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.
`__________________________________
`
`IPR2025-0000852
`Patent No. 7,519,814
`__________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 3, 5, 7, 11-12, 15-16, AND 31-34
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,519,814
`
`1619374553
`
`

`

`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 3, 5, 7, 11-12, 15, and 31-34 are
`Unpatentable as Obvious in View of Osman. .................................... 20
`1.
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 20
`
`IV.
`V.
`
`1619374553
`
`-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
`
`1619374553
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`m.
`
`n.
`
`o.
`
`p.
`
`q.
`
`r.
`
`s.
`
`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
`Limitation 2: “wherein each container has an
`execution file associated therewith for starting the
`one or more applications” .............................................. 30
`Limitation 3: “wherein the execution file includes
`instructions related to an order in which executable
`applications within will be executed.” ........................... 30
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 31
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 31
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 32
`Claim 12 ................................................................................... 32
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 33
`a.
`Limitation 14[a][i]: “creating containers prior to
`said step of storing containers in memory, wherein
`containers are created by:” ............................................ 33
`Limitation 14[a][ii]: “a) running an instance of a
`service on a server” ........................................................ 33
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`
`b.
`
`1619374553
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`Limitation 14[a] [iii]: “b) determining which files
`are being used” .............................................................. 34
`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” ................................................. 34
`Limitation 15[a]: “assigning an identity to the
`containers including at least one of a unique IP
`address, a unique Mac address and an estimated
`resource allocation” ....................................................... 34
`Limitation 15[b]: “installing the container on a
`server” ............................................................................ 34
`Limitation 15[c]: “testing the applications and files
`within the container” ..................................................... 35
`Claim 31 ................................................................................... 35
`a.
`Limitation 31[pre]: “A computing system for
`performing a plurality of tasks each comprising a
`plurality of processes comprising:” ............................... 35
`Limitation 31[a] [i]: “a system having a plurality
`of secure containers of associated files accessible
`to, and for execution on, one or more servers” ............. 35
`Limitation 31[a] [ii]: “each container being
`mutually exclusive of the other, such that
`read/write files within a container cannot be shared
`with other containers” .................................................... 36
`Limitation 31[a] [iii]: “each container of files is
`said to have its own unique identity associated
`therewith, said identity comprising at least one of
`an IP address, a host name, and a Mac_address” .......... 36
`Limitation 31[a] [iv]: “wherein, the plurality of
`files within each of the plurality of containers
`comprise one or more application programs
`including one or more processes” .................................. 36
`Limitation 31[a] [v]: “and associated system files
`for use in executing the one or more processes” ........... 37
`-iv-
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`7.
`
`1619374553
`
`

`

`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`Limitation 31[a] [vi]: “wherein the associated
`system files are files that are copies of files or
`modified copies of files that remain as part of the
`operating system” .......................................................... 37
`Limitation 31[a] [vii]: “each container having its
`own execution file associated therewith for starting
`one or more applications” .............................................. 37
`Limitation 31[a] [viii]: “in operation, each
`container utilizing a kernel resident on the server” ....... 37
`Limitation 31[a] [ix]: “wherein each container
`exclusively uses a kernel in an underlying
`operation system in which it is running and is
`absent its own kernel” .................................................... 37
`Limitation 31[b]: “a run time module for
`monitoring system calls from applications
`associated with one or more containers and for
`providing control of the one or more applications” ...... 38
`Claim 32 ................................................................................... 38
`Claim 33 ................................................................................... 39
`a.
`Limitation 33[a] [i]: “the run time module includes
`an intercepting module associated with the
`plurality of containers for intercepting system calls
`from any of the plurality of containers” ........................ 39
`Limitation 33[a] [ii]: “and for providing values
`alternate to values the kernel would have assigned
`in response to the system calls” ..................................... 39
`Limitation 33[a] [iii]: “so that the containers can
`run independently of one another without
`contention, in a secure manner” .................................... 39
`Limitation 33[a] [iv]: “the values corresponding to
`at least one of the IP address, the host name and
`the Mac_Address.” ........................................................ 40
`10. Claim 34 ................................................................................... 40
`a.
`Limitation 34[a]: “monitoring resource usage of
`applications executing;” ................................................ 40
`
`8.
`9.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`1619374553
`
`-v-
`
`

`

`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`Limitation 34[b]: “intercepting system calls to
`kernel mode, made by the at least one respective
`application within a container, from user mode to
`kernel mode;” ................................................................. 41
`Limitation 34[c]: “comparing the monitored
`resource usage of the at least one respective
`application with the resource limits; and,” .................... 41
`Limitation 34[d]: “forwarding the system calls to a
`kernel on the basis of the comparison between the
`monitored resource usage and the resource limits.” ...... 41
`Ground 2: Claim 16 is Unpatentable as Obvious in View of
`Tucker and Bandhole.......................................................................... 42
`1.
`Claim 16 ................................................................................... 44
`a.
`Limitation 1[pre] [i]: “In a system having a
`plurality of servers” ....................................................... 44
`Limitation 1[pre] [ii]: “with operating systems that
`differ” ............................................................................. 45
`Limitation 1[pre] [iii]: “operating in disparate
`computing environments” .............................................. 45
`Limitation 1[pre][iv]: “wherein each server
`includes a processor and an operating system
`including a kernel” ......................................................... 46
`Limitation 1[pre] [v]: “a set of associated local
`system files compatible with the processor” ................. 46
`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” ................. 47
`Limitation 1[pre][vii]: “wherein the applications
`are executed in a secure environment” .......................... 48
`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” ............................................. 48
`Limitation 1[a][i] “the method comprising: storing
`in memory accessible to at least some of the
`
`B.
`
`i.
`
`1619374553
`
`-vi-
`
`

