FaceTec, Inc. v. iProov LTD

FaceTec, Inc. v. iProov LTD is an active patent infringement, breach of contract, and intentional interference with contractual relations lawsuit in the United States District Court, District of Nevada, Case No. 2:21-cv-02252. The plaintiff, FaceTec, Inc., is a Nevada-based global provider of 3D Liveness and 3D Face Matching software for remote identity verification, specializing in biometric authentication and anti-spoofing technology. The defendant, iProov LTD, is a UK-based global technology company and a competitor in biometric verification and authentication, known for its "Liveness Assurance" software. FaceTec alleges that iProov's "Liveness Assurance" product infringes upon its patented technology, specifically by incorporating features allegedly copied from FaceTec's software. The core of the dispute also involves allegations that iProov improperly used information gained through participation in FaceTec's "Spoof Bounty Program" to develop its infringing technology, violating confidentiality provisions and engaging in unauthorized reverse engineering.

Among the patents asserted in the litigation is U.S. Patent No. 11,157,606. This patent generally pertains to pioneering 3D Liveness technology, including the evaluation of perspective distortion in face images taken at different distances to reliably verify a user's three-dimensionality and prevent spoofing attacks in biometric identity verification systems. The case is being overseen by District Judge Richard F. Boulware, II and Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler. The District of Nevada, where FaceTec is headquartered, maintains local patent rules designed to structure discovery and clarify legal theories early in the litigation, aiming for efficient case resolution. Venue in the District of Nevada is proper as iProov has transacted business and allegedly committed acts of patent infringement in the district, and as a foreign entity, it may be sued in any judicial district. Appeals from patent cases in this district are heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

This case is notable given the intense competition and significant industry impact within the rapidly evolving field of biometric identity verification and anti-spoofing technology. A key development in June 2026 saw the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) uphold the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 11,157,606, along with three other related patents (10,776,471, 11,693,938, and 11,874,910), in inter partes reviews (IPRs) initiated by Jumio Corporation. Jumio, a former partner of FaceTec, switched to iProov's biometric liveness detection in 2021, and FaceTec subsequently accused both iProov and Jumio of infringement. The PTAB's decision to affirm the validity of these foundational 3D Liveness patents strengthens FaceTec's position to pursue injunctive relief and substantial monetary damages against alleged infringers in ongoing lawsuits against both Jumio and iProov. This outcome highlights the aggressive protection of intellectual property in this critical technology sector where the prevention of identity fraud and cybercrime is paramount.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in FaceTec, Inc. v. iProov LTD

This active litigation, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, involves claims of patent infringement, breach of contract, and intentional interference with contractual relations. U.S. Patent No. 11,157,606 is among the patents at issue.

Chronological Summary of Key Legal Developments:

• 2021-12-28 – Complaint Filed: FaceTec, Inc. initiated the lawsuit against iProov LTD, alleging patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., including 35 U.S.C. § 271, and asserting claims for breach of contract and intentional interference with contractual relations. The initial complaint specifically referenced U.S. Patent No. 10,776,471 B2, and other documents confirm U.S. Patent No. 11,157,606 is also at issue.

• 2022-04-29 – Extension for Answer and Counterclaims: The court granted an extension, giving iProov until June 3, 2022, to respond to the Complaint and file any counterclaims. iProov subsequently filed an answer and counterclaims. The counterclaims include allegations of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,621,548 by FaceTec.

• Discovery Disputes and Rulings: During discovery, a dispute arose regarding the scope of information iProov sought. iProov requested revenue and transaction data related to FaceTec's accused products. A Magistrate Judge ordered FaceTec to provide revenue information for its accused product, not just specific features like "Liveness & ID scan." FaceTec objected, but on March 12, 2025, the District Court overruled FaceTec's objection, affirming that the requested discovery was relevant and within the scope.

• Markman (Claim Construction) Order: While a specific date for the Markman order is not provided in the search results, an expert witness profile indicates that a Markman order was issued in the case, and the court found the claims indefinite. This is a significant development, as indefiniteness can lead to invalidity of the patent claims.

• 2025-02 – Motion to Stay Pending IPR Filed: iProov moved to stay the Nevada litigation pending the outcome of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings.

• 2025-06-06 – PTAB Instituted IPR Proceedings: Jumio Corporation filed IPR2025-00106 and IPR2025-00107 against FaceTec, Inc. concerning claims of a patent implicated in the Nevada litigation (referenced as the '606 patent, likely U.S. Patent No. 11,157,606 based on the context of the complaint for infringement). The PTAB's final written decision in these IPRs is projected for mid-June 2026.

