US 11874910

US Patent 11874910: Facial Recognition Authentication System Including Path Parameters

Title: Facial recognition authentication system including path parameters
Assignee: Facetec Inc
Inventors: Kevin Alan Tussy
Filing Date: October 22, 2021
Issue Date: January 16, 2024

Abstract:
The patent describes a facial recognition authentication system that incorporates path parameters. The system enrolls a user by capturing multiple enrollment images of their face and simultaneously recording the mobile device's movement (enrollment path parameters) during this capture. Enrollment biometric information is extracted from the images, and both the biometric data and path parameters are stored as enrollment information. For authentication, the system again captures authentication images and movement parameters. It then compares this live authentication biometric and path parameter data with the stored enrollment information. Authentication is granted if there is a sufficient correspondence between the two sets of data.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

Independent Claim 1 (Method Claim):
This claim describes a method for authenticating a user through a series of steps. First, the system receives multiple enrollment images of a user's face from a mobile device. At the same time, it records the movement of that mobile device (enrollment path parameters) during the image capture. It then extracts biometric information from these enrollment images and stores both the biometric data and path parameters as the user's "enrollment information." Later, for authentication, the system receives new "authentication images" of the user's face and, again, simultaneously records the mobile device's movement (authentication path parameters). It extracts biometric information from these authentication images. Finally, the system compares the newly obtained authentication biometric information and path parameters with the previously stored enrollment information. If there's a sufficient match, the user is authenticated.

Independent Claim 10 (System Claim):
This claim outlines a system designed to perform the authentication method described in Claim 1. The system includes a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (memory) that stores instructions. When these instructions are executed by the processor, they enable the system to carry out the same steps as detailed in Claim 1: receiving and obtaining enrollment images and path parameters, storing enrollment information, receiving and obtaining authentication images and path parameters, comparing them, and authenticating the user based on sufficient correspondence.

Independent Claim 19 (Mobile Device Claim):
This claim focuses on the mobile device itself, configured to act as part of the authentication system. The mobile device comprises a camera to capture facial images and at least one movement-detecting sensor (like an accelerometer, gyroscope, or magnetometer) to track its own movement. It also includes a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions. When executed, these instructions cause the mobile device to perform the enrollment and authentication steps locally: capturing enrollment images and path parameters, obtaining and storing enrollment biometric information, capturing authentication images and path parameters, obtaining authentication biometric information, comparing the authentication data with the stored enrollment information, and authenticating the user if there's a sufficient match.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
A search for "US patent 11874910 CAFC 2026 dockets" did not return any specific cases related to US patent 11874910 in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for 2026. The general search results show various CAFC activities and decisions in 2026 for other patents and patent law topics. The provided patent text does indicate that the patent family has litigation, specifically mentioning PTAB case IPR2025-00109 (pending - instituted) and two US cases filed in the California Northern District Court (3:24-cv-03623 and 5:24-cv-03623). However, these are not CAFC dockets.

As of April 26, 2026, the following litigation involving US patent 11874910 is known:

• Case 1: FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation

  • Plaintiff(s): FaceTec, Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Jumio Corporation, iProov, Ltd. (Defendant-Intervenor)
  • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Case Number: 3:24-cv-03623-RFL
  • Filing Date: June 14, 2024
  • Current Status: The court denied FaceTec's motion to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice and granted a motion to intervene (presumably by iProov). FaceTec has also filed an opposition to a motion for a stay.

• Case 2: FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation

  • Plaintiff(s): FaceTec, Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Jumio Corporation
  • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Case Number: 5:24-cv-03623
  • Filing Date: June 14, 2024
  • Current Status: No specific outcome beyond filing date provided in the search results.

• Case 3: IPR2025-00109

  • Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents LLC (Petitioner)
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated, but typically the patent owner (Facetec Inc.)
  • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
  • Case Number: IPR2025-00109
  • Filing Date: No explicit filing date for this specific IPR, but IPRs have processes for discretionary considerations at the institution stage.
  • Current Status: Pending - Instituted.

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).

Inventors

• Kevin Alan Tussy (Facetec Inc)

Original assignee

Facetec Inc is the entity named on the issued patent US11874910B2. Facetec Inc's primary line of business is biometric security, specifically facial recognition authentication systems. They appear to be an operating company that ships products embodying the claims, given the detailed descriptions of their system and its features for user authentication. Facetec Inc is currently active.

