Unified Patents LLC v. Facetec Inc.

Unified Patents LLC has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition against Facetec Inc. concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,874,910, which is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Unified Patents LLC operates as a defensive patent organization, funded by its members, with the primary goal of deterring assertions by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) and improving patent quality through administrative challenges like IPRs. Facetec Inc. is an operating company and a leading global provider of 3D Liveness and 3D Face Matching software for remote identity verification, leveraging AI-powered technology used by governments and commercial entities. The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 11,874,910, titled "Facial recognition authentication system including path parameters," broadly covers systems and methods for user authentication via a mobile device camera, integrating biometric face matching with the analysis of device movement (path parameters) to bolster security and counteract spoofing attempts.

As an IPR proceeding, this case, IPR2025-00109, involves Unified Patents challenging the patentability of Facetec's patent claims rather than alleging infringement of a specific product or service. The case is before the PTAB, an administrative body of the USPTO, and has been instituted, indicating that the PTAB has determined there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will prevail on at least one challenged claim. The PTAB serves as an important venue for patent validity challenges, often providing a more streamlined and cost-effective alternative to traditional district court litigation.

This IPR is notable primarily due to Unified Patents' strategic involvement in challenging patents that they believe pose risks, particularly from NPEs. While the authoritative case metadata for this summary identifies Unified Patents LLC as the petitioner and the case status as pending-instituted, public reports from June 2026 regarding IPR2025-00109 (among other related IPRs involving FaceTec's patents) indicate that Jumio Corporation was the petitioner in those proceedings, and the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision upholding the patentability of all challenged claims for U.S. Patent No. 11,874,910. This highlights a highly active litigation environment around FaceTec's foundational 3D Liveness technology, with FaceTec actively asserting its patents in ongoing infringement lawsuits against companies like Jumio and iProov.

The provided case, IPR2025-00109, was initially stated to be "Unified Patents LLC v. Facetec Inc." However, records indicate that the actual petitioner in IPR2025-00109 challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,874,910 was Jumio Corporation, not Unified Patents LLC. FaceTec Inc. was the patent owner in this proceeding.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

• IPR Filing and Outcome: Jumio Corporation initiated IPR2025-00109 (along with IPR2025-00106, IPR2025-00107, and IPR2025-00108) against FaceTec Inc., challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,874,910, among others. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a Final Written Decision on June 4, 2026, upholding the patentability of all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,874,910. This decision represents a "total victory" for FaceTec, as the PTAB determined that Jumio failed to prove that any of FaceTec's patent claims should be invalidated.

Related Patent Infringement Litigation

The PTAB's decision in IPR2025-00109 and the related IPRs strengthens FaceTec's position in ongoing patent infringement lawsuits against Jumio Corporation and iProov Ltd.

• FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation: FaceTec, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Jumio Corporation, Case No. 5:24-cv-03623, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 14, 2024. The lawsuit concerns liveness detection technology.
  • Motion to Intervene and Voluntary Dismissal: On September 16, 2024, iProov Ltd. moved to intervene in the litigation, stating that the allegedly infringing liveness detection technology in Jumio's applications was provided by iProov. FaceTec subsequently filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice on October 10, 2024.
  • Court Ruling on Motions: On November 1, 2024, the court denied FaceTec's motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice and granted iProov's motion to intervene. The court found that Jumio did not necessarily share iProov's interests and that Jumio had its own liveness detection method, potentially leading to diverging interests.
  • Counsel Disqualification: On April 1, 2025, U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin granted FaceTec's request to disqualify Perkins Coie LLP from representing Jumio. The judge cited a "substantial risk" that information Perkins received while previously representing FaceTec in general corporate and intellectual property counseling could become material. Jumio was given until April 30, 2025, to find new counsel.
  • Motions to Stay and Strike Denied: Motions to stay the case pending review and two motions to strike FaceTec's infringement contentions were denied without prejudice, allowing them to be refiled after the stay for new representation was lifted.
• FaceTec, Inc. v. iProov LTD: FaceTec, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against iProov LTD, Case No. 2:21-cv-02252, in the United States District Court, District of Nevada, on December 28, 2021 (announced January 4, 2022). This lawsuit alleges patent infringement, breach of contract, and intentional interference with contractual relations, claiming iProov willfully infringed FaceTec's patented technology by copying features for its "Liveness Assurance" software. The '471 patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,776,471) was specifically cited in the complaint as a patent-in-suit. This litigation is ongoing.

