DCT

2:25-cv-00619

VirtaMove Corp v. IBM Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: VirtaMove, Corp. (Canada)
- Defendant: International Business Machines Corp. (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00619, E.D. Tex., 06/10/2025
Venue Allegations: Venue is based on the allegation that Defendant IBM maintains a regular and established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cloud computing and containerization product suite infringes two patents related to systems for creating portable, isolated software application environments.
Technical Context: The technology at issue is application containerization, a form of operating-system-level virtualization that allows software and its dependencies to be bundled and run reliably across different computing environments.
Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the parties, including Plaintiff’s predecessor Appzero Software Corp., engaged in partnership and investment discussions beginning in 2011. It also alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the patents-in-suit as early as 2012 and 2015, respectively, due to their citation by the USPTO during the prosecution of Defendant's own patent applications, which may be relevant to the allegation of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2003-09-15	Earliest Priority Date for '814 and '762 Patents
2009-04-14	U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814 Issues
2010-08-10	U.S. Patent No. 7,774,762 Issues
2011-09-01	Alleged partnership and due diligence discussions begin between IBM and Plaintiff's predecessor
2012-02-01	'814 Patent allegedly cited during prosecution of an IBM patent application
2012-11-26	'814 Patent allegedly cited during prosecution of an IBM patent
2015-02-01	'762 Patent allegedly cited during prosecution of an IBM patent application
2015-06-01	'814 Patent allegedly cited during prosecution of an IBM patent
2016-11-29	'762 Patent allegedly cited in an Information Disclosure Statement for an IBM patent
2025-06-10	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814 - System for Containerization of Application Sets (Issued Apr. 14, 2009)

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of deploying multiple software applications on a single computer system, where conflicts can arise over shared resources or where applications require specific, and potentially different, versions of operating system files ('814 Patent, col. 1:31-41). Traditional solutions involved deploying separate physical servers for each application set, which is costly and inefficient ('814 Patent, col. 1:46-50).
The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for creating "secure containers" of application software. Each container bundles one or more applications with their required "associated system files" but explicitly excludes a kernel ('814 Patent, Abstract). These containers are stored in memory and can be executed on a server using the server's single, resident OS kernel. The system files within the container are used in place of the server's local system files, allowing multiple, otherwise-conflicting applications to run in isolation on the same machine ('814 Patent, col. 3:35-49). A diagram in the complaint positions this technology as distinct from both machine-level virtualization and simple application-level virtualization (Compl. p. 5, "Virtualization Landscape").
Technical Importance: This approach sought to provide the isolation benefits of virtual machines without the associated performance overhead and need to license and manage a full, separate operating system for each application ('814 Patent, col. 1:51-2:3).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint incorporates by reference a claim chart for an independent claim of the '814 patent (Compl. ¶22). Based on the patent, Claim 1 is a representative independent method claim.
Independent Claim 1 (Method):
- In a system of servers with potentially different operating systems, a method of providing secure, executable applications.
- Storing in memory a plurality of "secure containers of application software."
- Each container comprises one or more executable applications and a "set of associated system files" required for execution, for use with a local kernel on a server.
- The set of associated system files are compatible with a local kernel of at least some of the different operating systems.
- The containers of application software "excluding a kernel."
- Utilizing some or all of the container's associated system files "in place of the associated local system files resident on the server."
- The application software cannot be shared between the containers.
- Each container has a "unique root file system that is different from an operating system's root file system."
The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,774,762 - System Including Run-Time Software to Enable a Software Application to Execute on an Incompatible Computer Platform (Issued Aug. 10, 2010)

