Jumio Corporation v. FaceTec, Inc.

IPR2025-00106

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00106
Filing Date
11 July 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-00489

Visa, Inc.vsCortex MCP, Inc.

Visa filed an authorized response opposing Cortex MCP’s Director Review request, asserting that the request raises a new, forfeited factual dispute about the Oborne prior art and that the Board’s obviousness finding is well‑supported.

patentIPR2024-00478

Valve CorporationvsImmersion Corporation

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 19 challenged claims unpatentable. The Board adopted the Petitioner's interpretation of 'virtual detent,' defining it as vibrotactile feedback that simulates mechanical resistance, and found anticipation in Rosenberg I for all claims.

patentIPR2024-00726

Ovid Therapeutics Inc.vsMarinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Ovid Therapeutics Inc.'s IPR challenge against Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was denied by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenges regarding plasma concentration limitations and priority.

patentIPR2025-00424

PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.

MidAmerican Energy Company and Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review as to MidAmerican. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues no merits decision has been made.

patentIPR2024-00342

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC

Samsung and Google filed a second IPR petition challenging all claims of Headwater Research's patent, but the USPTO denied institution based on a post‑filing PO stipulation. The petitioners request Director review, arguing the denial misapplies § 314(a) and threatens broader litigation.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call