FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation

FaceTec, Inc. initiated patent infringement litigation against Jumio Corporation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. FaceTec, the plaintiff, is an operating company based in Las Vegas, specializing in 3D face verification and biometric identity software, particularly known for its 3D Face Liveness and Matching technologies. The defendant, Jumio Corporation, is also an operating company headquartered in Sunnyvale, California, providing online mobile payment and identity verification services, utilizing artificial intelligence, biometrics, machine learning, and liveness detection.

The lawsuit alleges that Jumio infringes FaceTec's intellectual property through its liveness detection technology. Specifically, FaceTec claims Jumio's applications incorporate proprietary liveness detection technology, which Jumio sourced from iProov Ltd., an intervening defendant. The primary patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 11,693,938, along with several others, protects FaceTec's foundational 3D Liveness technology, which evaluates perspective distortion in face images captured at varying distances to verify a user's three-dimensionality and counteract spoofing attempts.

This case is presided over by Hon. Rita F. Lin. The Northern District of California is a significant venue for patent litigation, notable for pioneering Patent Local Rules that streamline cases, narrow issues, and mandate early disclosures, influencing practices in other patent-heavy districts. While not considered a "rocket docket," it offers a time-to-trial rate consistent with the national average and is recognized for its educated jury pool, which is often familiar with technology-related issues, potentially impacting trial strategies. The case is particularly notable due to recent "total victory" rulings by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes reviews (IPRs) initiated by Jumio against FaceTec's patents, including 11,693,938. The PTAB upheld the patentability of all challenged claims, strengthening FaceTec's position in the ongoing district court infringement actions.

FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation is an active patent infringement litigation in the Northern District of California, initiated by FaceTec, Inc. concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,693,938, among others. Key legal developments to date include initial pleadings, substantive pre-trial motions, and significant parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• 2024-06-14: Complaint Filed
  FaceTec, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Jumio Corporation, alleging infringement related to liveness detection technology. The complaint specifically concerned U.S. Patent No. 11,693,938.
• Pleadings (Answer and Counterclaims)
  Jumio Corporation filed an answer to the complaint, and "related counterclaims" were also filed at some point prior to October 2024. The exact filing dates for Jumio's answer and counterclaims are not publicly detailed in the provided snippets, but their existence is noted by the court's subsequent actions regarding voluntary dismissal.
• 2024-09-16: Motion to Intervene Filed
  iProov Ltd., claiming to be the provider of the allegedly infringing liveness detection technology used by Jumio, filed a motion to intervene in the litigation.
• 2024-10-10: Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Without Prejudice Filed
  FaceTec filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Because Jumio had already answered the complaint, the court construed FaceTec's filing as a motion for voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).
• 2024-11-01: Order Denying Dismissal and Granting Intervention
  The Court issued an order denying FaceTec's motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice. On the same day, the Court granted iProov Ltd.'s motion to intervene in the case. The court found that iProov's interests in the litigation, particularly regarding the non-infringing nature of its technology, might diverge from Jumio's, thus justifying intervention.
• 2024-12-16: Opposition to Motion for Stay Filed
  FaceTec, Inc. filed a memorandum opposing a motion for stay, indicating that Jumio (or iProov as an intervenor) had moved to stay the district court proceedings pending the outcome of parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the PTAB. The outcome of this specific motion to stay is not yet detailed.
• 2025: Disqualification of Jumio's Counsel
  FaceTec successfully moved to disqualify Perkins Coie LLP from representing Jumio, which occurred sometime in the year prior to June 2026.
• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings Initiated
  Jumio Corporation initiated four separate inter partes reviews (IPRs) challenging the patentability of FaceTec's foundational 3D Liveness patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,693,938 (IPR2025-00108). The other patents challenged were U.S. Patent Nos. 10,776,471, 11,157,606, and 11,874,910.
• 2026-06-09: PTAB Issues Final Written Decisions Upholding Patentability
  The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued Final Written Decisions in all four IPRs, upholding the patentability of every challenged claim across FaceTec's four patents. This was declared a "total victory" for FaceTec, as Jumio failed to prove any of the claims should be invalidated. The PTAB's decision "firmly establishes the validity" of FaceTec's core 3D Liveness intellectual property.