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the fundamental issue that software applications are typically designed for a specific computer platform and cannot run on an "incompatible computer platform" without being rewritten or recompiled ('762 Patent, col. 1:39-45).
The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system that creates a "secure isolated capsule environment" to run an application on an incompatible platform. This is achieved through two key components: 1) a set of "capsule-related files" that includes the application and the necessary files from its original, native operating system, and 2) "capsule runtime software," including a kernel module and application libraries, that actively "filter[s] system service requests" made by the application ('762 Patent, col. 2:5-50). This filtering intercepts the application's calls to the underlying OS, redirects them to the files within the capsule, and provides "capsule specific values" instead of the host platform's native values, thereby tricking the application into functioning on the otherwise incompatible host ('762 Patent, col. 3:20-33).
Technical Importance: This technology provides a method for application portability and migration across disparate systems, potentially reducing the time and cost associated with re-engineering software for new platforms ('762 Patent, col. 1:57-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint incorporates by reference a claim chart for an independent claim of the '762 patent (Compl. ¶35). Based on the patent, Claim 1 is a representative independent system claim.
Independent Claim 1 (System):
- A system for enabling a first software application (designed for a first platform) to be executed on a second, "incompatible computer platform."
- A "set of associated capsule-related files" stored in memory, comprising files for the first application and files from the operating system it was designed for.
- "Capsule runtime software" for managing the dynamic state and file location of the application.
- The runtime software includes a "kernel module resident in kernel mode" and at least one "application filter library resident in user mode."
- This software is for "filtering one or more system service requests" made by the application and providing modified values from the filter library.
- Execution requires accessing files from the capsule-related files "in place of operating system files" on the incompatible platform.
- "Capsule specific values are provided instead of values related to an identity of the incompatible computer platform."
The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names IBM's "Accused Products" as IBM Cloud, IBM Cloud Private (ICP), IBM z/OS Container Platform, IBM Cloud Code Engine, and IBM Cloud Kubernetes Service (Compl. ¶17, ¶30).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these products form an application platform for developing and managing containerized applications (Compl. ¶17). The platform is described as an "integrated environment for managing containers that includes the container orchestrator Kubernetes, a private image registry, a management console, and monitoring frameworks" (Compl. ¶17). A diagram provided in the complaint depicts the accused functionality as a "container platform built to support the most secure, reliable and scalable environments," showing multiple isolated applications running on a shared infrastructure (Compl. p. 7, "Containers on IBM Cloud"). The complaint further alleges that the IBM z/OS Container Platform in particular enables users to "build, deploy, run and manage containerized z/OS UNIX® applications," suggesting the running of applications on potentially non-native systems (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Although the complaint incorporates external claim charts by reference, they are not provided. The following tables summarize the infringement allegations based on the narrative descriptions of the accused products in the complaint.

'814 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
storing in memory accessible to at least some of the servers a plurality of secure containers of application software	Defendant's Accused Products, such as IBM Cloud and IBM Cloud Private, provide and manage "containerized applications" which are stored and deployed on server infrastructure (Compl. p. 7).	¶17	col. 3:35-37
each container comprising one or more of the executable applications and a set of associated system files required to execute the one or more applications...the containers of application software excluding a kernel	The Accused Products are described as managing "container images" which bundle an application with its dependencies, such as libraries and configuration files, to run on a shared underlying OS and kernel.	¶17, ¶30	col. 3:37-44
wherein some or all of the associated system files within a container stored in memory are utilized in place of the associated local system files resident on the server	The complaint alleges that containerization, by its nature as practiced by IBM, "encapsulates the entire code with its dependencies, libraries, and configuration files," which are used by the application instead of potentially conflicting files on the host system.	¶3	col. 3:45-49
wherein each of the containers has a unique root file system that is different from an operating system's root file system	The complaint alleges IBM's products provide "isolated environments" for applications, which suggests that each container is presented with its own distinct file system view, separate from the host's root file system.	¶17	col. 18:59-62

'762 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A system for enabling a first software application...to be executed on an incompatible computer platform	The complaint identifies the IBM z/OS Container Platform, which enables users to run "containerized z/OS UNIX® applications" on the z/OS mainframe operating system, suggesting execution on a platform for which the applications may not have been natively designed.	¶17	col. 2:4-11
a set of associated capsule-related files...comprising a first group of files that include the first software application...and a second group of files that are distributed with or are specific to an operating system required to execute the first software application	IBM's Accused Products use "container images" which package application code along with necessary libraries and dependencies (the "capsule-related files") to ensure consistent execution.	¶17	col. 2:19-29
capsule runtime software for managing a dynamic state and file location...including a kernel module resident in kernel mode and at least one application filter library resident in user mode for filtering one or more system service requests	The Accused Products are alleged to be an "integrated environment for managing containers" using orchestrators like Kubernetes. This software stack manages container state and abstracts the underlying infrastructure, which may be interpreted as the "capsule runtime software" that filters or redirects system interactions to enable execution.	¶17, ¶30	col. 2:30-43
wherein capsule specific values are provided instead of values related to an identity of the incompatible computer platform	The complaint alleges IBM's platform provides "secure" and "scalable environments" for containers. This implies that containers are given their own isolated identities (e.g., network identity, hostname) that are distinct from the underlying host server, fulfilling the function of providing "capsule specific values."	¶17	col. 2:46-50

