PTAB

IPR2025-00850

Microsoft Corp v. VirtaMove Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Providing an Application in a Secure Container
  • Brief Description: The ’814 patent discloses systems and methods for executing software applications within secure, isolated "containers" on a server. This approach aims to prevent conflicts over shared system resources and libraries by packaging an application with its necessary system files, while still sharing the server's underlying hardware and operating system kernel to avoid the performance overhead of traditional virtual machines.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-34 are obvious over Schmidt-479 in view of Tormasov.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Schmidt-479 (Application # 20020095479) and Tormasov (Application # 20020124072).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Schmidt-479 teaches software-based "compute capsules" that encapsulate an active computing environment, including applications and system files, allowing it to be stored and moved between servers. These capsules are isolated and share the host operating system (OS) and kernel. Tormasov was argued to disclose "virtual computing environments" (VCEs) that provide users with an isolated environment functionally equivalent to a full-featured OS, while sharing a single hardware node and OS kernel. The combination of these teachings allegedly results in the claimed system: a portable, isolated container (a Schmidt-479 capsule) that provides a full, independent user environment (a Tormasov VCE).
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references to create portable virtual environments that deliver a complete OS experience. This combination addresses the well-known industry need for applications to be usable across multiple servers and different operating systems, particularly in large, heterogeneous corporate networks. Schmidt-479 provides the portability, and Tormasov provides the robust, isolated user environment.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success because the references teach compatible techniques. Both use unique file systems and namespaces to achieve application isolation on conventional OSs (e.g., Unix) while sharing a single underlying kernel. Implementing a Tormasov VCE within a Schmidt-479 capsule would have required only ordinary programming skill.

Ground 2: Claims 1-34 are obvious over Schmidt-479, Tormasov, and Calder.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Schmidt-479 (Application # 20020095479), Tormasov (Application # 20020124072), and Calder (Application # 20020066022).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the Schmidt-Tormasov combination by adding the teachings of Calder. Petitioner contended that Calder discloses modifying an application package with additional system libraries that translate system calls, enabling an application designed for one OS family (e.g., Windows) to execute on a non-native OS family (e.g., Linux). Applying Calder’s teachings to the Schmidt-Tormasov VCE-capsule would make the containerized applications executable across different OS families, not just different versions within the same family.
    • Motivation to Combine: While the primary combination enables portability across binary-compatible OSs, a POSITA would incorporate Calder to achieve true cross-platform functionality. This was motivated by the common reality of enterprise environments containing servers running different OS families (e.g., Windows and Unix). Adding Calder’s teachings extends the utility and marketability of the VCE-capsules to these more diverse systems.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success because Calder’s system call translation techniques are designed to work with the same types of conventional operating systems disclosed in Schmidt-479 and Tormasov. The integration would involve known programming techniques to adapt the VCE-capsule for execution on non-native platforms.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges (Grounds 3 and 4) based on the combinations of Grounds 1 and 2 in further view of Schmidt-629 (Application # 20020138629). Schmidt-629 was cited for its teaching of assigning a unique locator, such as an IP address, to each capsule to facilitate communication between capsules after they have been moved to different machines or networks.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner noted that claim terms are disputed in a related district court proceeding between the patent owner and Google.
  • A key aspect of the petition's strategy is to demonstrate unpatentability regardless of the outcome of the claim construction dispute. Petitioner argued that it presented alternative mappings of the prior art that satisfy the claim limitations under both its own and the Patent Owner's proposed constructions for key terms like "container" and "secure containers of application software."

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial is unwarranted. While reserving a full response for a separate brief if the issue is raised by the Patent Owner, Petitioner noted it was concurrently filing a Motion for Joinder with a related inter partes review (IPR), IPR2025-00488, filed by Google.
  • Petitioner contended that if joinder is granted, it would assume an "understudy role," thereby conserving the Board's resources and weighing against discretionary denial.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-34 of the ’814 patent as unpatentable.