VirtaMove, Corp. v. Google LLC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
VIRTAMOVE, CORP.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-00860-NW
Case No. 26-cv-00704-NW (consol.)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART GOOGLE’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
Re: ECF No. 42
Plaintiff VirtaMove, Corp. alleges that Defendant Google LLC infringes U.S. Patent
No. 7,774,762 (the “’762 patent”). See ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”); ECF No. 1-1 (’762 patent). 1
Google has moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
ECF No. 42 (“Mot.”).
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition
without oral argument and VACATES the June 3, 2026 hearing. Having considered the parties’
arguments and the relevant legal authority, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN
PART Google’s motion.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Allegations of the Complaint2
VirtaMove, formerly known as AppZero Software Corp., focuses on containerization, that
is, a portable computing environment. AppZero’s software and services allow its customers to
1 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) and, unless otherwise
indicated, to material filed in VirtaMove, Corp. v. Google LLC, 26-cv-00704-NW (“VirtaMove
II”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.
2 The factual background is drawn from VirtaMove’s complaint.
Case 5:26-cv-00704-NW Document 50 Filed 06/01/26 Page 1 of 9

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
deploy the technology disclosed in the ’762 patent.
The ’762 patent issued on August 10, 2010, and is entitled “System Including Run-Time
Software to Enable a Software Application to Execute on an Incompatible Computer Platform.”
The ’762 patent is a continuation-in-part, and incorporates by reference, U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814
(the “’814 patent”), entitled “System for Containerization of Application Sets.” The claimed
invention of the ’762 patent “relates to management and deployment of one or more software
applications on one or more computer platforms for which one or more applications was not
designed to execute on.” Id. at 1:29–32; id. at 1:52–55 (“It is an object of this invention to provide
a system whereby one or more software applications can be run or executed on an incompatible
computer platform which heretofore, the applications could not be run on.”).
In 2015, 2020, and 2021, VirtaMove met with Google to explore a partnership,
demonstrate and train Google on how to use the AppZero software, discuss the integration of
AppZero into Google Cloud, and share materials about how AppZero functions. VirtaMove
alleges certain Google products—including “Google Kubernetes Engine, Cloud Run, Migrate to
Containers, Google Container Registry, Google Artifact Registry, Google Cloud Platform, and all
versions and variations thereof since the issuance of the [’762 patent]” (collectively, the “Accused
Products”)—practice the claimed invention of the ’762 patent. Compl. ¶ 16.
B. VirtaMove I
The ’814 patent is the subject of another, related lawsuit brought by VirtaMove against
Google, VirtaMove, Corp. v. Google LLC, 25-cv-00860-NW (“VirtaMove I”).
This Court’s November 28, 2025 order contains a detailed factual and procedural history
of VirtaMove I, as well as a description of the ’814 patent. VirtaMove I, ECF No. 124 at 1–4. In
that matter, Google moved to dismiss the second amended complaint (“SAC”), arguing, among
other things, that the ’814 patent was ineligible under ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Alice
Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). VirtaMove I, ECF No. 110.3
On November 28, 2025, this Court granted in part and denied in part Google’s motion.
3 Google’s motion also sought dismissal of U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058. VirtaMove voluntarily
dismissed that patent without prejudice. VirtaMove I, ECF No. 123.
Case 5:26-cv-00704-NW Document 50 Filed 06/01/26 Page 2 of 9

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Specifically, the Court (1) found that the ’814 patent was not directed to an abstract idea; (2) found
that the SAC stated claims of direct infringement and induced infringement under the
Iqbal/Twombly standard; and (3) dismissed with leave to amend VirtaMove’s claims for
contributory infringement and induced infringement based on Google’s actual, pre-suit knowledge
of the ’814 patent. VirtaMove I, ECF No. 124.
Google answered the SAC on January 9, 2026. VirtaMove I, ECF No. 129.
C. Procedural History
In this matter, on August 8, 2025, VirtaMove sued Google in the Western District of
Texas, alleging infringement of the ’762 patent. On October 20, 2025, while the case was still
pending in Texas, Google moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds that (1) the ’762 patent is
ineligible under Section 101 and Alice, and (2) the complaint did not plausibly allege direct
infringement and indirect infringement, including pre-suit indirect infringement. ECF No. 14. On
January 20, 2026, and before it ruled on Google’s motion to dismiss, the Texas court granted the
parties’ stipulation to transfer the action to this Court. ECF No. 21. The undersigned judge
related, and then subsequently consolidated, the instant action to VirtaMove I. ECF Nos. 35, 47.
On March 18, 2026, Google filed a statement of recent decision regarding this Court’s
November 28, 2025 order in VirtaMove I. ECF No. 40. Google then withdrew the portions of its
motion to dismiss the ’762 patent as ineligible under Section 101 and allegations of post-suit
induced infringement. Id. at 2. The Court ordered Google to re-file its motion with only the
portions Google planned to pursue. ECF No. 41. The Court also allowed VirtaMove to file a
supplemental opposition, and Google to file a supplemental reply, regarding the updated motion.
ECF No. 41.
Google filed the instant motion on March 27, 2026. ECF No. 42. VirtaMove re-filed its
opposition “with minor non-substantive revisions in response to Google’s redlined Motion to
Dismiss . . . to account for interim developments and to reflect the transfer of this action to the
Northern District of California . . . .” ECF No. 43 (“Opp’n”) at 4 n.1. VirtaMove also filed a
supplemental opposition, and Google filed a supplemental reply. ECF No. 44 (“Suppl. Opp’n”);
ECF No. 45 (“Suppl. Reply”).
Case 5:26-cv-00704-NW Document 50 Filed 06/01/26 Page 3 of 9

