Epilogue: In December of 2017, Securus Technologies and Global Tel*Link reached a confidential settlement to end their long-running infringement dispute over patents used in prison phone systems, according to a joint motion for dismissal filed in Texas federal court.
As detailed in depth below, the two rivals have for years engaged in litigation over their various patents, accusing each other of infringement and alleging that the other’s patents should be invalidated at the USPTO’s PTAB. Each side finally ended the patent war and agreed to voluntarily dismiss their claims in the latest and last iteration of the dispute. In 2016, Securus estimated that the companies had spent more than $40 million suing each other in this contentious IP battle.
Although Securus still has a sizable advantage in intellectual property, several PTAB decisions stripped Securus of key patents for call-monitoring technology. These rulings paved the way for GTL to file a massive infringement suit against Securus in 2017, seeking $115 million and an injunction against the use of technology integral to Securus. In December 2017, before trial, the companies reached a confidential settlement to end their litigation battle.
Update (7/20/17): A turning point in this long running patent battle? GTL has announced that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) validating all claims of GTL patent 7,853,243, which protects GTL’s technology for biometric and voice validation of inmate calls – widely used features of inmate calling systems and a requirement in many U.S. county jails and state prisons. The Federal Circuit decision clears the way for GTL to request a Texas Federal judge to restart GTL’s pending $100M infringement lawsuit against Securus Technologies involving ‘243 and two other GTL patents, where GTL seeks past damages and an injunction to prevent Securus from using the technology on its platforms at all facilities where infringement is occurring.
GTL is asserting the following patents in its Texas suit against Securus:
United States Patent No. 7,853,243, “Telecommunications Call Management and Monitoring System” (filed Dec. 17, 2007; issued Dec. 14, 2010)
United States Patent No. 7,783,021, “Digital Telecommunications Call Management and Monitoring System” (filed Jan. 28, 2005; issued Aug. 24, 2010)
United States Patent No. 7,551,732, “Centralized Voice over IP Recording and Retrieval Method and Apparatus” (filed Dec. 7, 2004; issued Jun. 23, 2009)
Securus initiated the patent litigation between the companies in 2013, filing an infringement suit against GTL, followed by two more infringement suits, while seeking $115M from GTL to license Securus’ patents. After spending four years and admitting to spending at least $15M in legal fees, Securus has not collected a single dollar in damages. Securus has publicly and repeatedly implored GTL to mutually walk away from all patent cases at no cost to either party and urged “patent peace forever.”
Whether this proves to be the turning point in this patent war remains to be seen, but it will be interesting to see if the patent litigation battlefield instead widens to include the emerging and high growth prison wireless voice communications opportunity as well.
Update (3/22/17): In the latest salvo in what is now a four year patent battle, GTL has countersued Securus Technologies for infringing three GTL patents covering wireless services, voice messaging, and biometric capabilities. The suit seeks monetary damages and an injunction to prevent Securus’ continued use of the patented technology on its SCP Inmate Telephone system, used by 99.6 percent of all Securus customers, and Securus’ Offender Voice Mail System.
In the countersuit just filed, GTL asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 9,509,856; 8,515,031; and 9,521,250. In addition, GTL previously filed complaints in Texas federal court against Securus alleging infringement of four other GTL patents — U.S. Patent Nos. 7,783,021; 7,853,243; 7,551,732 and 7,256,816 — which also implicate the Securus SCP platform and cover services that include call management, voice authentication, VOIP calling, and scheduling video/audio communications for inmates. Securus attempted to invalidate each of these four patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) during the past two years, but failed to do so.
