PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 10776471, resulting in all challenged claims being sustained. This outcome significantly hardens the patent, indicating a strong defensive posture for the patent owner against future challenges.

IPR2025-00106 — Jumio Corporation v. FaceTec, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-11-07
• Status: Final Written Decision — The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has issued a decision on the merits, finding all challenged claims patentable.
• Judge panel: GARTH D. BAER, NABEEL U. KHAN, and BACH V. HOANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,776,471 B2. The specific prior art and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103) are not detailed in the available search results, but the PTAB reviewed the merits of the unpatentability challenge.
• Institution decision: Instituted. The PTAB declined to exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), despite Patent Owner arguments concerning co-pending district court litigation. The Board reasoned that the factors favoring discretionary denial did not outweigh the strength of the reasons not to discretionarily deny institution, particularly noting the early stage of the district court cases and trial dates scheduled after the anticipated final written decision. The institution decision was issued around June 6, 2025.
• Final Written Decision: Issued around June 8-9, 2026. The PTAB upheld the patentability of all challenged claims (1-20) of US10776471. The rulings stated that "all four challenged claims are patentable" across the IPRs, including for US10776471. FaceTec announced a "total victory" in which the PTAB upheld "every challenged claim".
• Settlement / termination: No settlement or termination was reported; a final written decision was issued.
• Appeal: As of today's date, 2026-06-18, there is no public information indicating that the Final Written Decision for IPR2025-00106 has been appealed to the Federal Circuit.
• Defensive value: FaceTec achieved a total victory, with all claims 1-20 being upheld as patentable. This outcome significantly strengthens the patent and suggests that any infringement theory built on these claims is robust against prior art challenges that could have been raised in an IPR. A defendant facing assertion of this patent will find it more difficult to invalidate claims 1-20 through further IPRs on similar grounds.

Strategic summary

All 20 claims of US patent 10776471 were challenged in IPR2025-00106 by Jumio Corporation. The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision around June 8-9, 2026, upholding the patentability of all these challenged claims. This means that claims 1-20 of US10776471 have been sustained by the PTAB and are considered hardened against prior art challenges that were or could have been raised in this IPR. There are no currently canceled or untested claims as a result of this proceeding.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) bars Jumio Corporation and its privies from raising any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised during IPR2025-00106 with respect to claims 1-20. For other potential defendants, prior-art grounds not litigated or that could not have been reasonably raised by Jumio remain theoretically available, but the patent's successful defense of all challenged claims indicates the robustness of its patentability. The patent owner, FaceTec, Inc., has actively pursued and prevailed in this PTAB challenge, reinforcing the validity of its "core 3D Liveness IP". The proceeding also highlights the patent owner's willingness to enforce its IP, as the IPR decision strengthens FaceTec's position in ongoing infringement lawsuits against Jumio and iProov.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently being asserted against claims 1-20 of US10776471, it is critical to acknowledge that these claims have been validated by the PTAB. The Final Written Decision for IPR2025-00106 upheld the patentability of all challenged claims. Reviewing the complete Final Written Decision from the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal would be essential to understand the specific prior art considered and the Board's full reasoning for sustaining the claims.

Given that the PTAB has upheld the patentability of all challenged claims, an IPR-based defense on similar prior art grounds for claims 1-20 would be significantly more challenging due to the strengthened validity of the patent and potential estoppel considerations. Any new IPR petition would need to present substantially different and highly compelling prior art arguments to have a reasonable likelihood of institution and success.