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

GTL Allegation #1:

The recent decision of the United States Patent Trial and Appeals Board on GTL's US patent No. 7,256,816 permits GTL to move forward with a fourth PTAB-validated patent to seek injunctions and damages against Securus in pending infringement lawsuits in Texas federal court.

Securus Correction #1: 

Because the case in Texas federal court is now stayed, GTL is currently unable to seek any of the relief they claim they will now "move forward" to pursue in the District Court. With regard to GTL's claims about the '816 patent being "PTAB-validated", Securus is moving for rehearing on this patent and as a result the '816 patent has neither been "validated" nor will GTL be able to now seek an injunction or damages as it has claimed.  

GTL Allegation #2:     

The PTAB preserved all 55 claims of the '816 patent, which protects GTL's technology for video visitation monitoring, a fundamental security feature that enables corrections staff to observe visitation between an inmate and their friends and family, and which is a capability that is generally required in every jail and prison in the U.S. that utilizes visitation systems.

Securus Correction #2: 

Although the PTAB declined to review the claims challenged, GTL is actually only asserting one independent claim, and a larger group of dependent claims of the '816 patent in its litigation with Securus. As to the one independent claim GTL has asserted, Securus' belief is that it does not practice the claimed 'fundamental security feature' disclosed by that single independent claim.

GTL Allegation #3:     

"We are pleased the PTAB determined all of the innovations were patentable, allowing GTL to move back to court to protect its technology for enabling law enforcement to monitor video visits."

Securus Correction #3:  

Despite these claims by GTL, the PTAB did not determine that any of the claimed innovations were "patentable"; they simply concluded that they would not review the claims. Given the current request for rehearing, the question of whether GTL will be able to "move back to court" on this patent is far from settled.

GTL Allegation #4:   

"We are only months away from being back in court to finally show a jury how Securus infringes this patent and three other GTL patents that were targeted by Securus for IPR challenges, but were ultimately validated by the PTAB," Oliver said.

Securus Correction #4:  

With regard to GTL's claim that they are only "months away" from being back in court, it is quite unlikely that a jury will get to hear any evidence, from either party, any time this year, much less in a matter of months as GTL has claimed. When the parties do go back into court a jury will be able to determine for itself whether Securus uses the method claimed by GTL's '816 patent – something that Securus is confident it does not use.  

GTL Allegation #5:     

GTL is therefore seeking damages and an injunction that, if granted, would require Securus to cease using GTL's patented technologies on its video visitation platforms at all facilities where infringement is occurring.

Securus Correction #5: 

Obviously the key words here are "if granted". In Securus' view, GTL's patented technologies on its video visitation platforms are not being used; therefore, there will be no facilities where any infringement is occurring and no injunction.

GTL Allegation #6:    

"Since 2001, Securus has established a pattern of suing and settling with industry competitors, and they are now combining new legal claims and vague accusations in the media that are designed to pressure us to settle our patent disputes on terms that are favorable to them. These actions will not stop us from using the courts to defend our technology or to end their practice of bullying business counterparts for cash," continued Oliver.

Securus Correction #6:  

Throughout our history, Securus has made every effort to reach intelligent and mutually acceptable financial arrangements and agreements with companies who use our patented technology without license to do so. In almost all cases, we have been able to enter into reasonable licenses with other parties, including prior license agreements with GTL on multiple occasions. For whatever reason, GTL has now chosen to spend millions and millions of dollars of its company funds to engage in fights with us over patents – both theirs and ours – instead of entering into another license. As is well known, and as shown by the table below, Securus has more than twice the number of patents held by GTL, and as we have demonstrated on multiple occasions, Securus' patent metrics are far more favorable than those of GTL's: