DCT

7:24-cv-00339

VirtaMove Corp v. Oracle Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:24-cv-00339, W.D. Tex., 04/11/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant resides in the district, maintains a regular and established place of business there, and has committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cloud computing and container orchestration products infringe patents related to application containerization systems and methods.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue is application containerization, a form of operating-system-level virtualization that allows software to run reliably when moved from one computing environment to another.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff VirtaMove was formerly known as AppZero Software Corp. It cites a 2009 Gartner report which allegedly found AppZero had no direct technological competitors at the time, and it references the USPTO's examination conclusions during prosecution to support the novelty of the patented inventions.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-09-15 U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814 Priority Date
2003-09-22 U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058 Priority Date
2009-04-14 U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814 Issued
2010-08-24 U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058 Issued
2025-04-11 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814 - "System for Containerization of Application Sets," issued April 14, 2009

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of deploying and managing multiple applications on computer systems, where conflicts can arise over shared resources (e.g., different applications needing different versions of the same system file) (Compl. ¶14; ’814 Patent, col. 1:35-41). It also notes the high cost and performance overhead associated with traditional solutions like deploying separate physical servers or using full virtual machines, which require a complete operating system for each application (Compl. ¶14; ’814 Patent, col. 1:42-2:3).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for creating portable, "secure containers" that bundle an application with its necessary system files but, critically, exclude a kernel (’814 Patent, Abstract). These containers run using the kernel of the host operating system, which allows multiple isolated applications to coexist on a single OS installation, each with its own unique root file system, thereby improving efficiency and reducing resource conflicts (Compl. ¶13; ’814 Patent, col. 2:22-48, col. 18:1).
  • Technical Importance: This technology offered a lightweight alternative to full hardware or OS virtualization, aiming to provide application isolation without the significant performance and management overhead of running a separate OS for every application set (’814 Patent, col. 1:51-2:3).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A method for providing applications in a system with a plurality of servers.
    • Storing a plurality of "secure containers" of application software.
    • Each container comprises one or more executable applications and a set of associated system files for use with a local kernel on a server.
    • The containers of application software exclude a kernel.
    • Associated system files within a container are utilized "in place of the associated local system files resident on the server."
    • 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 dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058 - "Computing System Having User Mode Critical System Elements as Shared Libraries," issued August 24, 2010

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses conflicts that occur when multiple software applications require shared "critical system elements" (CSEs) but have incompatible needs, such as requiring different versions of the same file or independent access to network services (Compl. ¶25; ’058 Patent, col. 1:28-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a "shared library" provides applications with their own private, non-shared instance of a critical system element. These "shared library critical system elements" (SLCSEs) are functional replicas of OS-level elements but run in the user-mode context of the specific application that requests them (’058 Patent, Abstract). This architecture allows different applications on the same OS to simultaneously use unique instances of a critical element, preventing conflicts (Compl. ¶24; ’058 Patent, col. 2:15-21).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a mechanism for application-level isolation of system services, enabling otherwise conflicting applications to run concurrently on a single operating system without interference (’058 Patent, col. 1:46-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶29).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A computing system with a processor and an operating system kernel having OS critical system elements (OSCSEs) running in kernel mode.
    • A shared library containing shared library critical system elements (SLCSEs) for use by applications in user mode.
    • The SLCSEs are "functional replicas" of the OSCSEs.
    • An instance of an SLCSE provided to a first application "is run in a context of said at least first... application without being shared with other... applications."
    • A second application can simultaneously use a unique instance of a corresponding critical system element.
    • A first application is provided a first instance of an SLCSE, while a second application is provided a second instance of the same-function SLCSE to run "simultaneously."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint names Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (“OCI”) and Oracle Kubernetes Engine (“OCE”) as the Accused Products (Compl. ¶¶15, 26).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the Accused Products as platforms that provide containerization services (Compl. ¶¶3-5, 15). It alleges these products allow customers to package, migrate, and run applications in modern, secure operating systems (Compl. ¶4). The complaint alleges that by making, using, and selling OCI and OCE, Oracle directly and indirectly infringes the asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶15-17, 26-28). The complaint includes a "Virtualization Landscape" diagram, which it attributes to a 2009 Gartner report, to position its technology in the "Application" virtualization quadrant, separate from competitors focused on "Machine" or "OS" virtualization (Compl. p. 4, p. 8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references external claim charts (Exhibits 2 and 4) that were not attached to the filed document; therefore, a detailed claim chart analysis is not possible. The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