Update (6/6/16): Securus continues the patent war against GTL with two recent announcements. First, it has filed additional patent invalidation requests (a.k.a. Inter Partes Reviews or IPRs) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for the following GTL patents:
Patent No. 8,630,726 – “System and Method for Detecting Three-way Call Circumvention Attempts” and Patent No. 7,403,766 – “Telecommunication Call Management and Monitoring System with Voiceprint Verification”
Second, it has filed an additional four patents in a new patent infringement lawsuit against Global Tel Link:
- U.S. Patent No. 7,529,357 (Inmate Management and Call Processing Systems and Methods);
- U.S. Patent No. 8,340,260 (Inmate Management and Call Processing Systems and Methods);
- U.S. Patent No. 7,916,845 (Unauthorized call activity detection and prevention systems and methods for a Voice over Internet Protocol environment); and
- U.S. Patent No. 8,180,028 (System and method for called party controlled message delivery)
In the press release Securus’s CEO states that, “I estimate based on our licensing agreements with other carriers is that GTL will owe us approximately $115 million in license fees – and I expect to collect that, and we have sought a permanent injunction, that if granted, will prohibit them making, using, selling, or offering for sale, any of their products and/or services that fall within the scope of the claims in these 4 asserted patents. This will in all likelihood involve key products and features that they presently are offering. ”
Update (5/4/16): In a case of is the glass half full or half empty, both Securus and GTL have issued dueling press releases concerning a recent PTAB decision invalidating all claims of patent 7,551,732 it had undertaken for review.
At the institution of the PTAB review on 5/1/2015, Securus requested all 27 claims be reviewed for validity. The PTAB board agreed to review claims 1–8 and 11–27, or 25 out of the 27 total claims.
Securus’s press release trumpets, “The PTAB issued its Final Written Decision on April 29, 2016, and found that all instituted claims were invalid, because each such claim was disclosed in Securus’ Patent Number 7,899,167.”
The press release finishes with a quote from Securus’s CEO, “When my investors (equity and debt) ask me why GTL continues to tilt at our formidable advantages in patents, my response is that I believe they have no options left and are desperate. I win business from them, I have much better technology, they refuse to take my ‘Technology Bake Off Challenge,’ I use my own/better people to take good care of my customers, I operate at a much higher level of integrity, my investors like what we do more and are transparent in the way we do business, and I could go on – so desperation I think on GTL’s part.”
GTL’s press release on the final outcome of the case states, “the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) had completed its review of GTL patent 7,551,732, preserving two key elements protecting GTL’s technology for connecting voice streams to storage devices – an essential component for storing inmate call recordings, which is required in nearly every jail and prison in the U.S. The decision enables GTL to pursue claims now pending in Dallas federal court that Securus Technologies infringes the ‘732, and where experts in the case have estimated Securus could be liable for more than $100M in damages for past use.”
Interestingly, the two claims GTL states that the PTAB “preserved” (claims 9 and 10) were known to be preserved since the PTAB institution decision on 5/1/2015…
Update (4/13/16): Global Tel*Link recently announced that it has prevailed against Securus Technologies in the Inter Partes Review (IPR) of GTL patent 7,853,243, which protects GTL’s technology for biometric and voice validation of inmate calls – widely used features of inmate calling systems and a requirement in many U.S. county jails and state prisons. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) confirmed the validity of all of the ‘243 patent’s claims, clearing the way for GTL to move forward with a pending infringement lawsuit against Securus involving the patent.
GTL has asserted the ‘243 patent against Securus as part of a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, targeting alleged infringement by Securus’ “Secure Call Platform,” which Securus has described as the “heart” of its centralized communications management systems. GTL is seeking an injunction from the Texas court to prevent Securus from using its patented technologies, in addition to monetary damages for past infringement.
GTL is currently asserting the following patents in its Texas suit against Securus:
- United States Patent No. 7,853,243, “Telecommunications Call Management and Monitoring System” (filed Dec. 17, 2007; issued Dec. 14, 2010)
- United States Patent No. 7,783,021, “Digital Telecommunications Call Management and Monitoring System” (filed Jan. 28, 2005; issued Aug. 24, 2010)
- United States Patent No. 7,551,732, “Centralized Voice over IP Recording and Retrieval Method and Apparatus” (filed Dec. 7, 2004; issued Jun. 23, 2009)
Update (3/3/16): On February 19, 2016, GTL announced that the PTAB had found invalid all claims in Securus patent 7,805,457. In the press release, GTL states, “The PTAB process and litigation have revealed that Securus misled patent examiners while seeking patents, sought patents for products already in the market, like Apple’s FaceTime, and misled its customers about the capabilities of its products. GTL has challenged the validity of seven additional Securus patents before the PTAB, and the PTAB has already determined that there is a reasonable likelihood GTL will prevail.”
