PTAB

IPR2025-00851

Microsoft Corp v. VirtaMove Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Application containers for disparate computing environments
  • Brief Description: The ’814 patent describes methods for executing software applications in "containers." These containers package an application with its necessary system files, allowing it to run in an isolated environment that shares the kernel of the host operating system, distinguishing this approach from virtual machines that require a complete OS for each application.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Osman - Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, and 13-14 are obvious over Osman.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Osman (Osman et al., The Design and Implementation of Zap: A System for Migrating Computing Environments, 2002).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Osman, which describes a system for migrating "pods" between computers, discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. Osman’s "pods" were presented as analogous to the ’814 patent's "containers." Petitioner asserted that Osman teaches a system with multiple, independent servers ("compute machines") that can run different Linux kernel versions. The pods are secure, isolated environments containing applications and associated system files, which use the host server's kernel rather than including their own. Osman's system was argued to create a unique root file system for each pod using a chroot call, thereby isolating it from the host's root file system and other pods.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground is based on a single reference. Petitioner argued Osman inherently teaches the claimed invention. While Osman focuses on migrating pods across Linux kernels with minor version differences, Petitioner contended that because the system lacks dependencies on the host OS, a POSITA would find it obvious to use it with other operating systems as well.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success as Osman's system was expressly designed for compatibility with existing operating systems.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Tucker and Bandhole - Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, and 13 are obvious over Tucker and Bandhole.

  • 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 teaches the core container technology through its disclosure of "zones" in the Solaris operating system. Tucker’s zones are isolated environments for running applications on a single server, sharing the underlying kernel, and providing security and resource management. However, Tucker primarily focuses on a single-server implementation. Bandhole was asserted to supply the teaching of a multi-server, multi-OS environment, as it describes combining a Solaris server with a Linux server to provide a unified web service. The combination of Tucker's secure, isolated zones with Bandhole's networked, multi-OS architecture was alleged to render the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Tucker's zones with Bandhole's architecture to gain the known benefits of containerization—such as security, resource isolation, and rapid deployment—in the context of a realistic, distributed service environment like the one described by Bandhole. The combination was characterized as the simple application of a known technique (Tucker's zones) to a known system (Bandhole's multi-server architecture) to yield predictable results.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Since Bandhole's software was compatible with Solaris and Tucker's zones run on Solaris, a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing Tucker's zones within the system described by Bandhole.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Gélinas - Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, and 13-14 are obvious over Gélinas.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gélinas (a 2002 publication describing Linux VServer).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gélinas, which discloses "VServer" technology, teaches all elements of the challenged claims. Gélinas describes creating secure, isolated containers ("vservers") on Linux systems that share the same kernel, contrasting this with virtual machines. Petitioner asserted that Gélinas explicitly teaches running vservers on multiple physical servers and moving them between servers. The reference also discusses using different Linux distributions (e.g., Debian, Redhat), which constitute differing operating systems. Each vserver is assigned a unique IP address and hostname and is trapped in its own root directory via chroot, isolating it from the host and other containers.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground is based on a single reference. Petitioner argued Gélinas itself describes a complete system that renders the claims obvious.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have expected success in implementing the claimed methods as Gélinas provides a functional description of an existing container technology.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that no terms require explicit construction but addressed disputed terms from a related litigation to show the prior art renders the claims obvious under any proposed construction.
  • "Disparate Computing Environments": Petitioner contended the prior art meets this limitation under multiple interpretations. This includes the Patent Owner's alleged position that it means "independently operable" computers, as well as the inventor's deposition testimony suggesting it covers computers with different network addresses. Petitioner argued the cited prior art discloses systems with both independently operable servers and servers having distinct network addresses.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued there is no basis for discretionary denial. It noted that it was concurrently filing a Motion for Joinder with an earlier-filed IPR against the ’814 patent (IPR2025-00563). Petitioner stated that if joined, it would take an "understudy role," which would not negatively impact the Board's resources.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested 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.