US 11693938

US patent 11693938, titled "Facial recognition authentication system including path parameters," was issued to Facetec Inc. The sole inventor listed is Kevin Alan Tussy. The patent has a filing date of August 27, 2020, and an issue date of July 4, 2023.

Abstract:
A facial recognition authentication system includes path parameters. A mobile device may obtain enrollment images as a user moves the mobile device to different positions relative to the user's head. The mobile device records an enrollment movement of the mobile device during imaging and obtains enrollment biometrics from the enrollment images. During authentication, the mobile device obtains authentication images as the user moves the mobile device. The mobile device records an authentication movement of the mobile device during imaging and obtains authentication biometrics from the authentication images. The authentication movement and the authentication biometrics are compared with the enrollment movement and the enrollment biometrics, respectively, to determine whether to authenticate the user.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1: This claim describes a system for facial recognition authentication. The system includes a mobile computing device with a camera and sensors (like an accelerometer, magnetometer, and gyroscope). It also has an authentication server with a database. The mobile device captures enrollment images of a user's face while being moved, and the sensors record the movement path (enrollment movement). The server receives these images and movement data, extracts biometric information (enrollment biometrics), and stores it. For authentication, the mobile device again captures images of the user's face while being moved, and the sensors record this new movement (authentication movement). The system then compares the authentication biometrics from these new images and the authentication movement with the stored enrollment biometrics and enrollment movement to decide if the user is legitimate.

• Independent Claim 10: This claim outlines a method for facial recognition authentication. It involves a mobile computing device capturing a series of enrollment images of a user's face while the device is moved, and recording the device's movement path during this enrollment. Biometric information from these enrollment images is extracted and stored. Later, for authentication, the mobile device captures another series of images of the user's face while the device is moved, recording this new movement. Biometric information is extracted from these authentication images. Finally, the authentication biometric information and movement are compared to the stored enrollment biometric information and movement to perform authentication.

• Independent Claim 18: This claim describes a system for facial recognition authentication similar to Claim 1, but with slightly different emphasis on the components and processes. It specifies a mobile computing device with a camera and at least one movement detecting sensor, and a server. The mobile device obtains a plurality of enrollment images of a user's face while moving the device and collects movement data from the sensor during this enrollment. The server receives this enrollment data, calculates enrollment biometric information, and stores it. For authentication, the mobile device obtains authentication images while moving and collects authentication movement data. The server then compares the authentication biometric information and authentication movement data against the stored enrollment data to determine authentication.

Regarding CAFC 2026 dockets for US patent 11693938:
The provided patent information indicates that there is family litigation, and specifically, a PTAB case IPR2025-00108 was filed (Pending - Instituted) and US cases were filed in the California Northern District Court (5:24-cv-03623 and 3:24-cv-03623). These show active legal proceedings related to the patent. However, the prompt specifically asked for CAFC 2026 dockets. The provided patent information does not explicitly list any CAFC (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) dockets for 2026. The IPR case and District Court cases are lower level proceedings. Therefore, I do not have authoritative information to confirm CAFC 2026 dockets for patent 11693938.US patent 11693938, titled "Facial recognition authentication system including path parameters," was issued to Facetec Inc. The sole inventor listed is Kevin Alan Tussy. The patent has a filing date of August 27, 2020, and an issue date of July 4, 2023.

Abstract:
A facial recognition authentication system includes path parameters. A mobile device may obtain enrollment images as a user moves the mobile device to different positions relative to the user's head. The mobile device records an enrollment movement of the mobile device during imaging and obtains enrollment biometrics from the enrollment images. During authentication, the mobile device obtains authentication images as the user moves the mobile device. The mobile device records an authentication movement of the mobile device during imaging and obtains authentication biometrics from the authentication images. The authentication movement and the authentication biometrics are compared with the enrollment movement and the enrollment biometrics, respectively, to determine whether to authenticate the user.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1: This claim describes a system for facial recognition authentication. The system includes a mobile computing device with a camera and sensors (like an accelerometer, magnetometer, and gyroscope). It also has an authentication server with a database. The mobile device captures enrollment images of a user's face while being moved, and the sensors record the movement path (enrollment movement). The server receives these images and movement data, extracts biometric information (enrollment biometrics), and stores it. For authentication, the mobile device again captures images of the user's face while being moved, and the sensors record this new movement (authentication movement). The system then compares the authentication biometrics from these new images and the authentication movement with the stored enrollment biometrics and enrollment movement to decide if the user is legitimate.

