In a recent decision, a California federal judge denied FaceTec Inc.’s motion to disqualify Morrison & Foerster LLP from representing Jumio Corp. in an ongoing patent infringement lawsuit. FaceTec had argued that Morrison & Foerster’s prior collaboration with Perkins Coie LLP, which was previously disqualified from the case, warranted their removal as well.
The dispute centers on allegations that Jumio’s identity verification technology infringes upon FaceTec’s facial recognition software patents. Initially, Perkins Coie represented Jumio but was disqualified in March 2025 due to its prior work advising FaceTec on intellectual property matters. The court found a substantial risk that confidential information obtained during Perkins Coie’s previous representation could be relevant to the current litigation.
Following Perkins Coie’s disqualification, Jumio retained Morrison & Foerster in April 2025. FaceTec contended that this move did not comply with the court’s directive to secure new counsel, asserting that Morrison & Foerster’s prior role as co-counsel with Perkins Coie in the case compromised their independence. FaceTec characterized Jumio’s selection of Morrison & Foerster as “improper gamesmanship,” suggesting that the firm was not truly “new” counsel given its previous involvement.
However, the court determined that Morrison & Foerster’s prior association with Perkins Coie did not constitute a conflict of interest sufficient to warrant disqualification. The judge emphasized that Morrison & Foerster had not directly represented FaceTec and that their previous co-counsel relationship did not pose a substantial risk of confidential information being misused.
This ruling underscores the complexities involved in managing potential conflicts of interest in patent litigation, particularly when law firms have overlapping representations. It highlights the importance of carefully evaluating the nature and extent of prior relationships between legal counsel and parties involved in litigation to ensure the integrity of the judicial process.