DCT
7:25-cv-00347
VirtaMove Corp v. Google LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: VirtaMove, Corp. (Canada)
- Defendant: Google LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
- Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00347, W.D. Tex., 08/08/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has transacted business in the district, committed acts of infringement there, and maintains at least one regular and established place of business in the district, specifically citing an office in Austin, Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cloud computing and containerization products infringe a patent related to systems and methods for executing a software application on an incompatible computer platform.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue is application containerization, a method of packaging software with its dependencies to run reliably across different computing environments, which is a foundational technology for modern cloud computing and application deployment.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that representatives from VirtaMove and Google met in 2015, 2020, and 2021 to discuss partnership opportunities, demonstrate VirtaMove’s "AppZero" product (the commercial embodiment of the patented technology), and share technical materials. These alleged interactions form the basis for the complaint’s willfulness and pre-suit knowledge allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-09-15 | ’762 Patent Priority Date |
| 2006-11-17 | Date from which Google is alleged to be registered to do business in Texas |
| 2009-04-01 | Gartner "Cool Vendors in Cloud Computing" report published (approximate date) |
| 2010-01-01 | VirtaMove's predecessor, Appzero Software Corp., established (approximate date) |
| 2010-08-10 | ’762 Patent Issue Date |
| 2015-01-01 | First alleged meeting between VirtaMove and Google representatives (approximate date) |
| 2020-01-01 | Second alleged meeting between VirtaMove and Google representatives (approximate date) |
| 2021-01-01 | Third alleged meeting between VirtaMove and Google representatives (approximate date) |
| 2025-08-08 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: 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 on August 10, 2010.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem that computer software applications are typically designed to run only on a specific computer platform (i.e., a specific operating system and hardware configuration) and cannot execute on an incompatible platform without being re-written, a costly and time-consuming process (’762 Patent, col. 1:42-50).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to run an application on an incompatible host by creating a "capsule" or isolated environment. This capsule contains the application itself along with the specific files and libraries from its original operating system that it depends on (’762 Patent, col. 2:21-31). "Capsule runtime software," including a kernel module and application libraries, then intercepts system service requests made by the application. This software redirects requests to the files within the capsule instead of the host system's files and can modify data returned by the host system to ensure the application functions correctly, effectively tricking the application into believing it is running on its native platform (’762 Patent, col. 2:32-53).
- Technical Importance: This technology allows for the migration and modernization of legacy applications to new platforms without requiring source code modification, a significant challenge in enterprise IT management (Compl. ¶4, ¶15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint states it asserts "only method claims" and references an independent claim in a claim chart exhibit that was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶20, ¶22). Independent method claim 17 is representative.
- The essential elements of independent claim 17 include:
- Providing a set of files comprising the application and files from its original operating system.
- Executing the application on the incompatible platform.
- Using runtime software that includes a "kernel module" and an "application filter library" to filter system service requests from the application.
- This filtering modifies values that would have been returned by the local operating system.
- The execution accesses the provided set of files instead of the local system files, and capsule-specific values are provided instead of values identifying the incompatible platform.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint names Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE), Cloud Run, Migrate to Containers, Google Container Registry, Google Artifact Registry, and the Google Cloud Platform as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that these products collectively provide a platform for deploying, managing, and scaling containerized applications (Compl. ¶16). Specifically, "Migrate to Containers" is described as a tool to "modernize traditional applications away from virtual machine (VM) instances and into native containers that run on Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE), Anthos clusters, or Cloud Run platform" (Compl. ¶16). This functionality directly addresses the scenario of moving an application from an existing environment to a new cloud-based platform.
