Perkins Coie LLP is pushing back against FaceTec Inc.'s attempt to disqualify the law firm from defending Jumio Corp. in a patent infringement lawsuit, calling the move a "tactical" maneuver. FaceTec, which has accused Jumio of copying its facial recognition technology, filed a motion to disqualify Perkins Coie over its previous work for FaceTec, but Perkins Coie argued the firm's relationship with FaceTec was minimal and unrelated to the current case.

In an opposition brief filed Monday, Perkins Coie contended that FaceTec’s motion was filed only after FaceTec lost on other key issues in the case, including a request to transfer the litigation to Nevada. The law firm argued that FaceTec's delay in raising the conflict of interest claim and the timing of the motion were clear signs that no pressing conflict existed.

"FaceTec raised this issue for the first time two days before Thanksgiving, after it had lost on other issues," Perkins Coie said in the brief. "FaceTec's tactical timing shows that there is no pressing conflict of interest."

FaceTec filed its patent infringement lawsuit in June, accusing Jumio of copying its Zoom software, a key tool in facial recognition technology that verifies the authenticity of a human face. Jumio had previously licensed the software from FaceTec, according to court filings.

In November, FaceTec sent Perkins Coie a letter claiming that the firm’s prior work for the company created a conflict of interest. The law firm had provided legal services to FaceTec from 2014 until January 2024, FaceTec argued, and now Perkins Coie was working to dismiss the very patents it had helped FaceTec secure. FaceTec filed the formal disqualification motion in December.

Perkins Coie, however, provided a different account in its opposition. The firm said it had never worked directly on any of the four patents in the lawsuit, and that its relationship with FaceTec was limited. The law firm emphasized that it only occasionally assisted FaceTec from 2014 to 2017. After two years of inactivity, Perkins Coie closed the account in 2019 and began representing Jumio.

Of the four Perkins Coie attorneys named in the motion to disqualify, three are no longer with the firm, according to Perkins Coie. The firm argued that the "limited, unrelated patent-prosecution work" conducted a decade ago did not justify disqualification.

"Limited, unrelated patent-prosecution work by Perkins Coie for FaceTec ... a decade ago does not warrant disqualification," the firm argued. "Perkins Coie is not seeking to attack patents it helped obtain, and its representation did not involve any information material here."

The law firm also pointed to the timing of FaceTec’s disqualification request. Perkins Coie pointed out that FaceTec was aware for over a year that the firm represented Jumio in the case. Despite this, FaceTec waited months before filing its motion to disqualify, which Perkins Coie argued should be considered a waiver of the right to seek disqualification.

“Even without moving to disqualify, FaceTec could have at least mentioned the issue prior to November,” Perkins Coie stated. “That delay alone should mean FaceTec waived its right to seek disqualification.”

Perkins Coie warned that disqualifying the firm now would impose significant costs on Jumio, disrupt the ongoing litigation, and deprive the company of its long-time legal counsel. The law firm emphasized the potential harm that would result from replacing its legal team at this stage.

The case centers on patents that address methods allowing facial recognition technology to distinguish between a living human face and a photograph. Perkins Coie outlined the technology behind the patents, explaining that the method relies on the concept of barrel distortion, which occurs when objects are photographed up close.

Neither party responded to requests for comment on Thursday.

Case details:

The case is FaceTec Inc. v. Jumio Corp., case number 3:24-cv-03623, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.