Global Tel Link (GTL) Issues Grossly Inaccurate Press Release - Securus Corrects Inaccuracies

GTL Point #1:

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions are final.

Securus Correction #1:

Securus will appeal the PTAB decisions – so they are not final.

GTL Point #2:

GTL invalidated the "crown jewel" of Securus' patent portfolio.

Securus Correction #2:

Securus does not have a "crown jewel." We have almost 4X as many patents as GTL – and they are all very valuable.

GTL Point #3:

GTL invalidated Securus' call processing patents.

Securus Correction #3:

Securus has over 234 patents – and most deal with call processing in many forms so GTL has not invalidated all of our call processing patents.

GTL Point #4:

Securus imposed a "tollbooth" on our industry.

Securus Correction #4:

Securus received approval from the United States Patent Office on all of its patents – the same as thousands of other companies like Microsoft, Apple, General Electric and Dell. The law requires companies to safeguard their patent investments – and that is exactly what Securus does because we develop key technologies for proprietary use by corrections and law enforcement.

GTL Point #5:

The PTAB recognized that Securus' patents did not cover any genuine invention.

Securus Correction #5:

GTL itself never even argued that Securus' invention was not novel and the PTAB did not rule otherwise. The PTAB has ruled on less than 1% of Securus' patent portfolio – which includes innovation and a numerically significant advantage over and above GTL's much smaller patent portfolio.  Securus has a much higher number of issued and pending patents because we have more significant development activity versus GTL.

GTL Point #6:

Securus made incorrect statements to patent officials.

Securus Correction #6:

GTL is not telling the whole story and all the facts undermine GTL's statement. GTL's suggestion that patent examiners were confused into allowing Securus patent by incorrect statements is dead wrong. The full written record with the patent examiners shows in black and white that the patent office understood the prior art and Securus innovation and determined it was patent worthy.

GTL Point #7:

Securus is a patent predator, not an innovator. They filed patents on material that others had invented.

Securus Correction #7:

Any suggestion that Securus patented what others were doing is wrong.  GTL effectively admitted Securus' patents were new and novel and the PTAB did not undermine this. Securus has been filing patents for over 20 years, has the largest patent portfolio in the industry, and has challenged GTL to a "technology bake off" on multiple occasions. GTL has not agreed to that challenge – they have shied away from that – for good reason. GTL has a smaller number of patents, Securus has invested more in technology than GTL in a material way, and has more development personnel – Securus is a large development house that benefits corrections and law enforcement. 

GTL Point #8:

Securus has not filed a single new patent case against another industry competitor in the last two (2) years.

Securus Correction #8:

Securus has settled patent cases with three (3) industry competitors in the last two (2) years – again proving the value of the innovation that Securus routinely provides. GTL Point #8 is clearly an error – but excusable because they are relatively new to filing patents and embracing the concept of a single state-of-the-art platform for all of their customers that comes with new patentable technologies and products.