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.”