Identified Points of Contention

Scope Questions: A central question for the '814 patent will be whether modern container technologies, such as those used by IBM, create a "unique root file system that is different from an operating system's root file system" in the manner contemplated by the patent. For the '762 patent, a key issue will be the definition of "incompatible computer platform." The parties may dispute whether running a containerized UNIX application on z/OS, or moving a container between different Linux distributions, meets this definition.
Technical Questions: The infringement analysis for the '762 patent raises the question of whether IBM's container platforms, which are largely based on open-source technologies, perform the specific "filtering" of "system service requests" through a "kernel module" and "application filter library" as required by the claims, or if they achieve application isolation through different technical means.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from the '814 Patent: "excluding a kernel"

Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the '814 patent's asserted distinction from full virtual machine technology. The definition will be critical, as modern container runtimes have a complex and intimate relationship with the host OS kernel. Infringement will depend on whether this relationship constitutes "excluding a kernel."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification contrasts the invention with virtual machines where "an operating system, including files and a kernel, must be deployed for each application" ('814 Patent, col. 1:58-60). This may support a construction where "excluding a kernel" simply means not bundling a separate, complete kernel file within the container image itself.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract states the container is for use "with a local kernel residing permanently on one of the servers," and that the container "utilizes a kernel resident on the server" ('814 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:62-63). This could support a narrower construction requiring complete reliance on an unmodified host kernel, a point that could be contested given how container runtimes interact with kernel features like cgroups and namespaces.

Term from the '762 Patent: "filtering one or more system service requests"

Context and Importance: This is the core mechanism of the '762 invention for achieving compatibility. The case may turn on whether the abstraction layers provided by IBM's Kubernetes-based platforms constitute "filtering" in the specific way the patent describes.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The summary of the invention describes the goal as modifying "values that otherwise would have been returned by the local operating system" ('762 Patent, col. 2:38-40). This could support a broad, functional definition where any mechanism that intercepts and changes the application's view of the OS is considered "filtering."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific examples, such as intercepting the uname system call to return a different system name or using library preloading ('762 Patent, col. 9:8-17; col. 9:35-38). A defendant may argue the term should be limited to these specific types of low-level interception, rather than the higher-level orchestration and abstraction provided by a platform like Kubernetes.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by providing "user manuals and online instruction materials" that actively encourage and instruct customers to use the Accused Products in ways that directly infringe the patents (Compl. ¶20, ¶33). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the components of the Accused Products are especially made for use in an infringing manner and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶21, ¶34).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit knowledge is alleged to stem from partnership discussions dating back to 2011 and from multiple instances where the USPTO and/or IBM's own representatives cited the patents-in-suit during the prosecution of IBM's patents, beginning in 2012 for the '814 patent and 2015 for the '762 patent (Compl. ¶19, ¶32).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

Claim Scope vs. Modern Technology: A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms drafted in the early-to-mid 2000s, such as "excluding a kernel" ('814 patent) and "filtering...system service requests" ('762 patent), be construed to read on modern, open-source-based container orchestration platforms like Kubernetes? The court will have to determine if these older patents describe the fundamental concepts of today's container technology or a specific, now-outmoded implementation.
The Meaning of "Incompatibility": The '762 patent's relevance hinges on the construction of an "incompatible computer platform." A key question will be whether this term covers relatively minor environmental differences, such as different Linux distributions or OS versions (as suggested by the patent's examples), or if it requires more fundamental architectural differences. The answer will determine the breadth of products to which the patent could apply.
Willfulness and Prior Knowledge: A significant factual dispute will likely center on the allegations of willfulness. The evidence cited in the complaint, including a history of business discussions and patent prosecution citations, raises the question of not only whether IBM infringed, but whether it did so with knowledge of the patents, a determination that would have a substantial impact on potential damages.