VirtaMove Corp. v. Microsoft Corporation

VirtaMove Corp. v. Microsoft Corporation is a patent infringement lawsuit filed in the Western District of Texas, centering on technologies related to software application containerization and orchestration. The plaintiff, VirtaMove Corp., is a Canadian software company specializing in application migration and modernization tools, such as V-Migrate and V-Maestro, designed to move legacy applications to modern operating systems and cloud environments. In the context of this litigation, VirtaMove appears to be operating as a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), asserting its patents against major technology companies. The defendant, Microsoft Corporation, is a global technology giant. While specific accused Microsoft products for this particular case (7:24-cv-00338) are not explicitly detailed in initial public records beyond a general reference to "open source containerization and container orchestration technology," VirtaMove's broader litigation campaign targets cloud and server computing products that utilize Docker containers and the Kubernetes platform.

The lawsuit asserts U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058, titled "Computing System Having User Mode Critical System Elements as Shared Libraries," which broadly relates to operating system libraries and instanced computing environments. Also asserted is U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814, titled "System for Containerization of Application Sets," which focuses on establishing a secure environment for executing multiple applications with shared resources by associating applications and required system files with a container, thereby enabling applications to move between platforms without requiring a separate operating system for each. This specific case, 7:24-cv-00338, was filed on December 20, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas and is assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright. The Western District of Texas has historically been a popular venue for patent plaintiffs due to its reputation for rapid adjudication and plaintiff-friendly verdicts, although recent Supreme Court rulings on venue have impacted where corporate defendants can be sued.

This litigation is part of a notable and aggressive campaign by VirtaMove, which has filed similar patent infringement lawsuits asserting these same two patents (7,784,058 and 7,519,814) against other prominent technology companies including IBM, Google, Amazon, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, all targeting technologies related to open-source containerization and orchestration. The validity of these patents is also being challenged at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), with inter partes review (IPR) petitions filed by companies like Google and Amazon against both the '814 and '058 patents. Furthermore, an ex parte reexamination request for the '058 patent was granted by the USPTO, indicating that substantial new questions of patentability have been raised. The broader campaign's impact on the containerization and cloud technology industries, coupled with the ongoing validity challenges, makes this case noteworthy. Notably, some of VirtaMove's related cases initially filed in Texas have faced challenges regarding venue, with at least one (against Google) being transferred to the Northern District of California.

VirtaMove Corp. v. Microsoft Corporation: Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Case Caption: VirtaMove Corp. v. Microsoft Corporation
Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
Case Number: 7:24-cv-00338-ADA
Plaintiff(s): VirtaMove Corp.
Defendant(s): Microsoft Corporation
Patents at Issue: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,784,058 and 7,519,814

This patent infringement lawsuit, filed in the Western District of Texas, saw significant activity in 2024 and 2025, culminating in a settlement between the parties.

Legal Developments:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: VirtaMove Corp. initiated the lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation on December 20, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,784,058 and 7,519,814. [cite: 2 (from previous search output), 7]
• Preliminary Infringement Contentions: VirtaMove Corp. filed its preliminary disclosure of asserted claims and infringement contentions on March 28, 2025.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance & Scheduling:

• Scheduling Order: A scheduling order was issued on March 28, 2025, outlining various deadlines for the case. This included a deadline for a motion to transfer by May 23, 2025, and set a Markman (claim construction) Hearing for October 6, 2025. [cite: 4 (from previous search output)]

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• Due to the subsequent settlement, the scheduled Markman Hearing for October 6, 2025, likely did not proceed.

4. Discovery Milestones:

• The scheduling order indicated that fact discovery was set to open on October 7, 2025, with a deadline to serve initial disclosures. [cite: 4 (from previous search output)] However, given the settlement prior to this date, full discovery may have been curtailed.