- The complaint includes a "Virtualization Landscape" chart, which positions Plaintiff's "appzero" technology in the "Server" and "Application" quadrant, suggesting its focus on application-level virtualization as distinct from machine-level virtualization offered by other companies at the time (Compl. p. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Although Exhibit 2 containing a detailed claim chart was not provided with the publicly filed complaint, the infringement theory for a representative independent method claim, such as Claim 17, can be constructed from the complaint's allegations as follows:
’762 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 17) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) providing a computer readable set of first files, comprising a first group of files that include the first software application... and a second group of files that are... specific to an operating system required to execute the first software application; | Google's Container and Artifact Registries are used to store and provide container images, which are alleged to be a "set of first files" that package an application with its required libraries and dependencies. | ¶16 | col. 8:20-33 |
| b) in the execution of the first software application on the incompatible computer platform using said second group of files in place of the associated local system files... | GKE and Cloud Run execute containerized applications on Google's cloud infrastructure, which constitutes an "incompatible computer platform" relative to the application's original environment (e.g., an on-premise VM). | ¶16 | col. 2:4-10 |
| c) executing... runtime software... including a kernel module... and at least one application filter library... for filtering one or more system service requests... and providing values from the... library... to modify values that otherwise would have been returned... | The container runtime environments in GKE and Cloud Run are alleged to function as the claimed "runtime software" by isolating the container's processes, file system, and network from the host OS, which inherently requires intercepting and managing ("filtering") system calls. | ¶3, ¶16 | col. 2:32-53 |
| ...executing the first software application by accessing files from [the] first set of files in place of operating system files and wherein predetermined values are provided instead of values related to an identity of the incompatible computer platform. | The accused container services allegedly direct the application to use the files within its container image instead of the host OS files and provide a virtualized environment that abstracts away the identity of the underlying host platform. | ¶3, ¶16 | col. 10:6-16 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether modern container runtimes, which leverage native Linux kernel features such as cgroups and namespaces for isolation, meet the claim limitation of a "capsule runtime software including a kernel module and at least one application filter library." The defense may argue that the patent describes a specific add-on software architecture, while Google’s products utilize integrated, general-purpose OS features.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify the precise technical mechanism by which the Accused Products allegedly "filter" system service requests. A factual dispute may arise over whether the isolation provided by Google's container services is functionally equivalent to the specific filtering and value-modification steps described in the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "capsule runtime software"
Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention's implementation. Its construction will likely determine whether modern, kernel-integrated containerization technologies fall within the patent's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused products were developed long after the patent and utilize a different technological paradigm (native kernel features vs. add-on modules).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a functional description, stating the software is for "managing a dynamic state and file location" and "modifying the behaviour of a local operating system" (’762 Patent, col. 3:9-13). Plaintiff may argue this functional language should cover any software architecture that achieves this result.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims and specification consistently recite a specific structure: "a kernel module resident in kernel mode and at least one application filter library resident in user mode" (’762 Patent, col. 2:34-36; Claim 1). Defendant may argue this language limits the claim to that particular two-part implementation, potentially excluding the integrated kernel features used in modern containerization.
The Term: "incompatible computer platform"
Context and Importance: This term defines the problem the patent purports to solve and is a prerequisite for infringement. The scope of "incompatible" will dictate what types of application migrations constitute infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent gives examples such as moving an application between different versions of the same OS (Solaris 8 to Solaris 9) or different distributions of Linux (Red Hat to Suse) (’762 Patent, col. 2:52-62). This could support a broad reading where even minor platform differences render them "incompatible" for the purposes of the claim.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant could argue that the term implies a more fundamental incompatibility, such as a different OS family (e.g., Windows vs. Linux) or processor architecture, and that migrating between similar Linux-based environments does not meet the threshold of "incompatible."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Google, with knowledge of the patent, provides "user manuals and online instruction materials" that encourage and instruct customers to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶18). It further alleges contributory infringement, claiming the Accused Products are not staple articles of commerce and are especially adapted for use in infringement (Compl. ¶19).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is predicated on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patented technology. The complaint points to meetings and technology demonstrations between VirtaMove and Google in 2015, 2020, and 2021 as the basis for this knowledge, or for Google's "willful blindness" to its infringement (Compl. ¶10).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technological mapping: Can the patent’s claims, which describe a "capsule runtime software" built with a distinct "kernel module" and "application filter library," be construed to cover modern container systems like Google Kubernetes Engine that achieve isolation using integrated, native operating system kernel features (e.g., namespaces and cgroups)?
- A second key question will be one of infringement evidence: Beyond the high-level allegation of containerization, what specific evidence will Plaintiff produce during discovery to show that Google’s products perform the precise method steps of "filtering system service requests" and "modifying values" in a manner that aligns with the technical operation described in the ’762 patent?
- Finally, the outcome of the willfulness claim will likely depend on a factual determination of knowledge: What was the specific content of the alleged meetings between the parties, and does that record establish that Google had notice of the ’762 patent and its specific relevance to Google’s container services before the lawsuit was filed?