Filed: January 31, 2025
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VIRTAMOVE, CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2025-00563
`U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, AND 13-14 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,519,814
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VIRTAMOVE, CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2025-00563
`U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, AND 13-14 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,519,814
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1
`
`BACKGROUND ------------------------------------------------------------ 2
`
`Containers Versus Virtual Machines ------------------------------ 2
`
`Containers Versus Shared Application Environment ----------- 3
`
`Containers in the Prior Art ----------------------------------------- 3
`
`Linux VServer (Gélinas) ------------------------------------ 4
`
`Solaris Zones (Tucker) -------------------------------------- 5
`
`Zap Pods (Osman) ------------------------------------------- 6
`THE ’814 PATENT --------------------------------------------------------- 7
` Overview -------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Prosecution History-------------------------------------------------- 8
` STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ------------------------------ 9
` Grounds --------------------------------------------------------------- 9
`
`The References Are Prior Art ------------------------------------- 10
`
`The Patent’s Filing Date ----------------------------------- 10
`
`Osman -------------------------------------------------------- 12
`
`Tucker -------------------------------------------------------- 13
`
`Bandhole ----------------------------------------------------- 15
`
`Gélinas -------------------------------------------------------- 16
` LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ---------------------------------------- 17
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ----------------------------------------------- 17
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“Container” and “System Files” ---------------------------------- 18
`
`“Disparate Computing Environments” -------------------------- 18
`
` GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY--------------------------------- 20
` Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, and 13-14 are
`Unpatentable as Obvious in View of Osman-------------------- 20
`
`Claim 1 ------------------------------------------------------- 20
`
`Limitation 1[pre][i]: “In a system having a
`plurality of servers” --------------------------------- 20
`Limitation 1[pre][ii]: “with operating
`systems that differ” ---------------------------------- 20
`Limitation 1[pre][iii]: “operating in disparate
`computing environments” -------------------------- 21
`Limitation 1[pre][iv]: “wherein each server
`includes a processor and an operating system
`including a kernel” ---------------------------------- 22
`Limitation 1[pre][v]: “a set of associated
`local system files compatible with the
`processor” -------------------------------------------- 22
`Limitation 1[pre][vi]: “a method of providing
`at least some of the servers in the system
`with secure, executable applications related
`to a service” ------------------------------------------ 22
`Limitation 1[pre][vii]: “wherein the
`applications are executed in a secure
`environment” ----------------------------------------- 23
`Limitation 1[pre][viii]: “wherein the
`applications each include an object
`executable by at least some of the different
`operating systems for performing a task
`related to the service” ------------------------------- 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Limitation 1[a][i] “the method comprising:
`storing in memory accessible to at least some
`of the servers a plurality of secure containers
`of application software” ---------------------------- 24
`Limitation 1[a][ii]: “each container
`comprising one or more of the executable
`applications and a set of associated system
`files required to execute the one or more
`applications” ----------------------------------------- 26
`Limitation 1[a][iii]: “for use with a local
`kernel residing permanently on one of the
`servers” ----------------------------------------------- 27
`Limitation 1[a][iv]: “wherein the set of
`associated system files are compatible with a
`local kernel of at least some of the plurality
`of different operating systems” -------------------- 27
`Limitation 1[a][v]: “the containers of
`application software excluding a kernel” -------- 28
`Limitation 1[a][vi]: “wherein some or all of
`the associated system files within a container
`stored in memory are utilized in place of the
`associated local system files that remain
`resident on the server” ------------------------------ 28
`Limitation 1[a][vii]: “wherein said associated
`system files utilized in place of the
`associated local system files are copies or
`modified copies of the associated local
`system files that remain resident on the
`server” ------------------------------------------------ 28
`Limitation 1[a][viii]: “wherein the
`application software cannot be shared
`between the plurality of secure containers of
`application software” ------------------------------- 29
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Limitation 1[a][ix]: “wherein each of the
`containers has a unique root file system that
`is different from an operating system’s root
`file system” ------------------------------------------- 30
`Claim 2: “wherein each container has an execution
`file associated therewith for starting the one or
`more applications” ------------------------------------------ 30
`Claim 4: “pre-identifying applications and system
`files required for association with the one or more
`containers prior to said storing step” --------------------- 30
`Claim 6: “assigning a unique associated identity to
