in Re Hybir, Inc v. Avid Identification Systems, Inc., in which we held that “where . . . the

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IN RE HYBIR, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
______________________
2025-1367
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts in No. 1:20-cv-10329-IT, Judge
Indira Talwani.
______________________
Decided: April 21, 2026
______________________
S ETH O STROW , Meister Seelig & Fein PLLC, New York,
NY, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by
ROBERT F EINLAND.
______________________
Before CHEN, HUGHES , and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
STOLL , Circuit Judge.
In this appeal from a final judgment of the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
holding ineligible patent owner Hybir, Inc.’s asserted
Case: 25-1367 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 04/21/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

IN RE HYBIR, INC. 2
claims1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, only Hybir has appeared
and submitted a brief. The defendant and would-be appel-
lee, Veeam Software Corp., has declined to file a brief de-
fending the judgment in its favor. See Defendant-
Appellee’s Notice of Non-Participation, ECF No. 10 (“Pur-
suant to terms agreed upon by the parties, Veeam has an
option to resolve the dispute related to the patent-in-suit
following the conclusion of the present appeal. Accord-
ingly, Veeam will not file a responsive brief and will not
participate in oral argument.”). The terms of Veeam’s non-
participation were revealed only after the court requested
a copy of any agreement between the parties. See Order,
ECF No. 24; Settlement and Limited Patent License Agree-
ment (Settlement Agreement), ECF No. 25.2
The Settlement Agreement reveals that, after the dis-
trict court granted Veeam’s motion to dismiss under Fed-
eral Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and held the asserted
claims ineligible under § 101, Hybir licensed a number of
patents (not including the ’043 patent) to Veeam. Settle-
ment Agreement, Preamble, ¶ 1.1. The Settlement Agree-
ment further provided that while Hybir reserved its right
to appeal the final judgment, Veeam would not participate
in any appeal of the judgment, including by not filing a re-
sponse brief or participating at oral argument. Settlement
Agreement, ¶ 2.4. Continuing, the Settlement Agreement
provided that after any appeal, Veeam would have the op-
tion to add the ’043 patent to the list of licensed patents for
1 The asserted claims in the district court were
claims 3, 4, 7, 16, 17, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,051,043.
2 While the Settlement Agreement was filed under
seal, counsel for Hybir confirmed at oral argument that the
contents of the Settlement Agreement may be discussed
publicly. Oral Arg. at 0:33–1:33, https://www.cafc.
uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1367_04132026.mp3.
Case: 25-1367 Document: 27 Page: 2 Filed: 04/21/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

IN RE HYBIR, INC. 3
a mere $100. Settlement Agreement, ¶ 2.5; Oral Arg.
at 3:12–3:31.
After review, we determine this appeal is moot. These
facts are indistinguishable from those in Allflex USA, Inc.
v. Avid Identification Systems, Inc., in which we held that
“where . . . the appellant has identified no relationship be-
tween the valuation placed on the appeal and the issues
the appellant wishes to challenge, the parties have simply
placed a ‘side bet’ on the outcome of the appeal, which is
not enough to avoid a ruling of mootness.” 704 F.3d 1362,
1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In Allflex, the parties entered a set-
tlement agreement in which “Avid [(the appellant)] would
pay Allflex [(the would-be appellee)] a lump sum, but that
Avid would be permitted to appeal from several aspects of
the judgment and that, if it were to succeed on any of the
appealed issues, Avid’s settlement payment to Allflex
would be reduced by $50,000.” Id. at 1363. We held that
there was no live case or controversy for the court to resolve
because Avid had not shown that the $50,000 reduction in
payment was anything more than a “token or arbitrary
sum introduced for the purpose of manufacturing a contro-
versy.” Id. at 1368 (quoting Avid Identification Sys., Inc.
v. Crystal Import Corp., 603 F.3d 967, 972 (Fed. Cir.
2010)). In so holding, we emphasized that the $50,000 sum
was “completely untethered to the value of any of the issues
on appeal” and could not “be fairly characterized as a rea-
sonable estimate of a prospective damages award that
would take the place of an adjudicated damages award fol-
lowing the appeal.” Id. at 1368–69.
Here, the $100 option to add the ’043 patent to the list
of licensed patents in the Settlement Agreement serves the
same purpose as the $50,000 payment reduction in All-
flex: it is “a ‘side bet’ on the outcome of the appeal.” Id.
at 1369. And further, the $100 amount is “completely un-
tethered to the value of any of the issues on appeal.” Id. If
we considered an untethered $50,000 amount in Allflex to
be a “token or arbitrary sum” that did not create a live case
Case: 25-1367 Document: 27 Page: 3 Filed: 04/21/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

IN RE HYBIR, INC. 4
or controversy, id. at 1368–69, then surely the untethered
$100 amount here is an even smaller token that likewise
cannot create such a controversy.
When asked at oral argument why a live case or con-
troversy still exists, Hybir argued that the circumstances
in Allflex and Avid are distinguishable because the Settle-
ment Agreement allows Veeam the option to pay the $100
and add the ’043 patent to the list of licensed patents, but
it does not require Veeam to do so if the outcome of the ap-
peal turns a certain way. Oral Arg. at 2:33–3:30. Hybir
further surmised that, if we were to reverse the district
court’s holding and deem the asserted claims eligible under
§ 101, it is “quite likely” that Veeam will not exercise its
option to license the ’043 patent for a mere $100 but rather
will “want to take another crack at invalidating the
[’043] patent another way.” Id. at 4:00–4:18. It is the lim-
ited-license nature of the Settlement Agreement, according
to Hybir, that would “most likely motivate[] [Veeam] to try
to take a third crack” at invalidating the ’043 patent. Id.
at 4:18–5:21. Such unsubstantiated speculation does not
convince us that a real and imminent injury or threat of
future injury exists to save this appeal from mootness.
Accordingly, under our precedent in Allflex, we dismiss
this appeal as moot and do not disturb the judgment of the
district court.
DISMISSED
COSTS
Hybir will bear its own costs.
Case: 25-1367 Document: 27 Page: 4 Filed: 04/21/2026

-- 4 of 4 --