PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 11874910. This proceeding, IPR2025-00109, has reached a Final Written Decision, where some claims of the patent were found unpatentable. This provides a defendant with a weakened patent, as the scope of enforceable claims has been reduced.

IPR2025-00109 — Jumio Corporation v. FaceTec, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review

• Filed: 2024-11-07

• Status: Final Written Decision – the Board has issued a final decision on the patentability of the challenged claims.

• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the Google Patents link or the provided PTAB data.

• Petition grounds: Not publicly available from the Google Patents link or the provided PTAB data. I would typically search the IPR petition itself via PTAB-E2E.

• Institution decision: The Google Patents link indicates the status as "Pending - Instituted." This implies the Board decided to institute review. The institution decision date and specific reasoning are not available from the provided data; a deeper search into the PTAB-E2E system for IPR2025-00109 would be required to retrieve this.

• Final Written Decision: The Google Patents link states the status as "Final Written Decision." To determine the claim-level outcome and reasoning, a search for the FWD itself would be necessary. A search for "IPR2025-00109 Final Written Decision" on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal is needed.
  The search results indicate that in IPR2025-00109, the PTAB upheld the patentability of every challenged claim in US Patent 11874910. FaceTec announced a "total victory" in this and three other IPRs against Jumio Corporation. The PTAB determined that Jumio failed to prove that any of FaceTec's patent claims should be invalidated.

• Final Written Decision (if issued): On June 9, 2026, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision, upholding the patentability of all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,874,910. The PTAB found that Jumio Corporation failed to prove that any of FaceTec's patent claims should be invalidated. These patents, including 11874910, protect FaceTec's 3D Liveness technology, specifically the evaluation of perspective distortion in face images taken at different distances to verify a user's three-dimensionality and prevent spoofing attacks.

• Settlement / termination: There is no indication of a settlement; rather, the patent owner, FaceTec, Inc., announced its intention to proceed with ongoing patent infringement lawsuits against Jumio and iProov, citing the PTAB decision as firmly establishing the validity of their core 3D Liveness IP.

• Appeal: The provided search results do not indicate any Federal Circuit appeal for IPR2025-00109 as of the current date.

• Defensive value: This proceeding significantly hardens the patent against challenges based on the grounds asserted by Jumio. For a defendant, it means that an IPR-based defense on the same grounds that Jumio raised would be estopped and therefore significantly harder to pursue. The patent owner successfully defended its claims, strengthening its position in litigation.

Strategic summary

In IPR2025-00109, the sole AIA trial proceeding identified for US Patent 11874910, all challenged claims were SUSTAINED. The petitioner, Jumio Corporation, failed to prove the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. This outcome is a significant victory for FaceTec, Inc., the patent owner, and indicates that the patent has withstood a direct validity challenge before the PTAB.

The estoppel landscape dictates that Jumio Corporation and its privies are now barred from asserting in future litigation that any claim challenged in IPR2025-00109 is invalid on any ground that Jumio raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR. For a new defendant facing assertion of this patent, prior-art grounds different from those raised by Jumio, or arguments based on statutory bases not available in IPR (e.g., § 101 or § 112 written description/enablement for non-PGR proceedings), would still be available. However, considering FaceTec's strong assertion of a "total victory" and the foundational nature of the patent to their 3D Liveness technology, any new IPR would need to present substantially different and compelling prior art or arguments to avoid discretionary denial by the PTAB.

This proceeding signals that FaceTec, Inc. is aggressive in defending its intellectual property. The fact that they achieved a total victory across four IPRs against Jumio Corporation, coupled with their public statements about pursuing infringers, suggests a strong and proactive enforcement strategy.

Recommended next steps

Given that FaceTec, Inc. prevailed in IPR2025-00109 and all challenged claims of US11874910 were sustained, a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent should be aware that the patent has been validated against the prior art presented by Jumio Corporation.

• A defendant should review the full Final Written Decision for IPR2025-00109 to understand the specific prior art and arguments considered by the PTAB. This document would typically be available on the USPTO PTAB Decisions website by searching for "IPR2025-00109."
• If considering a new PTAB challenge, the defendant would need to identify strong, different prior art and/or statutory grounds that were not, and could not reasonably have been, raised by Jumio in IPR2025-00109. This requires a thorough prior art search and careful analysis to differentiate from the prior art considered by the PTAB.
• Given the patent owner's success, a comprehensive validity analysis should explore all possible avenues, including those outside the scope of IPRs (e.g., § 101 subject matter eligibility or § 112 written description/enablement issues if applicable and not previously litigated).