• 2025-06-18 – Motion to Stay Granted: The district court granted iProov's motion to stay the case pending the IPR proceedings. This stay will likely remain in effect until the PTAB issues its final written decisions in the parallel IPRs.

Current Posture:

The case is currently active but stayed pending the outcome of IPR proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) related to U.S. Patent No. 11,157,606. The PTAB's final written decisions are expected in mid-June 2026. A Markman order has already been issued, finding certain claims indefinite.

FaceTec, Inc. is represented by counsel from Weide & Miller, Ltd. and ONE LLP in the patent infringement case FaceTec, Inc. v. iProov LTD, Case No. 2:21-cv-02252, filed in the District of Nevada. The attorneys of record, as identified in the initial complaint filed on December 28, 2021, along with their roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience, are as follows:

From Weide & Miller, Ltd.:

• F. Christopher Austin (Lead Counsel / Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Weide & Miller, Ltd. (at time of filing). As of 2025, Mr. Austin joined Lex Tecnica, Ltd..
  • Office Location: Las Vegas, Nevada (Weide & Miller, Ltd. is located at 10655 Park Run Drive, Suite 100, Las Vegas, NV 89144, and also at 7251 W. Lake Mead Blvd., Suite 530, Las Vegas, NV 89128-8373). Lex Tecnica, Ltd. also appears to be based in Las Vegas.
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Austin is an experienced commercial litigator and intellectual property lawyer with over 30 years of trial experience focused on patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. He has prosecuted and defended patent, copyright, and trademark infringement actions and has secured seizures of infringing materials.

From ONE LLP:

• Nathaniel L. Dilger (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: ONE LLP
  • Office Location: Newport Beach, California (23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660).
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Dilger's practice focuses on litigating intellectual property disputes, particularly patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation claims. He has extensive experience before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings and has argued before the Federal Circuit, affirming the patentability of a client's patent. His experience spans various technologies including semiconductor fabrication, internet-related technologies, and biomedical devices. He was also trial counsel for Polara Engineering in a patent infringement lawsuit where a federal jury awarded full royalty damages.

• Peter R. Afrasiabi (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: ONE LLP
  • Office Location: Newport Beach, California (23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150-105, Newport Beach, CA 92660, or 23 Corporate Plaza Drive West Tower, Suite 500). He also has a Beverly Hills office listed at 9301 Wilshire Blvd. Penthouse Suite.
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Afrasiabi is a partner at ONE LLP, specializing in intellectual property and entertainment law. He has significant expertise in appellate litigation, having argued patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret appeals before the Federal Circuit and other federal and state courts. He has been recognized as a Top Intellectual Property and Entertainment lawyer by Variety Magazine.

• William J. O'Brien (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: ONE LLP
  • Office Location: Beverly Hills, California (9301 Wilshire Blvd. Penthouse Suite, Beverly Hills, CA 90210). Other offices are listed in Culver City (400 Corporate Point, Suite 300, Culver City, CA 90230) and Newport Beach (4000 MacArthur Boulevard East Tower Suite 500, Newport Beach, CA 92660).
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. O'Brien is a trial and appellate lawyer with extensive experience in intellectual property and technology cases, including patent, trademark, trade dress, copyright, and trade secret cases. He has successfully represented clients in major jury trials and appellate proceedings before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and other federal and state appellate courts. His experience covers a wide range of technologies such as medical devices, consumer electronics, and software.

Based on available public information, the counsel of record representing defendant iProov LTD in FaceTec, Inc. v. iProov LTD, case number 2:21-cv-02252, is:

• Name: Ryan E. Hatch
• Role: Counsel. While not explicitly designated as "lead counsel" in the search results, his firm's specialization and his experience suggest a primary role in the patent litigation.
• Firm: Hatch Law, P.C.
• Office Location: Los Angeles, CA.
• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Ryan Hatch is a registered patent attorney licensed in California and in Federal Courts throughout the United States. His practice focuses on intellectual property, civil litigation, and counseling, emphasizing the resolution of patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, and commercial disputes. He represents both patent owners and accused infringers in patent litigation and licensing disputes across various technologies, including software, electronics, semiconductors, lighting equipment, health supplements, and nutritional products. He holds a bachelor's degree in Computer Science and has prior experience as a software engineer.