DCT

3:26-cv-03154

Brivas II LLC v. Match Group Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:26-cv-03154, N.D. Tex., 09/17/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant Match Group, Inc. maintaining its headquarters and principal place of business in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint also notes that Match Group has previously submitted to venue in this district in other patent infringement actions.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Face Check" identity verification functionality, used across its portfolio of online dating applications, infringes eight U.S. patents related to biometric authentication and liveness detection.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns remote user authentication systems designed to verify that a user is a live human being present at the time of authentication, a critical function for preventing fraud, impersonation, and automated "spoofing" attacks in online services.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patents comprise two distinct technology families. U.S. Patent Nos. 9,602,495 and 10,587,601 were acquired by Plaintiff from 3Fish Ltd. in October 2025. The other six asserted patents form a continuation family sharing a common specification and an April 9, 2012 priority date. The accused "Face Check" functionality was rolled out by Defendant in October 2025.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-08-02 Earliest Priority Date for ’495 and ’601 Patents
2012-04-09 Earliest Priority Date for ’649, ’848, ’203, ’362, ’693, and ’869 Patents
2017-03-21 ’649 Patent Issued
2017-03-21 ’495 Patent Issued
2017-08-22 ’848 Patent Issued
2018-08-14 ’203 Patent Issued
2020-02-18 ’362 Patent Issued
2020-03-10 ’601 Patent Issued
2022-02-08 ’693 Patent Issued
2024-08-27 ’869 Patent Issued
2025-10 Plaintiff acquires ’495 and ’601 Patents from 3Fish Ltd.
2025-10-22 Defendant announces nationwide rollout of accused "Face Check" feature
2026-09-17 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,600,649 - "Authentication method using liveness verification"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,600,649, "Authentication method using liveness verification," issued March 21, 2017 (Compl. ¶18).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the failure of authentication systems that rely on static credentials like passwords or single images, which can be copied and replayed by imposters without verifying that a real, living user is present at the moment of authentication (Compl. ¶¶27-29).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to "bind man and machine" for remote authentication (Compl. ¶36). It uses a server-client exchange where the server instructs a user's device to perform a "relative movement act." The device's camera captures "fiducial marks" (e.g., facial features) before and after the movement, and this information is sent to the server in real-time to verify the "liveness" of the movement before granting access (Compl. ¶37). The common specification of the patent family explains that this process can be triggered based on contextual data, such as a user's device moving a significant geographical distance between uses (Compl. ¶39).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a specific, technical method for "liveness detection," a crucial step beyond static credential checks to combat the growing problem of online spoofing and impersonation (Compl. ¶30; Compl. ¶33).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶94).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1, as alleged in the complaint, include:
    • transmitting an authentication request from a user's device to a server (Compl. ¶98);
    • receiving an instruction from the server to perform an act involving relative movement between the user and the camera (Compl. ¶99);
    • observing the user performing the act, where fiducial marks are captured before and after the movement (Compl. ¶100);
    • transmitting real-time information about the act to the server, which determines if the movement was conducted (Compl. ¶101); and
    • the user's device receiving authorization from the server if the transmission verifies the liveness of the movement (Compl. ¶102).
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, though this is standard practice.

