Google LLC v. VirtaMove Corp

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00488
• 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: System and Method for Providing an Application Support Environment
• Brief Description: The ’814 patent describes a system for executing applications in isolated environments, termed "secure containers," on a plurality of servers that may have different operating systems. These containers bundle applications with their necessary system files but share the underlying OS kernel of the host server, aiming to prevent inter-application conflicts without the overhead of full virtual machines.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Schmidt-Tormasov - Claims 1-34 are obvious over Schmidt-479 in view of Tormasov.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Schmidt-479 (Application # 20020095479) and Tormasov (Application # 20020124072).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Schmidt-479 discloses software-based "compute capsules" that encapsulate an active computing environment—including applications and system files—allowing it to be suspended and moved between servers. These capsules run on a host OS and share its kernel, providing isolation between capsules. Tormasov similarly teaches creating multiple, independent "virtual computing environments" (VCEs) on a single server that share the hardware and OS kernel. Each VCE is functionally equivalent to a full OS and has its own unique, isolated file system. The combination of Schmidt-479's portable capsules with Tormasov's functionally complete VCEs allegedly renders obvious the claimed system of secure containers.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would combine Tormasov’s robust VCEs with Schmidt-479’s portable capsule technology to create a more powerful and flexible virtual environment. This would satisfy the known need for applications to be usable across multiple servers in a network, which often run different versions of operating systems within the same family (e.g., different versions of Unix).
  • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have a high expectation of success because both references describe highly compatible techniques for OS-level virtualization. Both use isolated namespaces and file systems to run on conventional operating systems, making their integration straightforward for a skilled artisan.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Schmidt-Tormasov-Calder - Claims 1-34 are obvious over Schmidt-479 and Tormasov in further view of Calder.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Schmidt-479 (Application # 20020095479), Tormasov (Application # 20020124072), and Calder (Application # 20020066022).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Schmidt-Tormasov combination, which establishes containers portable across servers with OSs in the same family. Petitioner asserted that Calder addresses the limitation of executing applications across different OS families (e.g., a Windows application on a Linux server). Calder teaches modifying an application package by adding "system libraries that translate system calls" from the application's native OS to a non-native OS. Applying Calder's teachings to the Schmidt-Tormasov "VCE-capsule" would allow the container to execute on servers with disparate operating systems, as recited in claim 1.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would be motivated to incorporate Calder’s teachings to make the VCE-capsules from the primary combination truly cross-platform. This would solve the well-known problem of deploying applications in large corporate networks, which commonly feature servers running a mix of OS families (e.g., Windows and Unix/Linux). The motivation was to increase the portability and commercial utility of the virtualized environments.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSA would reasonably expect success because Calder's system-call translation technique is designed to work with the same types of conventional operating systems disclosed in Schmidt-479 and Tormasov. Implementing Calder’s translation libraries within the VCE-capsule’s file system would be a predictable application of its teachings.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges (Grounds 3 and 4) by adding Schmidt-629 (Application # 20020138629) to the combinations of Grounds 1 and 2, respectively. Schmidt-629, which shares an inventor with Schmidt-479, was argued to teach assigning a unique locator, such as an IP address, to each capsule to facilitate communication after being moved to a different machine or network, thereby rendering obvious claims requiring a unique container identity (e.g., claims 5, 6, and 31).

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §314(a) (Fintiv Factors): Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv is unwarranted. The parallel district court proceeding was stayed pending a transfer to the Northern District of California, a venue with a long median time-to-trial (47.9 months). Petitioner asserted that little investment had been made in the court proceeding, and this IPR challenges all 34 claims, whereas only eight are asserted in the litigation, minimizing issue overlap.
• §325(d): Petitioner argued denial under §325(d) would be improper because the core prior art references (Schmidt-479, Tormasov, Calder, and Schmidt-629) were not before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office during the original prosecution of the ’814 patent.

5. Relief Requested

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