PTAB

IPR2025-01001

Oracle Corp v. VirtaMove Corp

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: System for Containerization of Application Sets
Brief Description: The ’814 patent describes methods for running software applications in secure "containers." These containers are comprised of the application and its necessary system files, are isolated from other containers on the same computer, and share the kernel of the host operating system rather than including their own.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Osman (Osman et al., The Design and Implementation of Zap: A System for Migrating Computing Environments, 2002).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Osman, which describes a system for migrating application environments called "pods," discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Osman’s pods were asserted to be the claimed "secure containers," as they are isolated environments comprising applications and system files that run on a host OS kernel. Osman allegedly taught using these pods in a system with a plurality of servers with differing OS versions, where applications are isolated, have unique root file systems, and are not sharable between pods by default. Dependent claims were allegedly met by Osman’s disclosure of execution files for starting pods (claim 2), pre-identifying files for migration (claim 4), assigning per-pod IP addresses (claim 6), and tracking resource allocation (claim 13).
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground was asserted as a single-reference obviousness challenge. Petitioner contended a POSITA would have found it obvious to implement the system described in Osman, as it taught a complete containerization solution.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable for a single-reference ground.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Tucker (Patent 7,437,556) and Bandhole (Application # 2002/0171678).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Tucker taught "Solaris Zones," which are application containers providing isolated, secure environments on a single Solaris server. Tucker allegedly disclosed most elements of the claimed method, including creating containers that exclude a kernel, use a local kernel, and have separate root file systems. Bandhole was asserted to cure any deficiency in Tucker by describing a known multi-server architecture that combined a Solaris server with a Linux server to provide services over a network. The combination of Tucker's zones on Bandhole's Solaris server allegedly rendered claim 1 obvious.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Tucker with Bandhole to implement the well-known containerization benefits of Tucker's zones (e.g., security, isolation, rapid deployment) within the known multi-server environment taught by Bandhole. The combination was presented as a simple application of a known technique (Tucker's zones) to a known system (Bandhole's server architecture) to yield predictable results.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because Tucker's zones were designed for the Solaris OS, which was the specific OS used on the server in Bandhole's system.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Gélinas (a 2002 website publication describing Linux VServer).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gélinas described "vservers," an early container technology for Linux that provided secure, isolated environments for applications while sharing the host kernel. Gélinas allegedly taught running these vservers on multiple physical servers, including those with different Linux distributions ("distros"). Petitioner contended that Gélinas disclosed all limitations of claim 1, such as creating containers by copying host system files, providing each container a unique root file system via a chroot call, and ensuring applications were not sharable between containers by default. For dependent claims, Gélinas allegedly taught using start/stop scripts (claim 2), assigning unique IP addresses (claim 6), and monitoring resource usage (claim 13).
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This was presented as a single-reference obviousness challenge. Petitioner argued Gélinas taught a complete and publicly available container system whose implementation would have been obvious to a POSITA.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable for a single-reference ground.

Petitioner asserted that no explicit claim constructions were necessary to resolve the obviousness challenges.
For the term "disparate computing environments," Petitioner noted that in related district court litigation, different interpretations were proposed by the Patent Owner and the named inventor. Petitioner argued that the cited prior art discloses the limitation under any of the proposed interpretations (e.g., independently operable computers, computers with different network addresses), thereby obviating the need for formal construction.

Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be unwarranted. The petition noted the concurrent filing of a Motion for Joinder with an existing inter partes review against the ’814 patent, Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp. (IPR2025-00563). Petitioner stated that if joined, it would accept an "understudy role," which would not impact the Board's finite resources and would promote efficiency.

Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, and 13-14 of the ’814 patent as unpatentable.