U.S. Patent No. 9,602,495 - "Automated Identity Assessment Method and System"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,602,495, "Automated Identity Assessment Method and System," issued March 21, 2017 (Compl. ¶19).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the weakness of text- and image-based authentication, which "does not provide visual verification of the registered user, thus providing a means for presenting a fraudulent persona to other users" (’495 Patent, col. 2:20-29, as cited in Compl. ¶51). Such systems are vulnerable to spoofing with static artifacts like photos (Compl. ¶29).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a control system that verifies liveness by issuing a "time-delimited" sequence of "unpredictable prompts" to a user. The system records the user's on-screen performance on video and uses a gesture recognition system to perform an "automated assessment" of the recording, generating a signal indicating whether the user validly performed the prompted action (Compl. ¶54). The patent notes that layering measures like security questions are "not fail-safe" (’495 Patent, col. 2:58-61, as cited in Compl. ¶28).
  • Technical Importance: This technology moves beyond static checks by implementing an automated, machine-driven judgment of a live performance against an unpredictable challenge, tied to a specific user's account characteristics (Compl. ¶55).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 8 (Compl. ¶117).
  • The essential elements of system Claim 8, as alleged in the complaint, include:
    • a control system for facilitating entity assessment at a user terminal connected to a data network (Compl. ¶120);
    • a database with user accounts accessible by the control system, with each account including a set of identifying characteristics for a registered user (Compl. ¶120); and
    • the control system including a gesture recognition system programmed to perform procedures (Compl. ¶120).
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,740,848 - "Authentication method using relative movement"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,740,848, "Authentication method using relative movement," issued August 22, 2017 (Compl. ¶20).
  • Technology Synopsis: Belonging to the same family as the ’649 patent, the ’848 Patent adds a layer of device-side control. A server's instruction directs the user device to execute a specific "procedure," which determines the physical act the user must perform. The device then observes the act and captures fiducial marks before and after (Compl. ¶42).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶141).
  • Accused Features: The "Face Check" functionality, which allegedly transmits an authentication request, receives server instructions for a user to perform a movement, observes the act, and transmits information back to the server for verification (Compl. ¶¶145-149).

U.S. Patent No. 10,049,203 - "Method and apparatus for authentication of a user to a server using relative movement"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,049,203, "Method and apparatus for authentication of a user to a server using relative movement," issued August 14, 2018 (Compl. ¶21).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a device that executes "a procedure that requests the user to perform an act" involving liveness-related movement. It specifies the "real-time transmission of the captured fiducial points to the server for verification" (’203 Patent, cl. 1, as cited in Compl. ¶43).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶164).
  • Accused Features: The "Face Check" system, which allegedly executes a procedure requiring a user to perform a facial scan, captures sets of fiducial points, and transmits this information in real-time to a server for verification (Compl. ¶¶168-171).

U.S. Patent No. 10,565,362 - "Method and apparatus for authentication of a user to a server using relative movement"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,565,362, "Method and apparatus for authentication of a user to a server using relative movement," issued February 18, 2020 (Compl. ¶22).
  • Technology Synopsis: Similar to the ’203 patent, the ’362 Patent adds a requirement that the captured set of fiducial points must be sufficient on its own "from which the performance by the user of the act can be determined" (’362 Patent, cl. 1, as cited in Compl. ¶43). It also claims encrypting the transmitted data using the captured fiducial points as a key (Compl. ¶47).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶188).
  • Accused Features: The "Face Check" system, where captured "FaceVector" data is allegedly sufficient to determine the user's act and is used for verification and authentication (Compl. ¶¶194-195).

U.S. Patent No. 10,587,601 - "Automated Identity Assessment Method and System"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,587,601, "Automated Identity Assessment Method and System," issued March 10, 2020 (Compl. ¶23).
  • Technology Synopsis: A relative of the ’495 patent, the ’601 Patent's control system requires both a gesture recognition system and a facial recognition system. It issues an "unpredictable challenge prompt" and generates assessment signals from both recognition systems to determine if the user validly performed the action (Compl. ¶57).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶212).
  • Accused Features: The "Face Check" system, which allegedly functions as a control system with both gesture and facial recognition to assess a user's performance of prompted actions during a video selfie (Compl. ¶¶216-219).

U.S. Patent No. 11,245,693 - "Method and apparatus for authentication of a user to a server using relative movement"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,245,693, "Method and apparatus for authentication of a user to a server using relative movement," issued February 8, 2022 (Compl. ¶24).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on the back-end of the liveness detection process. It claims a method of determining whether a recording shows a live performance of a required act, authenticating the user based on that determination, and then granting access to a resource (Compl. ¶44).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶235).
  • Accused Features: The "Face Check" system, which allegedly determines liveness from a video selfie recording and, based on that determination, authenticates the user by issuing a "Photo Verified badge" and granting access to the application (Compl. ¶¶241-242).

