Liveness detection IP court battle between Jumio and FaceTec turns nasty

A legal dispute between face biometrics and liveness detection providers is turning nasty, with accusations of bad-faith dealing and dishonesty leveled in U.S. federal court. Legal representatives for Jumio accuse FaceTec of mischaracterizing the prior work of a law firm that used to represent the latter, and now the former, in a motion countering FaceTec’s move to have the firm removed from the dispute over an alleged conflict of interest.

Jumio’s representatives at Perkins Coie LLP say that FaceTec is merely attempting to smear the reputation of its litigation opponents, they say, citing the five months and 2,000 hours of work the law firm had spent defending the Palo Alto-based identity verification company before FaceTec filed its motion to remove it in December.

The root of the dispute is an allegation of patent infringement against iProov, filed by FaceTec in 2021. Jumio had just switched from FaceTec to iProov for liveness detection, and through that partnership, according to FaceTec, infringed on four patents from the same family.

Jumio’s opposing motion in the Northern District of California denies the substance of FaceTec’s motion to remove, and accuses its competitor of expressing manufactured confidentiality concerns with “tactical timing.”

The law firm does not dispute that it worked with FaceTec, but argues that the billable hours reflect a relationship different and far shorter in duration than the 3D liveness provider indicated in its motion.

Perkins Coie argues on Jumio’s behalf that it did not work on the patents in question, contrary to FaceTec’s claim, and what work it did for FaceTec did not involve any confidential information material to the case. The motion says that another firm, Weide & Miller, did most of the work on FaceTec’s patents, and Perkins Coie did only a tiny amount of work on patent applications for the company, all prior to 2016. It claims it did not work on patents involving the comparison of two pictures, and that no attorney that worked on other FaceTec patents remains with the firm.

Perkins’ prior work for FaceTec “was not substantially related” to the IP dispute, and the firm’s partner Lowell Ness was only an “occasional” representative of FaceTec, according to the motion. Ness’ role as secretary for FaceTec at its founding was “customary” and does not meet the criteria for disqualification, and the plaintiff’s other arguments are irrelevant, it says.

“FaceTec argues two main grounds for disqualification: prior work on certain patent applications, and prior work on non-patent matters,” the motion states. “Neither ground requires disqualification because none of the work was substantially related to this case under California law. But FaceTec also waived its request by its unreasonable, prejudicial delay.”

Article Topics

biometric liveness detection  |  biometrics  |  face biometrics  |  FaceTec  |  Jumio  |  Jumio Liveness  |  lawsuits