iProov v. Software Colombia: Biometric Auth Patents Dismissed Without Prejudice
iProov Ltd, a UK-based biometric authentication company, sued Software Colombia Servicios Informaticos SAS in the District of Delaware over two patents covering online user presence verification — allegedly infringed through Software Colombia’s use of Amazon Rekognition. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after 190 days, leaving the door open for future enforcement.
Biometric presence-auth patents asserted — then withdrawn before answer
On 17 July 2024, iProov Ltd — a UK-based developer of biometric face verification technology — filed suit against Software Colombia Servicios Informaticos SAS in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleged infringement of US9075975B2 and US9479500B2, two patents covering methods and systems for authenticating the real-time presence of an online user. iProov alleged that Software Colombia’s product, which leverages Amazon Rekognition, fell within the scope of those claims.
On 23 January 2025 — 190 days after filing — iProov filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing the complaint without prejudice. Because Software Colombia had not yet filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment, iProov was entitled to dismiss unilaterally as of right under that rule. The dismissal without prejudice means the claims were not adjudicated on the merits and iProov retains the right to refile.
The fact that the case resolved in under 190 days with no defendant appearance on record suggests either an early-stage negotiation, a strategic reassessment of venue or claim scope, or a resolution reached outside the formal litigation record. No settlement agreement has been publicly disclosed. The absence of defendant counsel and the pre-answer timing are consistent with a dispute that ended through private negotiation or a decision by iProov to pursue the matter in a different forum or on revised terms.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 190 days
190 days — resolved before defendant filed any answer
Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice: what the record tells us
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) gives plaintiffs a unilateral exit before answer
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. iProov exercised this right explicitly. The dismissal without prejudice means no merits ruling was made — the patents were neither found valid nor invalid, infringed nor not infringed.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissalWithout prejudice confirmed — but silence on why it was filed that way
The notice expressly states dismissal is WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This is the legally significant distinction: iProov retains the right to refile identical claims in any competent court, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. A with-prejudice dismissal would have permanently barred those claims. The public record does not disclose whether any side agreement, licensing term, or forum-selection consideration accompanied this procedural step.
Claims may be refiledSoftware Colombia exits with no admission — but no finality either
Software Colombia filed no answer and no counterclaims, meaning it secured no declaratory judgment of non-infringement or invalidity. The dismissal gives it temporary relief but not permanent protection. Should iProov refile — whether in Delaware, another U.S. district, or a different jurisdiction — Software Colombia would face renewed litigation with no collateral estoppel benefit from this proceeding.
No invalidity ruling obtainedAmazon Rekognition integrations now sit in iProov’s enforcement crosshairs
iProov’s complaint targeted Software Colombia’s use of AWS Amazon Rekognition as the alleged infringing implementation path. Any software vendor layering biometric presence-authentication on top of cloud facial recognition APIs — particularly Amazon Rekognition — should assess whether their implementation falls within the claim scope of US9075975B2 or US9479500B2. The without-prejudice exit suggests iProov has not abandoned its enforcement posture.
Cloud biometrics sector at riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | iProov LTD | Company | UK biometric authentication company — holder of US9075975B2 and US9479500B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Software Colombia Servicios Informaticos SAS | Individual | Colombian software company using Amazon Rekognition for identity verification servicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Adam J. Reis | Attorney | Counsel for iProov LTDSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Richard Charles Weinblatt | Attorney | Counsel for iProov LTDSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stamatios Stamoulis | Attorney | Counsel for iProov LTDSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC | Law Firm | Representing iProov LTDSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jennifer L. Hall | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice explicitly invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and states dismissal is WITHOUT PREJUDICE — two legally operative facts that define the case’s posture. No merits adjudication occurred: the patents were not construed, claims were not ruled valid or invalid, and no infringement finding was made. The pre-answer timing means iProov exercised an absolute right requiring no judicial approval. For both parties, the practical effect is a reset rather than a resolution.
US9075975B2 & US9479500B2 — Biometric Online User Presence Authentication
US9075975B2 (App. No. 13/769,341) and US9479500B2 (App. No. 15/017,623) form a paired claim family covering iProov’s core technology: methods and systems for verifying that a real, live person — not a photograph, video replay, or digital spoof — is present during an online authentication session. The patents address the liveness-detection and presence-verification problem central to biometric identity assurance, a capability that underpins digital onboarding, KYC compliance, and remote access control workflows.
