Jumio Corporation v. FaceTec, Inc.

Jumio Corporation initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-00108) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO, challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,693,938 owned by FaceTec, Inc. Jumio Corporation is a private company that provides online mobile payment and identity verification services, utilizing technologies such as AI, biometrics, machine learning, and liveness detection. FaceTec, Inc. is a leading provider of 3D Face Liveness and biometric identity verification software solutions, founded in 2013. Its technology focuses on preventing spoofing attacks by verifying a user's physical presence through liveness checks and face matching. The patent at issue, US 11,693,938, is described by FaceTec as foundational to its 3D Liveness technology, specifically concerning the evaluation of perspective distortion in face images taken at different distances to reliably verify a user's three-dimensionality and prevent spoofing attacks.

The procedural posture of this case is significant, as it commenced as an IPR before the PTAB, an administrative body that reviews the patentability of claims in an issued patent based on prior art. While the case was initially "instituted," it has now concluded with a final written decision. On June 9, 2026, FaceTec announced a "total victory" as the PTAB upheld the patentability of every challenged claim in IPR2025-00108, alongside three other related IPRs (IPR2025-00106, IPR2025-00107, and IPR2025-00109). The presiding judges for this specific IPR have not been publicly identified in the available information. The PTAB venue is crucial because its decisions on patent validity directly impact parallel patent infringement lawsuits in district courts, often serving as a faster and more cost-effective avenue to challenge patents.

This case is notable due to its direct linkage to ongoing patent infringement lawsuits filed by FaceTec against Jumio (e.g., 5:24-cv-03623 in the California Northern District Court) and iProov. FaceTec alleges that Jumio infringes its patents through the use of liveness detection technology supplied by iProov, after Jumio switched from FaceTec to iProov as its biometric liveness detection provider in 2021. The PTAB's ruling in favor of FaceTec strengthens its position in these infringement suits, allowing FaceTec to proceed with seeking injunctive relief and substantial monetary damages. The dispute also highlighted a significant legal development when Jumio's initial counsel, Perkins Coie LLP, was disqualified from the California patent lawsuit due to a conflict of interest, as they had previously represented FaceTec on related patent matters. This conflict and the subsequent PTAB victory underscore the high stakes in the rapidly evolving biometric identity verification industry.

The dispute between Jumio Corporation and FaceTec, Inc. involves both a patent infringement lawsuit in district court and parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

District Court Patent Infringement Litigation: FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation

Case Name: FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation
Case Number: 3:24-cv-03623
Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2024-06-14): FaceTec, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Jumio Corporation, alleging infringement of its patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,693,938. The complaint specifically referenced Jumio's use of liveness detection technology, which FaceTec claims infringes its patent rights, noting that this technology was provided to Jumio by iProov Ltd.
• Intervention (2024-09-16): iProov Ltd. moved to intervene in the litigation, stating that the allegedly infringing technology used by Jumio was supplied by iProov. The court granted iProov's motion to intervene.
• Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (2024-10-10): FaceTec filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice. However, this motion was denied by the court because Jumio had already filed an answer to the complaint.
• Counsel Disqualification (pre-2026-06-09): FaceTec moved to disqualify Perkins Coie LLP from representing Jumio, alleging a conflict of interest because the firm had previously represented FaceTec in matters concerning the same patent. A federal judge subsequently disqualified Perkins Coie LLP from the California patent lawsuit, leading to their withdrawal from representing Jumio in the IPRs.
• Motion to Stay Pending IPR (Date Unknown): FaceTec filed a memorandum opposing a motion to stay the district court proceedings, likely filed by Jumio or iProov, pending the outcome of the IPRs.
• Upcoming Milestones (as of 2024-06-14 docket retrieval): A Case Management Conference was scheduled for May 20, 2026, and a Jury Trial was set for August 10, 2026.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings: Jumio Corporation v. FaceTec, Inc.

