PTAB

IPR2025-00854

Microsoft Corp v. VirtaMove Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Replicating Operating System Functionality in Shared Libraries
  • Brief Description: The ’058 patent describes a computing system where functionality normally provided by an operating system (OS) kernel, termed "critical system elements" (CSEs), is replicated in a shared library. This allows the replicated functionality to run in the same user-mode context as a software application, rather than in kernel mode.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Ely and Levine - Claims 1-6, 9-14, 16, and 18 are obvious over Ely in view of Levine.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ely (a 2001 USENIX paper, "Alpine: A User-Level Infrastructure for Network Protocol Development") and Levine (a 2000 textbook, "Linkers & Loaders").
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ely taught the core invention by disclosing the "Alpine" system, which copied an OS networking stack (an OS Critical System Element or "OSCSE") from the kernel into a user-level dynamic shared library. This library contained functional replicas of the kernel's networking functions (Shared Library CSEs or "SLCSEs") and ran in the same system as the original kernel stack. Levine was cited as providing the well-known, conventional background on how dynamically linked shared libraries (e.g., using the ELF format) operate, including how each application receives its own unique, non-shared instance of library data. This combination allegedly disclosed all limitations of independent claim 1.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references because Ely explicitly called for implementing its Alpine system as a dynamically linked library. A POSITA would naturally turn to a standard reference like Levine to understand the conventional and predictable implementation details of such libraries. The combination represented a simple substitution of known elements to achieve predictable results.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because both Ely’s library and the techniques in Levine were designed for common OS environments like UNIX/Linux and used standard, widely supported dynamic linking technology.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Ely, Levine, and Thekkath - Claims 5-8 and 15 are obvious over Ely and Levine in view of Thekkath.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ely, Levine, and Thekkath (a 1993 conference paper, "Implementing Network Protocols at User Level").
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Ely and Levine to address claims requiring a specific "kernel module" for interfacing between the user-level SLCSEs and kernel-level device drivers. Petitioner asserted that Thekkath disclosed such a module, specifically a "Network I/O Module," which provided an efficient and protected interface between a user-level protocol library and network device drivers in the kernel. This module was shown to enable data exchange using virtual memory mapping and to provide asynchronous event notifications (via a semaphore) upon packet arrival, meeting limitations in claims 5, 6, 7, 8, and 15.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would be motivated to replace Ely's less-performant "packet capture" library with Thekkath's more efficient Network I/O module to improve system performance. Ely itself cited Thekkath, acknowledged its approach was similar, and noted that its own performance was limited by a self-imposed "design constraint" of not modifying the kernel. A POSITA seeking higher performance would have been motivated by Ely's disclosure to relax that constraint and implement a known kernel modification technique like the one taught by Thekkath.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Eggert and Levine - Claims 1-4, 9-12, 16, and 18 are obvious over Eggert in view of Levine.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Eggert (a 1993 USENIX paper, "File Systems in User Space") and Levine.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative to Ground 1, using a different type of OS functionality. Petitioner contended that Eggert disclosed replicating file system services—another exemplary CSE in the ’058 patent—in a user-level, dynamically linked shared library. Eggert's system extended the kernel's file system by providing more flexible pathnames. These user-level file system extensions were argued to be "functional replicas" of the kernel's file system. As in Ground 1, Levine was used to supply the conventional knowledge about how dynamic linking provides each application with a unique, non-shared instance of the library.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): The motivation was similar to Ground 1. Eggert expressly taught using dynamic linking to implement its user-space file system, which would have prompted a POSITA to consult a standard text like Levine for the well-understood implementation details. The combination was presented as using known techniques to achieve the predictable result of implementing a user-space library.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that no claim terms required formal construction to resolve the obviousness challenges.
  • However, Petitioner noted that in related litigation, the terms "critical system elements" and "functional replicas" were challenged as indefinite. Petitioner contended that even if the outer boundaries of these terms were unclear, the prior art combinations fell squarely within the scope of the patent’s own explicit examples (i.e., network protocol stacks and file system extensions). Therefore, any alleged indefiniteness did not prevent a patentability determination on the asserted grounds.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner stated it would not address discretionary denial issues in the petition itself, in reliance on a PTAB memorandum regarding workload management.
  • Petitioner noted it was concurrently filing a Motion for Joinder with an earlier-filed IPR (IPR2025-00561). If joined, Petitioner asserted it would take an "understudy role," which would not negatively impact the Board's finite resources, weighing against discretionary denial.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-16 and 18 of the ’058 patent as unpatentable.