Filed: April 18, 2025
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`MICROSOFT CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VIRTAMOVE, CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________________________________
`
`IPR2025-00851
`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
`
`1619391761
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 2
`A.
`Containers Versus Virtual Machines ................................................... 2
`B.
`Containers Versus Shared Application Environment .......................... 3
`C.
`Containers in the Prior Art ................................................................... 3
`1.
`Linux VServer (Gélinas) ............................................................ 4
`2.
`Solaris Zones (Tucker) ............................................................... 5
`3.
`Zap Pods (Osman) ...................................................................... 6
`THE ’814 PATENT ........................................................................................ 7
`A.
`Overview .............................................................................................. 7
`B.
`Prosecution History .............................................................................. 8
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................... 9
`A.
`Grounds ................................................................................................ 9
`B.
`The References Are Prior Art. ............................................................ 10
`1.
`The Patent’s Filing Date .......................................................... 10
`2.
`Osman ...................................................................................... 12
`3.
`Tucker ...................................................................................... 13
`4.
`Bandhole .................................................................................. 15
`5.
`Gélinas...................................................................................... 15
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ................................................................. 17
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 17
`A.
`“Container” and “System Files” ......................................................... 18
`B.
`“Disparate Computing Environments” .............................................. 18
`VI. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ....................................................... 20
`A.
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, and 13-14 are Unpatentable
`as Obvious in View of Osman............................................................ 20
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 20
`
`IV.
`V.
`
`1619391761
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`l.
`
`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” ................. 23
`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” ............................................. 23
`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” ................. 26
`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
`
`1619391761
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`m.
`
`n.
`
`o.
`
`Limitation 1[a][v]: “the containers of application
`software excluding a kernel” ......................................... 27
`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
`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” .......................................................................... 29
`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
`
`p.
`
`q.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`1619391761
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`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
`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” .................................................... 33
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 34
`a.
`Limitation 14[a][i]: “creating containers prior to
`said step of storing containers in memory, wherein
`containers are created by:” ............................................ 34
`Limitation 14[a][ii]: “a) running an instance of a
`service on a server” ........................................................ 34
`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. ........................................ 35
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 38
`a.
`Limitation 1[pre][i]: “In a system having a
`plurality of servers” ....................................................... 38
`Limitation 1[pre][ii]: “with operating systems that
`differ” ............................................................................. 38
`Limitation 1[pre][iii]: “operating in disparate
`computing environments” .............................................. 38
`Limitation 1[pre][iv]: “wherein each server
`includes a processor and an operating system
`including a kernel” ......................................................... 40
`
`B.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`1619391761
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`l.
`
`m.
`
`n.
`
`o.
`
`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” ................. 40
`Limitation 1[pre][vii]: “wherein the applications
`are executed in a secure environment” .......................... 41
`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” ............................................. 41
`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” ..................................................... 42
`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” ................. 43
`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” ......................................... 44
`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” ............ 44
`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” ................................................................. 45
`
`1619391761
`
`-v-
`
`

`

`p.
`
`q.
`
`Limitation 1[a][viii]: “wherein the application
`software cannot be shared between the plurality of
`secure containers of application software” .................... 46
`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” .......................................................................... 47
`Claim 2: “wherein each container has an execution file
`associated therewith for starting the one or more
`applications” ............................................................................. 47
`Claim 4: “pre-identifying applications and system files
`required for association with the one or more containers
`prior to said storing step” ......................................................... 48
`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” .................................................................................... 48
`Claim 8: “wherein the one or more applications and
`associated system files are retrieved from a computer
`system having a plurality of secure containers” ...................... 48
`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” ..................................... 49
`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” ........................................................ 49
`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” .................................................... 50
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`1619391761
`
`-vi-
`
`

`

`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, and 13-14 are Unpatentable
`as Obvious in View of Gélinas. .......................................................... 51
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 51
`a.
`Limitation 1[pre][i]: “In a system having a
`plurality of servers” ....................................................... 51
`Limitation 1[pre][ii]: “with operating systems that
`differ” ............................................................................. 51
`Limitation 1[pre][iii]: “operating in disparate
`computing environments” .............................................. 52
`Limitation 1[pre][iv]: “wherein each server
`includes a processor and an operating system
`including a kernel” ......................................................... 53
`Limitation 1[pre][v]: “a set of associated local
`system files compatible with the processor” ................. 53
`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” ................. 54
`Limitation 1[pre][vii]: “wherein the applications
`are executed in a secure environment” .......................... 54
`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” ............................................. 54
`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” ..................................................... 55
`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” ..................................................... 55
`Limitation 1[a][iii]: “for use with a local kernel
`residing permanently on one of the servers” ................. 56
`Limitation 1[a][iv]: “wherein the set of associated
`system files are compatible with a local kernel of
`
`C.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`l.
`
`1619391761
`
`-vii-
`
`

