Veritas Technologies LLC v. Veeam Software Corporation
835 F.3d 1406
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- Patent at issue: U.S. Patent No. 7,024,527 ("Data Restore Mechanism") owned by Veritas; claims cover systems/methods that let an active application request and access particular data while a background restore is in progress.
- Veeam filed an IPR petition (instituted by the PTAB) challenging claims 1, 6, 8, 20, and 24 as unpatentable over prior art, principally Ohran (a block-level restore system) and other references.
- Central claim-construction dispute: whether the claims require a file-level background restore (Veritas) or reasonably read to include block-level restores (Board/Veeam).
- PTAB construed the claims under the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard to cover block-level restoration as well as file-level, and found the challenged claims obvious over Ohran and other art; it also denied Veritas’s contingent motion to amend (proposed claims 26/27) on the sole ground that Veritas failed to show each newly added feature was separately known in the prior art.
- Veritas appealed, challenging claim construction, the obviousness determination, and denial of the motion to amend; the Federal Circuit affirmed claim construction and obviousness but vacated and remanded the denial of the motion to amend as arbitrary and capricious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Veritas) | Defendant's Argument (Veeam/PTAB) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper claim construction (file-level vs. block-level) | Claims are limited to file-level background restoration | Claims reasonably read broadly to cover block-level restoration; specification does not mandate file-level only | Affirmed: under the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard, claims may cover block-level restoration |
| Obviousness of challenged claims | Claims are novel because they require file-level behavior not taught by Ohran | Ohran’s block-level two-channel restore would result in restoring files; a skilled artisan would find it obvious to operate Ohran to restore a set of files | Affirmed: Board’s obviousness determination upheld |
| Standard to apply in IPR claim construction | (Implicit) use of broadest-reasonable-interpretation in IPR | Broadest-reasonable-interpretation is permissible in IPRs | Affirmed: application of broadest-reasonable-interpretation proper (Cuozzo) |
| Denial of motion to amend (proposed claims 26, 27) | Proposed claims explicitly add file-level limitations; patent owner showed features and argued they are not disclosed in prior art | Board denied solely because Veritas did not show each newly added feature was separately known in the prior art (rather than addressing the patentability of the combination) | Vacated and remanded: Board’s sole rationale was arbitrary and capricious; remand to evaluate patentability of proposed substitute claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (Sup. Ct. 2016) (upholding PTO’s use of the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard in IPRs)
- KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2007) (combinations of known elements can be obvious)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claim construction principles; specification vs. claims)
- Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (standards of review for PTAB factual findings and legal conclusions)
- In re Varma, 816 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (reviewability of claim construction where no extrinsic evidence dispute exists)
- Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (discussing obviousness and combination teachings)