5. Settlement and Final Disposition:

• Confidential Settlement Agreement: By August 21, 2025, Microsoft and VirtaMove had entered into a confidential settlement agreement that resolved all underlying disputes between the parties involving U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814.
• Dismissal: As a result of the settlement, the parties stated that "All pending related litigations between the parties have been or will be dismissed." This indicates the district court case 7:24-cv-00338-ADA was either dismissed or in the process of being dismissed around this time.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814:
  • Microsoft, as the Petitioner, and VirtaMove, as the Patent Owner, jointly moved to terminate an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2025-00488) on August 21, 2025. The termination was a direct consequence of the confidential settlement agreement between the parties resolving their disputes over the patent. Another IPR (IPR2025-00487) was also filed by Google LLC related to this patent, which faced a discretionary denial of institution by the USPTO. Additional IPRs (IPR2025-00566, IPR2025-00563, IPR2025-01001) were filed against this patent but were "Not Instituted - Procedural." [cite: 15 (from previous search output)]
• U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058:
  • Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination proceeding against U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058 on September 23, 2024. [cite: 28 (from previous search output)]
  • The Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) granted Unified Patents' request and instituted the reexamination on October 24, 2024, finding substantial new questions of patentability on challenged claims 1 and 12 of the patent. [cite: 18 (from previous search output)]

News coverage for VirtaMove Corp. v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 7:24-cv-00338, is limited, with most reports focusing on related cases or the broader VirtaMove patent campaign. PatSnap Insights Team reported on a different case between VirtaMove and Microsoft, specifically Case No. 7:25-cv-00254, which was filed on May 30, 2025, and asserted U.S. Patent No. 7,774,762 against Microsoft's Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS). This case quickly closed on August 21, 2025, after only 83 days, via a joint stipulation of dismissal, with the terms of the resolution undisclosed to the public. PatSnap noted that such a rapid resolution, significantly shorter than the typical multi-year median for patent cases in the Western District of Texas, suggests a private settlement, potentially a license or a covenant not to sue, before substantive litigation began.

While specific articles directly addressing the 7:24-cv-00338 case were not found, the broader VirtaMove litigation campaign has garnered some attention. PatSnap also covered VirtaMove's suit against Oracle, filed on the same day as this Microsoft case (December 20, 2024), asserting the same two patents (7,784,058 and 7,519,814) against Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI) and Oracle Kubernetes Engine (OKE). This Oracle case, 7:24-cv-00339, was transferred intradistrict to the Austin division after 286 days, rather than being dismissed on merits or settled. Additionally, Unified Patents reported on September 26, 2024, that it had filed an ex parte reexamination proceeding against U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058, which is one of the patents asserted in the Microsoft case. Unified Patents highlighted VirtaMove (f/k/a Appzero Software Corp.) as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) and noted the patent had been asserted against IBM, Google, HP, and Amazon.

Another related development covered by IPWatchdog.com on June 1, 2026, discussed Google's petition for mandamus relief from the PTAB's denial of its IPR petitions challenging VirtaMove's U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814, citing "settled expectations" in the patent rights. This indicates ongoing challenges to the validity of VirtaMove's patents at the PTAB, which is a significant aspect of the overall litigation landscape. Separately, PatSnap detailed a dismissal with prejudice in VirtaMove's case against IBM (Case No. 2:24-cv-00064), asserting the same two patents, which concluded after 656 days on November 17, 2025. This "dismissal with prejudice" means VirtaMove cannot refile the same infringement claims against IBM for the accused products. Red Hat also brought a declaratory judgment action against VirtaMove in the Northern District of California (5:24-cv-04740) regarding these patents, which was dismissed on April 21, 2025, when the court granted VirtaMove's motion to dismiss. VitalLaw.com further clarified that Red Hat's attempt to amend its complaint to include VirtaMove's lawsuits against Microsoft and Oracle was denied as futile, as these new lawsuits did not establish an actual case or controversy for Red Hat.

Sources

• patsnap.com
• pacermonitor.com
• patsnap.com
• unifiedpatents.com
• ipwatchdog.com
• patsnap.com
• patsnap.com
• vitallaw.com

Here is the counsel of record representing VirtaMove Corp. in VirtaMove Corp. v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 7:24-cv-00338, in the Western District of Texas:

• Reza Mirzaie

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Co-Chair of Plaintiff's Patent Infringement Litigation Department)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Reza Mirzaie focuses on patent litigation and licensing, having obtained over $600 million for clients in the past five years and never losing a jury trial. He has led trial teams to significant jury verdicts, including a $122 million verdict against Amazon in the Western District of Texas for targeted offsite advertising patents and a $262 million verdict against Western Digital for hard disk drive technology.

• Marc A. Fenster

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Co-Chair of Litigation Department and Chair of Patent Litigation Department)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Marc Fenster is a first-chair trial lawyer specializing in high-technology patent litigation, with numerous multi-million dollar jury verdicts. He has led successful trial teams against companies like Samsung, Western Digital, Apple, and Amazon in patent infringement cases.

