A federal judge has disqualified the law firm Perkins Coie LLP from representing Jumio Corporation in a closely watched patent infringement lawsuit brought by FaceTec Inc. against Jumio. The judge disqualified Perkins Coie based on a conflict of interest stemming from Perkins Coie’s prior legal work for FaceTec. This ruling, issued March 28, 2025, by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, represents a significant development in the legal battle brought by FaceTec to protect its patented biometric liveness detection technology.
FaceTec filed suit against Jumio on June 14, 2024, alleging infringement by Jumio of multiple FaceTec patents covering its biometric liveness detection and facial recognition systems—technologies critical to secure identity verification. In that lawsuit, FaceTec alleged that Jumio – a former FaceTec customer – used its prior experience with FaceTec’s software to attempt to copy FaceTec’s patented 3D Liveness technology.
After Perkins Coie appeared as Jumio’s attorneys in that lawsuit, FaceTec moved in December 2024 to disqualify Perkins Coie from representing Jumio, arguing that the law firm had previously served as FaceTec’s counsel on numerous matters, including matters that FaceTec argued were directly relevant to FaceTec’s current litigation with Jumio. FaceTec characterized Perkins Coie’s representation of Jumio as a “betrayal,” and argued that that the firm’s prior representation of FaceTec in “substantially related “ matters and failure implement proper safeguards required Perkins’ disqualification.
Jumio and Perkins Coie countered that the motion to disqualify was a strategic maneuver designed to delay proceedings and disrupt Jumio’s legal team. They emphasized that no attorneys involved in the earlier representation of FaceTec remained at the firm. Perkins Coie further argued that it had not worked on the specific FaceTec patents asserted against Jumio and pointed to Weide & Miller as FaceTec’s primary patent counsel.
The court, however, disagreed with Perkins Coie and Jumio’s arguments, finding that Perkins Coie’s relationship with FaceTec—from February 2014 to January 2024—included advising on intellectual property strategy and filing patent applications. The Court found that this prior work for FaceTec created a “substantial risk” that the firm could possess confidential information pertinent to FaceTec’s current litigation with Jumio, and as a result, FaceTec justified disqualification of the entire Perkins Coie firm.
With Perkins Coie now disqualified, the court indicated that Jumio must now secure by April 30, 2025 new legal counsel. FaceTec is being represented by One LLP and Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, law firms with extensive experience in intellectual property litigation.
The court’s rare decision to disqualify a law firm reinforces the importance of ethical compliance and conflict management for law firms navigating competitive technology sectors. As FaceTec and Jumio move toward trial, the case may ultimately serve as a precedent in both legal ethics and intellectual property enforcement.
–
April 2, 2025 – by the ID Tech Editorial Team