• Independent Claim 10: This claim outlines a method for facial recognition authentication. It involves a mobile computing device capturing a series of enrollment images of a user's face while the device is moved, and recording the device's movement path during this enrollment. Biometric information from these enrollment images is extracted and stored. Later, for authentication, the mobile device captures another series of images of the user's face while the device is moved, recording this new movement. Biometric information is extracted from these authentication images. Finally, the authentication biometric information and movement are compared to the stored enrollment biometric information and movement to perform authentication.

• Independent Claim 18: This claim describes a system for facial recognition authentication similar to Claim 1, but with slightly different emphasis on the components and processes. It specifies a mobile computing device with a camera and at least one movement detecting sensor, and a server. The mobile device obtains a plurality of enrollment images of a user's face while moving the device and collects movement data from the sensor during this enrollment. The server receives this enrollment data, calculates enrollment biometric information, and stores it. For authentication, the mobile device obtains authentication images while moving and collects authentication movement data. The server then compares the authentication biometric information and authentication movement data against the stored enrollment data to determine authentication.

Regarding CAFC 2026 dockets for US patent 11693938, the provided patent information indicates active litigation, including a PTAB case IPR2025-00108 (Pending - Instituted) and US cases filed in the California Northern District Court (5:24-cv-03623 and 3:24-cv-03623). However, the information does not explicitly list any dockets specifically for the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) for the year 2026 for patent 11693938. Therefore, I do not have authoritative information to confirm CAFC 2026 dockets for this specific patent.

As a patent attorney, I have reviewed the provided patent text and conducted a targeted search for litigation involving US patent 11693938. The following litigation cases have been identified:

1. PTAB Case: IPR2025-00108

• Plaintiff(s) (Petitioner): Jumio Corporation
• Defendant(s) (Patent Owner): FaceTec, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO
• Case Number: IPR2025-00108
• Filing Date: The IPR number IPR2025-00108 indicates it was filed in the USPTO's fiscal year 2025 (between October 1, 2024, and September 30, 2025). Specific filing date not explicitly found in search results.
• Outcome/Current Status: Pending - Instituted.

2. US District Court Case:

• Plaintiff(s): FaceTec, Inc.
• Defendant(s): Jumio Corporation
• Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division
• Case Number: 3:24-cv-03623-RFL
• Filing Date: June 14, 2024
• Outcome/Current Status: Active and ongoing. The court has issued an "ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE". Additionally, FaceTec, Inc. has filed a "MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR STAY".

3. US District Court Case:

• Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
• Case Number: 5:24-cv-03623
• Filing Date: Not explicitly found in the provided search results.
• Outcome/Current Status: Not explicitly found in the provided search results.

Please note that while the Google Patents page for US11693938B2 lists two distinct District Court cases (3:24-cv-03623 and 5:24-cv-03623) in the Northern District of California, detailed information regarding the plaintiff, defendant, and filing date for case 5:24-cv-03623 was not readily available in the targeted search snippets.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 11,693,938. This proceeding, IPR2025-00108, has reached a Final Written Decision, which currently gives a defendant a clearer understanding of the patent's scope.

IPR2025-00108 — Jumio Corporation v. FaceTec, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-11-07
• Status: Final Written Decision
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific judge panel for this proceeding is not publicly available in the provided patent text or readily accessible via general search without direct access to the PTAB E2E system.
• Petition grounds: Details of the specific claims challenged, prior art references, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for the petition are not available in the provided patent text or general Google search results. This information is typically found within the institution decision or the petition itself, which requires access to the PTAB E2E system.
• Institution decision: The institution decision details (date and panel's reasoning) are not publicly available in the provided patent text or readily accessible via general search without direct access to the PTAB E2E system.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): The specific verdict at a claim-level granularity for IPR2025-00108 is not publicly available in the provided patent text or readily accessible via general search results. While the status indicates "Final Written Decision" as of 2026-06-17, the outcome regarding which claims were canceled, sustained, or held patentable, along with the panel's reasoning, requires access to the official FWD document from the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal.
• Settlement / termination: There is no public information available regarding a settlement or termination for this proceeding.
• Appeal: There is no public information available regarding an appeal of this FWD to the Federal Circuit.
• Defensive value: Without the specific claim-level outcomes of the Final Written Decision, it is impossible to determine the defensive value. The impact could range from complete invalidation of asserted claims to the patent owner prevailing, thus hardening the patent.

Strategic summary

As of today, June 18, 2026, only one AIA trial proceeding, IPR2025-00108, has been filed against US Patent 11,693,938. This IPR has reached a "Final Written Decision" status, meaning a definitive ruling on the challenged claims has been issued by the PTAB. However, the specific details of this decision—namely, which claims, if any, were canceled or sustained—are not publicly available in the provided patent text or accessible through general web searches. Therefore, it is currently unknown whether the patent has been narrowed, hardened, or otherwise impacted at a claim level.

The estoppel landscape for IPR2025-00108, governed by § 315(e)(2), will bar Jumio Corporation (and its privies) from asserting in future civil actions or other USPTO proceedings any ground that it raised or reasonably could have raised during this IPR. Without knowing the grounds asserted by Jumio, it's difficult to identify which prior-art grounds are still available for other potential challengers. The "Petitioner: Jumio Corporation" and "Patent Owner: FaceTec, Inc." information indicates a dispute between these specific entities. There are no pattern signals suggesting multiple IPRs by the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner, nor is there an indication of a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents being directly involved in this specific proceeding (though Unified Patents has provided data links related to other litigation involving the patent family).

Recommended next steps

To understand the defensive posture regarding US Patent 11,693,938, a defendant should:

• Immediately obtain and review the Final Written Decision for IPR2025-00108. This document will explicitly state which claims, if any, were found unpatentable or patentable. The FWDs are generally public on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal.
• Analyze the claims that were challenged and the prior art relied upon in IPR2025-00108 to understand the scope of the decision and potential estoppel implications for any existing or future litigation.
• Check the Federal Circuit's docket and CourtListener for any appeals related to IPR2025-00108, as an appeal could alter the final outcome of the PTAB's decision.
• Given the patent's active status and the existence of other litigation (as indicated in the Google Patents sidebar), thoroughly evaluate the remaining claims (if any were found patentable) and their relevance to any accused infringement.

https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11693938](/patent/US11693938)/en

Inventors

• Kevin Alan Tussy (Facetec Inc.)

Original assignee

The original assignee, Facetec Inc., develops and provides a biometric authentication platform called "Zoom" which embodies facial recognition and liveness detection technologies as described in the patent claims. Facetec Inc.'s primary line of business is biometric identity verification and anti-spoofing solutions for enterprise clients. Facetec Inc. is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

There is only one assignment record for US11693938 in the USPTO Assignment Center.

• 2020-08-27 (executed) / recorded 2022-05-04 — Reel 058866/0588
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: TUSSY, KEVIN ALAN
  • Assignee: FACETEC, INC.
  • Correspondent: HOOPES, JEFFREY, HOOPES & ADAMS, PC, 19570 VENTURA BLVD, SUITE 300, TARZANA, CA 91356.
  • Context: Inventor assigned intellectual property rights to his company, Facetec Inc.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11693938
    2020 : Inventor assigned to Facetec
         : Application filed by Facetec
    2023 : Patent issued to Facetec
    2024 : US litigation filed
    2025 : PTAB IPR case filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The only recorded assignment is from the inventor, Kevin Alan Tussy, to Facetec Inc., which is an operating company.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Facetec Inc. is an operating company known for its biometric authentication products. Litigation associated with the patent (e.g., California Northern District Court cases and PTAB IPR2025-00108) appears to be initiated by the operating company.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. Jeffrey Hoopes of Hoopes & Adams, PC is listed as the correspondent for the single assignment recorded (Reel 058866/0588). There is no recurrence of this correspondent within this specific patent's assignment chain to identify a pattern.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There is only one recorded assignment in the chain.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The assignment from the inventor to Facetec Inc. was executed on 2020-08-27 (recorded 2022-05-04), while the earliest identified litigation for the patent was filed in 2024.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. Facetec Inc. is an actively operating company, and there is no indication of bankruptcy proceedings.
7. Privateering — Not present. No transfer from an operating company to a third-party NPE for assertion is indicated in the assignment records.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent is currently held by Facetec Inc. and is actively being asserted in litigation, not aggregated by a defensive entity.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion
This patent is held by Facetec Inc., an operating company that develops and markets biometric authentication products. The sole recorded assignment is from the inventor to Facetec Inc. (Reel 058866/0588, executed 2020-08-27), and the patent is actively involved in litigation where Facetec Inc. appears to be the plaintiff.

Verification: USPTO Assignment Center for US11693938

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 11693938, I will search the USPTO database for the patent and then analyze its cited references.

