Google LLC v. VirtaMove Corp

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00489
• Patent #: 7,784,058
• Filed: January 31, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Virtamove, Corp.
• Challenged Claims: 1-18

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Computing System for Executing Software Applications
• Brief Description: The ’058 patent describes a computing system architecture designed to improve performance by moving certain operating system (“OS”) functions into a user-mode shared library. The patent discloses replicating OS critical system elements (OSCSEs) from the kernel into the shared library as shared library critical system elements (SLCSEs), allowing multiple software applications to access these functions directly in user mode without incurring the overhead of a kernel-mode system call.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Callender - Claims 1-18 are obvious over Callender.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Callender (Patent 7,024,672).
• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Callender, which was not considered during prosecution, discloses a hardware driver model that renders all challenged claims obvious. Callender teaches a system with both user-mode and kernel-mode implementations of common operations, such as sending and receiving data via a hardware adapter (e.g., an InfiniBand HCA). Petitioner mapped Callender’s teachings to the limitations of claim 1 by asserting that Callender’s kernel-mode operations for data transfer correspond to the claimed OSCSEs. Correspondingly, Callender’s user-mode "sending and receiving" operations, implemented in a "user mode library" disclosed as a dynamic link library (DLL), were alleged to be the claimed SLCSEs stored in a shared library.

  • Petitioner contended that the SLCSEs in Callender are "functional replicas" of the OSCSEs, as Callender teaches that the user-mode and kernel-mode operations can be derived from the "same source code" to perform the same function. Furthermore, Petitioner argued that by using a well-known DLL, Callender inherently discloses providing a unique, unshared "instance" of an SLCSE to each application that links to the library. This is achieved because, as was common practice, applications share the library's code but use their own separate data areas, resulting in unique operational instances. The known capability of DLLs to be used by multiple applications concurrently was argued to meet the limitation of running multiple instances of an SLCSE simultaneously. Arguments for dependent claims followed from this primary mapping, asserting Callender taught the use of system calls for related kernel services (claim 4), the presence of a kernel module interface (claim 5), and the provision of application-specific versions of functions (claim 14).

  • Motivation for Obviousness: The petition asserted that Callender teaches all elements of the claims. To the extent any minor implementation detail was not explicitly disclosed, Petitioner argued it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA). For example, implementing the disclosed "operations" as "functions" within a DLL was a well-known and customary software technique. A POSITA would apply such known techniques to Callender’s architecture to achieve the predictable benefits of code modularity and reusability.

  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in implementing any minor modifications to Callender’s system. The techniques involved, such as using DLLs to provide shared functionality to multiple applications, were described as "common practice" in the ’058 patent itself. Therefore, integrating these standard software engineering principles with Callender's disclosed driver model would have yielded predictable and successful results.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner stated that its obviousness analysis holds true under the claim constructions proposed by both Google and Patent Owner VirtaMove in a concurrent district court proceeding. The petition presented alternative mappings for disputed terms to demonstrate unpatentability regardless of which construction the Board adopts, asserting this approach complies with PTAB rules.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued strongly that discretionary denial of the inter partes review (IPR) would be unwarranted under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) and §325(d).
• Fintiv Factors (§314(a)): Petitioner contended the factors weigh against denial. The co-pending district court case was temporarily stayed, and a recent transfer to the Northern District of California points to a median time-to-trial of nearly 48 months, ensuring the IPR would conclude long before a district court trial. Investment in the court case was minimal, as a Markman hearing was canceled. Further, the petition challenges 18 claims while only seven are asserted in litigation, reducing the overlap. Finally, Petitioner asserted the petition presents "compelling evidence of unpatentability," which under current PTAB guidance weighs heavily against discretionary denial under Fintiv.
• Other Proceedings (§325(d)): Petitioner argued that an ex parte reexamination filed by a third party (Unified Patents) should not preclude institution because it involved a different standard, different claims, and did not consider the Callender reference. Similarly, a parallel IPR filed by Amazon.com, Inc. was not grounds for denial because the petitioners are different, have no significant relationship, and Google obtained no road-mapping benefit from the nearly simultaneous filing.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’058 patent as unpatentable.