IBM Corp v. VirtaMove Corp

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00591
• Patent #: 7,784,058
• Filed: February 6, 2025
• Petitioner(s): International Business Machines Corp.
• Patent Owner(s): Virtamove, Corp.
• Challenged Claims: 1-4, 18

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Computing System with User-Space Critical System Elements
• Brief Description: The ’058 patent discloses a computing architecture where critical operating system (OS) kernel functions, termed “critical system elements” (CSEs), are replicated into a shared library. These replicas, called “shared library critical system elements” (SLCSEs), are executed in the user-space environment to be accessed by multiple software applications.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground I: Claims 1-4 and 18 are obvious over Deianov in view of Levine and/or Sands.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Deianov (6,529,985), Levine (a 1999 textbook titled Linkers & Loaders), and Sands (5,291,601).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Deianov taught a multitasking OS that intercepts kernel system calls and executes user-space functional replicas called “system call wrappers.” Petitioner contended these wrappers met the claim limitations for SLCSEs and that Deianov disclosed the other basic elements of claim 1, such as a processor and an OS kernel having the original system calls (OSCSEs). The combination with Levine and/or Sands was argued to supply the claimed “shared library” that houses the SLCSEs and provides them to multiple applications.
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Deianov’s system with the well-known dynamic shared library teachings of Levine and Sands. This combination would provide a standard, efficient mechanism for multiple applications to simultaneously access Deianov’s system call wrappers. Levine and Sands taught that shared libraries allow each application to receive its own private instance of a library component, a known method for increasing system performance and efficiency.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because implementing dynamic linking with shared libraries was a routine and well-understood programming technique at the time that would yield predictable improvements in Deianov's system.

Ground II: Claims 1-4 and 18 are obvious over Ely in view of Levine and/or Sands.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Ely (a 2001 technical article, “Alpine: A User-Level Infrastructure for Network Protocol Development”), Levine, and Sands.
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Ely disclosed a system called “Alpine” that moved an entire networking stack—a set of CSEs—from the OS kernel into a user-level dynamic library to facilitate development and testing. This system was argued to directly teach storing functional replicas of OSCSEs (the networking protocols) as SLCSEs in a shared library for use by multiple applications, as required by claim 1.
  • Motivation to Combine: Ely’s stated goal was to create a tool with reasonable performance. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Ely’s dynamic library implementation with the specific teachings of Levine and Sands to ensure it could support multiple applications running unique instances of the networking components simultaneously. This would prevent resource competition between applications and improve overall performance, directly furthering Ely’s express goals.
  • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because the combination involved applying standard, well-documented shared library techniques (from Levine and Sands) to improve a known system (Ely) in a predictable manner, requiring only routine programming skills.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner noted that in related district court litigation, the parties agreed to constructions for several terms, including:
  • processor: "Physical computer processor."
  • user mode: "The context in which applications execute."
  • kernel mode: "The context in which the kernel portion of an operating system executes. Application code cannot run in kernel mode."
• For disputed terms, Petitioner argued that the Patent Owner should be held to the constructions it proposed in the related litigation. These include:
  • functional replicas: "substantial functional equivalents or replacements of kernel functions."
  • shared library: "an application library whose code space is shared among all user mode applications."
• Petitioner asserted that the challenged claims are unpatentable even under the Patent Owner's proposed constructions.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §325(d) - Same or Substantially the Same Art: Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) is not warranted because none of the prior art references relied upon (Deianov, Ely, Levine, Sands) were applied against the claims or discussed by the Examiner during the original prosecution.
• §314(a) - Fintiv Factors: Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on parallel litigation. Petitioner stipulated that if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue in the district court case the specific grounds asserted in the petition or any other grounds that could have been reasonably raised. Petitioner also contended that the parallel litigation is in its early stages, with no claim construction ruling issued or expert depositions taken, and that the petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4 and 18 of the ’058 patent as unpatentable.