Virtamove Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp. et al.

Virtamove Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp. et al. (2:24-cv-00093) is a patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff, Virtamove Corp., is a Canadian software company founded in 2011, which develops and provides software for migrating server applications to cloud or data center environments. Its platform offers solutions for application discovery, migration strategy, data center consolidation, cloud onboarding, and app refactoring, focusing on moving Windows and Linux server applications without recoding. The defendants are International Business Machines Corp. (IBM), a multinational information technology and consulting company specializing in computer hardware, software, and services, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. (HPE), a global technology leader providing enterprise-level IT infrastructure, software, and services, including servers, storage, networking, and hybrid cloud solutions.

Virtamove alleges that IBM and HPE infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814 and U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058. The '814 patent generally relates to a "system for containerization of application sets," providing methods for establishing a secure environment for executing multiple applications that require shared resources by associating software applications and required system files with a container. The complaint generally describes the asserted patents as relating to "novel containerization systems and methods." While the specific accused products, services, or technologies of IBM and HPE are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results beyond general denials of infringement by IBM and a reference to "AppZero technology" in IBM's answer, it is understood that the allegations center on their offerings related to application migration, virtualization, or containerization.

The case is being heard in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This venue is historically significant for patent litigation due to its reputation for a "rocket docket" with fast trials, consistent procedural rules, and a perceived plaintiff-friendly environment, leading to a high percentage of plaintiff verdicts and judgments. However, recent Supreme Court rulings like TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Group Brands LLC have aimed to restrict venue in patent cases to where the defendant resides or has a regular and established place of business, which has impacted the filing patterns in the EDTX. The lawsuits against IBM and HPE were consolidated in April 2024, and as of October 2025, Virtamove and IBM were in the process of finalizing a settlement. This case is notable due to the plaintiff asserting patents related to containerization and application migration against major technology companies, and the involvement of IPR challenges against the '814 patent (IPR2025-00591 and IPR2025-00599).

This case summary outlines the key legal developments and outcome of the patent infringement litigation Virtamove Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp. et al. (2:24-cv-00093) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, primarily focusing on U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Initial Complaints: Virtamove Corp. initiated patent infringement lawsuits against International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) on January 31, 2024, and against Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. (HPE) on February 9, 2024. Both complaints alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814, among others (U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058 was also asserted).
• Consolidation: The lawsuits were consolidated into case 2:24-cv-00093 in April 2024.
• IBM's Answer and Counterclaims: IBM filed its Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims to Virtamove's Second Amended Complaint on June 5, 2024. IBM denied infringement of the asserted patents and also brought an inequitable conduct counterclaim. IBM's invalidity contentions, served by July 1, 2024, also noted that the '814 patent claimed a priority date of September 15, 2003.
• HPE's Answer and Counterclaims: HPE also filed an Amended Answer and Counterclaims, which included an inequitable conduct counterclaim.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• HPE's Motion to Dismiss (Partial): On July 9, 2024, HPE filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Partial Motion to Dismiss Virtamove's Second Amended Complaint, specifically targeting claims for past damages. The Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on October 16, 2024, granting-in-part and denying-in-part HPE's motion.
• Virtamove's Motions to Dismiss Counterclaims: Virtamove filed motions to dismiss the inequitable conduct counterclaims brought by both IBM (Dkt. 65) and HPE (Dkt. 128). On March 24, 2025, the Court denied both of Virtamove's motions to dismiss these counterclaims, finding that they were pleaded with sufficient particularity.

3. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• IPRs against U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814: Several Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions were filed against U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814, including IPR2025-00487, IPR2025-00563, IPR2025-00566, and IPR2025-01001. As of recent records, these IPRs were "Not Instituted - Procedural". This means the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) did not proceed with a full review of the patentability challenges in these specific instances.
• Federal Circuit Decision on Google's Challenge: Separately, on January 27, 2026, the Federal Circuit denied Google LLC's petition challenging the patentability of US7519814B2. This outcome upheld the patent's validity following an underlying administrative determination. While this involved the same patent, it appears to stem from a separate proceeding initiated by Google and is not directly tied to the IBM/HPE litigation beyond affirming the patent's validity.