USPTO Search for US Patent 11693938

I have accessed the full patent text for US11693938B2, "Facial recognition authentication system including path parameters," directly from Google Patents, which is a reliable source for patent information. The Google Patents page for US11693938B2 also lists prior art documents. I will use this information.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 11693938

The "Prior art keywords" listed on the Google Patents page are "user," "image," "data," "authentication," and "distance." The "Prior art date" is listed as 2014-08-28. I will now examine the "Cited by" and "References" sections of the patent to identify the most relevant prior art.

Understanding 35 U.S.C. § 102:
35 U.S.C. § 102 defines the conditions for patentability, specifically novelty. Under this statute, an invention is not patentable if it was described in a patent, printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. There are exceptions to what qualifies as prior art, such as disclosures made by the inventor within one year or less before the effective filing date.

Based on the information available on the Google Patents page for US11693938B2, here are some of the most relevant prior art documents cited:

• US20150063625A1 (Priority date: 2014-08-28, Publication date: 2015-03-05)

  • Full Citation: US20150063625A1 - Facial recognition authentication system including path parameters.
  • Publication/Filing Date: Published March 5, 2015. The priority date is August 28, 2014.
  • Brief Description: This patent application describes a facial recognition authentication system that uses a mobile device to obtain enrollment images as a user moves the device, recording the movement path and obtaining biometric information. During authentication, similar images and movement data are collected and compared to the enrollment data to authenticate the user. This is a direct antecedent to US11693938B2, sharing the same title and inventor, suggesting it is an earlier publication of related subject matter.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference is highly relevant and likely anticipates many aspects of Claims 1, 10, and 18, as it appears to describe essentially the same core invention. Given the filing date of US11693938 (August 27, 2020) and the earlier publication of US20150063625A1 (March 5, 2015), this earlier publication would generally be considered prior art. However, it is noted that US11693938B2 lists US20200394290A1 as an "other version" and shares the priority date of 2014-08-28 with US20150063625A1. If US11693938B2 is a continuation or divisional of an application that claimed priority back to 2014-08-28, then US20150063625A1 might not be statutory prior art against the claims of US11693938B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) if the claimed invention was invented by the same inventor and effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Without a full prosecution history, a definitive statement is difficult, but based purely on publication dates, it describes the same invention prior to the filing of the granted patent.

• US20200394290A1 (Publication date: 2020-12-17)

  • Full Citation: US20200394290A1 - Facial recognition authentication system including path parameters.
  • Publication/Filing Date: Published December 17, 2020.
  • Brief Description: This is listed as an "other version" of the patent, suggesting it is a published application that matured into US11693938B2. It describes the same facial recognition authentication system using path parameters from a mobile device.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): As an earlier publication of the same application family that led to US11693938B2, this document would not typically be considered prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 against the claims of US11693938B2, assuming proper priority claims. Instead, it represents the published application stage of the granted patent.

To provide a comprehensive analysis, a deeper dive into the patent's prosecution history would be necessary to understand the exact relationships between these applications and their effective filing dates. However, based on the provided information, US20150063625A1 is the most chronologically relevant prior art publication from the same inventor/assignee that predates the filing date of US11693938B2.

The provided patent text for US patent 11693938 includes a "Prior art keywords" section listing "user, image, data, authentication, distance," and a "Prior art date" of 2014-08-28. However, it does not contain a "References Cited" section that lists specific prior art patents or publications. Therefore, a direct obviousness analysis by combining specific prior art references, as typically performed under 35 U.S.C. § 103, cannot be conducted with the information at hand.

Instead, this analysis will proceed by considering the general state of the art as implied by the patent's background and the common knowledge of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) around the priority date of August 28, 2014, in the fields of mobile computing, biometric authentication, and facial recognition.

Background State of the Art (as described by the patent):

The patent itself acknowledges several relevant aspects of the prior art:

• Biometric security methods were known, including fingerprint systems, though these were often "prohibitively expensive for use on a small electronic device or are often considered unreliable and unsecure."
• Facial recognition was "generally known and may be used in a variety of contexts."
• "Two-dimensional facial recognition is commonly used to tag people in images on social networks or in photo editing software."
• Crucially, 2D facial recognition was "not considered secure enough" for widespread authentication, because "faces may be photographed or recorded, and then the resulting prints or video displays showing images of the user may be used to trick the system." This highlights a known problem: the vulnerability of 2D facial recognition to spoofing attacks.
• Mobile devices with cameras and movement detecting sensors (e.g., accelerometers, magnetometers, gyroscopes) were commonplace.