`

`j.
`
`k.
`
`l.
`
`m.
`
`n.
`
`o.
`
`p.
`
`q.
`
`r.
`
`servers a plurality of secure containers of
`application software” ..................................................... 48
`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” ........................................ 49
`Limitation 1[a] [iii]: “for use with a local kernel
`residing permanently on one of the servers” ................. 50
`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” ......................................................................... 50
`Limitation 1[a] [v]: “the containers of application
`software excluding a kernel” ......................................... 50
`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” ............ 50
`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” ................................................................. 52
`Limitation 1[a] [viii]: “wherein the application
`software cannot be shared between the plurality of
`secure containers of application software” .................... 53
`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” .......................................................................... 53
`Limitation 16: “creating containers prior to said
`step of storing containers in memory, wherein a
`step of creating containers includes: using a
`skeleton set of system files as a container starting
`point and installing applications into that set of
`files.” .............................................................................. 53
`
`1619374553
`
`-vii-
`
`

`

`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`Ground 3: Claim 16 is Unpatentable as Obvious in View of
`Gélinas. ............................................................................................... 54
`1.
`Claim 16 ................................................................................... 55
`a.
`Limitation 1[pre] [i]: “In a system having a
`plurality of servers” ....................................................... 55
`Limitation 1[pre] [ii]: “with operating systems that
`differ” ............................................................................. 55
`Limitation 1[pre] [iii]: “operating in disparate
`computing environments” .............................................. 55
`Limitation 1[pre] [iv]: “wherein each server
`includes a processor and an operating system
`including a kernel” ......................................................... 57
`Limitation 1[pre] [v]: “a set of associated local
`system files compatible with the processor” ................. 57
`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” ................. 58
`Limitation 1[pre][vii]: “wherein the applications
`are executed in a secure environment” .......................... 58
`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” ............................................. 58
`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” ..................................................... 58
`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” ........................................ 59
`Limitation 1[a] [iii]: “for use with a local kernel
`residing permanently on one of the servers” ................. 59
`Limitation 1[a] [iv]: “wherein the set of associated
`system files are compatible with a local kernel of
`
`C.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`l.
`
`1619374553
`
`-viii-
`
`

`

`m.
`
`n.
`
`o.
`
`at least some of the plurality of different operating
`systems” ......................................................................... 60
`Limitation 1[a] [v]: “the containers of application
`software excluding a kernel” ......................................... 60
`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” ............ 60
`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” ................................................................. 61
`Limitation 1[a] [viii]: “wherein the application
`software cannot be shared between the plurality of
`secure containers of application software” .................... 61
`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” .......................................................................... 62
`Limitation 16: “creating containers prior to said
`step of storing containers in memory, wherein a
`step of creating containers includes: using a
`skeleton set of system files as a container starting
`point and installing applications into that set of
`files.” .............................................................................. 62
`VII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NONOBVIOUSNESS .............. 63
`VIII. NO BASIS FOR DISCRETIONARY DENIAL .......................................... 63
`IX. MANDATORY NOTICES .......................................................................... 64
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)) .................................. 64
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)) ............................................ 64
`C.
`Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)) ........................... 65
`D.
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. §42.103) ................................................ 66
`E.
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)) ................................... 66
`
`p.
`
`q.
`
`r.
`
`1619374553
`
`-ix-
`
`

`

`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 67
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ...................................................................... 68
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................... 69
`
`1619374553
`
`-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) .................................. 64, 65
`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) ........................................ 64
`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) ......................................................................... 64
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L.,
`68 F.4th 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2023) .......................................................................... 12
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Immersion Corporation,
`IPR2023-00947, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2023) .......................................... 64
`
`1619374553
`
`-xi-
`
`

`

`New Railhead Mfg., LLC v. Vermeer Mfg. Co.,
`298 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ......................................................................... 10
`Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co.,
`864 F.2d 757 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ........................................................................... 64
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ......................................................................... 18
`Red Hat, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp.,
`5:24-cv-04740 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2024) ............................................................ 68
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020) .......................................... 65
`Visa, Inc. v. Cortex MCP, Inc.,
`IPR2024-00487, Paper 8 (PTAB Aug. 2, 2024) ................................................ 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 .................................................................................................. 64, 65
`35 U.S.C. §325 ........................................................................................................ 66
`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. §42.24 ..................................................................................................... 71
`37 C.F.R. §42.103 ................................................................................................... 69
`
`1619374553
`
`-xii-
`
`

`

`37 C.F.R. §42.104 ................................................................................................... 70
`37 C.F.R. §42.122 ................................................................................................... 66
`Miscellaneous
`Katherine K. Vidal, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in
`AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court
`Litigation (June 21, 2022) .................................................................................. 65
`
`1619374553
`
`-xiii-
`
`

`

`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-
`00566)
`
`Steven 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.
`
`Stephen 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
`
`1619374553
`
`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 V Server
`
`Slashdot post Regarding Linux V Server
`
`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
`1022 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)
`
`1619374553
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 2
`
`

`

`Microsoft Corp. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 7,519,814
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) requests inter partes review
`
`of claims 3, 5, 7, 11-12, 15-16, and 31-34 (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.
`
`1619374553
`
`-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
`
`1619374553
`
`-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 interf