US PTAB IP Litigation

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

FaceTec requests the PTAB Director to deny institution of Jumio’s IPR, arguing that the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and that the case duplicates ongoing litigation. The petition highlights ethical violations, overlapping issues, and time‑bar concerns.

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

The USPTO Director denied Jumio Corp.'s request for review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the challenge to FaceTec's facial recognition patent.

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

Jumio’s petition to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against FaceTec’s facial‑recognition patent is met with a detailed response asserting that all Fintiv factors favor institution and that no discretionary denial applies.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC

· IPR2025-00101

The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00101, leaving the original decision unchanged.

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

The PTAB Director denied Jumio Corp.'s request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00106, leaving the institution of FaceTec's patent intact.

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

· IPR2025-00109

Jumio Corporation has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate FaceTec's facial‑authentication patent (U.S. 11,874,910) on obviousness grounds, citing multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d) is improper.

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

· IPR2025-00108

Jumio Corporation petitions the PTAB to invalidate FaceTec’s facial‑authentication patent, arguing that its claimed camera‑optics technique is obvious over prior art such as Derakhshani, Tanii, Zhang, Tahk, and Suzuki. The petition seeks institution of an IPR on claims 1‑24.

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

Jumio Corporation petitions the PTAB to invalidate FaceTec’s facial‑authentication patent, arguing that all 20 claims are obvious over prior art such as Derakhshani, Tanii, Zhang and Tahk, and that discretionary denial is improper.

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

Jumio has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of FaceTec’s facial‑authentication patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.

Trove Brands, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC

· IPR2025-00155

Trove Brands has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of CamelBak’s 11,684,187 patent covering drink containers with removable caps. The petition relies on prior art from Kiyota, Choi, Park, and Ribarits to argue obviousness and asserts a means‑plus‑function construction for the “user release mechanism.”

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00119

Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of YMTC’s 3D NAND ‘254 patent, asserting that the Fujiki publication renders the claims obvious under §103 and that no discretionary denial applies.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC

· IPR2025-00101

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging KP Innovations’ U.S. Patent 10,499,168, asserting that claims 18‑21 are anticipated or obvious over earlier camera‑carousel and dual‑camera mobile phone references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.

Trove Brands, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC

· IPR2025-00155

Trove Brands' IPR petition against CamelBak Products regarding mouthpiece and cap assemblies was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that petitioner failed to meet the statutory threshold for institution, specifically rejecting obviousness grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00119

The PTAB denied Micron's second IPR petition against Yangtze Memory's 3D memory patent (10,879,254), citing the overlap of asserted prior art knowledge with a previously instituted review.

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

· IPR2025-00109

Jumio Corporation successfully petitioned to institute IPR against FaceTec, Inc.'s facial recognition patent (11874910), establishing a reasonable likelihood of obviousness. The Board found that prior art combinations, particularly Derakhshani and Tanii, teach the claimed limitations in biometric authentication systems.

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

· IPR2025-00108

Jumio Corporation successfully secured institution at the PTAB against FaceTec, Inc., establishing a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for 24 claims related to facial recognition. The Board found that combinations of prior art references (Derakhshani/Tanii and Zhang/Tanii) rendered the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

Jumio Corporation successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against FaceTec, Inc., regarding facial recognition technology patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds, despite patent owner arguments concerning prior art and related litigation.

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

The PTAB granted institution for Jumio Corporation's IPR against FaceTec, Inc.'s facial recognition patent (11,157,606). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding obviousness over prior art references like Derakhshani and Zhang.