Google LLC v. VirtaMove Corp

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00487
• Patent #: 7,519,814
• Filed: January 31, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): VirtaMove, Corp.
• Challenged Claims: 1-34

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Application Virtualization Using Secure Containers
• Brief Description: The ’814 patent describes a system for running applications in isolated "secure containers" on servers that share a single underlying operating system (OS) kernel. This method is intended to prevent conflicts between applications that might require different versions of shared system files, without the performance overhead of traditional virtual machines that virtualize entire hardware stacks.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14, and 16-30 are obvious over Blaser in view of Calder.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Blaser (Patent 7,117,495) and Calder (Application # 20020066022).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Blaser taught the core concept of the ’814 patent: using isolated software "layers" (equivalent to containers) to run applications and their specific dependencies, preventing conflicts with a server's base OS or other layers. These layers contain the application and associated system files (libraries, configuration files) and are overlaid on the base OS. Petitioner asserted Calder taught techniques for making an "application package" executable on non-native OSs by modifying its system libraries to translate system calls (e.g., allowing a Windows application to run on Linux). The combination, therefore, allegedly taught the system of claim 1, which provides secure, executable applications in containers that can run across servers with different operating systems.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Blaser's layering system with Calder's OS-compatibility teachings to improve application portability and deployment flexibility. Large corporate networks, as described in Blaser, often include servers running different OSs (e.g., Windows and Unix variants). A POSITA would have been motivated to make Blaser's application layers executable across these different platforms to create a more versatile and efficient system, which was a known goal in the field.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in applying Calder's methods to Blaser's layers. Both references provide software-based solutions for application management, and modifying Blaser's application packages using Calder's well-understood system-call translation techniques would have involved ordinary programming skill and yielded predictable results.

Ground 2: Claims 5-6, 12-13, 15, and 31-34 are obvious over Blaser in view of Calder and Schmidt-449.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Blaser (Patent 7,117,495), Calder (Application # 20020066022), and Schmidt-449 (Patent 6,931,449).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Blaser-Calder combination from Ground 1 and added Schmidt-449 to address claims requiring unique container identities and associated monitoring. Petitioner contended that Schmidt-449 taught a method for migrating software "capsules" between different machines by assigning each capsule a unique locator, such as an IP address, which allows the capsule to maintain open network connections during the migration. Petitioner argued that adding this teaching to the Blaser-Calder combination rendered obvious the limitations of claims requiring the assignment of a unique identity (e.g., IP address, MAC address, host name) to each container.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to assign the unique locators taught by Schmidt-449 to the Blaser-Calder containers for several predictable benefits. These included facilitating the migration of containers between servers with different OSs, enabling data exchange between applications in otherwise isolated containers, and allowing for more effective testing of software by running multiple, uniquely addressable instances on a single physical server.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success because Schmidt-449 explicitly stated its techniques were implementable in any computer system or programming environment. Applying this conventional networking and identification technique to the software containers of Blaser-Calder would be a straightforward integration to achieve enhanced container mobility and addressability.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that unpatentability is demonstrated regardless of which party's proposed claim constructions are adopted from the co-pending district court litigation. For key disputed terms, Petitioner presented alternative mappings.
• "disparate computing environments": Petitioner argued that the Blaser-Calder combination met the Patent Owner's construction of "environments run by standalone or unrelated computers" because the servers in Blaser are separate, stand-alone computer machines.
• "secure containers of application software": Petitioner argued that Blaser's "layers" met both parties' constructions because they create environments where applications are "isolated" from corruption by other applications, providing a "barrier" between them, and also appear to have individual control over critical system resources by intercepting and redirecting file system and registry calls.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) and the Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. The co-pending district court proceeding was temporarily stayed pending transfer to the Northern District of California, where the median time-to-trial is lengthy (47.9 months). Petitioner asserted that litigation investment has been minimal, as a Markman hearing was canceled, and that issue overlap is incomplete, as this petition challenges all 34 claims while only eight are asserted in the district court case.
• Petitioner further argued that denial under §325(d) is unwarranted because the primary prior art references relied upon (Blaser, Calder, and Schmidt-449) were not before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office during the original prosecution of the ’814 patent.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-34 of the ’814 patent as unpatentable.