2:21-cv-02252
D. Nev.Sep 10, 2024Background
- FaceTec and iProov are parties in a patent dispute over facial-recognition software, with both alleging infringement against the other.
- The dispute centers on FaceTec’s claim that iProov’s "Liveness Assurance" software infringes two of its patents, specifically in both web and mobile platform implementations.
- Relevant local patent rules (LPRs) require early disclosures, including detailed infringement contentions and the production of source code for accused products.
- FaceTec served preliminary and then amended infringement contentions, which iProov argued only accused the web platform and not the mobile versions.
- The issue escalated when FaceTec requested source code for the mobile platforms and iProov refused, resulting in FaceTec’s motion to compel and iProov’s motion to strike.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FaceTec’s contentions gave proper notice as to mobile platforms | Contended claim charts referenced both web and mobile | Charts detailed only web platform, thus only web accused | FaceTec’s contentions did not specifically chart the mobile platforms |
| Whether web platform charts can be representative of mobile platforms | Web and mobile platforms share same critical characteristics | Platforms operate differently (orientation, encoding, axes) | Web platform is representative of mobile; differences are irrelevant to claims |
| Whether iProov must produce source code for mobile platforms | Sufficient accusation via representative web platform | Discovery limited to specifically charted (web) platforms | iProov must produce source code for mobile platforms under representative products |
| Whether "Accused Instrumentalities" should be limited to web platform only | Mobile platforms properly accused or encompassed | Improperly included; should strike mobile platforms | Motion to strike denied; web platform encompasses mobile under case theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Festo v. Shoketsu, 234 F.3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (addresses the distinction between "elements" and "limitations" in patent claims)