FB pixel

iProov brings counter-suit against FaceTec in biometric liveness IP dispute

iProov brings counter-suit against FaceTec in biometric liveness IP dispute

A counter-suit has been filed by iProov against FaceTec, refuting the claims made against it by the latter and alleging a breach of its ’548 patent, titled ‘Online Pseudonym Verification and Identity Validation.’

FaceTec filed suit against iProov alleging the British company wilfully infringed its biometrics patents, and improperly used the FaceTec Spoof Bounty Program to discover liveness detection trade secrets.

The ‘548 patent covers iProov’s remote identity verification technology, which combines remote document scans with face biometrics and spoof detection.

The countersuit, filed in a Nevada federal court, denies FaceTec’s allegations. Some are denied on grounds that iProov “is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations,” while other claims are do “not state any allegations to which a response is required,” according to iProov’s interpretation. This is the case for claims around the alleged violation of FaceTec’s patent for a ‘Facial Recognition Authentication System Including Path Parameters,’ and for allegations around the Spoof Bounty Program.

The allegations made by FaceTec include two infringements, a breach of contract and ‘intentional interference with contractual relations.’ iProov responds with a dozen different defenses.

The allegations fail to state a claim, iProov contends, the two patents mentioned have not been infringed, and both are invalid anyway, according to the court filing seen by Biometric Update. The other defenses refer to limitation of damages, the contractual relation between the two companies, an alleged breach of contract by FaceTec, the statute of limitations, failure to mitigate damages, and ‘the doctrine of waiver.’

iProov makes five counter-claims, alleging infringement of its ‘548 patent, non-infringement of FaceTec’s two patents of the same name (‘606 and ‘471), and the invalidity of those two patents.

A trial by jury has been requested by iProov.

Related Posts

Article Topics

 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | 

Latest Biometrics News


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Most Read This Week

Featured Company

Biometrics Insight, Opinion

Biometrics White Papers

Biometrics Events

Explaining Biometrics