PTAB

IPR2025-00566

Amazon.com Inc v. VirtaMove Corp

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: System for Running Applications in Secure Containers
Brief Description: The ’814 patent relates to methods for running software applications in isolated "containers." These containers share a single underlying operating system kernel, distinguishing the technology from virtual machines that require a full operating system copy for each instance.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Osman (a 2002 paper, The Design and Implementation of Zap: A System for Migrating Computing Environments).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Osman, which describes a system of "pods" for migrating applications, discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. Osman’s pods are alleged to be analogous to the patent’s "containers," operating in a system with multiple servers and differing OS versions (e.g., across Linux kernels with minor version differences). Petitioner asserted Osman teaches isolating applications within pods (a secure environment), using a host kernel without including one in the pod itself, and employing unique root file systems for each pod using a chroot command. For system claims, Osman’s "loadable kernel module" for intercepting system calls was argued to meet the "run time module" limitations.
- Key Aspects: Petitioner contended this core prior art was cited in a reference before the Examiner (Soltesz) but was never substantively reviewed by the PTO.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Tucker (Patent 7,437,556) and Bandhole (Application # 2002/0171678).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted Tucker teaches "zones," which are application containers implemented in Sun's Solaris OS, disclosing the core containerization and isolation features of claim 1 (from which claim 16 depends). Bandhole teaches combining a Solaris server with other servers (e.g., running Linux) to provide networked services, thereby disclosing the claimed multi-server, multi-OS environment. The combination allegedly discloses the specific limitations of claim 16, as Tucker teaches "lay[ing] down a root file system" for a new zone, which Petitioner argued constitutes using a "skeleton set of system files as a container starting point" and then "installing applications into that set of files" using standard Solaris packaging tools.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Tucker's zones with Bandhole's well-known networked server architecture to gain the security, isolation, and rapid deployment benefits of containers (from Tucker) in a conventional multi-server environment (from Bandhole).
- Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a high expectation of success because Bandhole's software was compatible with Solaris, and Tucker's zones were designed for Solaris, making the integration of these known elements straightforward and predictable.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Gélinas (a 2002 website publication describing the Linux VServer project).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Gélinas discloses "vservers," another prior art container technology that provides isolated environments on a shared kernel, meeting the limitations of claim 1. Gélinas allegedly teaches moving vservers between physical servers, running on different Linux distributions (differing OSs), and assigning unique IP numbers to each. For the additional limitations of claim 16, Petitioner contended that Gélinas teaches creating a new container by copying a "skeleton set" of standard Linux directories (e.g., /sbin, /bin, /etc) and then installing additional application packages (e.g., RPMs) into that new container environment.
- Key Aspects: Petitioner highlighted that while the Examiner was aware of VServer technology via a non-prior art 2007 reference, the prior-art Gélinas publication, which allegedly disclosed key elements the Examiner found missing, was never considered.

"Disparate Computing Environments": Petitioner asserted that this term does not require express construction because the cited prior art discloses the limitation under any plausible interpretation. Petitioner argued the references teach systems with "independently operable" computers (the Patent Owner's proposed construction in litigation) as well as systems where computers have different network addresses (the inventor's deposition testimony), thereby neutralizing the claim construction dispute for the purpose of the invalidity analysis.

§314(a) (Fintiv Factors): Petitioner argued against discretionary denial, stipulating that if the inter partes review (IPR) is instituted, it will not pursue in parallel litigation any invalidity ground raised or that reasonably could have been raised in the petition. Petitioner also contended the parallel litigation is in its early stages, as merits discovery had just opened, no claim construction order had been issued, and the trial date had been vacated pending a transfer of venue, all weighing against denial.
§325(d): Petitioner argued denial under §325(d) is improper because the primary prior art references relied upon (Osman, Tucker, Bandhole, and Gélinas) are new. Petitioner asserted these references were not substantively considered by the Examiner during prosecution and disclose the very claim elements the Examiner previously found lacking in the art of record.

Petitioner requested the institution of IPR and the cancellation of claims 3, 5, 7, 11-12, 15-16, and 31-34 of Patent 7,519,814 as unpatentable.