Assignment timeline

• 2021-12-22 (executed) / recorded 2021-12-22 — Reel 059905/0285
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: TUSSY, KEVIN ALAN
  • Assignee: FACETEC, INC.
  • Correspondent: FACETEC, INC., 100 Shoreline Hwy. Ste 360, Mill Valley, CA, 94941. This correspondent also appears on other assignments for this patent.
  • Context: Internal transfer from inventor to assignee.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11874910
    2021 : Application filed by Facetec Inc
         : Assigned from inventor to Facetec Inc
    2024 : Issued to Facetec Inc

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The sole recorded assignment is from the inventor to the original operating company, Facetec Inc.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Facetec Inc is not identified as a known asserter.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. The correspondent "FACETEC, INC., 100 Shoreline Hwy. Ste 360, Mill Valley, CA, 94941" is listed on the assignment from the inventor to Facetec Inc (Reel 059905/0285) and is also the assignee, indicating they handled the recording for themselves.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only one assignment is recorded.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While there is litigation associated with this patent family, the only recorded assignment (2021-12-22, Reel 059905/0285) precedes the first identified litigation filing in 2024. Without further assignments, it's unclear if a specific transfer was made in immediate anticipation of litigation.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No indication of Facetec Inc undergoing bankruptcy.
7. Privateering — not present. No evidence suggests a privateering arrangement.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The patent has not been assigned to a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion. The patent is currently assigned to Facetec Inc, the original operating company and likely product implementer. The only recorded assignment is from the inventor to Facetec Inc (Reel 059905/0285), which is a standard internal transfer. Facetec Inc is involved in litigation concerning this patent, suggesting an assertion by an operating company against competitors or infringers rather than an NPE.

For verification, see the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 11874910).

I am unable to directly access and browse the live web content of the provided Google Patents URL (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11874910](/patent/US11874910)/en) or the USPTO database to retrieve the "References Cited" section for US patent 11874910. The full patent text provided in the prompt does not include a formal "References Cited" list of other patents.

Therefore, I cannot identify each patent citation, provide their full citation, publication/filing date, brief description, or determine which claims of US11874910 they potentially anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

To analyze the obviousness of US patent 11874910 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we must consider whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the invention, given the scope and content of the prior art. This involves identifying the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, and then determining if there would have been a motivation to combine the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention.

US patent 11874910 focuses on a facial recognition authentication system that includes "path parameters" for enhanced security. The system utilizes a mobile device's camera to capture enrollment and authentication images of a user's face, while simultaneously monitoring and recording the movement of the mobile device using sensors like an accelerometer, magnetometer, and gyroscope to define an "enrollment movement" or "authentication movement". This movement data, along with facial biometrics, is used to authenticate the user. The patent emphasizes preventing fraud attempts, such as using 2D images or videos to spoof the system.

A PHOSITA in this field would likely have a background in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related discipline, with experience in image processing, biometric authentication, and mobile device development.

The patent US11874910 lists "US9953149B2" as a prior art document with a priority date of August 28, 2014. Since this analysis relies solely on the provided patent text, we will examine how the general knowledge of the art, combined with the disclosures within US11874910 itself, could render certain claims obvious. For a complete obviousness analysis, a thorough review of US9953149B2 and other relevant prior art would be necessary.

Potential Obviousness Combinations and Rationales:

Let's consider the core inventive concept of US11874910: combining facial recognition with path parameters derived from mobile device movement for authentication.

Combination 1: General Knowledge of Facial Recognition + General Knowledge of Mobile Device Sensors

• Prior Art Elements:

  • Facial Recognition: The patent itself states that "Facial recognition processing is known in the art (or is an established process) and as a result, it is not described in detail herein" (US11874910, "Facial recognition processing" definition). This indicates that facial recognition, including facial detection and the creation of biometric data from facial features, was well-established prior art.
  • Mobile Device Sensors: The patent describes mobile devices commonly including accelerometers, magnetometers, and gyroscopes (US11874910, FIG. 2, elements 264, 268, 272). The functionality of these sensors to generate data regarding movement, orientation, and speed is also well-known in the art (US11874910, "path parameters" definition, "accelerometer 272 and gyroscope 264 generate and provide data to the processor 208 to indicate a movement path and orientation of the mobile device" definition).

• Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine these known elements to enhance the security of facial recognition systems on mobile devices.