U.S. Patent No. 12,074,869 - "Method and apparatus for authentication of a user to a server using relative movement"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,074,869, "Method and apparatus for authentication of a user to a server using relative movement," issued August 27, 2024 (Compl. ¶25).
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’869 Patent adds further limitations to its family, requiring a three-part authentication: (i) matching the user's biometric information to a stored baseline, (ii) matching separately captured contextual data (e.g., location, time) to an expected value, and (iii) selecting the requested act from a predefined set of acts (Compl. ¶44).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶258).
  • Accused Features: The "Face Check" system, which allegedly checks a user's biometric information against baseline profile photos, selects a predefined act (e.g., "move closer"), and processes contextual data from the user's device during the scan (Compl. ¶¶262-267).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Face Check" identity-verification functionality (the "Accused Products") deployed uniformly across Defendant's portfolio of dating applications, including but not limited to Tinder, Hinge, OkCupid, Plenty of Fish, BLK, and Upward (Compl. ¶62).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Products require users to "complete Face Check by taking a short video selfie within the app" (Compl. ¶69). The system is designed to confirm that the user is "real and physically present" and that their face matches the one in their profile photos (Compl. ¶69). The complaint alleges this process is a "Liveness Check and 3D Face authentication step" that scans the user's face to determine if the video was taken by a real person and extracts "facial geometries" to generate a template for verification (Compl. ¶70). This process is allegedly powered by FaceTec technology but runs entirely on Match Group's servers within its private cloud (Compl. ¶71; Compl. ¶72). A six-panel image in the complaint illustrates the user flow on Tinder, showing prompts such as "Frame your face" and "Move closer" (Compl. p. 25).
  • Defendant allegedly described the feature as tackling "one of the hardest problems online" and reported that its rollout led to a more than 40% decrease in bad actor reports, highlighting its commercial importance in enhancing platform safety and trust (Compl. ¶33; Compl. ¶68).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’649 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
transmitting to a server from the user's device, an authentication request of the user The Face Check software transmits an authentication request containing biometric information (facial geometry, FaceMap, FaceVectors) from the user's device to Defendant's AWS servers. ¶98 (’203 Patent, col. 1:37-40)
receiving from the server an instruction for the user to perform an act that involves a liveness relative movement between the user and the camera The Face Check technology receives an action request from a server, prompting the user to perform acts such as "frame" their face or "move closer" during a video selfie. ¶99 (’203 Patent, col. 3:1-4)
observing on the user's device the user performing the act where fiducial marks are captured before and after the relative movements are requested from the user The Face Check system observes the user performing the requested movement and captures "facial geometry" to generate a "FaceMap" and "FaceVector." ¶100 (’203 Patent, col. 11:47-49)
transmitting real-time information pertaining to the act to the server, where the fiducial marks are transmitted to the server which determines whether the requested user movement was conducted The system transmits the captured "facial geometry" to the server, which runs a "Liveness Check" to determine if the video was taken by a "real, live person." ¶101 (’203 Patent, col. 12:1-2)
the user's device receiving from the server an authorization if the real-time transmission verifies the liveness of the relative movement After successful verification, the user's device receives authentication in the form of a "Photo Verified badge," which grants access to the application. ¶102 (’203 Patent, col. 11:60-62)
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Question: A central question may be whether the prompts "frame your face" or "move closer" (Compl. ¶99) constitute the "relative movement act" required by the claim. The defense may argue this is merely positioning, not the specific type of liveness-proving movement contemplated by the patent, which discusses binding "man and machine" potentially through device sensor cross-checks (Compl. ¶35; Compl. ¶36).
    • Technical Question: The complaint alleges the system captures "fiducial marks" before and after movement (Compl. ¶100). A point of contention may be what evidence demonstrates that the accused "facial geometry" or "FaceMap" functions as claimed "fiducial marks" and are captured specifically before and after the prompted movement for the purpose of verifying that the movement itself occurred.

