Virtamove Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.

Virtamove Corp. has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft Corp., with the case currently ongoing. Virtamove Corp. is a Canadian software company specializing in application migration and modernization, offering solutions to move Windows applications to new operating systems, servers, or cloud environments without requiring recoding. Microsoft Corp. is a multinational technology giant known for developing, manufacturing, licensing, supporting, and selling computer software, consumer electronics, and related services, including its Azure cloud computing platform.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas under Case No. 7:24-cv-00338, alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814. This patent is titled "System for containerization of application sets" and generally relates to establishing a secure environment for executing multiple applications that require shared resources on a computer system by associating applications and required system files with a container. The accused products or technologies involved in this specific case are not explicitly detailed in the immediately available docket entries for 7:24-cv-00338, though other related cases by Virtamove against Microsoft have accused products like Azure Kubernetes Service. The case is assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright, a prominent judge in the Western District of Texas, a venue frequently chosen by patent plaintiffs due to its reputation for efficiency and plaintiff-friendly rulings.

This litigation is notable within the industry, fitting into a pattern of patent assertion by Virtamove, which appears to operate as a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), having filed similar lawsuits asserting containerization patents against other major technology companies such as Google, IBM, Amazon, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise. The asserted patent, US7519814B2, has also been the subject of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where its validity has been challenged, including by Google. The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition from Google challenging the validity of US7519814B2, affirming its patentability. The broader market context involves the widespread adoption of containerization technology in modern software development and cloud computing, underpinning DevOps pipelines and microservices architectures.

Virtamove Corp. initiated patent infringement litigation against Microsoft Corp. in the Western District of Texas in December 2024, asserting U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814. This patent generally relates to containerization systems and methods for enabling software designed for one operating system to run on an incompatible operating system.

Key legal developments and outcome for the litigation include:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Virtamove Corp. filed suit against Microsoft Corp. on December 20, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, assigned Case No. 7:24-cv-00338-ADA to Judge Alan D. Albright. The complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814.
  • While specific details on Microsoft's answer or counterclaims in this particular case are not available in the provided snippets, a related case brought by Virtamove against IBM for the same patent saw IBM file an answer with affirmative defenses and counterclaims.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • A scheduling order issued on April 30, 2025, for Case No. 7:24-cv-00338-ADA set a deadline for motions to transfer for April 25, 2025. The case docket was later updated to indicate it was "Transferred." This aligns with a broader trend where VirtaMove challenged venue transfer orders in related patent suits (e.g., against Google and Amazon) from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. The Federal Circuit denied VirtaMove's mandamus petitions to vacate these transfer orders on September 11, 2025, affirming the transfers based on convenience for witnesses and local interest. It is plausible a similar transfer occurred for the Microsoft case.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • The April 30, 2025, scheduling order for Case No. 7:24-cv-00338-ADA outlined a claim construction schedule. This included Defendant's opening claim construction brief due July 21, 2025, Plaintiff's responsive brief due August 25, 2025, Defendant's reply brief due September 8, 2025, Plaintiff's sur-reply brief due September 22, 2025, and a Joint Claim Construction Statement due September 25, 2025. A Markman Hearing was scheduled for October 6, 2025. However, the ultimate outcome of these steps was preempted by a settlement.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and Outcome:

  • Microsoft Corp. filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-00850, challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814, with Virtamove Corp. as the Patent Owner.
  • On September 10, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a notice of refund for post-institution fees to Microsoft, stating that Microsoft and VirtaMove had entered into an agreement that "resolves all underlying disputes between the parties involving U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814" and that "All pending related litigations between the parties have been or will be dismissed." This indicates a comprehensive settlement for all disputes related to the '814 patent.

• Final Disposition:

  • Based on the PTAB's notification on September 10, 2025, that a settlement agreement had resolved all disputes concerning U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814 and that all related litigations would be dismissed, the lawsuit (Case No. 7:24-cv-00338) is understood to have been resolved through settlement. While the docket for Case No. 7:24-cv-00338 was listed as "Active. Transferred" as of September 9, 2025, the subsequent IPR document confirms the broader resolution of claims involving this patent. Another related case, Virtamove, Corp. v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 1-25-cv-00794, also involving Patent No. 7,519,814, was terminated on August 28, 2025, due to settlement/voluntary dismissal.

