BASF subsidiary trinamiX GmbH and its US affiliate trinamiX Sensing LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple on 3 September 2026. The case is pending before the US District Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland/Odessa Division (Case No. 7:26-cv-00348). The claimants allege that Apple has infringed seven US patents through its Face ID facial authentication feature in various iPhone and iPad models. According to the statement of claim, all the patents asserted are owned by trinamiX GmbH. The claim seeks damages and an injunction to prevent further infringement.

The case centres on technologies for optical skin and material recognition. This involves projecting a light pattern onto a face and analysing the reflected light to determine not only three-dimensional facial information but also material properties. The additional recognition of human skin is intended to make it more difficult to attempt deception using photographs or masks. A corresponding interplay of depth information and material classification is, for example, the subject of the asserted patent US 12 530 925 B2.

According to the claimants, the original version of Face ID, introduced in 2017 with the iPhone X, did not yet utilise their patented technology. The allegation is directed against later versions, including models from the iPhone 15, iPhone 16 and iPhone 17 ranges, as well as various iPad Pro models. Apple is alleged to have subsequently integrated the patented skin and material recognition technology. However, the filing of the claim does not in itself constitute a court finding of patent infringement.

Legally speaking, even a finding of patent infringement in the US does not automatically lead to a sales ban. In its 2006 decision eBay v. MercExchange (Case No. 05-130), the US Supreme Court clarified that even where a patent is deemed valid and infringed, a permanent injunction must be assessed on its own merits. The rule previously applied by the Court of Appeal, according to which such an order was generally to be granted, was rejected. Decisive factors include, in particular, irreparable harm, the inadequacy of mere monetary compensation, the balancing of interests between the parties, and the public interest. For trinamiX, therefore, proof of patent infringement alone would not be sufficient to enforce a permanent sales ban. Whether these additional conditions are met remains to be seen, as does the validity of the infringement allegations.