FaceToFace Biometrics, Inc. filed FaceToFace Biometrics, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 4:26-cv-01534-CDP, in the Eastern District of Missouri on September 28, 2026, and demands a jury. The complaint alleges that FaceToFace is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in the district. Anthony G. Simon of The Simon Law Firm, P.C. signed the complaint. The signature block also lists two other lawyers of that firm and two lawyers of Husch Blackwell LLP.

The patent and the recorded assignment

The complaint alleges that U.S. Patent 12,536,263, titled Message Sender Security in Messaging System, issued on January 27, 2026, with a priority date of March 10, 2014, and names Eric Leuthardt and Scott Stern as inventors. It alleges that FaceToFace is the assignee of the entire right, title, and interest. Assignment Center shows one recorded assignment: the inventors to FaceToFace Biometrics, Inc. of St. Louis, Missouri, executed March 19 and March 23, 2015, and recorded May 3, 2024, at reel/frame 67305/0685. FaceToFace Biometrics, Inc. is the latest recorded assignee. No later assignment was located.

The Google Patents legal-events listing reviewed September 29, 2026, shows that assignment and does not list an inter partes review, a reexamination, or a court case on this patent number. The complaint alleges that Apple has been aware of the family since at least April 13, 2022, when a complaint alleged infringement of a different patent in the family. That earlier case is FaceToFace Biometrics, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-00429 (E.D. Mo.), on U.S. Patent 11,042,623, titled Expression Recognition in Messaging Systems, which claims the same March 10, 2014 priority date. Judge Catherine D. Perry converted Apple's motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment and, on March 17, 2023, held that the '623 patent fails the eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101 and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On June 26, 2023, on the parties' agreement, the Federal Circuit dismissed FaceToFace's appeal, No. 2023-1792, under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs. The new case is also assigned to Judge Perry.

What the complaint asserts

Count I alleges that Apple has infringed and is infringing the '263 patent, including at least claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) through (c). Paragraph 41 sorts some of those claims by device: at least claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, and 20 for the infringing devices as a group; at least claims 3, 10, 13, and 19 also for iPhones and iPads; and at least claim 6 also for iPhones. The complaint alleges that the infringement has been and continues to be willful. The prayer asks for a judgment of infringement and inducement, a permanent injunction, damages and an accounting under section 284, and fees under section 285 if the case is found exceptional. Venue is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b).

What issued claims 1, 11, and 18 say

The summaries below restate issued claim language read for this page. They are not findings that Apple practices any claim. The complaint also names dependent claims that this page does not restate.

Claim 1 covers a receiver computer device with at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device. The processor is programmed to receive, from a sender computer device, an electronic message that has electronic content and identifying information of the sender. In response to the message, and independent of any user interaction, it instructs the receiver to display a privacy shield and the sender's identifying information at the same time. It validates biometric data of the user in view of a stored biometric profile of the user. If that biometric data is validated, it instructs the receiver to remove the privacy shield and to display the electronic content.

Claim 11 covers a computer-implemented method of operating a messaging application on a receiver computer device, with the same receive, simultaneous-display, biometric-validation, and shield-removal steps, including validating biometric data in view of a stored biometric profile. Claim 18 covers non-transitory computer-readable storage media with instructions that cause a receiver computer device's processor to carry out those same steps, including receiving the message, displaying the privacy shield together with the sender's identifying information independent of any user interaction, validating biometric data in view of a stored profile, and removing the shield if the data is validated.

Accused products

The complaint defines the infringing devices to include iPhones capable of Face ID or Touch ID and operating on iOS 11 or later, iPads capable of Face ID or Touch ID and operating on iOS 11 or later, and MacBooks and Macs capable of Touch ID and operating on macOS 11, Big Sur, or later. It alleges that those devices use Face ID or Touch ID to shield a notification preview until biometric validation. It also alleges that at least sixty-three of the accused devices are advertised as compatible with a Magic Keyboard with Touch ID, and that some listed Mac models are sold with that keyboard in the box. Those are allegations in the complaint.

What to watch next

Watch service on Apple, Apple's response, and whether later filings narrow the claim list the complaint names.