PTAB

IPR2025-00849

Microsoft Corp v. VirtaMove Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and method for providing secure, executable applications in a distributed computing environment.
  • Brief Description: The ’814 patent discloses a system for executing applications in isolated "secure containers" on servers with disparate operating systems. These containers bundle applications with necessary system files but utilize the server's underlying kernel, aiming to provide application segregation without the performance overhead of full virtual machines.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14, and 16-30 are obvious over Blaser in view of Calder.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Blaser (Patent 7,117,495) and Calder (Application # 2002/0066022).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Blaser taught the core concept of the ’814 patent by disclosing a system of application "layers" that isolate applications and their required files (libraries, configuration files) from a base operating system (OS) to prevent conflicts. These layers function as the claimed "secure containers." However, Blaser focused on transferring these layers between "similar computing systems." Calder taught modifying application packages—containing the same types of files as Blaser's layers—to make them executable across different, non-native OSs (e.g., Windows applications on Linux) by translating system calls. The combination therefore disclosed storing secure containers (Blaser's layers) on a plurality of servers with differing operating systems (as enabled by Calder).
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would combine Blaser and Calder to improve the portability of Blaser’s application layers. In large corporate networks, it was common to have servers running different OSs. A POSA would have been motivated to apply Calder's well-known techniques for cross-platform compatibility to Blaser’s layers to make them deployable across such heterogeneous environments, a clear and desirable improvement.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have a reasonable expectation of success because both references operated at the same level of OS architecture, dealing with application packages, libraries, and configuration files. Applying Calder's method of modifying system files to enable cross-platform execution to the system files within Blaser’s layers would involve only ordinary programming skill.

Ground 2: Claims 5-6, 12-13, 15, and 31-34 are obvious over Blaser-Calder in view of Schmidt-449.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Blaser (Patent 7,117,495), Calder (Application # 2002/0066022), and Schmidt-449 (Patent 6,931,449).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Blaser-Calder combination by adding the teachings of Schmidt-449. Schmidt-449 addressed the problem of migrating programs between servers by creating software "capsules" that could be moved across different machines or networks. Crucially, Schmidt-449 taught assigning each capsule a "unique locator," such as an IP address, to maintain open network connections during migration. Petitioner asserted it would have been obvious to apply Schmidt-449's teaching to the Blaser-Calder "containers" by assigning them unique identities (e.g., IP address, host name, MAC address), as required by claims such as 5, 6, 15, and 31.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would be motivated to integrate Schmidt-449's teachings to further enhance the functionality of the Blaser-Calder containers. Assigning unique locators would facilitate exchanging data between applications in different layers, moving layers between servers without disrupting network services, and allowing multiple distinct services (e.g., different company websites) to run on a single physical server, each with its own unique IP address. These were all known and beneficial objectives in network administration.
    • Expectation of Success: The techniques taught by Schmidt-449 were conventional for managing network entities. A POSA would reasonably expect to successfully assign unique locators like IP addresses to the Blaser-Calder software containers, as this was a standard method for enabling network communication and identification for software processes.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued discretionary denial is unwarranted because it filed a motion for joinder with a previously instituted IPR against the ’814 patent (IPR2025-00487). If joined, Petitioner asserted it would take an "understudy role," which would not impact the Board's finite resources and would promote efficiency.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-34 of the ’814 patent as unpatentable.