Untitled case

FaceTec, Inc., an operating company specializing in liveness detection technology for facial recognition, initiated patent infringement litigation against Jumio Corporation, a provider of identity verification services. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, under case number 3:24-cv-03623-RFL, and is presided over by Judge Rita F. Lin. The core of the dispute centers on Jumio's alleged use of infringing "liveness detection" technology within its applications, which helps verify that facial recognition systems are interacting with a live human face rather than a spoof. The allegedly infringing technology utilized by Jumio was reportedly supplied by iProov Ltd., a UK-based company that has since been granted intervenor status in the lawsuit.

The sole patent asserted in this litigation is U.S. Patent No. 10,776,471, titled "Facial recognition authentication system including path parameters." This patent describes systems and methods that enhance the security of facial recognition authentication on mobile devices by capturing not only biometric information but also "path parameters" such as the acceleration, speed, angle, or distance of the mobile device during image capture. These path parameters are compared to an expected movement to confirm the authenticity of the authentication process.

The case, filed on June 14, 2024, is currently active, with a Case Management Conference set for May 20, 2026, and a jury trial scheduled for August 10, 2026. A notable procedural development includes the court's denial of FaceTec's motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice, partly due to concerns that it could prejudice Jumio by affecting its ability to pursue defenses, including initiating inter partes reviews (IPRs). Indeed, parallel PTAB proceedings are underway, with "JUMIO v. FACETEC IPR2025-00108" challenging the '471 patent. This inter partes review linkage, combined with the dispute involving major players in the critical biometrics and identity verification industry, makes this case significant for its implications on secure online authentication and the interplay between district court litigation and PTAB challenges.

This patent infringement litigation, FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation, Case No. 3:24-cv-03623, is currently active in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case involves U.S. Patent No. 10,776,471 and is presided over by Judge Rita F. Lin.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed (2024-06-14): FaceTec, Inc. initiated the lawsuit by filing a complaint for patent infringement against Jumio Corporation. The complaint alleges infringement related to liveness detection technology, which helps facial recognition systems verify a live human face.
• Answer and Counterclaims (Date not explicitly found but occurred before 2024-10-10): Jumio Corporation filed an answer to the complaint, and the case includes related counterclaims.
• Motion to Intervene (2024-09-16): iProov Ltd., a company that provided the allegedly infringing liveness detection technology to Jumio, moved to intervene in the litigation.
• Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (2024-10-10): FaceTec filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice.
• Order Denying Dismissal and Granting Intervention (2024-11-01): The Court denied FaceTec's motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice and granted iProov Ltd.'s motion to intervene. The court noted that because Jumio had already answered the complaint, dismissal without court approval was prohibited under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Stay Pending IPR (Filed by Jumio, before 2024-12-16): Jumio Corporation filed a motion to stay the district court litigation pending the outcome of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings it initiated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
• Opposition to Motion to Stay (2024-12-16): FaceTec, Inc. filed a memorandum in opposition to Jumio's motion to stay. FaceTec argued that a stay was not warranted as Jumio had not demonstrated that a stay would simplify the issues, especially since the PTAB had not yet decided whether to institute the IPR proceedings. As of the available information, the outcome of this motion to stay is not explicitly stated.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• No Markman hearing has been scheduled or conducted in this case as of the current information. The case is still relatively early in its lifecycle, with a jury trial scheduled for August 2026.

Discovery Milestones:

• No specific discovery milestones with strategic significance have been publicly detailed yet.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• Jury Trial Scheduled (2026-08-10): A jury trial has been scheduled for August 10, 2026.
• Case Management Conference Scheduled (2026-05-20): A case management conference is set for May 20, 2026.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case is currently active and proceeding towards the scheduled trial in August 2026.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPR2025-00108: Jumio Corporation filed an IPR petition, IPR2025-00108, challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,776,471. FaceTec's opposition to the motion to stay references this IPR.
• IPR2025-00107: This IPR, also filed by Jumio against FaceTec, mentions the district court case (3:24-cv-03623) and refers to the patent in suit as the '606 patent, which appears to be a clerical error and likely refers to a patent related to the '471 patent or the '471 patent itself.
• As of December 2024, the PTAB's decisions on whether to institute these IPR proceedings were still pending.

In the patent infringement case 3:24-cv-03623 in the California Northern District Court, FaceTec, Inc. is represented by attorneys from ONE LLP.

Here is the counsel of record for the plaintiff(s):

• Nathaniel L. Dilger

  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff (Lead Counsel is implied by his listing first and active participation in filings).
  • Firm: ONE LLP, Newport Beach, CA.
  • Note: Mr. Dilger has a California Bar No. 196203. His firm, ONE LLP, is noted for its litigation practice, including intellectual property.

• Peter R. Afrasiabi

  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff.
  • Firm: ONE LLP, Newport Beach, CA.
  • Note: Mr. Afrasiabi has a California Bar No. 193336. He is a founding partner of ONE LLP, with a focus on intellectual property, entertainment, and complex business litigation.

• Taylor C. Foss

  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff.
  • Firm: ONE LLP, Newport Beach, CA.
  • Note: Ms. Foss has a California Bar No. 253486.

• William J. O'Brien

  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff.
  • Firm: ONE LLP, Culver City, CA.
  • Note: Mr. O'Brien has a California Bar No. 99526. He is also a founding partner of ONE LLP, with extensive experience in intellectual property litigation.

Defendant Counsel Identified in FaceTec v. Jumio Patent Infringement Case

In the patent infringement case FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation (3:24-cv-03623-RFL) in the California Northern District Court, the defendants, Jumio Corporation and intervenor-defendant iProov Ltd., are represented by the following counsel:

For Defendant Jumio Corporation:

Morrison & Foerster LLP

• Kenneth Alexander Kuwayti
  • Role: Lead Counsel (assumed based on being the listed representative for Jumio after Perkins Coie's disqualification)
  • Firm Office: Morrison & Foerster LLP, likely in one of their California offices such as San Francisco or Palo Alto, given the court's location and Jumio's headquarters. Morrison & Foerster has a strong intellectual property and patent litigation practice, particularly in high-tech cases and in the Northern District of California.
  • Relevant Experience: Morrison & Foerster is recognized as a patent litigation powerhouse, frequently handling complex patent disputes in the technology sector across active venues including the Northern District of California.

In-House Counsel for Jumio Corporation:

• Gina Signorello
  • Role: General Counsel
  • Firm: Jumio Corporation, Palo Alto, CA
  • Relevant Experience: Gina Signorello leads Jumio's legal team and strategy, bringing over 25 years of experience in providing legal counsel for technology companies, including senior leadership roles at Hewlett-Packard Company and Hewlett Packard Enterprise.

Note: Perkins Coie LLP was initially representing Jumio Corporation but was disqualified due to a conflict of interest arising from prior representation of FaceTec, Inc..

For Intervenor-Defendant iProov Ltd.:

• Alan Daniel Sege

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Alan Sege Esq., PC
  • Relevant Experience: Specific experience for Mr. Sege was not immediately available in the provided search results, but his firm is listed as representing iProov Ltd. in this patent litigation.

• Ryan Ephraim Hatch

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Hatch Law PC
  • Relevant Experience: Specific experience for Mr. Hatch was not immediately available in the provided search results, but his firm is listed as representing iProov Ltd. in this patent litigation.