Judge Rejects FaceTec Bid to DQ MoFo in Biometric Patent Battle

In March, the court ruled Perkins Coie had a direct conflict, as it had formerly represented FaceTec in patent matters closely related to the current litigation. However, Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled on July 16, 2025, that no such conflict extended to MoFo.

“The record shows that Morrison & Foerster was not privy to any confidential FaceTec information and has maintained professional boundaries consistent with ethical obligations,” Judge Tigar wrote in his opinion. “Disqualification is a drastic measure and should only be employed where clearly warranted.”

FaceTec’s lawsuit accuses Jumio—along with biometric firm iProov—of infringing on several of its patents related to anti-spoofing facial recognition technology. These patents cover software and methods used to verify a user’s presence by detecting movements or reactions in real-time video feeds. Such technologies are now integral in remote onboarding, fintech, and digital ID verification applications.

MoFo has been defending Jumio since early this year, stepping in after Perkins Coie’s removal. FaceTec’s legal team argued that the transition was more than procedural—that MoFo allegedly relied on strategy developed by Perkins Coie during its conflicted representation, effectively carrying over an "unfair advantage."

But the court found FaceTec’s evidence insufficient to meet the high bar for disqualification, noting that MoFo’s team had screened itself appropriately and did not consult with former Perkins Coie attorneys on sensitive material. The decision allows Jumio to retain its current legal team, which could streamline proceedings as the case approaches its next phase.

Legal experts say the ruling reinforces the judiciary’s reluctance to disrupt litigation based on speculative conflicts, especially when large law firms implement conflict checks and ethical walls. “The court rightly focused on facts over innuendo,” said legal ethics professor Dana Keller. “This underscores the importance of clear procedures and timely objections in complex IP litigation.”