4. Final Disposition/Present Posture:

• Settlement in Progress with IBM: As of October 2025, Virtamove and IBM were in the process of finalizing a settlement.
• Case Status (Consolidated): The consolidated case (2:24-cv-00093) was listed as "closed on 11/17/2025". This closure date likely reflects the finalization of the settlement with IBM and potentially the resolution of the claims against HPE.
• HPE Status: While a jury selection was calendared for October 20, 2025, for the HPE case, the overall case closure date suggests that the matters with HPE were also resolved, likely as part of the broader settlement or a separate agreement, leading to the overall case closure.The case of Virtamove Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp. et al. (2:24-cv-00093) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, involving U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814, has progressed through initial pleadings, substantive motions, and parallel PTAB proceedings, ultimately leading to a settlement.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Initial Complaints: Virtamove Corp. initiated patent infringement lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint against International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) was filed on January 31, 2024. A separate action against Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. (HPE) was filed on February 9, 2024. Both complaints asserted infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814 and U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058.
• Consolidation: The lawsuits against IBM and HPE were consolidated into case 2:24-cv-00093 in April 2024, with the HPE case (2:24-cv-00093) designated as the lead case and the IBM case (2:24-cv-00064) as a member case.
• Defendants' Answers and Counterclaims:
  • IBM filed its Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims to Virtamove's Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement on June 5, 2024. IBM denied infringement and asserted an inequitable conduct counterclaim. IBM's invalidity contentions, served by July 1, 2024, indicated that the '814 patent claimed a priority date of September 15, 2003.
  • HPE also filed an Amended Answer and Counterclaims, which included an inequitable conduct counterclaim.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• HPE's Motion to Dismiss (Partial): On July 9, 2024, HPE filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Partial Motion to Dismiss Virtamove's Second Amended Complaint, specifically challenging claims for past damages. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on October 16, 2024, granting-in-part and denying-in-part HPE's motion.
• Virtamove's Motions to Dismiss Counterclaims: Virtamove filed motions to dismiss the inequitable conduct counterclaims asserted by both IBM (Dkt. 65) and HPE (Dkt. 128). On March 24, 2025, the Court denied both of Virtamove's motions, finding that the counterclaims were pleaded with sufficient particularity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).

3. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPRs against U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814: Several Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions were filed against U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814. These include IPR2025-00487, IPR2025-00563, IPR2025-00566, and IPR2025-01001. All of these IPRs were subsequently "Not Instituted - Procedural," meaning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) did not proceed with a full review of the patentability challenges in these cases.
• Federal Circuit Decision on Separate Challenge: In a separate, but related, development, the Federal Circuit on January 27, 2026, denied Google LLC's petition challenging the patentability of US7519814B2. This ruling effectively upheld the patent's validity following an administrative determination.

4. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• Settlement in Progress with IBM: As of October 2025, Virtamove and IBM were reportedly in the process of finalizing a settlement.
• Overall Case Closure: The consolidated case (2:24-cv-00093) was listed as "closed on 11/17/2025". Although a jury selection was calendared for October 20, 2025, in the HPE lead case, the overall closure date suggests that the issues with both defendants, including HPE, were resolved, likely through settlement or other agreement, leading to the case's final disposition.