`each of a plurality of the containers, wherein the
`identity includes at least one of IP address, host
`name, and MAC address” ---------------------------------- 31
`Claim 8: “wherein the one or more applications and
`associated system files are retrieved from a
`computer system having a plurality of secure
`containers” --------------------------------------------------- 31
`Claim 9: “wherein server information related to
`hardware resource usage including at least one of
`CPU memory, network bandwidth, and disk
`allocation is associated with at least some of the
`containers prior to the applications within the
`containers being executed” -------------------------------- 32
`Claim 10: “wherein in operation when an
`application residing within a container is executed,
`said application has no access to system files or
`applications in other containers or to system files
`within the operating system during execution
`thereof” ------------------------------------------------------- 33
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 13: “associating with a plurality of
`containers a stored history of when processes
`related to applications within the container are
`executed for at least one of, tracking statistics,
`resource allocation, and for monitoring the status of
`the application” ---------------------------------------------- 34
`Claim 14 ------------------------------------------------------ 34
`
`Limitation 14[a][i]: “creating containers
`prior to said step of storing containers in
`memory, wherein containers are created by:” --- 35
`Limitation 14[a][ii]: “a) running an instance
`of a service on a server” ---------------------------- 35
`Limitation 14[a][iii]: “b) determining which
`files are being used” -------------------------------- 35
`Limitation 14[a][iv]: “c) copying
`applications and associated system files to
`memory without overwriting the associated
`system files so as to provide a second
`instance of the applications and associated
`system files” ----------------------------------------- 35
` Ground 2: Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, and 13 are
`Unpatentable as Obvious in View of Tucker and
`Bandhole ------------------------------------------------------------- 36
`
`Claim 1 ------------------------------------------------------- 38
`
`Limitation 1[pre][i]: “In a system having a
`plurality of servers” --------------------------------- 38
`Limitation 1[pre][ii]: “with operating
`systems that differ” ---------------------------------- 39
`Limitation 1[pre][iii]: “operating in disparate
`computing environments” -------------------------- 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Limitation 1[pre][iv]: “wherein each server
`includes a processor and an operating system
`including a kernel” ---------------------------------- 40
`Limitation 1[pre][v]: “a set of associated
`local system files compatible with the
`processor” -------------------------------------------- 40
`Limitation 1[pre][vi]: “a method of providing
`at least some of the servers in the system
`with secure, executable applications related
`to a service” ------------------------------------------ 41
`Limitation 1[pre][vii]: “wherein the
`applications are executed in a secure
`environment” ----------------------------------------- 42
`Limitation 1[pre][viii]: “wherein the
`applications each include an object
`executable by at least some of the different
`operating systems for performing a task
`related to the service” ------------------------------- 42
`Limitation 1[a][i] “the method comprising:
`storing in memory accessible to at least some
`of the servers a plurality of secure containers
`of application software” ---------------------------- 43
`Limitation 1[a][ii]: “each container
`comprising one or more of the executable
`applications and a set of associated system
`files required to execute the one or more
`applications” ----------------------------------------- 43
`Limitation 1[a][iii]: “for use with a local
`kernel residing permanently on one of the
`servers” ----------------------------------------------- 44
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Limitation 1[a][iv]: “wherein the set of
`associated system files are compatible with a
`local kernel of at least some of the plurality
`of different operating systems” -------------------- 44
`Limitation 1[a][v]: “the containers of
`application software excluding a kernel” -------- 45
`Limitation 1[a][vi]: “wherein some or all of
`the associated system files within a container
`stored in memory are utilized in place of the
`associated local system files that remain
`resident on the server” ------------------------------ 45
`Limitation 1[a][vii]: “wherein said associated
`system files utilized in place of the
`associated local system files are copies or
`modified copies of the associated local
`system files that remain resident on the
`server” ------------------------------------------------ 46
`Limitation 1[a][viii]: “wherein the
`application software cannot be shared
`between the plurality of secure containers of
`application software” ------------------------------- 47
`Limitation 1[a][ix]: “wherein each of the
`containers has a unique root file system that
`is different from an operating system’s root
`file system” ------------------------------------------- 48
`Claim 2: “wherein each container has an execution
`file associated therewith for starting the one or
`more applications” ------------------------------------------ 48
`Claim 4: “pre-identifying applications and system
`files required for association with the one or more
`containers prior to said storing step” --------------------- 49
`
`-vii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 6: “assigning a unique associated identity to
`each of a plurality of the containers, wherein the
`identity includes at least one of IP address, host
`name, and MAC address” ---------------------------------- 49
