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.

Article Topics

 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | 

Latest Biometrics News

 

Stop treating identity as a compliance step. It’s infrastructure now

By Harry Varatharasan, Chief Product Officer, ComplyCube The UK governmentʼs digital identity consultation is closing, and for most commentators, this…

 

If you build it, they will leave: experts warn UK gov’t on digital ID approach

The UK Cabinet Office’s consultation on digital identity closed on Tuesday, Digital systems built by governments tend to decline over…

 

Shufti biometric PAD clears iBeta Level 3 with 0 errors across iOS, Android

London-based global identity verification and fraud prevention provider Shufti has passed a Level 3 evaluation of its biometric Presentation Attack…

 

OpenID draft spec for extended identity claims assurance up for approval

Voting is open for approval of a draft specification to extend OpenID Connect to cover new features for requesting and…

 

EES troubles ignite speculation of further suspensions

Crowds, chaos and cranky travelers: The EU’s biometric border management scheme, the Entry-Exit System (EES), continues to fill headlines as…

 

UK Home Office eyes suppliers for SCBP biometrics platform

The Home Office is hosting a preliminary market engagement event to engage with potential suppliers for two not-yet-guaranteed future procurements…

Comments

Leave a Reply

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

Biometric Market Analysis and Buyer's Guides

Most Viewed This Week

Featured Company

Biometrics Insight, Opinion

Digital ID In-Depth

Biometrics White Papers

Biometrics Events