PTAB

IPR2025-00966

Oracle Corp v. VirtaMove Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Computing System Having User Mode Critical System Elements as Shared Libraries
  • Brief Description: The ’058 patent describes a computing system where functionality normally provided by the operating system kernel, termed "critical system elements" (CSEs), is replicated and executed from a user-mode shared library. This allows software applications to use these replicated system functions as if they were part of the application itself, separate from the kernel's implementation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: 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) and Levine (a 2000 textbook on linkers and loaders).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ely disclosed the core invention by describing the "Alpine" system, which copies a networking stack from the operating system (OS) kernel into a user-level "dynamic library" (a type of shared library). This user-level networking stack is a "functional replica" of the kernel's networking stack, thus teaching Shared Library Critical System Elements (SLCSEs) that are replicas of OS Critical System Elements (OSCSEs). Levine was asserted to provide the well-understood technical background for how conventional shared libraries, like the one in Ely, are implemented and dynamically linked. Specifically, Levine explained that while code is shared, each application receives its own unique data space, meaning each application runs a unique, non-shared instance of the library's functionality, as required by the claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because Ely expressly taught implementing its system using a dynamically linked library. Levine, as a standard textbook, provided the conventional and widely known methods for implementing such libraries. Therefore, a POSITA implementing Ely's system would have naturally consulted a reference like Levine to understand the underlying, standard mechanics of dynamic linking.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended there was a high expectation of success. Ely's explicit use of dynamic linking, combined with Levine's description of it as a standard and widely supported feature in modern operating systems, ensured the combination would be straightforward and predictable.

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

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ely (2001 USENIX paper), Levine (2000 textbook), and Thekkath (a 1993 conference paper).
  • 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 library and device drivers. Petitioner asserted that Thekkath disclosed such a module. Thekkath described a user-level networking "protocol library" that communicates with network hardware via a "Network I/O Module" residing in the kernel. This module managed data exchange, using virtual memory mapping and sending notifications (upcalls) to the user library upon packet arrival, directly teaching the limitations of claims 5-8 and 15.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Thekkath with Ely because Ely explicitly cited Thekkath as describing a "similar" approach to user-level networking. While Ely avoided kernel modifications for easier deployment, it acknowledged this came at a performance cost. A POSITA seeking to improve the performance of Ely's system would have been motivated to replace Ely's less-efficient packet capture method with Thekkath's higher-performance Network I/O Module, which required a kernel modification.
    • Expectation of Success: The expectation of success was argued to be high because both Ely and Thekkath addressed the same technical problem of user-level networking. Thekkath provided a known, performance-enhancing solution that could be integrated into a similar system like Ely's.

Ground 3: 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) and Levine (2000 textbook).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative to Ground 1, using a different example of a CSE. Petitioner argued that Eggert disclosed a user-extensible file system implemented as a dynamically linked shared library. This library extended the functionality of the kernel's native file system, thereby replicating a "file system service" (a CSE) in user mode. As in Ground 1, Levine was used to supply the conventional details of how such a dynamically linked shared library operates, including providing unique instances to each application. This combination was asserted to teach the same core invention as the Ely/Levine combination but through the lens of file-system functionality instead of networking.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was similar to Ground 1. Eggert expressly taught using dynamic linking to implement its user-space file system. A POSITA would have referred to a standard text like Levine to implement the widely available and conventional dynamic linking technology that Eggert's system relied upon.
    • Expectation of Success: A high expectation of success was asserted because Eggert's system was built on conventional, widely available dynamic linking technology. Using Levine to understand the standard implementation of that technology would have been a predictable and successful endeavor.

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 systems (e.g., Ely's user-level networking stack and Eggert's user-level file system) fell squarely within any reasonable interpretation of the terms, as confirmed by examples in the ’058 patent specification itself.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be unwarranted. It stated its intent to file a motion for joinder with a co-pending inter partes review (IPR) filed by Amazon (IPR2025-00561) against the same ’058 patent.
  • If joined, Petitioner asserted it would accept an "understudy role," which would not materially impact the Board's resources and would promote efficiency by consolidating challenges against the patent.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-16 and 18 of the ’058 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.