Untitled case

Here's an overview and background for the patent infringement litigation in case 5:24-cv-03623:

This patent infringement lawsuit, FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation, was filed on June 14, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff, FaceTec, Inc., is a biometrics technology company known for its 3D Face Matching and Liveness Detection software, which is used for identity verification and fraud prevention. The defendant, Jumio Corporation, is also a prominent identity verification company offering AI-powered solutions to verify identities online. The core of the dispute revolves around alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,157,606, which generally pertains to "Systems and Methods for Preventing Identity Fraud and Impersonation," focusing on secure biometric authentication processes. The alleged infringing products or services are Jumio's identity verification technologies that FaceTec claims utilize the patented systems and methods.

The case is being heard in the Northern District of California, with Judge Rita F. Lin assigned to the matter. This venue is a significant choice for patent litigation, particularly for technology companies headquartered in the region. The Northern District of California has developed robust patent local rules that mandate early disclosure of infringement and invalidity contentions, which can streamline the discovery process. Furthermore, judges in this district are known for their willingness to grant early dispositive motions, such as Alice motions challenging patent eligibility, and motions to stay cases pending inter partes review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This procedural posture can be advantageous for defendants seeking to challenge patent validity early in the litigation lifecycle.

The notability of this case stems from the high-stakes competitive landscape within the burgeoning identity verification and biometrics industry. Both FaceTec and Jumio are key players, and the outcome of this litigation could significantly impact market share, technological innovation, and intellectual property strategies in a sector critical to cybersecurity and online transactions. The frequent use of Alice motions and IPR proceedings in the Northern District of California also makes this case a bellwether for how foundational biometric authentication patents will fare against eligibility and validity challenges in a prominent patent litigation forum.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation

The patent infringement litigation, FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation, Case No. 5:24-cv-03623, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 14, 2024. The case involves U.S. Patent No. 11,157,606.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed (2024-06-14): FaceTec, Inc. initiated the lawsuit against Jumio Corporation in the Northern District of California.

As of the current date (June 19, 2026), further details regarding initial pleadings such as an answer or counterclaims, or any substantive pre-trial motions (e.g., motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay), claim construction, discovery milestones, trial events, or a final disposition, are not yet publicly available in the provided search results. Given the relatively recent filing date, the case is likely still in its early stages of litigation.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

No parallel PTAB IPR (Inter Partes Review) or PGR (Post-Grant Review) proceedings related to U.S. Patent No. 11,157,606 were identified in the search results. The USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) can be used to search for such proceedings by patent number, application number, or party name.

The plaintiff in the patent infringement case 5:24-cv-03623, filed in the California Northern District Court, is FaceTec, Inc..

The following attorneys are listed as counsel of record for FaceTec, Inc.:

Perkins Coie LLP

• David R. Pekarek Krohn
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm Office: Likely Palo Alto, CA or Seattle, WA, given the firm's presence and patent litigation focus. (Specific office location not explicitly stated in provided search results, but Perkins Coie has a strong IP presence on the West Coast).
  • Relevant Experience: Perkins Coie's patent litigation team is known for handling complex technical matters across various industries including computer and software, telecommunications, and medical devices.
• Grant Edward Kinsel
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm Office: Likely Palo Alto, CA or Seattle, WA. (Specific office location not explicitly stated in provided search results).
  • Relevant Experience: As part of Perkins Coie, he is involved with a team that has won critical victories in patent cases and excels at presenting complex technical matters to judges and juries.
• Samantha Carl
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm Office: Likely Palo Alto, CA or Seattle, WA. (Specific office location not explicitly stated in provided search results).
  • Relevant Experience: Part of Perkins Coie's patent litigation team which handles cases across various technologies.
• Jessica Delacenserie
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm Office: Likely Palo Alto, CA or Seattle, WA. (Specific office location not explicitly stated in provided search results).
  • Relevant Experience: Contributes to Perkins Coie's comprehensive patent litigation practice.
• Jessica Kaiser
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm Office: Likely Palo Alto, CA or Seattle, WA. (Specific office location not explicitly stated in provided search results).
  • Relevant Experience: Involved with Perkins Coie's patent litigation team, known for its technical expertise and courtroom experience.

One LLP

• William Joseph O'Brien
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm Office: (Specific office location for One LLP not explicitly stated in provided search results, but given the Northern District of California venue, a California office is probable).
  • Relevant Experience: (Specific patent litigation experience not detailed in provided search results).
• Peter Reza Afrasiabi
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm Office: (Specific office location for One LLP not explicitly stated in provided search results).
  • Relevant Experience: (Specific patent litigation experience not detailed in provided search results).
• Nathaniel Luke Dilger
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm Office: (Specific office location for One LLP not explicitly stated in provided search results).
  • Relevant Experience: (Specific patent litigation experience not detailed in provided search results).
• Taylor Crellin Foss
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm Office: (Specific office location for One LLP not explicitly stated in provided search results).
  • Relevant Experience: (Specific patent litigation experience not detailed in provided search results).

Unaffiliated or In-House (Information Pending)

• Tyler Knox
  • Role: Counsel (Firm affiliation not immediately clear from provided search result).
  • Firm: Not specified in the provided search results. Further investigation would be needed to determine if he is in-house counsel or affiliated with one of the listed firms.
  • Relevant Experience: (Specific patent litigation experience not detailed in provided search results).

Defendant Jumio Corporation is represented by Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Here are the details for the counsel of record representing Jumio Corporation:

• Kenneth Alexander Kuwayti
  • Role: Counsel of Record (appears to be lead counsel).
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Note: Mr. Kuwayti is listed as counsel for Jumio Corporation.

It is important to note that Perkins Coie LLP was initially listed as counsel for Jumio, but was disqualified from representing Jumio in April 2025 due to a conflict of interest, as they had previously represented FaceTec. FaceTec also attempted to disqualify Morrison & Foerster LLP, alleging they had acted as co-counsel with Perkins Coie, but this motion was rejected by Judge Rita F. Lin in July 2025.

Jumio's in-house counsel is Gina Signorello, General Counsel. While she leads Jumio's legal team and strategy, external firms typically handle litigation.

The docket information provided in the search results sometimes lists the case as 3:24-cv-03623, while the initial prompt specifies 5:24-cv-03623. Both case numbers refer to "FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation" in the Northern District of California, suggesting these may be alternative identifiers for the same case, or potentially a typo in one of the sources. For this response, the defendant's counsel information has been cross-referenced between results listing both variations where possible. However, the most recent and relevant information regarding the disqualification and retention of counsel explicitly refers to the "FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation" case and the specific judge, Rita F. Lin, confirming it is the same litigation.