`Claim 8: “wherein the one or more applications and
`associated system files are retrieved from a
`computer system having a plurality of secure
`containers” --------------------------------------------------- 49
`Claim 9: “wherein server information related to
`hardware resource usage including at least one of
`CPU memory, network bandwidth, and disk
`allocation is associated with at least some of the
`containers prior to the applications within the
`containers being executed” -------------------------------- 50
`Claim 10: “wherein in operation when an
`application residing within a container is executed,
`said application has no access to system files or
`applications in other containers or to system files
`within the operating system during execution
`thereof” ------------------------------------------------------- 50
`Claim 13: “associating with a plurality of
`containers a stored history of when processes
`related to applications within the container are
`executed for at least one of, tracking statistics,
`resource allocation, and for monitoring the status of
`the application” ---------------------------------------------- 51
` Ground 3: Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, and 13-14 are
`Unpatentable as Obvious in View of Gélinas ------------------- 52
`
`Claim 1 ------------------------------------------------------- 52
`
`Limitation 1[pre][i]: “In a system having a
`plurality of servers” --------------------------------- 52
`Limitation 1[pre][ii]: “with operating
`systems that differ” ---------------------------------- 52
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-viii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Limitation 1[pre][iii]: “operating in disparate
`computing environments” -------------------------- 53
`Limitation 1[pre][iv]: “wherein each server
`includes a processor and an operating system
`including a kernel” ---------------------------------- 54
`Limitation 1[pre][v]: “a set of associated
`local system files compatible with the
`processor” -------------------------------------------- 54
`Limitation 1[pre][vi]: “a method of providing
`at least some of the servers in the system
`with secure, executable applications related
`to a service” ------------------------------------------ 55
`Limitation 1[pre][vii]: “wherein the
`applications are executed in a secure
`environment” ----------------------------------------- 55
`Limitation 1[pre][viii]: “wherein the
`applications each include an object
`executable by at least some of the different
`operating systems for performing a task
`related to the service” ------------------------------- 55
`Limitation 1[a][i] “the method comprising:
`storing in memory accessible to at least some
`of the servers a plurality of secure containers
`of application software” ---------------------------- 56
`Limitation 1[a][ii]: “each container
`comprising one or more of the executable
`applications and a set of associated system
`files required to execute the one or more
`applications” ----------------------------------------- 56
`Limitation 1[a][iii]: “for use with a local
`kernel residing permanently on one of the
`servers” ----------------------------------------------- 57
`
`-ix-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Limitation 1[a][iv]: “wherein the set of
`associated system files are compatible with a
`local kernel of at least some of the plurality
`of different operating systems” -------------------- 57
`Limitation 1[a][v]: “the containers of
`application software excluding a kernel” -------- 58
`Limitation 1[a][vi]: “wherein some or all of
`the associated system files within a container
`stored in memory are utilized in place of the
`associated local system files that remain
`resident on the server” ------------------------------ 58
`Limitation 1[a][vii]: “wherein said associated
`system files utilized in place of the
`associated local system files are copies or
`modified copies of the associated local
`system files that remain resident on the
`server” ------------------------------------------------ 58
`Limitation 1[a][viii]: “wherein the
`application software cannot be shared
`between the plurality of secure containers of
`application software” ------------------------------- 59
`Limitation 1[a][ix]: “wherein each of the
`containers has a unique root file system that
`is different from an operating system’s root
`file system” ------------------------------------------- 59
`Claim 2: “wherein each container has an execution
`file associated therewith for starting the one or
`more applications” ------------------------------------------ 60
`Claim 4: “pre-identifying applications and system
`files required for association with the one or more
`containers prior to said storing step” --------------------- 60
`
`-x-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 6: “assigning a unique associated identity to
`each of a plurality of the containers, wherein the
`identity includes at least one of IP address, host
`name, and MAC address” ---------------------------------- 61
`Claim 8: “wherein the one or more applications and
`associated system files are retrieved from a
`computer system having a plurality of secure
`containers” --------------------------------------------------- 61
`Claim 9: “wherein server information related to
`hardware resource usage including at least one of
`CPU memory, network bandwidth, and disk
`allocation is associated with at least some of the
`containers prior to the applications within the
`containers being executed” -------------------------------- 61
`Claim 10: “wherein in operation when an
`application residing within a container is executed,
`said application has no access to system files or
`applications in other containers or to system files
`within the operating system during execution
`thereof” ------------------------------------------------------- 62
`Claim 13: “associating with a plurality of
`containers a stored history of when processes