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
On April 17, 2026, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to consolidate the instant
matter with VirtaMove I. ECF No. 47.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is designed to “test[ ] the legal sufficiency of a
claim.” Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). A dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim can be based on either (1) the lack of a cognizable legal theory, or
(2) insufficient facts to support a cognizable legal claim. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901
F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
547 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
When analyzing a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), the court accepts the well-pleaded
factual allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Id.
Legal conclusions couched as factual allegations are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Id.
III. DISCUSSION
To satisfy the Iqbal pleading standard in a patent case, “[s]pecific facts are not
necessary[.]” Disc Disease Sols. Inc. v. VGH Sols., Inc., 888 F.3d 1256, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(quotation marks and citation omitted). The complaint needs to only give a defendant “fair notice
of what the [infringement] claim is and the ground upon which it rests.” Id. (quoting Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)). In addition, “[t]he level of detail required in any given case will
vary depending upon a number of factors, including the complexity of the technology, the
materiality of any given element to practicing the asserted claim(s), and the nature of the allegedly
infringing device.” AlexSam, Inc. v. Aetna, Inc., 119 F.4th 27, 42 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (citation
omitted).
Case 5:26-cv-00704-NW Document 50 Filed 06/01/26 Page 4 of 9

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
A. Direct Infringement
Liability for direct infringement arises when a party “without authority makes, uses, offers
to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States
any patented invention during the term of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). To plead direct
infringement, a plaintiff must recite “some factual allegations that, when taken as true, articulate
why it is plausible that the accused product infringes the patent claim.” Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp.
of Am., 4 F.4th 1342, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2021). “A plaintiff is not required to plead infringement on
an element-by-element basis.” Id. at 1352 (citing Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC, 883 F.3d 1337,
1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). But the plaintiff’s claim must include at least some factual allegations to
support a plausible inference that the product at issue satisfies a claim limitation. See id. at 1355.
Google argues the complaint fails to plead direct infringement because there are no
plausible allegations showing that the filtering step of claim 17(c) is met. For instance, although
VirtaMove’s claim chart identifies “containerd” functionalities, there are no allegations that
“containerd” means filtered or filtering application libraries. See ECF No. 1-2 at 30–37 (claim
chart for the ’762 patent, cl. 17[c]). Claim 17[c] discloses a method of enabling a software
application to execute that operates on a first computer platform, to execute on a second,
incompatible computer platform:
In a system having a first software application, which is designed for
execution on a first computer platform, a method of executing said
first software application on an incompatible computer platform in
which the first software application is not intended to execute, said
first software application including an object executable by a local
operating system of the incompatible computer platform for
performing a task related to a service, the incompatible computer
platform including a processor, an operating system including a local
kernel residing on the incompatible computer platform, and a set of
associated local system files compatible with the local kernel and the
processor of the incompatible computer platform, the method
comprising:
a) providing a computer readable set of first files, comprising a first
group of files that include the first software application, designed to
execute on the first computer platform and a second group of files
that are distributed with or are specific to an operating system
required to execute the first software application;
b) in the execution of the first software application on the
incompatible computer platform using said second group of files in
Case 5:26-cv-00704-NW Document 50 Filed 06/01/26 Page 5 of 9

6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
place of the associated local system files normally used to perform
a same task, which are resident on the incompatible computer
platform as part of the operating system, and,
c) executing on the second incompatible computer platform runtime
software for managing a dynamic state and file location of the first
software application, the runtime software including a kernel
module resident in kernel mode and at least one application filter
library resident in user mode and filtering one or more system
service requests made by the first software application and
providing values from the at least one application filter library
which is provided in addition to the local operating system libraries
to modify values that otherwise would have been returned by the
local operating system in the absence of said filtering one or more
system service requests from the first software application, and
executing the first software application by accessing files from first
set of files in place of operating system files and wherein
predetermined values are provided instead of values related to an
identity of the incompatible computer platform.
’762 patent at 17:25–18:28.
The complaint contains sufficient allegations of direct infringement to withstand a
Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The question of whether “containerd” satisfies claim 17[c]’s filtering
requirement is more appropriate for resolution with the benefit of claim construction and/or expert
testimony. But at this juncture, Google has sufficient notice of VirtaMove’s theory of
infringement. Google’s motion to dismiss VirtaMove’s claim for direct infringement is therefore
DENIED.
B. Indirect Infringement
Google moves to dismiss VirtaMove’s indirect infringement claims on grounds that the
complaint fails to plead the elements of contributory infringement, pre-suit knowledge, and pre-
suit induced infringement.
1. Contributory Infringement
Contributory infringement is a type of indirect infringement that involves the sale of a
component specifically designed for use in a patented combination or process. 35 U.S.C. § 271(c)
(“Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a
component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or
apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention,
knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such
Case 5:26-cv-00704-NW Document 50 Filed 06/01/26 Page 6 of 9

