Jumio gets to keep law firm in liveness detection IP dispute with FaceTec

Morrison & Foerster LLP will be allowed to defend Jumio against claims in violated FaceTec’s intellectual property rights related to biometric liveness detection, after the court rejected a motion to disqualify the firm.

District Judge Rita F. Lin of the Northern District of California was asked by FaceTec to block the firm from representing Jumio on grounds that it had been co-counsel with another firm which had previously represented FaceTec, and in that capacity had been privy to corporate secrets material to the case.

Perkins Coie LLP was disqualified from representing Jumio earlier this year at FaceTec’s request, since the law firm had also represented the plaintiff during its early years, when the product in dispute was its only one. Jumio switched its biometric liveness detection provider in 2015 from FaceTec to iProov, which FaceTec alleges was using its IP.

Lin rejected FaceTec’s claim that Perkins and Morrison & Foerster had functioned as Jumio’s co-counsel for two months. In fact, according to the ruling, Morrison & Foerster was representing Jumio in a separate matter when FaceTec sued it in June, 2024, and asked for an extension for Jumio’s response on the company’s behalf.  Perkins filed Jumio’s response and counterclaims, and Morrison & Foerster officially withdrew from the case three days later, without having had contact with Perkins.

From then until Perkins was disqualified, there was minimal communication between the firms. But even if the two firms had acted as co-counsel, the precedence FaceTec cites as grounds for their removal do not apply, Lin says. That’s because in those cases, “the tainted attorney” was directly involved in the case, and working with the co-counsel.

“That is not the case here,” according to the ruling. “The undisputed record is that Morrison & Foerster’s attorneys did not communicate with any attorneys from Perkins who had received confidential information.”

FaceTec also requested that the court block Perkins from sharing documents with Morrison & Foerster, but Lin ruled that “because a precautionary screen was in place, no confidential information acquired by the tainted attorneys was shared with Perkins’ litigation team, meaning that there is no risk that Perkins’ work product relating to this case is tainted with such confidential information at this juncture.”

A proposed adjusted case schedule is due by July 30.

Article Topics

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