Current Posture:

The district court case remains active and ongoing. The PTAB's decision affirming the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 11,693,938 and the other challenged patents strengthens FaceTec's position and clears the way for the patent infringement lawsuit to proceed against Jumio and iProov. FaceTec has stated its intention to pursue injunctive relief and substantial monetary damages. No Markman, discovery milestones, trial events, or final judgment have been reached in the district court litigation.

Here is the counsel of record representing FaceTec, Inc. in FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation, case number 3:24-cv-03623-RFL:

ONE LLP

Nathaniel L. Dilger

• Role: Counsel of record.
• Firm & Office Location: ONE LLP, Newport Beach, CA.
• Experience Note: Focuses on intellectual property disputes, particularly patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation claims, and has experience with inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) and arguments before the Federal Circuit. He has litigated patent infringement claims across a variety of technologies, including semiconductor fabrication, internet-related technologies, and medical devices.

Peter R. Afrasiabi

• Role: Counsel of record.
• Firm & Office Location: ONE LLP, Newport Beach, CA.
• Experience Note: A partner at ONE LLP specializing in IP litigation and appeals, recognized as a "Top Intellectual Property and Entertainment lawyer" by Variety Magazine. He has litigated numerous high-profile federal appeals involving patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret disputes, including a patent appeal involving pupillometer technology.

Taylor C. Foss

• Role: Counsel of record.
• Firm & Office Location: ONE LLP, Newport Beach, CA.
• Experience Note: An experienced IP litigator with over 15 years of litigation experience, focusing on trademarks, copyrights, patents, trade secrets, and general business litigation. He has substantial experience with trademark enforcement and prosecution and has counseled clients on IP issues, including due diligence reviews of patent portfolios.

William J. O'Brien

• Role: Counsel of record.
• Firm & Office Location: ONE LLP, Culver City, CA.
• Experience Note: A trial and appellate lawyer with extensive experience in intellectual property and technology cases, including patent, trademark, trade dress, copyright, and trade secret matters across various technologies. He has successfully represented clients in major jury trials and appellate proceedings before the Federal Circuit.

In the ongoing patent infringement case FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation (3:24-cv-03623-RFL) in the Northern District of California, the primary counsel of record for defendant Jumio Corporation appears to be from Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Jumio Corporation:

• Kenneth Alexander Kuwayti
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP, Palo Alto, CA
  • Experience: Kenneth Kuwayti is a partner at Morrison & Foerster with over 25 years of experience in intellectual property and complex commercial litigation, including patent and trade secret disputes. His practice encompasses a wide range of technology industries, such as software, semiconductor, Internet, and medical devices. He is recognized for his aggressive advocacy, competence, and responsiveness to client concerns. Kuwayti was a member of a team that secured a jury verdict of over $900 million in a high-profile smartphone case.

Historical Context Regarding Previous Counsel:

Perkins Coie LLP initially represented Jumio Corporation in this district court case, with several attorneys listed on early docket entries, including Grant Edward Kinsel, Samantha Carl, Tyler Knox, David R. Pekarek Krohn, Jessica Delacenserie, and Jessica Kaiser. However, FaceTec, Inc. filed a motion in the district court to disqualify Perkins Coie from representing Jumio. While there was a report in July 2025 suggesting Jumio "gets to keep" its law firm in the district court dispute, more recent reports from June 2026 indicate that Perkins Coie LLP was "disqualified from representing Jumio at FaceTec's request last year" in related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This suggests a change in counsel, particularly for the PTAB matters.

Given the most recent specific docket activity available, Kenneth Alexander Kuwayti of Morrison & Foerster LLP filed a joint status report on behalf of Jumio Corporation in February 2026, indicating their active representation in the district court case. Morrison & Foerster is recognized as an IP litigation powerhouse, particularly in patent litigation.