`related to applications within the container are
`executed for at least one of, tracking statistics,
`resource allocation, and for monitoring the status of
`the application” ---------------------------------------------- 63
`Claim 14 ------------------------------------------------------ 63
`
`Limitation 14[a][i]: “creating containers
`prior to said step of storing containers in
`memory, wherein containers are created by:” --- 64
`Limitation 14[a][ii]: “a) running an instance
`of a service on a server” ---------------------------- 64
`
`
`
`-xi-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Limitation 14[a][iii]: “b) determining which
`files are being used” -------------------------------- 64
`Limitation 14[a][iv]: “c) copying
`applications and associated system files to
`memory without overwriting the associated
`system files so as to provide a second
`instance of the applications and associated
`system files” ----------------------------------------- 65
` SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NONOBVIOUSNESS --- 65
` NO BASIS FOR DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER
`§314(A) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 65
` NO BASIS FOR DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER
`§325(D) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 67
` MANDATORY NOTICES ----------------------------------------------- 67
`
`Real Parties-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)) ---------------- 67
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)) ------------------------ 67
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)) ------------ 68
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4))-------------------- 69
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. §42.103) ---------------------------- 69
`
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)) ------------------ 69
`CONCLUSION -------------------------------------------------------------------- 69
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE -------------------------------------------- 71
`
`-xii-
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases:
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s):
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. CustomPlay, LLC,
`IPR2018-01496, Paper 34 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2020) ------------------------ 13
`Apple v. Fintiv,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ------------------ 65, 66
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ------------------------------------------ 10, 13
`Google LLC v. Multimodal Media LLC,
`IPR2024-00063, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. May 29, 2024) ----------------------- 66
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ------------------------------------------------- 17
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. Dynamic 3D Geosolutions LLC,
`IPR 2014-01186, 2015 WL 5565065 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2015) ------------- 17
`Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2019) ----------------------- 16
`Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`21 F.4th 801 (Fed. Cir. 2021) -------------------------------------------------- 19
`Keysight Techs., Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC,
`IPR2022-01525, Paper 27 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2024) ----------------------- 16
`Kolcraft Enters., Inc. v. Graco Children’s Prods., Inc.,
`927 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ----------------------------------------------- 12
`Leapfrog Enters. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
`485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ----------------------------------------------- 65
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L.,
`68 F.4th 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ------------------------------------------------ 12
`New Railhead Mfg., LLC v. Vermeer Mfg. Co.,
`298 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ----------------------------------------------- 10
`
`-xiii-
`
`
`
`
`
`Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co.,
`864 F.2d 757 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ------------------------------------------------- 65
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ----------------------------------------------- 18
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020) ------------------------ 66
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ------------------------------------------------- 18
`Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Sols., Inc.,
`698 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ----------------------------------------------- 16
`Statutes and Rules:
`35 U.S.C. §102 -------------------------------------------------------- 12, 13, 15, 16
`35 U.S.C. §103 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
`35 U.S.C. §314 ------------------------------------------------------------- 65, 66, 67
`35 U.S.C. §325 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 67
`37 C.F.R. §42.8 ------------------------------------------------------------- 67, 68, 69
`37 C.F.R. §42.10 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 69
`37 C.F.R. §42.15 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 69
`37 C.F.R. §42.103 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 69
`37 C.F.R. §42.104 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 69
`Miscellaneous:
`Katherine K. Vidal, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in
`AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court
`Litigation (June 21, 2022) ------------------------------------------------------ 66
`
`-xiv-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 7,519,814
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814 (“the ’814 patent”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Darrell Long, Ph.D.
