PTAB

IPR2025-00490

Google LLC v. VirtaMove Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Application-Specific Customization of Operating System Services
  • Brief Description: The ’058 patent discloses a computing system that improves performance by moving critical system elements (CSEs) from the operating system kernel into user mode. These user-mode CSEs are provided to applications via a shared library, allowing applications to execute critical functions without the overhead of kernel-mode system calls.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-18 are obvious over Elnozahy in view of Draves.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Elnozahy (Application # 2003/0041118) and Draves (Patent 6,349,355).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Elnozahy taught the core invention of moving operating system functions into user space to improve performance. Specifically, Elnozahy disclosed a web server that uses a user-space "protocol library" containing a TCP/IP stack, which functions as a replica of the TCP/IP stack normally found in the operating system kernel. Petitioner contended these user-space TCP/IP routines are the "shared library critical system elements" (SLCSEs) of the challenged claims, and the kernel-based TCP/IP functions are the "OS critical system elements" (OSCSEs). Elnozahy’s library provides these services directly to a web server application in user mode, avoiding kernel calls. For dependent claims, Petitioner argued that Elnozahy’s user-mode file cache feature, which uses a system call to the kernel’s file system when the file is not in the cache, taught the limitation of an SLCSE using system calls to access kernel services.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would combine Elnozahy with Draves to implement Elnozahy’s user-space "protocol library" as a shared library, specifically a dynamic link library (DLL). The motivation stemmed from Elnozahy’s own disclosure of "other applications" running on the same system that also use TCP/IP. A POSA would have sought to reuse Elnozahy’s high-performance user-space TCP/IP library for these other applications to achieve modularity and efficiency. Draves explicitly taught that a DLL is a "sharable program module" and a well-known, customary way to share functionality between multiple applications. The ’058 patent itself acknowledged that using shared libraries was "common practice." Therefore, a POSA would have been motivated to apply the conventional sharing technique from Draves to the user-space library in Elnozahy.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. It was common knowledge to run multiple applications using TCP/IP on a single computer, and it was also standard practice to use shared libraries like DLLs to share code among applications. Combining these two well-known, predictable technologies would have been a straightforward implementation for a POSA. Draves provided the necessary technical details for creating and using a shared DLL, ensuring the combination would work as expected.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • §314(a) (Fintiv Factors): Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, asserting the factors weighed in favor of institution. The parallel district court proceeding was stayed pending transfer, a Markman hearing was canceled, and the transferee court has a median time-to-trial of nearly 48 months, suggesting the IPR would conclude long before a potential trial. Petitioner also contended that there has been little investment in invalidity issues in the court case, and that the IPR challenges 18 claims while only seven are asserted in the litigation, reducing the concern of issue overlap. Petitioner further argued that a concurrent ex parte reexamination and an IPR filed by Amazon should not warrant denial, as they were filed by different parties and, in the case of the Amazon IPR, used different prior art.
  • §325(d) (Advanced Bionics Framework): Petitioner contended that denial under §325(d) was unwarranted because the Examiner never considered the asserted combination of Elnozahy and Draves. Although a related Elnozahy patent was cited during prosecution, it was not combined with Draves, which disclosed the key "shared library" element. Petitioner argued the Examiner’s allowance was based on an error, as the Elnozahy and Draves combination rendered all claims obvious, and the prosecution history lacked the expert testimony and detailed evidence of a POSA’s knowledge presented in the petition.

5. Relief Requested

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