Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 10 JANUARY 2025

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: November 2024

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

In Hybir, Inc. v. Veeam Software Corp., No. 1:20-cv-10329, Judge Talwani granted Defendant's motion to dismiss.

United StatesIntellectual Property

In Hybir, Inc. v. Veeam Software Corp., No. 1:20-cv-10329, Judge Talwani granted Defendant's motion to dismiss.

The asserted patent is directed to a more efficient method and system of file backup in terms of processing time, network bandwidth, and storage requirements. Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, contending the asserted patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming unpatentable subject matter.

The Court analyzed the claims under the Alice framework: (1) whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea and (2) if so, whether the claims contain an inventive concept.

Under Alice Step One, Defendant argued the asserted claims were indistinguishable from manual operations performed by individuals, failed to provide a technological solution, and thus were directed to an abstract idea. Plaintiff attempted to differentiate its claims from Federal Circuit precedent that held similar claims to be abstract. Plaintiff argued its

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from