s system met most limitations of independent claims 1 and 10, including generating signatures at the client, transmitting them, and comparing them at the server. Anderson was argued to supply the limitation of creating an inventory reflecting the "current state" of files via its "contour" or "snapshot" framework, which captures the state of a collection of files at a specific point-in-time before initiating the backup process.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Anderson’s "snapshot" technique with Field's backup process to solve a known problem inherent in backing up large numbers of files: the need to lock files during the process, rendering them unusable. Anderson's snapshot method captured the file states, allowing the backup to proceed from that static point-in-time while permitting the user to continue working with the live files. This combination addressed a known issue to achieve a predictable improvement.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because both references described similar client-server network architectures and hashing techniques for data deduplication. Integrating Anderson's well-understood snapshot method into Field's system was presented as a predictable combination of known elements to yield the claimed benefits.

Ground 2: Claim 5 is obvious over Field, Anderson, and Ackerman.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Field (Application # 2006/0212439), Anderson (Application # 2005/0114614), and Ackerman (Patent 7,966,495).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed dependent claim 5's requirement for generating cryptographic signatures with "at least a 256-bit encryption algorithm." Petitioner asserted that while Field taught using hashing algorithms like SHA-1 and was permissively open to using others, it did not specify a particular bit length. Ackerman was argued to explicitly disclose a variety of SHA-N algorithms, including SHA-256, for the express purpose of generating statistically unique signatures.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing Field's system would be motivated to select a robust, well-known hashing algorithm to ensure "statistical uniqueness" and minimize the chance of "collisions," where different files produce the same signature. Ackerman provided a clear rationale and a list of suitable algorithms, including SHA-256, to improve the reliability and security of the backup system. Selecting a stronger algorithm from a known list of options was argued to be a simple design choice for a POSITA.

Ground 3: Claim 11 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 addressed dependent claim 11's limitation of determining which files to back up by "scanning a list of files... and identifying... new and changed" files since the last backup operation. Petitioner argued Field taught the concept of automatic backups but did not detail the specific mechanism for identifying which files had changed. Coombs was argued to explicitly teach this exact method for performing incremental backups by scanning the file structure to find files that were new or modified since the previous backup.
    • Motivation to Combine: To implement Field's suggestion of an "automatic" backup process efficiently, a POSITA would naturally look to established, conventional methods for performing incremental backups. Coombs taught the standard technique of scanning file metadata (e.g., last-changed dates) to identify only new or modified files needing backup. This approach directly supported Field's primary goal of reducing network traffic by avoiding the need to process and send signatures for every file on the system during each backup cycle.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of Patent 9,037,545 as unpatentable.