iProov Denies Patent Breach Allegations, Launches Countersuit

Three and a half months after FaceTec’s announcement of a patent infringement lawsuit against iProov, the latter has formally responded, and launched a countersuit of its own.

FaceTec’s lawsuit revolves around its Spoof Bounty Program, which encourages third parties to attempt to fool its biometric authentication system into making a false positive by offering multiple levels of cash rewards. Initially launched in 2019 with a $30,000 bounty offering, the program’s potential payout now totals $200,000 after FaceTec upped the ante for the second time earlier this week.

The Spoof Bounty Program necessarily entails giving third parties access to the front end of FaceTec’s platform, letting them undergo repeated authentication sessions through a web portal. According to FaceTec, iProov abused this system, using it extensively in an attempt to glean trade secrets from the operation of FaceTec’s technology. FaceTec says these actions have violated its bounty program’s Terms of Service, and amount to patent infringement.

Now, iProov has published its legal filing responding to FaceTec’s lawsuit, signed April 14th, along with a brief statement. The company is refuting all of FaceTec’s claims against it, and is counter-suing with a patent violation accusation of its own.

iProov says that FaceTec has breached its patent titled “Online Pseudonym Verification and Identity Validation”, which “covers iProov’s proprietary technology for remote identity verification, combining remote document reading with face verification and anti-spoofing measures.”

Broadly speaking, that describes an approach to remote identity verification that has become increasingly popular in recent years, particularly in the financial services industry and during the pandemic’s various stages of lockdowns. FaceTec, iProov, and other vendors have risen to prominence with platforms that let clients verify end users’ identities by matching their selfie photos to images of their official identity documents.

As for iProov’s defence against FaceTec’s allegations, in its filing the company emphasized its decade-long track record of technological innovation, including its own patent portfolio and its multiple grants received from Innovate UK on the basis of the government funding agency’s own, independent evaluations between 2013 and 2018.

The company also noted that the “unique qualities” of its technology “have been recognized by several national governments which have selected iProov, against competitive offerings and following extensive testing, to provide liveness for national identity onboarding and authentication programs.”

iProov has formally requested a jury trial to determine the outcome of all triable issues.

–

April 21, 2022 – by Alex Perala