PTAB

IPR2025-00981

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 discloses a system for improving computer performance and flexibility by moving certain critical system elements (CSEs), normally executed in the operating system's privileged kernel mode, into user-mode shared libraries. This allows applications to access these functions directly in user mode, avoiding performance overhead from switching between user and kernel modes.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Callender - Claims 1-18 are obvious over Callender

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Callender (Patent 7,024,672).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Callender, which was not considered during prosecution, teaches all limitations of the challenged claims. Callender discloses a hardware driver model for an InfiniBand network adapter that provides for a single implementation of operations common to both kernel mode and user mode. Petitioner asserted that Callender’s “user mode library,” implemented as a dynamic link library (DLL), is the claimed “shared library.” This library contains user-mode functions for sending and receiving data that bypass the kernel, which Petitioner contended are the claimed Shared Library Critical System Elements (SLCSEs).
    • Petitioner further argued that these user-mode functions in Callender are functional replicas of corresponding kernel-mode operations (the OS Critical System Elements or OSCSEs). Callender discloses that the user-mode and kernel-mode operations can be derived from the same source code, making them, at a minimum, functional replicas. The user-mode library in Callender is used by multiple applications to access the network adapter, thereby meeting the claim limitation of being “for use by the plurality of software applications in user mode.”
    • For dependent claims, Petitioner mapped various features of Callender. For instance, claim 4’s requirement for SLCSEs to use system calls was allegedly met because Callender’s user-mode library, while bypassing the kernel for data transfer, still relies on kernel services (accessed via system calls) for tasks like queue setup and interrupt handling. Claim 5’s “kernel module” was mapped to Callender’s “Hcaport,” which provides an interface between user-mode libraries and the kernel-mode miniport driver.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As a single-reference ground, the argument focused on obvious modifications. Petitioner contended that to the extent Callender did not explicitly disclose certain minor features, such as implementing its user-mode operations as “functions” within the DLL, it would have been an obvious design choice for a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA). Using functions in libraries to provide reusable code was a well-known, customary software technique that a POSITA would have employed to achieve predictable results.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing any minor modifications to Callender’s system. The techniques required, such as organizing code into functions within a shared library, were fundamental and widely practiced in the field of operating systems and application development, ensuring their successful implementation.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the challenged claims are unpatentable regardless of whether the Board adopts its proposed claim constructions or those proposed by the Patent Owner in a co-pending district court litigation. The petition presented alternative mappings of Callender’s disclosures to the claims under these competing constructions to demonstrate invalidity under either interpretation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be unwarranted. The petition stated that it was being filed concurrently with a motion for joinder to a proceeding initiated by Google (IPR2025-00489) challenging the same patent. Petitioner asserted that, if joined, it would accept an "understudy role," which would not impact the Board's finite resources and would promote efficiency by resolving the challenge in a single proceeding.

6. Relief Requested

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