• Qi (Peter) Tong

  • Role: Partner / Local Counsel (Head of Dallas office with emphasis on Western District of Texas matters)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Dallas, TX.
  • Experience Note: Peter Tong focuses on intellectual property litigation, particularly in the Western District of Texas, where he previously clerked for Judge Alan D. Albright. He has represented companies in numerous patent lawsuits, secured a jury verdict for hundreds of millions of dollars, and has a strong background in patent prosecution and electrical engineering technologies.

No separate local counsel from a different firm or in-house counsel for VirtaMove Corp. were explicitly identified in the provided search results for this specific case. Russ August & Kabat's Dallas office, led by Peter Tong, appears to fulfill the local representation needs.

Defendant Microsoft Corporation is represented by a team of attorneys from several prominent law firms, including Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP, and potentially Baker Botts L.L.P. and Vinson & Elkins LLP, as well as in-house counsel.

Here's a breakdown of the identified counsel:

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

• Kat Li (Partner, Intellectual Property Litigation) - Austin office. Her practice focuses on patent and trade secret cases, representing companies in U.S. District Courts, the International Trade Commission (ITC), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. She teaches Patent Advocacy at the University of Texas School of Law.
• Connor M. Donaldson (Associate, Intellectual Property Litigation) - Houston office. His practice focuses on patent, copyright, and trademark disputes in federal district court and the ITC. He has experience in all phases of litigation and represents clients across various technologies and industries.
• Hunter Dentino (Associate, Intellectual Property Litigation) - Austin office. He represents clients in patent, trade secret, and other complex commercial disputes. Leveraging his engineering background and prior patent prosecution experience, he represents clients before U.S. federal district courts and the PTAB.
• Jeanne Heffernan (Head of Texas IP Litigation Group) - Texas. She is an experienced trial attorney with a track record of success in high-stakes patent disputes.

Hogan Lovells US LLP

• Matthew Gibson (Registered Patent Attorney) - Houston office. He assists life science clients in all aspects of patent practice, including procurement, licensing, pre-litigation counseling, and PTAB proceedings.
• Connor L. Day (Intellectual Property Attorney) - Houston office. He leverages his scientific background to help clients protect, manage, and commercialize innovation across complex technologies. His practice includes drafting and prosecuting U.S. and international patent applications and advising on patent portfolio strategy.

Microsoft Corporation (In-house Counsel)

• Jason James McInnes (In-House/Corporate Counsel) - Primary practice location Fort Worth, Texas, with contact information in Redmond, WA. His practice areas include Technology and Intellectual Property.

While not definitively confirmed as counsel in this specific case through available search results, the following firms and attorneys have significant patent litigation experience in Texas and frequently represent Microsoft or similar large technology companies:

• Fish & Richardson PC: This firm has a strong patent litigation practice and is known for representing major technology and telecommunications companies. They handle more patent cases in District Courts, the Federal Circuit, the ITC, and the PTAB than any other national firm. David Hoffman, a notable practitioner at Fish & Richardson, routinely represents technology and software clients in patent infringement litigation in Texas.
• Baker Botts L.L.P.: Consistently recognized as a top IP litigation firm, Baker Botts represents leading technology companies like AT&T, Samsung, and Mastercard. Jeff Becker, a patent attorney at Baker Botts, emphasizes complex patent litigation, particularly in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, and has tried multiple cases.
• Vinson & Elkins LLP: This firm has an active caseload in the Western District of Texas and represents major names in various industries, including those involving patent, copyright, and trademark litigation. Hilary Preston and Jeffrey Han, partners at Vinson & Elkins, focus on patent litigation and have experience before federal district courts and the Federal Circuit.

It is worth noting that a May 2025 docket entry for a related case, VirtaMove, Corp. v. Microsoft Corporation (7:25-cv-00254), mentions VirtaMove's counsel but does not list Microsoft's legal representation. However, a joint motion to terminate an IPR proceeding between Microsoft Corp. and VirtaMove, Corp. regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814 (one of the patents at issue in this case) indicates that the parties "have entered into an agreement that resolves all underlying disputes... All pending related litigations between the parties have been or will be dismissed." This suggests a resolution or impending dismissal of the related cases.