7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing
use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer.”). To plead a claim for contributory infringement, a
patent owner must allege: “1) that there is direct infringement, 2) that the accused infringer had
knowledge of the patent, 3) that the component has no substantial noninfringing uses, and 4) that
the component is a material part of the invention.” Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., 620 F.3d 1321,
1326 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
VirtaMove’s complaint fails to state a contributory infringement claim, as there are no
allegations showing that the “component is a material part of the invention” that “has no
substantial noninfringing uses.” Fujitsu Ltd., 620 F.3d at 1326. VirtaMove argues that Google’s
“servers, once specially configured as recited in the asserted patents, are no longer staple articles,
nor are they suitable for noninfringing uses.” Opp’n at 8. But VirtaMove, tellingly in its
omission, does not explain how this is so. Accordingly, VirtaMove’s contributory infringement
claim is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
2. Pre-Suit Knowledge
Indirect infringement claims require allegations of “knowledge of the patent in suit and
knowledge of patent infringement.” Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 575 U.S. 632, 639
(2015).
Google argues that the allegations of pre-suit indirect infringement fail because VirtaMove
does not adequately plead Google had pre-suit knowledge of the ’762 patent. Mot. at 12–13.
VirtaMove counters that the allegations regarding its pre-lawsuit negotiations with Google are
sufficient to plead pre-suit knowledge, and that Google’s argument as to whether it learned about
the ’762 patent through due diligence is a factual dispute. Opp’n at 8–9 (citing Compl. ¶ 10).
The allegation that “Google would have learned that AppZero was patented as a matter of
basic due diligence” (Compl. ¶ 10), without more, is conclusory and insufficient to give rise to an
inference of pre-suit knowledge. See Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc. v. HTC Am. Inc., No. 17-CV-
05806-RS, 2018 WL 1367324, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2018) (“[A]llegations regarding
‘defendant’s exercise of due diligence pertaining to intellectual property affecting its Devices’”
were not “sufficient to establish knowledge”); Tawnsaura Grp., LLC v. Maximum Hum.
Case 5:26-cv-00704-NW Document 50 Filed 06/01/26 Page 7 of 9

8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Performance, LLC, No. CV 12–07189–SJO–(AGRx), 2012 WL 12331032, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov.
7, 2012) (finding allegations that “[d]efendant must have had knowledge of the patents because it
employs ‘sophisticated, experienced legal counsel with expertise in patent law’ and ‘conducts or
should conduct due diligence’ or in the alternative, was willfully blind as to infringement” to be
“boilerplate” and “insufficient”). Thus, to the extent the indirect infringement claim is predicated
on pre-suit knowledge, VirtaMove’s claim is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
3. Pre-Suit Induced Infringement
“Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.” 35
U.S.C. § 271(b). To plead a claim for induced infringement, the plaintiff must show that the
alleged inducer (1) knew of the patent, (2) knowingly induced the infringing acts, and (3)
possessed a specific intent to encourage another’s infringement of the patent. Vita-Mix Corp. v.
Basic Holding, Inc., 581 F.3d 1317, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co.,
471 F.3d 1293, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Further, induced infringement is predicated on the
existence of direct infringement. See Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips Corp., 363 F.3d
1263, 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Indirect infringement, whether inducement to infringe or
contributory infringement, can only arise in the presence of direct infringement.”).
Google argues that, to the extent the induced infringement claim is predicated on pre-suit
conduct, the claim fails for the same reason as the direct infringement claim, namely, there are no
allegations that the Accused Products “filter” as disclosed in the ’762 patent. Mot. at 13. Google
contends VirtaMove’s claim fails for the additional reason that there are no allegations of specific
intent. Id. at 14.
Google’s filtering argument fails with respect to the induced infringement claim for the
same reasons as it does with the direct infringement claim. But, as discussed above, the complaint
does not adequately allege pre-suit knowledge. For this reason, VirtaMove’s induced
infringement claim is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Google’s motion to dismiss is DENIED in part and
GRANTED in part as follows:
Case 5:26-cv-00704-NW Document 50 Filed 06/01/26 Page 8 of 9

9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
• Google’s motion to dismiss the direct infringement claim is DENIED.
• Google’s motion to dismiss the contributory infringement claim is GRANTED
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
• Google’s motion to dismiss the indirect infringement claim based on pre-suit
knowledge is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
• Google’s motion to dismiss the induced infringement claim is GRANTED WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND.
VirtaMove’s amended complaint, if any, shall be filed by June 22, 2026, and Google’s
response shall be due July 13, 2026.
In addition, by June 8, 2026, the parties shall meet and confer and file a proposal regarding
the filing of a consolidated complaint and response that addresses any pending claims in
VirtaMove I and II.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 1, 2026
Noël Wise
United States District Judge
Case 5:26-cv-00704-NW Document 50 Filed 06/01/26 Page 9 of 9