Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
In a Director Review request, FaceTec, Inc. asks the PTAB to reverse its decision to institute IPR2025-00106 against Jumio Corporation. The patent owner contends that the Board incorrectly treated several Fintiv factors—rewarding Jumio’s prior counsel’s ethical breaches, underestimating the parties’ investments, and overlooking the complete overlap with two parallel district‑court cases—thereby warranting denial of institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The petition also points to the lack of a stipulation to avoid duplicative litigation, settled expectations from the patent family’s long history, and potential time‑bar issues involving iProov, urging the Director to deny the IPR to prevent unnecessary burden on the Board and the parties.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Jumio Corporation vs FaceTec, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac and co‑petitioners filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement (Exhibit 1300) confidential and separate from the patent file, limiting disclosure under 35 U.S.C. §317(b).
Ericsson Inc. et al.vsPegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC's patent (No. 10638463) for obviousness over prior art including Takeda, Yan, and 3GPP R1-1711853. The petitioner group, comprising major wireless carriers and tech companies, successfully argued that the claimed method is unpatentable in 5G NR resource allocation.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied petitions to review institution decisions in three IPRs involving Stratasys's 3D‑printing patent, leaving the institution rulings intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsSiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 36 claims of SiOnyx’s ’599 image‑sensor patent, asserting that each claim is obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate given the lack of prior petitions and a stayed ITC case.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al.vsPegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Verizon and its partners seek Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against KT Corp.’s 942 patent. They argue the denial violated due process and misapplied Fintiv factors, urging the Board to institute the review.
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.
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.