Securus Corrects Inaccuracies in Global Tel Link's (GTL) Grossly Inaccurate Press Release

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' data analytics patents.

Securus Correction #3:

Securus has over 239 issued and pending patents – and many deal with data analytics in many forms so GTL has not invalidated all of our data analytics patents.

GTL Point #4:

The PTAB found that data analytics were developed by GTL.

Securus Correction #4:

The PTAB did not say that data analytics were developed by GTL.

GTL Point #5:

Securus got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

Securus Correction #5:

That term is usually used when someone is caught stealing.  The patent in question was previously analyzed AND APPROVED by the United States Patent Office – only because of changed rules did GTL prevail.  Your hand in the cookie jar is more properly used as a description of the GTL consultant in Mississippi in 2015 who bribed the then head of the DOC and is going to prison for that offense  (of note, GTL holds the ITS DOC contract in Mississippi).  That represents a better example of a hand in the cookie jar, and, not surprisingly, GTL has actually been caught by authorities, with their hand in the cookie jar several times in the past regarding over-billings, double billings, deliberately adding minutes to calls, and not fulfilling contract requirements.

GTL Point #6:

The PTAB process and litigation have revealed that Securus misled patent examiners while seeking patents.

Securus Correction #6:

The examiners did not say or imply that – in fact, the United States Patent Office initially vetted and approved the Securus Patent.  Misleading is a term applied more accurately to GTL promising/committing in a contract to deploy managed access systems throughout California and failing horribly to comply with that contractual commitment.

GTL Point #7:

We want to end Securus' predatory litigation practices and open the market to greater competition.

Securus Correction #7:

Securus has had license agreements with all of the significant carriers in the sector including GTL [two (2) agreements over ten (10) years] until recently when they failed to renew their agreement.  We have a perfect 19-0 record in achieving reasonable license agreements – which is hardly predatory.

GTL Point #8:

I'm pleased to say that GTL is winning.

Securus Correction #8:

The score on IPRs based on patents filed is as follows:

GTL Filed  

Securus Filed

Total  

18

7

Securus Won  

5

0

GTL Won

4

1

Pending  

9

6

GTL Point #9:

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

Securus Correction #9:

Any suggestion that Securus patented what others were doing is wrong.  Securus fosters a culture of innovation, and has 96 separate and distinct inventors of its patents (GTL has only 29 different inventors). Securus has been filing patents for over 20 years, has the largest patent portfolio in the industry by far, 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 developer of technology that benefits corrections and law enforcement. 

GTL Point #10:

Securus made incorrect and inaccurate statements to patent officials.

Securus Correction #10:

This is absolutely false. GTL is not telling the whole story and the facts are completely contrary to GTL's statement. GTL's suggestion that patent examiners were confused into allowing Securus patents 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' innovations and still determined that the invention was patent worthy.