`
`Osman et al., The Design and Implementation of Zap: A System
`for Migrating Computing Environments, 5 Proc. of the Sympo-
`sium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (2002)
`(“Osman”)
`
`1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,437,556 (“Tucker”)
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/469,558 (“Tucker
`Provisional”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0171678A1 (“Bandhole”)
`
`Virtual Private Servers and Security Contexts (“Gélinas”)
`
`File history of the ’814 patent
`
`Solaris 9 press release from Sun Microsystems
`
`B. Walters, “VmWare Virtual Platform.” Linux Journal, 1999.
`
`Soltesz et al., Container-based operating system virtualization: a
`scalable, high-performance alternative to hypervisors (2007)
`
`D. Price and A. Tucker. Solaris zones: Operating system support
`for consolidating commercial workloads. In Proceedings of the
`18th Usenix LISA Conference, 2004.
`
`1013
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/502,619
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 1
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 7,519,814
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/512,103
`
`Declaration of Rachel Watters Regarding Osman
`
`Declaration of Jacques Gélinas Regarding Linux VServer
`
`Message to Linux Kernel Mailing List Regarding Linux VServer
`
`Slashdot post Regarding Linux VServer
`
`Petitioner’s Opening Claim Construction Brief in VirtaMove,
`Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., No. 7:24-cv-30-ADA-DTG
`(W.D. Tex.) (the “Litigation”)
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply Claim Construction Brief from the
`Litigation
`
`1021
`
`Excerpts from deposition of named inventor Donn Rochette
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`J. Ball, “Managing Initscripts with Red Hat’s chkconfig.” Linux
`Journal, 2001.
`
`Kravetz, et al. “Enhancing Linux scheduler scalability.” Proceed-
`ings of the Ottawa Linux Symposium, Ottawa, CA. 2001.
`
`Scheduling order from the Litigation
`
`Order cancelling Markman hearing in the Litigation
`
`Order granting transfer in the Litigation
`
`Curriculum vitae of Dr. Darrell Long
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 2
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 7,519,814
`
`Petitioner Amazon.com, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Amazon”) requests inter partes
`
`review of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, and 13-14 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,519,814 (“the ’814 patent”), which VirtaMove, Corp. (“Patent Owner” or
`
`“PO”) purportedly owns.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The challenged claims recite methods for running software applications in
`
`“containers.” A container is a set of files needed to execute an application on a
`
`computer. The files in a container are grouped together and isolated from other files
`
`and applications on the same computer. Containers prevent different applications
`
`on the same computer from interfering with each other.
`
`A host of prior-art container technologies—Solaris zones, Zap pods, Linux
`
`VServers, and more—provide the same functionality described in the challenged
`
`claims. All of these container technologies (and several others) were available and
`
`well known before the ’814 patent’s earliest claimed priority date in September
`
`2003. Yet the patent fails to acknowledge these earlier container technologies.
`
`The Examiner was aware of at least one of these technologies—VServer—
`
`and expressly recognized its relevance to the patent claims. But the only reference
`
`the Examiner cited concerning VServer published in 2007 and thus was not prior art.
`
`This 2007 publication omits aspects of VServer that are material to the patent claims.
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 7,519,814
`
`The Examiner never considered the 2002 VServer reference raised in this Pe-
`
`tition, which is prior art. Nor did the Examiner review the prior art references that
`
`this Petition relies on concerning Zap pods and Solaris zones. Each of these refer-
`
`ences discloses the elements that were missing from the Examiner’s prior art and
`
`each of them renders the challenged claims unpatentable.
`
`The ’814 patent claims exclusive rights to container technology that belongs
`
`in the public domain. Because the patent contributed nothing to the art, PO is not
`
`entitled to exclude the public from practicing the challenged claims. Thus, the Board
`
`should cancel the claims.
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
` Containers Versus Virtual Machines
`
`Instead of addressing the many container systems in the prior art, the ’814
`
`patent frames its contribution as an advance over “Virtual Machine technology, pi-
`
`oneered by VmWare” and released commercially in 1999. (Ex. 1001, 1:51-56; Ex.
`
`1010.) Like containers, multiple virtual machines can be hosted on a single physical
`
`computer and each one can be customized to meet the unique needs of the applica-
`
`tions it contains. (Ex. 1001, 1:27-56.) But the patent identifies a “key difference”
`
`between the Virtual Machine (“VM”) approach and the patent’s container-based ap-
`
`proach. (Ex. 1001, 1:56-61.) While VMs require a copy of the operating system
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 7,519,814
`
`“for each application,” the container approach required only one copy of the operat-
`
`ing system (OS) “regardless of the number of application containers deployed.” (Id.)