Virtamove Corp. is represented by attorneys from Russ August & Kabat. Based on available filings and related patent matters involving Virtamove Corp. and the patent in question (7519814), the following counsel have been identified:

• Reza Mirzaie

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Co-Chair of the plaintiff's patent infringement litigation department)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience: Focuses on patent litigation and licensing, with over $600 million obtained for clients in the past five years. He has significant trial experience and is a registered patent attorney. Notable past cases include securing multi-million dollar jury verdicts against Verizon, Samsung, Western Digital, Amazon, Google, and LG in patent infringement cases related to data saving, wireless push messaging, magnetic recording media, targeted advertising, smart thermostats, and telecommunications technology.

• Marc A. Fenster

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience: Co-led trial teams with Reza Mirzaie in several successful patent infringement cases, including those against Verizon, Samsung, Western Digital, Amazon, and Google. Russ August & Kabat's patent litigation practice has achieved significant trial wins and multi-million dollar settlements against major technology companies.

• Jefferson E. Cummings

  • Role: Counsel (Patent Litigation Associate)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience: Focuses on patent litigation, with experience in various technological fields including computer architecture and software, security, and communications. He previously worked as a patent agent and focused on patent litigation and prosecution at Duane Morris LLP.

• Qi (Peter) Tong

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Dallas, TX
  • Experience: Identified in a PTAB filing as counsel for Patent Owner Virtamove, Corp.

Microsoft Corp. is represented by a combination of in-house counsel and external law firms.

In-house Counsel (Microsoft Corp.):

• Lucky Vidmar
  • Role: Associate General Counsel and Head of IP Litigation
  • Firm: Microsoft Corporation (Redmond, WA)
  • Note: Manages Microsoft's global docket of patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret cases. Prior to Microsoft, he was a partner in the IP litigation group at Hogan Lovells.
• Robert Lytle
  • Role: Assistant General Counsel
  • Firm: Microsoft Corporation (Redmond, WA)
  • Note: His practice focuses on patent litigation. He was previously a partner at Howrey and a shareholder at Arnold, White & Durkee.

Outside Counsel:

Microsoft frequently engages prominent intellectual property litigation firms. While the specific counsel for Virtamove Corp. v. Microsoft Corp. (7:24-cv-00338) are not explicitly detailed in the immediately available public docket entries, other related patent cases against Microsoft in the Western District of Texas provide strong indications of their likely representation.

Based on typical representation patterns for Microsoft in patent cases in the Western District of Texas and general patent litigation:

• Jackson Walker LLP:

  • Jackson Walker has a significant presence in the Western District of Texas and substantial experience before Judge Alan D. Albright, having represented defendants in over 80% of their 30 cases before him since 2017.
  • Arthur Gollwitzer
    • Role: Likely Lead Counsel/Partner
    • Firm: Jackson Walker LLP (Dallas, TX or Austin, TX)
    • Note: Combines federal prosecutor experience with 25 years in private practice in patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret disputes. He has moderated discussions with Judge Albright on patent litigation.
  • Leisa Talbert Peschel
    • Role: Likely Partner
    • Firm: Jackson Walker LLP (Austin, TX)
    • Note: Possesses considerable experience litigating intellectual property matters, including over sixty patent infringement cases.
  • Wasif Qureshi
    • Role: Likely Partner
    • Firm: Jackson Walker LLP (Houston, TX)
    • Note: Represents and counsels businesses from startups to Fortune 100 companies in various IP legal matters, particularly experienced in patent litigation.
  • Blake Dietrich
    • Role: Likely Attorney
    • Firm: Jackson Walker LLP (Dallas, TX)
  • Austin Yancy
    • Role: Likely Attorney
    • Firm: Jackson Walker LLP (Houston, TX)

• White & Case LLP:

  • White & Case has also represented Microsoft in high-stakes patent litigation.
  • Jonathan Lamberson
    • Role: Likely Lead Counsel/Partner
    • Firm: White & Case LLP (Silicon Valley office, likely Palo Alto, CA or San Francisco, CA)
    • Note: A trial attorney who has served as lead trial counsel for Microsoft in cases such as Microsoft v. Corel, where a jury found willful infringement of six Microsoft patents. He also secured a summary judgment for Microsoft in a long-running patent suit brought by Corel.

It is important to note that specific counsel appearances are typically listed on the official docket, which often requires a PACER subscription for detailed access. The provided information is based on public records of Microsoft's common legal representation in similar patent disputes, especially in the Western District of Texas. For the precise appearance of counsel in this particular case (7:24-cv-00338), direct verification through PACER would be necessary.