From a competitive standpoint, these patents represent iProov’s foundational IP around its ‘Genuine Presence Assurance’ technology. As cloud-based facial recognition APIs such as Amazon Rekognition have made biometric processing accessible to third-party developers, iProov’s enforcement strategy appears directed at ensuring that downstream integrations of those APIs do not circumvent its patent position. Any company deploying liveness detection or presence-authentication in digital identity, fintech, healthcare access, or government identity verification should treat these patents as a live enforcement risk.
Should you run an FTO against US9075975B2 and US9479500B2?
If your product or service incorporates real-time biometric liveness detection or online user presence authentication — whether built natively or by integrating cloud services such as Amazon Rekognition, Azure Face API, or Google Cloud Vision — you should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against both patents. The iProov v. Software Colombia complaint demonstrates that iProov is actively monitoring third-party implementations, including those that rely on AWS infrastructure rather than iProov’s own SDK.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and legal teams to map the independent claims of US9075975B2 and US9479500B2 against your product’s technical architecture — including API call sequences, liveness check logic, and session authentication flows. Eureka surfaces claim-by-claim risk flags, identifies prior art that could support design-around strategies, and tracks related continuations or divisionals that may extend iProov’s claim coverage beyond these two granted patents.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9075975B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar biometric authentication patent cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving biometric presence-authentication and liveness-detection patent assertions in U.S. district courts, including the District of Delaware.
What this case signals for the biometric identity verification IP landscape
iProov’s enforcement pattern and the pre-answer withdrawal reveal key strategic dynamics for vendors building on cloud biometric APIs.
Cloud API integrations are not a shield against patent infringement claims
The complaint’s framing — targeting Software Colombia’s use of Amazon Rekognition — signals that iProov treats third-party API reliance as insufficient to avoid infringement. Product teams building presence-verification workflows on cloud facial recognition services should treat FTO analysis of US9075975B2 and US9479500B2 as non-optional.
A without-prejudice dismissal is not a win — it is a pause
For competitors and potential targets in the biometric authentication space, the absence of a merits ruling means iProov’s patents remain fully enforceable and unchallenged. The dismissal may reflect forum strategy, licensing discussions, or claim refinement — none of which signal that iProov has retreated from enforcement.
iProov v Software — key questions answered
iProov asserted two patents: US9075975B2 (App. No. 13/769,341) and US9479500B2 (App. No. 15/017,623). Both cover methods and systems for authenticating the real-time presence of an online user — the core liveness-detection technology underlying iProov’s Genuine Presence Assurance platform. Software Colombia’s use of Amazon Rekognition was identified as the accused implementation.
The public record does not disclose iProov’s reasons. The dismissal was filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before Software Colombia answered, giving iProov an unilateral right to exit. Possible drivers include private settlement or licensing terms, a decision to refile in a different forum, a reassessment of claim scope, or an inability to serve or engage the Colombian defendant. No settlement agreement or licensing disclosure appears on the docket.
A dismissal without prejudice means the claims were not decided on the merits and iProov retains full legal standing to refile the same infringement claims against Software Colombia — or any other party — in any competent court, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any private agreements not reflected in the public docket. No res judicata or collateral estoppel effect attaches.
No. Software Colombia obtained no declaratory judgment of non-infringement, no invalidity ruling, and no merits adjudication of any kind. The case ended before the defendant even filed an answer. Software Colombia’s legal position with respect to US9075975B2 and US9479500B2 is exactly the same as it was before the suit was filed — it faces potential refiling with no estoppel protection from this proceeding.
iProov’s complaint specifically identified Software Colombia’s use of Amazon Rekognition as the accused infringing activity. This suggests iProov’s enforcement strategy maps its presence-authentication claims to downstream implementations of cloud facial recognition APIs, not just to direct SDK competitors. Any company deploying Amazon Rekognition — or comparable services — for liveness detection, KYC, or online presence verification should conduct FTO analysis against iProov’s patent portfolio.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.