VirtaMove, Corp. v. Google LLC

Background

VirtaMove, Corp. sued Google LLC for patent infringement. VirtaMove is described in the opinion as a Canadian company formerly known as Appzero Software Corp. Its technology concerns containerization, or portable computing environments. VirtaMove alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,519,814 and 7,784,058. While Google’s motion was pending, VirtaMove voluntarily dismissed its claims involving the ’058 patent, which made the parts of the motion concerning that patent no longer relevant.

The remaining dispute concerned the ’814 patent, which relates to managing and deploying server applications. Claim 1 describes storing secure software containers that include applications and associated system files, using a local operating-system kernel, copies or modified copies of system files, and a separate root file system for each container.

Court’s analysis

Google moved to dismiss under the rule requiring a complaint to plead enough facts to make relief plausible. Google argued that claim 1 was ineligible under Section 101 of the Patent Act because it covered an abstract idea. The court rejected that argument. Applying the first step of the two-step Alice analysis, the court held that claim 1 was directed to a specific computer-technology solution rather than an abstract idea. Because the claim was not directed to an abstract idea, the court did not reach the second Alice step.

The court also rejected Google’s challenge to direct infringement. VirtaMove’s second amended complaint included claim charts mapping the patent’s limitations to the accused products, including Google’s Migrate to Containers product. The court held that these allegations gave Google sufficient notice at the pleading stage.

The court held that VirtaMove adequately pleaded induced infringement. The complaint alleged that Google had demonstrated and received information about VirtaMove’s software during partnership discussions in 2015, 2020, and 2021, and that Google later encouraged customers and end users to use the accused products in allegedly infringing ways.

The court reached a different conclusion on contributory infringement. It held that the complaint did not adequately identify a component that was a material part of the invention and had no substantial noninfringing uses. The court therefore granted Google’s motion to dismiss the contributory-infringement claim involving the ’814 patent, with leave to amend.

The court also held that the allegations were insufficient to establish Google’s actual knowledge of the ’814 patent before the lawsuit. It granted Google’s motion to dismiss the induced-infringement claims to the extent they relied on that pre-suit knowledge, with leave to amend.

Finally, the court rejected Google’s challenge to VirtaMove’s claim for pre-suit damages. The court held that VirtaMove sufficiently pleaded compliance with the patent-marking requirement, including because the complaint asserted a method claim and alleged compliance with the marking statute.

Disposition

The court vacated the scheduled hearing and denied in part and granted in part Google’s motion to dismiss. Specifically, it granted the motion, with leave to amend, as to VirtaMove’s contributory-infringement claim involving the ’814 patent and its induced-infringement claims based on Google’s actual pre-suit knowledge of that patent. The court denied the motion in all other respects. VirtaMove could file a third amended complaint within 21 days of the order, by December 19, 2025.