`
`Because containers do not require multiple copies of the OS, they avoid the “perfor-
`
`mance overhead” associated with VMs. (Id., 1:62-63.)
`
`The claims of the ’814 patent capture this distinction over VMs by specifying
`
`that containers do not contain their own “kernel” (which is the core of an OS). (E.g.,
`
`id., 17:41-50 (claim 1); see also id., 2:39-42 (containers share a kernel from the un-
`
`derlying OS).) However, the patent’s distinction does not apply to the prior-art sys-
`
`tems presented in this Petition—all of which used containers rather than VMs.
`
` Containers Versus Shared Application Environment
`
`The ’814 patent acknowledged that, outside of VMs, multiple applications
`
`could share an operating system in a prior-art environment called “SoftGrid.” (Id.,
`
`2:4-12.) The patent distinguished SoftGrid in that it did “not isolate applications
`
`into distinct environments.” (Id.) In contrast, containers isolate applications to pre-
`
`vent them from interfering with each other. (Id., 4:39-42.)
`
` Containers in the Prior Art
`
`The ’814 patent fails to distinguish the many prior-art container systems that
`
`provided the same capabilities the patent describes—including the isolation and ker-
`
`nel sharing that the patent relies on to distinguish other prior art.
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 7,519,814
`
`
`
`Linux VServer (Gélinas)
`
`In October 2001, Jacques Gélinas disclosed a system for Linux computers that
`
`would allow “several independant [sic] virtual servers running on the same box
`
`(sharing the same kernel as well).” (Ex. 1017 (emphasis added).) This system be-
`
`came known as Linux VServer. (Ex. 1002 ¶38.) By 2002, Gélinas’s website de-
`
`scribed that VServer “split a Linux server into virtual ones with as much isolation
`
`as possible between each one, looking like real servers, yet sharing some common
`
`tasks.” (Ex. 1007, 1 (emphasis added).)
`
`To provide isolation, VServer built on a well-known computer command
`
`called “chroot,” which had been part of conventional operating systems for decades.
`
`(Ex. 1002 ¶39.) The chroot command confined a particular application process to a
`
`limited view of the computer’s file system, locking it out of other areas of the com-
`
`puter. (Id.) VServer built on chroot to also prevent processes from communicating
`
`with each other and isolate them from network resources. (Ex. 1007, 2-3; Ex. 1002
`
`¶39.) Thus, VServer created secure containers that isolate and confine processes
`
`while allowing them to share the kernel of the underlying server. (Ex. 1002 ¶39.)
`
`Although the Examiner cited a 2007 article that mentioned VServer (Ex. 1008,
`
`15), the Examiner never considered the 2002 publication on which this Petition re-
`
`lies. (Ex. 1001, 1-2.) The 2007 article omits key features of VServer that satisfy
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 7,519,814
`
`elements of the asserted patent claims and that are disclosed in the 2002 publication
`
`presented here. (Infra §VI.C.)
`
`
`
`Solaris Zones (Tucker)
`
`While Gélinas was developing VServer, Sun Microsystems was working on
`
`containers for its popular Solaris operating system. Sun published a press release in
`
`May 2002 that announced “containers” as part of Solaris 9. (Ex. 1009, 2-3.) Sun’s
`
`containers allowed “customers to run multiple applications on a single server, with
`
`fault, security and resource containment built-in.” (Id., 3.)
`
`As Sun continued to develop its container technology, it filed a provisional
`
`patent application describing a system called Solaris Zones in May 2003. (Ex.
`
`1005.) Sun’s provisional explained that a “zone is an application container[.]” (Id.,
`
`92.) That provisional eventually matured into an issued patent. (Ex. 1004.)
`
`Sun’s technology allowed an operating system to be partitioned into a “global
`
`zone” and one or more “non-global zones”—containers that would isolate groups of
`
`processes from each other and from the underlying operating system. (Ex. 1005, 1-
`
`5.) Sun’s provisional also described non-global zones as isolated “‘sandbox[es]’
`
`within which one or more applications can run without affecting or interacting with
`
`the rest of the system.” (Id., 1.) Figure 1.1 from Sun’s provisional shows non-global
`
`zones 1, 2, and 3 (containe
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
