PTAB

IPR2025-00563

Amazon.com Inc v. VirtaMove Corp

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Associating Applications with Secure Containers for Use in Disparate Computing Environments
Brief Description: The ’814 patent describes methods for running software applications in isolated environments called "containers." The technology involves packaging applications with their necessary system files into secure containers that operate using the host server's kernel, allowing multiple isolated applications to run on a single machine or across different machines.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Osman (Osman et al., The Design and Implementation of Zap: A System for Migrating Computing Environments, a paper presented in December 2002).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Osman, which describes a system called "Zap," discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. Zap uses isolated environments called "pods" for migrating applications between servers, which are functionally identical to the ’814 patent’s "containers." Osman taught that these pods operate in a system with a plurality of servers, can run on different versions of the Linux operating system, and are executed in a secure environment isolated from other pods and the host system. Petitioner asserted Osman’s pods do not contain their own kernel and instead use the host’s kernel. Furthermore, Osman allegedly disclosed that each pod is given a unique root file system using the chroot command, separate from the host operating system's root file system.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground was based on a single reference, arguing that Osman alone rendered the claims obvious.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable for a single-reference ground.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Tucker (Patent 7,437,556) and Bandhole (Application # 2002/0171678A1).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Tucker disclosed the core container technology through its description of "Solaris Zones," which are secure, isolated application containers that run on a server without their own kernel. While Tucker focused on a single-server implementation, Bandhole described a known system architecture that combined multiple servers running different operating systems (specifically, a Solaris server and a Linux server) to provide a unified service. The combination of Tucker's containerization method with Bandhole's multi-server, multi-OS environment allegedly disclosed all limitations of the independent claims.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Tucker's zones with Bandhole's architecture to gain the known security, isolation, and rapid deployment benefits of containerization for the services described by Bandhole. The combination was presented as a simple application of a known technique (Tucker's zones) to a known system (Bandhole's architecture) to achieve predictable results.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a high expectation of success because Bandhole's software was compatible with the Solaris operating system, on which Tucker's zones were designed to run.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Gélinas (a 2002 website publication describing the Linux VServer project).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Gélinas described a prior art container system using "virtual private servers" or "vservers." Gélinas allegedly taught running these vservers in a system with multiple physical servers, including the ability to move a vserver from one server to another. The system was designed to run on different Linux distributions (e.g., Debian, Redhat), thus meeting the "operating systems that differ" limitation. Gélinas described its vservers as "security boxes" that provide a higher level of security by isolating applications using the chroot system call, thereby giving each container a unique root file system. The vservers were explicitly taught as "sharing the same kernel" as the host, and therefore excluding a kernel.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground was based on a single reference, arguing that Gélinas alone rendered the claims obvious.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable for a single-reference ground.

"Disparate Computing Environments": Petitioner noted that this term was contested in parallel litigation but argued that no formal construction was necessary for the IPR. Petitioner contended that the asserted prior art discloses this limitation under any plausible interpretation, including the Patent Owner's interpretation (requiring "independently operable" computers) and the inventor's deposition testimony (requiring computers with "a different network address").

Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) and the Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. Petitioner stipulated that if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue in the parallel litigation any invalidity ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in the petition.
Petitioner further argued that the parallel litigation was in its very early stages, with discovery having only recently opened, no depositions taken, no claim construction order issued, and the original trial date vacated due to a successful motion to transfer venues.
Petitioner also argued against denial under §325(d), stating that the prior art references relied upon in the petition (Osman, Tucker, Bandhole, and Gélinas) were never considered by the Examiner during prosecution.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, and 13-14 of the ’814 patent as unpatentable.