The outcome of the IPRs, upholding FaceTec's patents, is expected to allow FaceTec to proceed with these patent infringement lawsuits and seek both injunctive relief and substantial monetary damages.

The identity of the plaintiff in IPR2025-00109, as stated in the provided case metadata, conflicts with the information found in the USPTO's public records. The case metadata lists Unified Patents LLC as the plaintiff. However, a search of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) completed proceedings lists "Jumio Corporation v FaceTec, Inc." for IPR2025-00109, indicating Jumio Corporation as the petitioner (plaintiff) in this specific IPR. Other reports also confirm that Jumio Corporation initiated IPRs against FaceTec, Inc. for related patents, with Perkins Coie LLP representing Jumio in these reviews prior to a disqualification.

Given this discrepancy, and prioritizing the USPTO's official record for the specific IPR number, Jumio Corporation is identified as the petitioner (plaintiff) in IPR2025-00109.

Counsel of record representing Jumio Corporation (Plaintiff) in IPR2025-00109:

• Firm: Perkins Coie LLP
  • Office Location: (Specific office location for attorneys in this case not identified in search results).
  • Note on relevant patent litigation experience: Perkins Coie LLP filed the inter partes reviews on behalf of Jumio against FaceTec's patents. However, the firm was later disqualified from representing Jumio at FaceTec's request. The specific attorneys from Perkins Coie LLP who filed the petition are not named in the available search results. Therefore, the roles (lead counsel, of counsel, etc.) for individual attorneys cannot be definitively identified from the public information.

The defendant in the primary case of this analysis, IPR2025-00109, is Facetec Inc. As the patent owner in the IPR, Facetec Inc. was represented by Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, who secured a total victory for FaceTec in all four IPR proceedings.

However, the "defendant(s)" mentioned in the prompt are Jumio Corporation and iProov Ltd. in the related patent infringement cases, where FaceTec Inc. is the plaintiff.

FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation (Case No. 5:24-cv-03623)

In FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation, the defendant Jumio Corporation was initially represented by Perkins Coie LLP. However, Perkins Coie LLP was disqualified by U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin on April 1, 2025, due to a conflict of interest, as the firm had previously represented FaceTec in related matters. Jumio was given until April 30, 2025, to find new counsel. Following the disqualification, Morrison & Foerster LLP represented Jumio in the IPR proceedings.

Based on available information for the district court case, the following counsel has been associated with Jumio Corporation:

• David R. Pekarek Krohn (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP (initially; subsequently disqualified)
  • Experience: Perkins Coie has a strong patent litigation practice, particularly in technology.
• Grant Edward Kinsel (Counsel)
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP (initially; subsequently disqualified)
  • Experience: Chambers USA recognized Perkins Coie as a leading firm for complex and highly publicized patent infringement disputes.
• Samantha Carl (Counsel)
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP (initially; subsequently disqualified)
• Tyler Knox (Counsel)
• Jessica Delacenserie (Counsel)
  • Firm: Perkins Coie
• Jessica Kaiser (Counsel)
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP
• Kenneth Alexander Kuwayti (Counsel)
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP (subsequently represented Jumio in IPRs after Perkins Coie's disqualification)
  • Experience: Morrison & Foerster has experience in intellectual property litigation.

FaceTec, Inc. v. iProov LTD (Case No. 2:21-cv-02252)

In FaceTec, Inc. v. iProov LTD, the defendant iProov LTD's counsel information is not readily available through the provided search results. The initial complaint for FaceTec, Inc. lists its counsel as Weide & Miller, Ltd. and ONE LLP. More current information regarding iProov's representation in this ongoing litigation would require direct docket access (PACER).