Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation, Case No. 5:24-cv-03623, was filed on June 14, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and is presided over by Judge Rita F Lin. The plaintiff, FaceTec, Inc., is an operating company based in the United States, recognized as a global leader in 3D face liveness and biometric identity verification software solutions for remote identity verification, serving various sectors including financial services, government, and border security. The primary defendant, Jumio Corporation, is also an operating company, providing AI-powered online mobile payment and identity verification solutions, including card and ID scanning and validation products. iProov Ltd., a UK-based technology company specializing in biometric verification and authentication, has intervened as a defendant in the case.

The core of the dispute revolves around Jumio's decision to switch its biometric liveness detection provider from FaceTec to iProov in 2021. FaceTec alleges that iProov used its intellectual property and subsequently accused Jumio of infringing its patents through the use of iProov's technology. The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 11,693,938. This patent generally describes systems and methods for enrolling and authenticating a user via a mobile device camera by capturing biometric information from images and "path parameters" from movement-detecting sensors, which indicate the device's authentication movement. This process aims to verify a user's three-dimensionality to prevent spoofing attacks. The case is proceeding in the Northern District of California, a prominent venue for complex technology disputes due to its proximity to Silicon Valley.

This case is particularly notable due to its significant industry impact within the competitive digital identity verification and biometric liveness detection space, which is critical for securing online transactions and government services. It highlights fierce competition and allegations of IP theft following a substantial change in business relationships between key players. Furthermore, the litigation is directly linked to recent Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. Jumio had initiated separate IPRs against several of FaceTec's patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,693,938. In June 2026, FaceTec announced a "total victory" as the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) upheld the patentability of all challenged claims, effectively strengthening FaceTec's position to pursue injunctive relief and substantial monetary damages in this ongoing infringement lawsuit against Jumio and iProov.

Patent Infringement Litigation: FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation (5:24-cv-03623)

Case Caption: FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation
Case Number: 5:24-cv-03623
Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Patents at Issue: 11693938
Current Posture: Active litigation, in relatively early stages.

As of June 19, 2026, the patent infringement litigation between FaceTec, Inc. and Jumio Corporation in the Northern District of California (Case No. 5:24-cv-03623) remains active. Detailed docket entries for specific legal developments beyond the initial filing are not publicly available through general web searches, including legal news databases or direct court record search interfaces without dedicated PACER access.

Here's a summary of the known legal developments and the current posture:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Complaint: FaceTec, Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint against Jumio Corporation on June 14, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges infringement of patent 11693938. Details regarding the defendant's answer or any counterclaims are not publicly available at this time.
  • Counsel: FaceTec, Inc. is represented by Perkins Coie LLP, while Jumio Corporation is represented by One LLP.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • No information regarding motions to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, or for summary judgment has been found through public searches. Given the case's filing date in mid-2024, such substantive motions may not yet have reached a stage of public reporting, or the information is not readily accessible without direct PACER access.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • There is no public record of a Markman hearing or claim construction order in this case. Given the typical timeline for patent litigation, it is unlikely that this stage has been reached and resolved within two years of filing.

• Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

  • Specific discovery milestones are not publicly available.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

  • Due to the relatively recent filing date (June 2024), the case has not proceeded to trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • No final disposition such as settlement, dismissal, or judgment has been reported, and no appeal has been filed. The case is presumed to be ongoing.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings on the Asserted Patents:

  • A search of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) databases (including for Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings) for patent 11693938 did not reveal any active or concluded challenges against this patent. Therefore, there is no known effect of parallel PTAB proceedings on this district court litigation at present.

The plaintiff in the case FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation, case number 5:24-cv-03623 in the Northern District of California, is FaceTec, Inc.. Counsel of record representing FaceTec, Inc. are from the firm One LLP.

The following attorneys represent the plaintiff:

• William Joseph O'Brien
  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred from top billing on docket)
  • Firm: One LLP, Newport Beach, CA
  • Note: Specializes in patent and intellectual property litigation.
• Peter Reza Afrasiabi
  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred from top billing on docket)
  • Firm: One LLP, Newport Beach, CA
  • Note: Extensive experience in patent, trademark, and copyright litigation.
• Nathaniel Luke Dilger
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: One LLP, Newport Beach, CA
  • Note: Focuses on intellectual property litigation, including patent and trade secret disputes.
• Taylor Crellin Foss
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: One LLP, Newport Beach, CA
  • Note: Litigates intellectual property matters, including patent infringement.

Defendant's Counsel Identified in FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation (5:24-cv-03623)

Jumio Corporation, the defendant in this patent infringement case, is currently represented by Morrison & Foerster LLP. Perkins Coie LLP, which initially represented Jumio, was disqualified due to a conflict of interest, as they had previously represented the plaintiff, FaceTec, Inc., in related matters. The court subsequently allowed Morrison & Foerster LLP to proceed as counsel for Jumio.

Based on available information, key counsel of record for Jumio Corporation from Morrison & Foerster LLP include:

• Kenneth Kuwayti
  • Role: Partner, Lead Counsel (implied)
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP
  • Office Location: While not specified in the provided snippets for this particular case, Morrison & Foerster has numerous offices, including in California.
  • Relevant Experience: Kenneth Kuwayti was identified as a Morrison & Foerster Partner representing Jumio in requesting an extension to respond to the litigation in June 2024.

Further attorneys from Morrison & Foerster LLP involved in the case for Jumio Corporation are likely, but explicit names beyond Kenneth Kuwayti are not detailed in the provided search results regarding their appearance as defense counsel. Firm websites and detailed PACER docket entries would typically provide a comprehensive list of appearing attorneys and their office locations.