PTAB

IPR2025-00852

Microsoft Corp v. VirtaMove Corp

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Methods for Running Software Applications in Containers
Brief Description: The ’814 patent discloses methods and systems for executing software applications within secure, isolated "containers." These containers comprise the application and associated system files but exclude an operating system kernel, instead utilizing the kernel of the underlying host server, distinguishing the approach from traditional virtual machines.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Osman (Steven 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 application environments called "pods," discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. Osman’s pods are equivalent to the patent’s "containers," as they are isolated environments comprising applications and necessary files that run on a host operating system. Osman taught a system operating across a plurality of servers with different Linux kernel versions ("disparate computing environments"). The pods were described as isolated, using the host kernel (implemented as a "loadable kernel module"), and having a unique root file system created using the chroot command, directly corresponding to the limitations of independent claims 1 and 31. Dependent claims were also mapped; for example, Osman's use of init.d scripts for ordered application startup met claim 3, and its per-pod IP addresses met limitations in claims 15 and 31.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable as this is a single-reference ground. Petitioner contended that Osman alone renders the claims obvious.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Tucker (Patent 7,437,556) and Bandhole (Application # 2002/0171678A1).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Tucker disclosed "zones," which are application containers on the Solaris operating system that provide security and process isolation on a single server. Tucker further taught creating these zones by laying down a root file system and installing applications into it. Bandhole disclosed a multi-server architecture that combined a Solaris server with a Linux server to provide a unified web service, a common practice at the time.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Tucker's containerization technology with Bandhole's well-known multi-server architecture to gain the security, isolation, and rapid deployment benefits of zones. Implementing Bandhole's services within Tucker's zones was presented as a simple application of a known technique (zones) to a known system (multi-OS server architecture) to achieve predictable results.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because Tucker's zones were designed for the Solaris operating system, the same OS used for one of the servers in Bandhole's architecture.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Gélinas (a 2002 publication describing Linux VServer).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gélinas taught a container system using "vservers" that provided secure, isolated environments on Linux while sharing the host kernel. The system was described as operating on multiple physical servers and supporting different versions of the Linux operating system (e.g., Debian, Redhat). Critically, Gélinas taught creating a new container by copying a "skeleton set of system files" (e.g., /sbin, /bin, /etc) from the host server and then installing applications into it, directly mapping to the specific "creating containers" limitation of claim 16.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable as this is a single-reference ground. Petitioner contended that Gélinas alone disclosed every element of claim 16.

Petitioner argued that no claim terms require explicit construction but addressed the term "disparate computing environments" to preempt potential disputes.
Petitioner contended that the prior art discloses this limitation under any reasonable interpretation, including the Patent Owner's purported construction in related litigation ("independently operable" standalone computers) and the inventor's deposition testimony ("computers that each have a different network address"). Both Osman and the Tucker/Bandhole combination were argued to disclose servers that are independently operable and have distinct IP addresses.

Petitioner noted that it would address any discretionary denial issues raised by the Patent Owner in a responsive brief.
Petitioner stated it was concurrently filing a Motion for Joinder with an existing IPR against the '814 patent (IPR2025-00566). If joined, Petitioner would take an "understudy role," which would not negatively impact the Board's resources.

Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 3, 5, 7, 11-12, 15-16, and 31-34 of the ’814 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.