Securus Technologies provided corrections with regard to the GTL press release, delivered to the general public, on June 7, 2016. Persons familiar with Securus Tehcnoloiges know that the enterprise is a leading provider in way of civil and criminal justice high-technology solutions, with the emphasis placed on the public’s safety. (The press release, provided by Securus Technologies, in response to GTL’s press release, was issued on 9th of June 2016, from the Dallas, Texas area.)
Securus Technologies believes there are several statements made, within the press release, supplied by GTL which are not accurate and, therefore, are misleading. The purpose, then, of the press release, issued by Securus Technologies, is to clear up any inaccuracies made on the part of GTL, within their June 7, 2016 press release. The following summary, provided by Securus Technologies, is formatted, wherein the GTL allegation is stated, relative, again, to the press release, issued by GTL, on June 7, 2016. Following each of the said allegations, Securus offers the correct and proper information. Additionally, as it concerns the content within the following text, GTL will be, accordingly, referred to from time-to-time as the company.
Allegation 1—With respect to GTL’s United States patent 7,256,816, the recent decision arrived by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeals Boards, allows the company to move in a forward direction, with regard to a 4th PTAB validated patent. The company is permitted to seek injuctions and damages from Securus, relative to infringement suits, within the Texas federal court system.
Securus’s Correction with Regard to Allegation Number One:
GTL is not able to seek relief, as previously stated, due to the fact that the case is, summarily, stayed within the federal court of Texas. This is to say: GTL, quite frankly, is not able to move forward, as they claim, within the district court. Securus, further, is moving for a re-hearing, as it applies to the ‘816 patent being “PTAB validated.” Applicably, then, the consequence is that the ‘816 patent, has not been validated nor will the Company be placed in a position, wherein, it is able to seek an injunction or damages.
Allegation 2—The Patent and Appeals Board was successful in the protection of all of GTL’s fifty-five claims. The preservation of such claims, summarily, protects the company’s technology as it applies to that of Video visitation monitoring, which is a general security feature, enabling the correctional institution personnel to observe the comings and goings of visitors. The visitors are acquaintances, and familial members of the correctional institution’s populace. The capability is a standardized requisite within every correctional facility inside the United States, where visitation is offered and, wherein, visitation systems are set up.
Securus’s Correction with Regard to Allegation Number Two:
In reality, the company is asserting one claim, considered independent, and a more extensive group of dependent claims, with regard to the ‘816 patent, as to the its suit with Securus. Further, the PTAB did not agree to review the claims challenged. It is, then, the belief of Securus that the company does not put into practice the fundamental security feature mentioned by the singular independent claim.
Allegation 3—The officials, at GTL, stated that they were happy that the PTAB made the determination that all of the technology was patentable. This determination will allow the company to move back to the court setting, in way of protection and preserving its technology and as to enabling law enforcement staff to properly monitor video visitation.
Securus’s Correction with Regard to Allegation Number Three:
The PTAB did not make a determination that the technology was patentable. The PTAB’s conclusion was that it would not consider reviewing the claims. GTL’s summation, that it is in a position to move back to court, and the fact there is a request for rehearing, on the table, makes it clear, that settlement with regard to the patent issue is nowhere near its conclusion or completion.
Allegation 4—The company, pointedly, stated, that it is only a few months away from being back within the courtroom setting, in front of a jury. Once in court, it is the belief of GTL that it may show how Securus has infringed on its patent, as well as three other patents of the Company, which have been targeted by GTL, in the way of IPR challenges; however, in the end were validated by the PTAB–according to Oliver.
Securus’s Correction with Regard to Allegation Number Four:
Securus responds to GTL with regard to its statement that they are a mere few months away, from being back within the courtroom setting—in front of a jury, by stating that it is highly unlikely that a Jury is bound to hear any evidence, from Securus or the company, at any time too soon: certainly not during the current year; and definitely, not in a matter of months. When the two parties are able to go to court, a jury will be in a position, to, rightfully, make the determination, whether or not Securus uses the approach and methodology, specified on the company’s ‘816 patent—a method that Securus is of the belief it does not put into practice.
Allegation 5—The company is seeking damages and an injunction. If the company, is successful as to the preceding action, meaning if the injunction and damages are granted, Securus would be required to stop using GTL’s patented technology, relative to its Video Visitation platform, within all correctional facilities where the infringement is happening.
Securus’s Correction with Regard to Allegation Number Five:
The key word, within the 5th Allegation is “granted.” The company’s patented technology, with regard to its Video Visitation Platform, is not being put into use. As a result, there will be no correctional institutions, wherein any type of infringement is occurring: so an injunction will not be issued.
Allegation 6—Securus has continually sued and settled with its competition, since 2001. Securus is now placing, within the media, new legal claims and accusations that are not clear. The preceding strategy is put into place, in order that the company may feel obligated to settle its patent disagreement, and with respect to terms, favorable for Securus. The pressure placed, on the company, by Securus, will not cause the company to settle, in a way that is favorable to Securus. The company plans on continuing to use the court system in way of defending its technological innovations. It will not respond, in the least, to any pressure to settle, favorably, on behalf of Securus, according to Oliver.
Securus’s Correction with Regard to Allegation Number Six:
Securus, has always taken the stance, to reach amiable financial arrangements and settlements with its competitors, making use of Securus’s patented innovations, and without a license, that prove amenable to both parties. Within nearly every circumstance, Securus has been able to enter into agreements that are logical and reasonable, with regard to licensing arrangements. The statement is true of GTL too: since, on several different occasions, Securus was able to come to a mutually-agreeable settlement as to licensing. GTL, during the current time, wishes to spend a great amount of money, in order to legally fight with Securus, as to the subject-matter of patents. This fight is about the patents of the company and Securus. The legal fight is preferred over that of entering into another licensing agreement or arrangement. In any event, the bottom-line is Securus, factually, has more than double the number of patents, which are, summarily, held by GTL. Additionally, as shown on several occasions, the patent metrics, of Securus, are much more impressive than the patent metrics of the company.
It is correct to state, too, that the company is aware that litigation, with regard to patents, takes a number of years, and costs a great deal of money. It is the preceding thought-process which is questioned by Securus. Regardless, Securus plans on protecting its interests; and responding, accordingly, to any attacks, made by GTL, in a viable and legally professional manner. (The preceding statement—not verbatim—was provided by Richard A. (Rick) Smith—CEO of Securus Technologies.)
Applicable to the latest GTL press release, the Securus CEO mentioned that he would be pleased to re-institute the technology bake-off challenge, with GTL, at any point and time. He further added that he had offered the bake-off to GTL, on many an occasion. He believes the bake-off is a great deal more logical than mass litigation. However, in the end, GTL has remained totally non-responsive to Mr. Smith’s bake-off challenges.
Notes Regarding Securus Technologies:
Securus is headquartered in Dallas Texas. It serves more than three-thousand, four-hundred fifty public safety venues, correction institutions and law enforcement agencies. It serves, too, a correctional institution populace of one million two-hundred thousand persons, across the continent of North America. Securus Technologies is dedicated as to its service. It connects to its client-base by way of providing proper emergency response, incident management, investigation, Biometric analysis, communications, information management, and self-service for inmates of correctional facilities. It, further, provides public information and monitoring services and products to the institutions it serves. The preceding services and products are used in order that the world is made safer. Securus Technologies focuses on connecting what matters®. The interested reader is encouraged to visit the Securus Technologies’ site in order to learn more about its solutions, relative to the Civil and Criminal Justice systems. The site follows: http://SecurusTechnologies.com.