FOLLOW US

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.