`

`m.
`
`n.
`
`o.
`
`at least some of the plurality of different operating
`systems” ......................................................................... 56
`Limitation 1[a][v]: “the containers of application
`software excluding a kernel” ......................................... 57
`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” ............ 57
`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” ................................................................. 57
`Limitation 1[a][viii]: “wherein the application
`software cannot be shared between the plurality of
`secure containers of application software” .................... 58
`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” .......................................................................... 58
`Claim 2: “wherein each container has an execution file
`associated therewith for starting the one or more
`applications” ............................................................................. 59
`Claim 4: “pre-identifying applications and system files
`required for association with the one or more containers
`prior to said storing step” ......................................................... 59
`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” .................................................................................... 60
`Claim 8: “wherein the one or more applications and
`associated system files are retrieved from a computer
`system having a plurality of secure containers” ...................... 60
`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
`
`p.
`
`q.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`1619391761
`
`-viii-
`
`

`

`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`at least some of the containers prior to the applications
`within the containers being executed” ..................................... 60
`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” ........................................................ 61
`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” .................................................... 61
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 62
`a.
`Limitation 14[a][i]: “creating containers prior to
`said step of storing containers in memory, wherein
`containers are created by:” ............................................ 62
`Limitation 14[a][ii]: “a) running an instance of a
`service on a server” ........................................................ 63
`Limitation 14[a][iii]: “b) determining which files
`are being used” .............................................................. 63
`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” ................................................. 63
`VII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NONOBVIOUSNESS .............. 64
`VIII. NO BASIS FOR DISCRETIONARY DENIAL .......................................... 64
`IX. MANDATORY NOTICES .......................................................................... 65
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)) .................................. 65
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)) ............................................ 65
`C.
`Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)) ........................... 66
`D.
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. §42.103) ................................................ 67
`E.
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)) ................................... 67
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 67
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`1619391761
`
`-ix-
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ...................................................................... 68
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................... 69
`
`1619391761
`
`-x-
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s):
`
`Cases:
`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
`
`1619391761
`
`-xi-
`
`

`

`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
`
`1619391761
`
`-xii-
`
`

`

`Microsoft Corp. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 7,519,814
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814 (“the ’814 patent”)
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`Declaration of Dr. Darrell Long, Ph.D. (EX. 1002 in IPR2025-
`00563)
`
`Osman et al., The Design and Implementation of Zap: A System
`for Migrating Computing Environments, 5 Proc. of the
`Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation
`(2002) (“Osman”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,437,556 (“Tucker”)
`
`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.
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/502,619
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/512,103
`
`Declaration of Rachel Watters Regarding Osman
`
`1619391761
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 1
`
`

`

`Microsoft Corp. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 7,519,814
`
`Exhibit No.
`1016
`
`Description
`Declaration of Jacques Gélinas Regarding Linux VServer
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`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 “Amazon Litigation”)
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply Claim Construction Brief from the
`Amazon Litigation
`
`Excerpts from deposition of named inventor Donn Rochette
`
`J. Ball, “Managing Initscripts with Red Hat’s chkconfig.” Linux
`Journal, 2001.
`
`Kravetz, et al. “Enhancing Linux scheduler scalability.”
`Proceedings of the Ottawa Linux Symposium, Ottawa, CA. 2001.
`
`Scheduling order from the Amazon Litigation
`
`Order cancelling Markman hearing in the Amazon Litigation
`
`Order granting transfer in the Amazon Litigation
`
`Curriculum vitae of Dr. Darrell Long
`
`Plaintiff VirtaMove Corp.’s Preliminary Disclosure of Asserted
`Claims and Infringement Contentions, in VirtaMove Corp. v.
`Microsoft Corp., 7:24-cv-00338 (W.D. Tex.) (Mar. 28, 2025)
`
`1619391761
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 2
`
`

`

`Microsoft Corp. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 7,519,814
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner” or “Microsoft”) 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.
`
`1619391761
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Microsoft Corp. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 7,519,814
`
`The Examiner never considered the 2002 VServer reference raised in this
`
`Petition, 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
`
`references 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.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`A.
`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,
`
`pioneered 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
`
`applications 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 approach. (Ex. 1001, 1:56-61.) While VMs require a copy of the
`
`operating system “for each application,” the container approach required only one
`
`1619391761
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Microsoft Corp. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 7,519,814
`
`copy of the operating system (OS) “regardless of the number of application
`
`containers deployed.” (Id.) Because containers do not require multiple copies of the
`
`OS, they avoid the “performance 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
`
`underlying OS).) However, the patent’s distinction does not apply to the prior-art
`
`systems presented in this Petition—all of which used containers rather than VMs.
`
`Containers Versus Shared Application Environment
`B.
`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 prevent
`
`them from interfering with each other. (Id., 4:39-42.)
`
`Containers in the Prior Art
`C.
`The ’814 patent fails to distinguish the many prior-art container systems that
`
`provided the same capabilities the patent describes—including the isolation and
`
`kernel sharing that the patent relies on to distinguish other prio