’495 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A control system for facilitating entity assessment of an entity at a first user terminal..., including user records collectively forming a "user account" in a database... accessible by the control system Defendant operates the Face Check software as a control system that accesses user accounts, which contain identifying characteristics and are stored in databases on its servers for its various applications. ¶120 (’601 Patent, abstract)
said control system operable to ... invoke or facilitate transmission of a time-delimited sequence of unpredictable prompts to the user device... The Face Check system prompts users to perform actions such as "Frame your face" and "Move closer" as part of a Liveness Check. ¶122 (’601 Patent, col. 1:66-2:1)
said control system operable to ... invoke storage or transmission of at least one video recording of the prompted action performance from the user device... Defendant's system requires a user to take a "video selfie" and stores the resulting Face Check data on its servers hosted on AWS. ¶123 (’601 Patent, col. 2:1-3)
said control system operable to ... perform an automated assessment of the video recording and generate an assessment signal ... indicative of whether or not said entity validly performed said prompted action. The Face Check technology assesses the video selfie by detecting the user's face and using facial geometry ("FaceMap") to generate a "FaceVector," which is used to verify the user's identity against their profile photos, resulting in a positive or negative indication. ¶124 (’601 Patent, col. 2:3-9)
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Question: The claim requires "unpredictable prompts." A key dispute may be whether the accused prompts like "Frame your face" or "Move closer" (Compl. ¶122) meet the legal and technical threshold for "unpredictable," especially given the complaint's own citation to sources calling simple actions like "turn head" weak liveness methods (Compl. ¶52).
    • Technical Question: The claim recites a "gesture recognition system." The complaint alleges the accused system uses "facial geometry ('FaceMap') to generate a unique number ('FaceVector')" (Compl. ¶124). A technical question will be whether this functionality constitutes a "gesture recognition system" as understood in the patent, or if it is a fundamentally different form of facial analysis. A diagram in the complaint shows the FaceTec architecture, which may provide evidence on this point (Compl. p. 28).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "fiducial marks" / "fiducial points"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the data currency of the '649 patent family. Its definition is critical because it defines what must be captured and compared to verify movement and liveness. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the "facial geometry" and "FaceMap" generated by the Accused Products fall within the claim's scope.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "fiducial" itself is general, suggesting any identifiable and trackable point used as a reference. The complaint notes that the claims "are built an entire architecture defining exactly what counts as a fiducial mark" (Compl. ¶40), which may suggest a definition broader than common usage.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification of a related patent explicitly defines a fiducial mark or point as a "trackable feature captured on the user's face, such as 'eye locations, nose location, ear locations, facial measurements, and the like'" ('869 Patent at 19:26-27, as cited in Compl. ¶38). This specific list of facial features may support a narrower construction limited to anatomical points.

  • The Term: "relative movement"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core action a user must perform for the liveness check in the '649 patent family. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the actions prompted by the Accused Products—"frame your face" or "move closer" (Compl. ¶99)—qualify as the claimed "relative movement."

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning suggests any change in spatial relationship between the user and the camera. The complaint alleges the user is prompted to "move closer," which is a literal relative movement (Compl. ¶99).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint alleges the patented invention was designed to "bind man and machine" ('869 Patent at 4:58-61, as cited in Compl. ¶36) and cross-check movement against a device's motion sensors (Compl. ¶35). The specification also describes calculating the "angle of light reflected off the user" ('869 Patent at 19:36-38; Compl. ¶48). This may suggest the term requires a specific type of measurable movement tied to the device's physical orientation or sensors, not just any visual change in the camera feed.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is based on Defendant requiring customers to use the Face Check feature to access its applications and providing instructions and support materials on its websites (Compl. ¶¶111-113). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the Face Check software is not a staple article of commerce and is especially adapted for infringing the patents (Compl. ¶137).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents, based on Defendant's knowledge of the patents "since at least the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶104). This establishes a basis for post-suit willfulness and a claim for enhanced damages.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "relative movement", rooted in a patent family that discusses binding "man and machine" through device sensors and angular light calculations, be construed to cover the user actions of "framing" a face or "moving closer" as prompted by the accused Face Check system?
  • A second central question will be one of technical sufficiency: do the accused prompts, such as "move closer," meet the requirement of being "unpredictable" as claimed in the '495 patent family, or will they be found to be simple, predictable instructions that fall short of the patent's solution to sophisticated spoofing attacks?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional equivalence: does the accused system's generation of a "FaceMap" and "FaceVector" from "facial geometries" perform the same function, in the same way, to achieve the same result as the claimed methods of capturing and analyzing "fiducial marks" or using a "gesture recognition system"?