  • '814 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products practice the claimed method for containerization (Compl. ¶¶15, 18). The infringement theory suggests that OCI and OCE provide a system where applications are deployed in containers that are isolated from one another, use the host OS kernel, and contain their own distinct set of system files and file systems, thereby meeting the limitations of claim 1.

  • '058 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are infringing computing systems (Compl. ¶¶26, 29). The theory suggests that OCI and OCE provide containerized applications with their own isolated, user-mode instances of critical system elements (e.g., network configurations, library dependencies), allowing multiple containers to run simultaneously without conflict, thereby embodying the system claimed in claim 1.

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Architectural Questions: A central question may be whether the architecture of modern container orchestration systems like Oracle Kubernetes Engine operates in a manner consistent with the patent claims. For example, does the use of Linux namespaces and control groups in modern containers constitute a "unique root file system" as claimed in the ’814 Patent, or provide a "non-shared instance" of a critical system element via a "shared library" as claimed in the ’058 Patent?
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may focus on whether the term "container" as described in the ’814 Patent, which "exclude[s] a kernel," reads on the architecture of containers deployed by OCE. Further, a question for the ’058 Patent is whether the way OCE manages dependencies and services for applications constitutes providing "functional replicas" of kernel-mode elements.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "unique root file system that is different from an operating system's root file system" (’814 Patent, claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention's method of isolation. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether the filesystem virtualization in the Accused Products meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern container platforms achieve filesystem isolation through kernel-level features (e.g., namespaces) that may or may not align with the "unique root file system" concept as understood from the patent's 2003 priority date.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide a highly specific technical definition, stating only that "all applications within a given container have their own common root file system exclusive thereto and unique from other containers and from the operating system's root file system" (’814 Patent, col. 4:46-49). This lack of detail could support a broader functional interpretation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description of container creation, including the use of a "skeleton' file system" that is copied and modified, could suggest a more specific implementation tied to file-copying and "chroot"-like mechanisms rather than the more abstract, kernel-enforced isolation of modern containers (’814 Patent, col. 10:40-49).

  • Term: "an instance of a SLCSE... is run in a context of said at least first... application without being shared with other... applications" (’058 Patent, claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the core isolation mechanism of the ’058 patent. The infringement case will turn on what it means for an element to be "run in a context of" an application and be "without being shared."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the invention's distinction is "the ability to allow a CSE to execute in the same context as an application" (’058 Patent, col. 1:46-48), which could be argued to cover any form of process-level isolation provided by modern container runtimes.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly describes the mechanism as involving "shared libraries" that are "linked" to an application when it is loaded (’058 Patent, col. 2:10-17; col. 9:15-27). This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific library-linking process, as opposed to OS-level isolation primitives like namespaces that are configured before a process starts.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Oracle induces infringement by providing "user manuals and online instruction materials on its website" that instruct customers to use the Accused Products in ways that directly infringe the patents (Compl. ¶¶16, 27).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the patents and their infringement "at least as early as when this Complaint was filed and served," forming a basis for post-suit willful infringement (Compl. ¶¶16, 27).

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

  • A core issue will be one of architectural equivalence: do the kernel-level isolation mechanisms (e.g., namespaces, cgroups) used in Oracle's modern container platforms function in a way that is structurally and functionally the same as the patent-disclosed methods of creating a "unique root file system" (’814 Patent) and providing "non-shared" user-mode instances of critical system elements via libraries (’058 Patent)? Or, do they represent a distinct, non-infringing technological evolution for achieving a similar result?
  • A second key question will be one of claim construction: can the scope of claim terms drafted in the early 2000s, based on the then-prevailing architectures of server virtualization and application deployment, be interpreted to cover the fundamentally different and more complex, orchestrated, and layered environments of modern cloud-native platforms like Oracle Kubernetes Engine?