FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation et al.

FaceTec, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered in Las Vegas, NV, is a leading operating company in the biometric cybersecurity sector, specializing in 3D Liveness and 3D Face Matching software for remote identity verification. The company provides AI-powered software that its customers host, which is used by governments and commercial entities globally for secure onboarding, KYC, and reverification, without FaceTec receiving end-user PII or biometric data. Defendant Jumio Corporation, based in Sunnyvale, CA, is also an operating company that offers an AI-driven digital identity management and authentication platform, providing biometric verification, liveness checks, and identity orchestration to prevent fraud and financial crimes for enterprises across various sectors, including financial services and online gaming. Defendant-intervenor iProov, Ltd., a UK-based technology company, is a global leader in biometric verification and authentication, specifically focusing on secure and seamless facial authentication solutions through its patented "Flashmark" technology to ensure genuine human presence online.

FaceTec accuses both Jumio and iProov of willful patent infringement. The core of the alleged infringement lies in the liveness detection technology utilized by Jumio, which FaceTec claims infringes its proprietary liveness detection methods. Specifically, FaceTec alleges that after exploring a partnership in 2019 and subsequently parting ways, Jumio switched its biometric liveness detection provider from FaceTec to iProov in 2021, and iProov "thereafter deployed for Jumio a liveness detection technology that infringes on FaceTec's patent rights." The primary patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 11,874,910, titled "Facial recognition authentication system including path parameters." This patent generally describes a system and method for facial recognition authentication that incorporates movement sensors to determine an enrollment movement path of a mobile device as a user captures images of their face from different angles and distances. The technology aims to enhance the reliability of verifying a user's three-dimensionality and prevent spoofing attacks.

The case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, presided over by the Honorable Rita F. Lin. The Northern District of California is a significant venue for patent litigation, known for its experienced judges, local rules that favor early resolution of dispositive motions, and a high grant rate for motions to dismiss based on patent ineligibility (Alice motions), particularly in software cases. This venue is often considered favorable for patent defendants due to these procedural aspects. The case is particularly notable given the recent decisions by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where FaceTec achieved a "total victory" in four inter partes reviews (IPRs) initiated by Jumio, including for U.S. Patent No. 11,874,910. The PTAB upheld the patentability of all challenged claims, thus strengthening FaceTec's position in its ongoing infringement lawsuits against Jumio and iProov and allowing it to seek injunctive relief and substantial monetary damages. Furthermore, a conflict of interest issue arose earlier in the case, leading to FaceTec successfully moving to disqualify Perkins Coie LLP from representing Jumio, as the firm had previously represented FaceTec on matters concerning the same patent.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation et al.

The patent infringement lawsuit, FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-03623-RFL, was filed in the Northern District of California on June 14, 2024, by FaceTec, Inc. against Jumio Corporation, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,874,910, which relates to liveness detection technology for face recognition. The case remains active.

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

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • 2024-06-14: FaceTec, Inc. filed its complaint for patent infringement against Jumio Corporation.
  • Jumio Corporation subsequently answered the complaint, though the specific date of the answer is not immediately available.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • 2024-09-16: iProov, Ltd., identifying itself as the provider of the allegedly infringing liveness detection technology used by Jumio, moved to intervene in the litigation.
  • 2024-10-10: FaceTec filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, citing the same basis as iProov's motion to intervene.
  • 2024-11-01: The court issued an order denying FaceTec's motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice and granting iProov's motion to intervene. The court determined that voluntary dismissal without prejudice was not appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) because Jumio had already answered the complaint and would suffer legal prejudice, including losing the defense of initiating inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.
  • Early 2025 (Date approximate, based on context): FaceTec filed a memorandum in opposition to a motion for a stay, likely filed by Jumio or iProov. The outcome of this motion for a stay is not yet publicly detailed in the provided search results.

• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

  • A document associated with the district court case references "JUMIO v. FACETEC IPR2025-00108", indicating that Jumio initiated an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding against FaceTec concerning the asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 11,874,910, with the petition filed in 2025. The current status or outcome of this IPR (e.g., institution decision) and its direct effect on the litigation are not yet specified in the provided information.

Further developments regarding claim construction, discovery, trial, or a final disposition are not yet publicly detailed. The case remains active as of the current date.

