PTAB

IPR2025-00982

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 computing system architecture where critical operating system (OS) functions, normally executed in the protected kernel mode, are replicated as functional equivalents in user-mode shared libraries. This allows software applications to access these critical system elements directly, aiming to improve performance and flexibility compared to traditional methods requiring system calls to the OS kernel.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-18 are obvious over Elnozahy in view of Draves.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Elnozahy (Application # 2003/0041118) and Draves (Patent 6,349,355).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Elnozahy and Draves disclosed all limitations of the challenged claims. Elnozahy taught a web server architecture that improved performance by moving network protocol processing (a critical system element, or CSE) from the OS kernel into a user-space "protocol library." This user-space library contained TCP/IP routines that were functional replicas of the TCP/IP block found in the kernel. Draves taught a technique for sharing executable program modules, specifically identifying a dynamic link library (DLL) as a "sharable program module," between different applications and between user and kernel modes. The petition asserted that implementing Elnozahy's user-space protocol library as a DLL, a type of shared library as taught by Draves, would render the claimed invention obvious. In this combination, the user-space TCP/IP routines in Elnozahy’s library constituted the claimed "shared library critical system elements" (SLCSEs), which were functional replicas of the kernel-based "OS critical system elements" (OSCSEs). The petition further mapped how providing these SLCSEs in a shared DLL would result in each application receiving a unique "instance" of the CSE, as each application would use the shared code with its own separate data area, a concept also taught by Draves.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would combine Elnozahy and Draves to achieve predictable benefits. Elnozahy disclosed performance advantages from its user-space protocol library and contemplated "other applications" running on the same server that also used TCP/IP. A POSA, recognizing the desirability of module re-use, would have been motivated to make Elnozahy’s high-performance library available to these other applications. Draves provided the well-known and conventional means for doing so: implementing the library as a DLL. This combination would allow multiple applications to share the same high-performance networking code, a straightforward application of known software engineering principles for efficiency and modularity.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Both running multiple TCP/IP-based applications on a single server and using shared libraries (DLLs) to share common functionality between those applications were well-established, common practices at the time. Combining these known elements—a user-space protocol library with a standard sharing mechanism—involved no technical hurdles and would have been expected to work as intended.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner stated that its unpatentability analysis held true under the competing claim construction positions proposed by the parties in a related district court litigation. By presenting alternative mappings of the prior art under both sets of proposed constructions, Petitioner argued it demonstrated unpatentability regardless of the construction adopted by the Board, thereby complying with procedural rules. This approach was central to the petition's strategy, aiming to obviate disputes over claim scope.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be unwarranted. The petition noted that it was being filed concurrently with a Motion for Joinder with a previously instituted IPR filed by Google LLC (IPR2025-00490) against the same ’058 patent. Petitioner stated that if joined, it would take an "understudy role," which would not impact the Board's finite resources or present an undue burden on the Patent Owner, thereby weighing against discretionary denial.

6. Relief Requested

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