PTAB

IPR2025-00964

Oracle Corp v. VirtaMove Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System for Containerization of Application Sets
  • Brief Description: The ’814 patent describes systems and methods for isolating software applications into "secure containers" to prevent conflicts over shared resources on a server. These containers, which include the application and its necessary system files, execute using the server's underlying operating system kernel rather than including their own, aiming to reduce performance overhead associated with traditional 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 inventive concept: a "layering system" to isolate applications and their required files, thereby preventing conflicts over shared libraries or system configurations on a single operating system. These "layers" in Blaser, which are described as providing a "barrier between applications," were asserted to be the "secure containers" of the ’814 patent. Petitioner contended that Blaser disclosed a system with multiple servers where these layers could be transferred. However, Blaser focused on "similar computing systems." Calder was introduced to address the ’814 patent’s requirement for operation across servers with different operating systems. Calder taught techniques for modifying an application package—including its libraries and system files—to make it executable on non-native operating systems (e.g., making a Windows application run on Linux) by translating system calls. Petitioner mapped Blaser’s layers to the claimed "containers of application software" and argued that applying Calder’s teachings would make these containers executable across the claimed "plurality of servers with operating systems that differ."
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would combine Blaser’s application isolation system with Calder’s cross-platform compatibility techniques for the predictable purpose of enhancing Blaser’s system. In large corporate networks, which Blaser explicitly contemplated, it was common to have servers running different operating systems. A POSA would therefore be motivated to make Blaser’s portable application "layers" compatible with this heterogeneous environment to increase their utility and portability, a known goal in software development.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved applying Calder’s known software modification techniques to Blaser’s well-defined application packages ("layers"). Both references addressed known problems in software deployment with compatible software-based solutions, requiring only ordinary programming skill to integrate.

Ground 2: Claims 5-6, 12-13, 15, and 31-34 are obvious over Blaser, Calder, and 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 to address claims requiring containers to have unique identities, such as an IP address, hostname, or MAC address (e.g., claims 6 and 31). Petitioner argued that Schmidt-449 taught a method for migrating software "capsules" between servers by assigning each capsule a "unique locator," such as an IP address. This unique locator allowed the capsule to maintain open network connections even when moved to a machine with a different operating system or on a different network. Petitioner contended that a POSA would find it obvious to apply Schmidt-449’s teaching of unique locators to the Blaser-Calder "containers." This would result in a system where each container has a unique identity (e.g., IP address), as required by the remaining challenged claims. This combination also allegedly taught the run-time monitoring and control of system calls recited in independent claim 31.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would be motivated to add Schmidt-449’s teachings to the Blaser-Calder combination to improve the management and network functionality of the application containers. In a dynamic server environment, being able to uniquely identify and communicate with isolated applications, or migrate them between servers without losing network connectivity, was a recognized benefit. Assigning unique locators as taught by Schmidt-449 to the Blaser-Calder containers would facilitate data exchange between isolated applications, enable more sophisticated software testing across different networks, and allow for hosting multiple distinct network services on a single physical server.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was reasonably expected because Schmidt-449 expressly stated its techniques are "implement[able] in any type of computer system or programming or processing environment." Integrating Schmidt-449’s conventional unique identifiers with the software containers of Blaser-Calder was presented as a predictable extension of known networking and software virtualization principles.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial is unwarranted. The petition was filed concurrently with a Motion for Joinder to a pending inter partes review, IPR2025-00487, filed by Google. Petitioner stated that if joined, it would accept an "understudy role," which would not impact the Board's finite resources.

5. Relief Requested

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