VirtaMove Corp. v. Oracle Corporation

VirtaMove Corp. v. Oracle Corporation is a patent infringement lawsuit concerning core technologies in application containerization and operating system virtualization. The plaintiff, VirtaMove Corp. (formerly Appzero Software Corp.), is identified as a patent assertion entity (NPE) whose business focuses on developing tools for migrating Windows applications, utilizing container-based technology for server environments. The defendant is Oracle Corporation, a major technology company that provides a wide range of enterprise hardware and software products and services. VirtaMove alleges that Oracle's computing systems, particularly those related to its cloud and server offerings that utilize "open source containerization and container orchestration technology," infringe its patents.

The lawsuit asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 7,784,058 and 7,519,814. U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058 is titled "Computing System Having User Mode Critical System Elements as Shared Libraries" and relates generally to operating system libraries and instanced computing environments. U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814, titled "System for Containerization of Application Sets," describes systems and methods for secure containerization of application software, where containers exclude a kernel but include associated system files for use with a local kernel, a technology foundational to modern DevOps and cloud-native deployments.

This case was filed on December 20, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Initially assigned to the Midland-Odessa Division, it was later transferred to the Austin Division under Judge Alan D. Albright. Judge Albright's court in the Western District of Texas has historically been a popular venue for patent litigation. A Markman hearing was held on October 6, 2025, and a jury trial is tentatively scheduled for November 16, 2026. The case is notable as part of an "aggressive litigation campaign" by VirtaMove, an NPE, against several major technology companies, including IBM, HPE, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft, targeting widely adopted containerization and orchestration technologies like Kubernetes and Docker. Furthermore, both asserted patents have faced challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB): Unified Patents initiated an ex parte reexamination against the '058 patent, which was granted in October 2024. Oracle filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition against the '814 patent in May 2025, but institution was denied in September 2025. Separately, Google's challenge to the '814 patent's validity via an IPR was denied by the Federal Circuit in January 2026, upholding its patentability.

The patent infringement litigation VirtaMove Corp. v. Oracle Corporation, Case No. 7:24-cv-00339-ADA, was initially filed in the Western District of Texas, Midland/Odessa Division, on December 20, 2024, asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 7,784,058 and 7,519,814. The case has undergone several key legal developments and is currently active with a trial scheduled for late 2026.

Here is a chronological overview of the key legal developments:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (2024-2025):

• Complaint Filed: VirtaMove Corp. initiated the lawsuit against Oracle Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Midland/Odessa Division), Case No. 7:24-cv-00339-ADA, on December 20, 2024.
• Amended Complaint: VirtaMove filed an Amended Complaint on April 11, 2025.
• Joint Motion for Scheduling Order: On April 25, 2025, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Scheduling Order, which outlined key deadlines for the case.
• Preliminary Infringement Contentions: Plaintiff VirtaMove served its preliminary infringement contentions on March 28, 2025.
• Preliminary Invalidity Contentions: Defendant Oracle served its preliminary invalidity contentions on May 23, 2025. Oracle later filed "Second Amended Preliminary Invalidity Contentions" at an unspecified date, referencing IPR proceedings.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance (2025):

• Motion to Dismiss Mooted: Defendant Oracle's initial Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13) was declared moot by a Text Order on September 30, 2025, in light of VirtaMove's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 21).
• Motion to Transfer Venue: A Motion to Transfer Case (ECF No. 25) was filed by Oracle and subsequently granted in part and denied in part by Judge Alan D. Albright on October 1, 2025. The court's ruling transferred the case intradistrict to the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, where it was assigned new case number 1:25-CV-1601. This transfer involved arguments regarding witness convenience, with VirtaMove asserting its witnesses in Eastern Canada and the U.S. East Coast would be closer to Texas than California.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes (2025):

• Claim Term Exchange: The parties exchanged claim terms for construction on June 9, 2025, and proposed claim constructions by June 23, 2025.
• Extrinsic Evidence Disclosure: Parties disclosed extrinsic evidence related to claim construction by June 30, 2025.
• Markman Hearing: A Markman (patent claim construction) Hearing was held on October 6, 2025. A written order from Judge Alan D. Albright was stated to be forthcoming.

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance (2025-2026):

• Fact Discovery Opens: Fact discovery was scheduled to open on October 7, 2025.
• Final Contentions Deadline: The deadline to serve Final Infringement and Invalidity Contentions was December 1, 2025.
• Pleading Amendments: Deadlines for amending pleadings were set for January 26, 2026, including repleading pre-suit willfulness or indirect infringement.
• Claim Narrowing Meet and Confers: The parties were scheduled for two meet and confers to narrow asserted claims and prior art references, with the first deadline on April 6, 2026, and the second on July 29, 2026.
• Dispositive Motions/Daubert: The deadline for dispositive motions and Daubert motions is August 12, 2026.
• Pretrial Disclosures: Pretrial disclosures (jury instructions, exhibit lists, witness lists) are due on August 26, 2026.