Case Name: Jumio Corporation v. FaceTec, Inc.
Case Number: IPR2025-00108
Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO
Patents at Issue: U.S. Patent No. 11,693,938 (among others: 10,776,471, 11,157,606, and 11,874,910).

• Filing & Institution: Jumio Corporation filed IPR2025-00108 (and three other IPRs) challenging the patentability of claims in FaceTec's U.S. Patent No. 11,693,938. The PTAB instituted these IPR proceedings.
• Representation: Perkins Coie LLP initially represented Jumio in filing the IPRs. Following their disqualification from the district court litigation, Morrison & Foerster then represented Jumio in the IPR proceedings.
• Outcome - Final Written Decision (2026-06-09): The PTAB issued its Final Written Decision in IPR2025-00108, alongside the other three related IPRs, on June 9, 2026. The PTAB determined that Jumio failed to prove that any of FaceTec's challenged patent claims should be invalidated. The Board upheld the patentability of every challenged claim across FaceTec's foundational 3D Liveness patents. This outcome represents a complete victory for FaceTec in these IPRs.
• Effect on Litigation: FaceTec has stated that this total victory at the PTAB strengthens its position and allows it to proceed with the ongoing patent infringement lawsuits against Jumio and iProov. The PTAB's decision is seen by FaceTec as firmly establishing the validity of its core 3D Liveness IP, positioning the company to seek both injunctive relief and substantial monetary damages from infringers.

Jumio Corporation's Counsel in IPR2025-00108 Identified Amidst Firm Changes

Jumio Corporation, the petitioner in Inter Partes Review (IPR) 2025-00108 before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), was represented by Morrison & Foerster LLP after an earlier firm, Perkins Coie LLP, was disqualified in related district court litigation. The PTAB recently issued Final Written Decisions in IPR2025-00108 and related IPRs, upholding FaceTec's patent claims.

Initially, Perkins Coie LLP filed the IPRs on behalf of Jumio. However, Perkins Coie was later disqualified from representing Jumio in the parallel federal patent infringement lawsuit due to a conflict of interest, stemming from their prior representation of FaceTec. Following this disqualification, Morrison & Foerster LLP stepped in to represent Jumio.

While specific attorneys from Morrison & Foerster LLP directly linked to the IPR filings for IPR2025-00108 are not explicitly named in the public summaries, Kenneth Kuwayti of Morrison & Foerster LLP has been identified as acting as lead counsel for Jumio in related arbitration and seeking extensions in the broader litigation. It is common for the same legal teams to handle both district court litigation and parallel IPR proceedings. Other unnamed attorneys from Morrison & Foerster LLP also appeared as counsel for Jumio prior to Perkins Coie's involvement in the district court case.

Details on the specific roles and office locations for all attorneys from Morrison & Foerster LLP involved in the IPR are not readily available in the search results.

Counsel for Jumio Corporation:

• Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP
  • Kenneth Kuwayti
    • Role: Lead Counsel (in related arbitration/litigation, likely also involved in IPRs)
    • Firm and Office Location: Morrison & Foerster LLP, likely a California office (firm has offices in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Palo Alto, where related litigation has occurred).
    • Relevant Experience: Known for handling complex intellectual property disputes and has been representing Jumio in disputes with FaceTec concerning the same technology for several years.

FaceTec, Inc. is represented by Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP in IPR2025-00108.

The following attorney has been identified:

• Christopher C. Johns
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, with offices in Boston, MA, and Washington, D.C.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mr. Johns has extensive experience with Inter Partes Reviews (IPR) and Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), district court litigations, and ITC investigations. His experience spans various technologies including telecommunications, storage systems, display screens, medical devices, and computer software. Before joining Finnegan, he served as a USPTO patent examiner for nearly five years. He is explicitly noted for representing FaceTec, Inc. in the four IPRs related to 3D liveness detection technology, including IPR2025-00108.