Elements of the Independent Claims (1, 10, 18):

The independent claims (1, 10, 18) of US 11693938 generally describe a system and method for facial recognition authentication involving:

1. A mobile computing device with a camera and movement detecting sensors (accelerometer, magnetometer, gyroscope).
2. Capturing a plurality of enrollment images of a user's face while the mobile device is moved.
3. Recording an "enrollment movement" (path parameters) of the mobile device during this imaging using the sensors.
4. Obtaining "enrollment biometrics" from the enrollment images.
5. Storing this enrollment information (biometrics and movement data).
6. For authentication, capturing authentication images while the mobile device is moved.
7. Recording an "authentication movement" (path parameters) of the mobile device during authentication imaging.
8. Obtaining "authentication biometrics" from the authentication images.
9. Comparing the authentication biometrics and authentication movement with the stored enrollment biometrics and enrollment movement to determine whether to authenticate the user.

The core contribution revolves around integrating the device's physical movement during image capture into the biometric authentication process, specifically by recording and comparing "path parameters" from built-in motion sensors.

Obviousness Analysis based on General Knowledge:

Given the patent's description of the prior art, a POSITA in August 2014, seeking to improve the security of facial recognition authentication on mobile devices, would have been motivated to combine existing technologies in a manner that would likely render the claimed invention obvious.

Motivation for Combination:

The primary motivation would be to overcome the well-known vulnerability of 2D facial recognition systems to "spoofing" attacks (e.g., using a photograph or video of an authorized user). A POSITA would recognize that merely matching a static face image is insufficient for secure authentication.

Therefore, the POSITA would seek ways to introduce "liveness detection" or "realness" verification into the authentication process. Integrating dynamic elements that prove the presence of a live, three-dimensional user, interacting with the mobile device, would be a logical step.

Combination of Known Elements:

1. Known Problem: 2D facial recognition was known, but its susceptibility to spoofing by photographs or videos rendered it insecure for high-stakes authentication.
2. Known Technologies:
   • Facial Recognition: Algorithms for detecting and recognizing faces were established.
   • Mobile Devices with Cameras: Smartphones and tablets with front-facing cameras were ubiquitous.
   • Mobile Device Sensors: Accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers were standard components in mobile devices, providing data on device orientation, movement, speed, and direction.
   • Biometric Liveness Detection: The concept of liveness detection in biometrics (e.g., detecting blinking, head movements, depth perception) was an active area of research to combat spoofing.

Obvious Combination:

A POSITA, faced with the insecurity of 2D facial recognition, would find it obvious to combine:

• 2D Facial Recognition (C): As the primary means of identifying a user visually.
• Mobile Device Camera (A): To capture the user's face.
• Mobile Device Motion Sensors (B): To capture data related to the device's movement.

The motivation for this specific combination arises from the need for enhanced liveness detection. If a fraudster presents a static image or a video, the facial recognition might match, but the device's movement during the authentication process would not correspond to the physical interaction of a live user moving the device to capture varied images.

Therefore, a POSITA would be motivated to:

• Require dynamic interaction: Instead of a static image, instruct the user to move the mobile device relative to their face during image capture.
• Record device movement: Utilize the readily available accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer in the mobile device to record the "path parameters" (e.g., acceleration, angle, speed, distance changes) of this movement during both enrollment and authentication.
• Compare movement data: Compare the recorded authentication movement with a previously enrolled movement pattern. A mismatch in movement data, even if the face itself matches, would strongly indicate a spoofing attempt.

The patent highlights moving the device "in an arc like path horizontally about his or her face" (FIGS. 6A, 6B) or "far away from his or her face, and then brings the mobile device 112 forward closer to his or her face" (FIGS. 7A, 7B). These are straightforward movements that a POSITA would conceive of to generate dynamic image data and corresponding motion sensor data.

The step of comparing "authentication biometrics" with "enrollment biometrics" is a standard facial recognition practice. The crucial addition is the comparison of "authentication movement" with "enrollment movement." This is a direct application of pattern matching techniques (already known in other fields) to the newly collected motion sensor data, motivated by the clear need for anti-spoofing in mobile facial authentication.

In essence, the solution described in the claims – leveraging a mobile device's inherent motion-sensing capabilities to record and verify the dynamic path taken during facial image capture for authentication – addresses a known problem (spoofing in 2D facial recognition) by combining existing technologies (facial recognition, mobile cameras, mobile motion sensors) in a predictable way for a POSITA.