5. Trial Events & Present Posture (2026):

• Final Pretrial Conference: A Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled for October 26, 2026.
• Jury Trial: Jury selection and trial are scheduled to commence on November 16, 2026. The case remains active and is proceeding toward trial.

6. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings (2024-2025):

• Oracle-filed IPRs: Oracle Corporation filed multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions against both asserted patents. These included IPR2025-00964, IPR2025-00965, IPR2025-01001, and IPR2025-01002 for U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814 B2, and IPR2025-00966, IPR2025-00981, and IPR2025-00982 for U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058 B2.
• Denial of Institution for Oracle IPRs: On September 26, 2025, the Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the USPTO issued a decision Denying Institution of all these Oracle-filed IPRs. The decision cited a discretionary denial based on a holistic assessment of the evidence and arguments.
• Unified Patents Reexamination: Separately, Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination request for U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058. On October 24, 2024, the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) granted this request, finding substantial new questions of patentability for claims 1 and 12 of the patent. This reexamination is a separate proceeding from the IPRs filed by Oracle.

VirtaMove Corp. is represented by a team of attorneys from Russ August & Kabat. Several attorneys from the firm have appeared in the case, some of whom have been admitted pro hac vice.

Here is a list of the counsel of record representing VirtaMove Corp. in this case:

Firm: Russ August & Kabat

• Marc A. Fenster - Lead Counsel
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA.
  • Known for extensive experience in patent litigation, particularly for plaintiffs and NPEs. He is frequently recognized as a leading patent litigator.
• Neil A. Rubin - Lead Counsel
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA.
  • Focuses on patent and intellectual property litigation.
• Reza Mirzaie - Lead Counsel
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA.
  • Specializes in intellectual property litigation, including patent, trade secret, and copyright matters. Mirzaie was involved in serving summons for VirtaMove in this case.
• Jacob R. Buczko - Counsel
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experienced in patent litigation across various technologies.
• Jonathan Ma - Counsel
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA.
  • Practices in intellectual property litigation.
• Christian W. Conkle - Counsel
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA.
  • Involved in intellectual property disputes.
• Amy Hayden - Counsel
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA.
  • Handles intellectual property and complex commercial litigation.
• James S. Tsuei - Counsel
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA.
  • Focuses on patent and technology litigation.
• Qi (Peter) Tong - Counsel
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA.
  • Tong filed a declaration in support of VirtaMove's sur-reply regarding a motion to transfer.
• James Milkey - Counsel
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA.
  • Involved in various patent litigation matters for VirtaMove in other related cases.
• Linjun Xu - Counsel (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA.
  • Admitted pro hac vice in this case. Xu has also appeared in other related VirtaMove cases.
• Jefferson Cummings - Counsel (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA.
  • Admitted pro hac vice in other related VirtaMove cases.
• Daniel B. Kolko - Counsel
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA.
  • Focuses on intellectual property litigation.
• MacKenzie Paladino - Counsel
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA.
  • Practices in intellectual property and complex commercial litigation.

The defendant, Oracle Corporation, is represented by a team of external counsel from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC, along with internal legal guidance.

The counsel of record for Oracle Corporation includes:

• Jared Bobrow

  • Role: Lead Counsel (admitted pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Menlo Park, CA
  • Experience Note: A prominent patent litigator, he is listed as lead counsel for Oracle in its Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition against one of VirtaMove's asserted patents.

• Bas de Blank

  • Role: Counsel (admitted pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Menlo Park, CA
  • Experience Note: Actively involved in Oracle's patent defense and IPR challenges, appearing on several case filings.

• Diana Rutowski

  • Role: Counsel (admitted pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Menlo Park, CA
  • Experience Note: Part of Oracle's patent litigation team, her name appears on case filings and in related PTAB proceedings.

• Darryl J. Adams

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC, Austin, Texas
  • Experience Note: Serves as local counsel for Oracle in the Western District of Texas, providing local procedural expertise.

Additionally, Matthew Sarboraria serves as Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel at Oracle Corporation, where he leads the company's global intellectual property practice, including patent prosecution, licensing, and litigation support. While not formally listed as appearing counsel on the docket in the same capacity as external attorneys, he plays a significant in-house role in shaping Oracle's overall IP litigation strategy.