Biometrics — US PTAB Patent Cases
37 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 2 · 37 total
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking federal statutes. The Board had previously authorized the filing, and the parties seek limited disclosure only to government agencies or parties with good cause.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch settled the IPR over patent 8,982,110 B2, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding and seal the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00810 concerning EyesMatch’s eye‑recognition patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung and EyesMatch settled the IPR over patent 8,982,110, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding for Samsung and seal the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung and EyesMatch have filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions. The request cites 35 U.S.C. §327 and related CFR rules.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the challenged claims were unpatentable over prior art. The Board adopted Petitioner's construction of key terms like 'third party,' concluding that the claimed application is distinct from the trusted authority.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
FaceTec requests the PTAB Director to deny institution of Jumio’s IPR, contending that all Fintiv factors favor denial due to overlapping litigation and ethical issues. The petition argues the Board misapplied the discretionary denial standards.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
The PTAB denied Jumio's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the facial‑recognition patent owned by FaceTec, leaving the institution standing.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio challenges the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against FaceTec’s biometric authentication patent. FaceTec’s counsel argues the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that parallel litigation does not warrant reversal. The response seeks denial of the petition for review.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio challenges FaceTec's biometric patent in IPR2025-00106. The petitioner argues the PTAB correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that no discretionary denial applies. The Board’s institution decision remains in effect pending director review.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
FaceTec requests the PTAB Director to overturn the Board’s institution of IPR2025‑00108 against Jumio, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and that the proceeding duplicates ongoing district‑court litigation.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
FaceTec requests the PTAB Director to deny institution of Jumio’s IPR, arguing that all Fintiv factors favor denial due to overlapping litigation and ethical issues. The petition cites 35 U.S.C. §314(a) and highlights time‑bar concerns.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
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.
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.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google, Samsung, and Microsoft petitioned an IPR on EyesMatch's facial‑recognition patent, but Samsung and EyesMatch have now settled and moved to terminate the proceeding.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google, Samsung, Microsoft and EyesMatch have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00856 and keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks director review of a PTAB final written decision that found all challenged claims of its fingerprint‑registration patent unpatentable. The patent owner argues the Board’s claim construction and obviousness analysis are erroneous and that the IPR should never have been instituted under §325(d).
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell has filed a Director Review request seeking to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung’s fingerprint‑recognition patent, arguing the Board misapplied discretionary denial standards.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Microsoft Corporation filed a Petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,886,954 held by Proxense, LLC. The core argument is that the patent's claims are obvious over various prior art references, including Burger and Robinson.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR challenge against Carbyne Biometrics, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness. The denial hinged on the Petitioner's inability to provide sufficient motivation to combine prior art references for authentication and credential management claims.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.