Virtamove Corp. is represented by attorneys from Russ August & Kabat. The following attorneys have appeared on behalf of VirtaMove Corp. in this case or related matters:

• Reza Mirzaie (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Note: Mr. Mirzaie filed the initial complaint for patent infringement against HPE on behalf of VirtaMove Corp. He also filed the complaint against Microsoft Corporation in a related case in the Western District of Texas. His experience includes patent infringement litigation.
• Christian W. Conkle (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Note: Mr. Conkle filed a notice of attorney appearance on behalf of VirtaMove Corp. in this case. He is also listed as counsel in a related case against Microsoft.
• Jonathan Ma (Counsel)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Note: Mr. Ma filed a notice of attorney appearance on behalf of VirtaMove Corp. in this case. He is also listed as counsel in a related case against Microsoft.
• Amy Elizabeth Hayden (Counsel)
  • Firm: (Not explicitly stated in search results, but likely Russ August & Kabat based on other counsel).
  • Note: Ms. Hayden filed a notice of attorney appearance on behalf of VirtaMove, Corp.
• Marc A. Fenster (Counsel)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Note: Mr. Fenster is listed as counsel for VirtaMove Corp. in a related case against Microsoft.
• Neil A. Rubin (Counsel)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Note: Mr. Rubin is listed as counsel for VirtaMove Corp. in a related case against Microsoft.
• Daniel B. Kolko (Counsel)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Note: Mr. Kolko is listed as counsel for VirtaMove Corp. in a related case against Microsoft.
• Mackenzie Paladino (Counsel)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Note: Ms. Paladino is listed as counsel for VirtaMove Corp. in a related case against Microsoft.
• Jefferson Cummings (Counsel, Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat.
  • Note: Mr. Cummings was granted a motion to appear pro hac vice for VirtaMove Corp. in a related case against Microsoft.
• James Milkey (Counsel)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat.
  • Note: Mr. Milkey is listed as counsel for VirtaMove Corp. in a related case against Microsoft.
• Qi (Peter) Tong (Counsel)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat.
  • Note: Mr. Tong is listed as counsel for VirtaMove Corp. in a related case against Microsoft.
• Linjun Xu (Counsel)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat LLP.
  • Note: Mr. Xu is listed as counsel for VirtaMove Corp. in a related case against Microsoft.
• James S. Tsuei (Counsel)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat.
  • Note: Mr. Tsuei is listed as counsel for VirtaMove Corp. in a related case against Microsoft.
• Jacob R. Buczko (Counsel)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Note: Mr. Buczko is listed as counsel for VirtaMove Corp. in a related case against Microsoft.

The defendants in Virtamove Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp. et al. are International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. (HPE). Based on available information, the counsel of record for these defendants includes:

For Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. (HPE):

• Katharine Mary Burke

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Baker Botts LLP
  • Note: Regularly represents technology companies in patent litigation.

• Grant Ritz

  • Role: In-house counsel (Director and AGC for IP Transactions at HPE)
  • Firm: Hewlett Packard Enterprise
  • Note: Manages a team of patent attorneys supporting IP-intensive transactions and has held various roles at HP/HPE involving patent development, transactions, disputes, IP litigation, and IP strategy.

For International Business Machines Corp. (IBM):

While a specific lead attorney for IBM in this consolidated case is not explicitly named in the immediate search results, patent litigation for major technology companies like IBM in the Eastern District of Texas often involves a combination of large national firms and local counsel. Based on filings and common practices, potential counsel may include:

• Michael C. Smith

  • Role: Local Counsel (common for EDTX cases)
  • Firm: Scheef & Stone, LLP (Marshall office)
  • Note: Partner in the Marshall office, focused on complex commercial and patent litigation, appeared as counsel of record in over 900 civil cases in the Eastern District of Texas, and served as chairman of the Eastern District's Local Rules Advisory Committee.

• Attorneys from firms known for representing IBM in patent litigation

  • Note: Although not specifically tied to this case in the provided snippets, IBM frequently engages large law firms with significant intellectual property practices. Some firms that appear in general IBM patent litigation news include Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP and Gibson Dunn. For example, Brian Rosenthal of Gibson Dunn has experience representing companies like IBM in patent litigation, including in the Eastern District of Texas.

It's important to note that specific roles like "lead counsel" or "of counsel" can change throughout the life of a case, and this information is based on the currently available public records. The settlement in progress between Virtamove and IBM might also impact the active involvement of specific counsel.