Counsel of Record for FaceTec, Inc. in FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation et al. (3:24-cv-03623-RFL)

FaceTec, Inc. is represented by attorneys from One LLP. While Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, has been noted as counsel for FaceTec in related Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings and broader IP enforcement, they do not appear as counsel of record in the publicly available docket for this specific district court case.

The following attorneys from One LLP are identified as counsel of record for FaceTec, Inc.:

• William Joseph O'Brien

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm & Office Location: One LLP, 400 Corporate Pointe, Suite 300, Culver City, CA 90230
  • Experience Note: A trial and appellate lawyer with extensive experience in patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret cases across various technologies, he has successfully represented clients in major jury trials and appellate proceedings before the Federal Circuit. He was previously a partner and co-chair of the Patent and Technology Litigation Practice Group at O'Melveny & Myers.

• Peter Reza Afrasiabi

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm & Office Location: One LLP, 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150-105, Newport Beach, CA 92660
  • Experience Note: An intellectual property and entertainment lawyer, he has argued appeals before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (patent cases) and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and teaches appellate advocacy. He has secured significant jury verdicts in IP cases.

• Nathaniel Luke Dilger

  • Role: Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm & Office Location: One LLP, 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150-105, Newport Beach, CA 92660
  • Experience Note: A registered Patent Attorney with a mechanical engineering degree, his practice focuses on patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation claims, including handling inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the PTAB and arguing before the Federal Circuit. He recently secured a complete victory and full royalty damages for a client in a patent infringement lawsuit related to accessible pedestrian crosswalk systems.

• Taylor Crellin Foss

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: One LLP, 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150-105, Newport Beach, CA 92660
  • Experience Note: Listed as focusing on intellectual property litigation, and is also the CEO, CFO, and Secretary of Foss IP Law, PC.

Here is the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation et al. (3:24-cv-03623-RFL):

For Defendant Jumio Corporation:

• Kenneth Alexander Kuwayti
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP
  • Office Location: San Francisco, CA (common for Morrison & Foerster patent litigators in California, confirming specific office for Kuwayti would require direct firm profile access).
  • Relevant Experience: Kenneth Kuwayti is a partner at Morrison & Foerster LLP, a firm known as a patent litigation powerhouse representing clients in complex patent disputes in tech and life sciences industries. Kuwayti was involved in representing Jumio in this case after Perkins Coie LLP was disqualified, and the court allowed Morrison & Foerster to continue representing Jumio. He previously represented Jumio as lead counsel in arbitration.
• Gina Signorello
  • Role: In-house Counsel (General Counsel)
  • Firm: Jumio Corporation
  • Office Location: Palo Alto, CA (Jumio's headquarters) [cite: 3 (previous step)].
  • Relevant Experience: Gina Signorello leads Jumio's legal team and strategy, bringing over 25 years of experience providing legal counsel for technology companies, including senior leadership roles at Hewlett-Packard Company and Hewlett Packard Enterprise [cite: 1 (previous step), 2 (previous step), 3 (previous step)]. She has signed Power of Attorney documents for Jumio in related patent proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) [cite: 11 (previous step)].

Note: Perkins Coie LLP attorneys (Grant Edward Kinsel, Samantha Carl, Tyler Knox, David R Pekarek Krohn, Jessica Delacenserie, Jessica Kaiser) initially appeared for Jumio but were disqualified from the case due to a conflict of interest.

For Defendant-Intervenor iProov, Ltd.:

• Alan Daniel Sege
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Alan Sege Esq., PC
  • Office Location: Specific office location not immediately available from public search; however, he is listed as appearing in the Northern District of California.
  • Relevant Experience: Alan Daniel Sege is listed as representing iProov Ltd. in this patent infringement case. Further details on his specific patent litigation experience or notable past cases beyond his appearance in this matter were not readily available through public search.
• Ryan Ephraim Hatch
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Hatch Law PC
  • Office Location: Specific office location not immediately available from public search; however, he is listed as appearing in the Northern District of California.
  • Relevant Experience: Ryan Ephraim Hatch is listed as representing iProov Ltd. in this patent infringement case. Further details on his specific patent litigation experience or notable past cases beyond his appearance in this matter were not readily available through public search.