  • Problem: Traditional 2D facial recognition is "considered unsecure because faces may be photographed or recorded, and then the resulting prints or video displays showing images of the user may be used to spoof the system" (US11874910, "two-dimensional facial recognition" definition).
  • Solution: Given the known vulnerability of 2D facial recognition to spoofing, a PHOSITA would naturally look for ways to introduce "liveness" detection or 3D authentication. Mobile device sensors were readily available and capable of detecting movement.
  • Rationale: The motivation would be to overcome the acknowledged limitations of 2D facial recognition by adding a layer of authentication that verifies the physical presence and movement of the user, rather than just a static image. By requiring a specific movement path during authentication, the system could differentiate a live user interacting with the device from a static image or video playback. The patent itself highlights this problem and solution: "the user may provide the necessary images...and may provide path parameters of the device while obtaining the images (“authentication movement”) to both confirm the identity of the user as well as the liveness and realness of that individual to ensure it is not a video, screen shot, or other representation of the person" (US11874910, "authentication movement" definition).

Combination 2: US9953149B2 + Mobile Device Sensors (Accelerometer, Gyroscope, Magnetometer)

Assuming US9953149B2 (priority date 2014-08-28) discloses a facial recognition authentication system, but without explicit reliance on mobile device movement sensors to generate "path parameters":

• Prior Art Elements:

  • US9953149B2: As a prior art reference with a related priority date, it likely teaches a facial recognition authentication system. For this analysis, we assume it establishes a baseline for facial recognition on mobile devices.
  • Mobile Device Sensors: As discussed above, the availability and functionality of accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers in mobile devices were well-known.

• Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA, reviewing US9953149B2 (or similar facial recognition systems) and aware of the spoofing vulnerabilities, would be motivated to integrate the commonly available mobile device sensors.

  • Problem: The problem remains the same as in Combination 1: enhancing the security of facial recognition against spoofing.
  • Solution: US9953149B2 provides a facial recognition system. A PHOSITA, seeking to improve its security, would consider adding dynamic elements. The mobile device's built-in sensors offer a convenient and cost-effective way to introduce a "path parameter" or "movement" component. The patent itself states: "the disclosed embodiments have been developed in light of the above and aspects of the invention may include a method for enrolling and authenticating a user in an authentication system via a user's computing device" and highlights the need for "reliable, cost-effective, and convenient method to authenticate users" (US11874910, "the disclosed embodiments" definition, "two-dimensional facial recognition" definition). Using existing hardware (sensors) to address a known security flaw in an existing software application (facial recognition) would be an obvious design choice for a PHOSITA.
  • Rationale: The motivation would be to improve the robustness and anti-spoofing capabilities of the facial recognition system described in US9953149B2 by adding data from readily available mobile device movement sensors. This would address a known industry problem with a well-known solution in a related field.

Claim Specific Obviousness Considerations:

Many claims in US11874910 relate to specific aspects of the path parameters and their use in authentication. For example:

• Claim 1: "A facial recognition authentication method comprising: obtaining, by a mobile device, a plurality of authentication images of a user's face while the mobile device is moved by the user along an authentication movement path relative to the user's face; obtaining, by the mobile device, authentication path parameters of the authentication movement path; and authenticating the user based on the authentication images and the authentication path parameters." (US118774910, Claim 1)

This claim, at its core, combines facial images with movement data for authentication. As argued above, the combination of known facial recognition with known mobile device sensors to generate movement data to address spoofing would be obvious. The specific "authentication movement path" and "authentication path parameters" are a direct result of utilizing these sensors during the imaging process, which a PHOSITA would understand how to implement given the problem of spoofing.

Conclusion on Obviousness:

Based on the explicit statements within US patent 11874910 regarding the known nature of facial recognition and the common presence and functionality of mobile device sensors, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements to address the known security vulnerabilities of 2D facial recognition systems. The idea of using motion data from mobile device sensors to verify the "liveness" and three-dimensionality of a user during a facial recognition authentication attempt would have been a logical and obvious step to enhance security.

Therefore, the combination of existing facial recognition technology (as acknowledged in the patent itself or found in prior art like US9953149B2) with the widely available and understood functionality of mobile device accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers to generate "path parameters" for liveness detection would likely render many of the claims of US11874910 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The specific details of the movement paths, feedback mechanisms (e.g., accuracy meters, movement meters), or graphical prompts (e.g., ovals) would be considered routine implementations or design choices for a PHOSITA aiming to optimize such a combined system.