Securus quickly responded with its own, rather lengthy, press release in order to rebut what it called GTL’s, ” grossly inaccurate press release.” Some highlights from the David Letterman-like top ten list shows no punches are being pulled in this ongoing patent and PR war:
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.
Update (1/28/16): On January 22, 2016 Global Tel*Ling announced that it had another win before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), as the PTAB issued two final written decisions invalidating all 36 claims of Securus’ U.S. Patent No. 7,860,222 (‘222 patent). The ‘222 patent discloses systems and methods for monitoring inmate communications via phone calls, video calls and emails and identifying items of interest, such as keywords, during a call.
In the press release, GTL stated. “As of today, Securus has failed to receive any of the “$50 million” it claims it is owed under the infringement lawsuit filed against GTL. Continued victories at the PTAB clearly validate GTL’s position that assertion of these patents is no more than an overused bullying tool employed by an industry competitor in search of a leg-up. Even in light of the overwhelming evidence, Securus refuses to admit loss, claiming that their patents are still valid due to pending appeals in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. This is empty rhetoric by Securus. The Federal Circuit has yet to reinstate a single claim invalidated by the PTAB since implementation of the current patent review system established by the America Invents Act of 2011.
Further exposing the weaknesses of Securus’ patent portfolio, GTL has filed a second set of post-grant challenges at the PTAB. Trial has been instituted on all claims challenged in nine out of the 10 proceedings, with the Board determining that there is a reasonable likelihood that all claims are unpatentable. In the final written decisions received to date regarding Securus and GTL, 95 claims were held unpatentable out of 130 challenged, giving GTL a 73 percent win rate. Yet, another indication that Securus can expect more losses in its patent portfolios in the future.”
Update (1/6/16): On December 29, 2015 Securus announced that it has had two (2) recent wins from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) related to patent invalidation filings by Global Tel*Link (GTL). Despite GTL’s contentions that two (2) Securus patents should be invalidated – the court sided with Securus on these two (2) patents:
- U. S. Patent No. 7,529,357 – which discloses a system and method for controlling inmate access to a telephone carrier network using voice over internet protocol data packets exchanged between call processing gateways;
- U. S. Patent No. 8,000,269 – which discloses systems and methods for processing voice over internet protocol calls originating within a prison facility that include an unauthorized call activity detector.
In the press release Securus’s CEO stated, “GTL has filed twenty (20) Inter Partes Reviews to attempt to invalidate Securus patents but has only been successful on invalidating two (2) patents to date. My estimate is that they have spent over $10 million in that effort – so not a very good return on that money for them,” said Smith. “At that rate, they will have to spend in excess of $200 million attempting to invalidate all of our patents – and that effort clearly will not be successful.”
Update (11/19/15): On November 4, 2015, Securus Technologies announced that it has had three (3) recent positive rulings from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the Court related to patent infringement cases and Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) between Securus and Global Tel*Link (GTL).
The decisions are summarized below:
- Despite GTL’s challenge to the validity of Securus’ 7,324,637B2 patent, in an IPR proceeding, Securus successfully retained 2 of 8 claims of the patent with its key elements determined by the PTAB to be patentable. So the Securus patent continues to stand (Note: IPR Case Number IPR2014-00810);
- GTL sought damages and attorney’s fees in another patent case in which it alleged Securus had filed improperly – but the Court denied GTL’s request in that case, finding that GTL had been unable to prove any of its damages claims;
- Two (2) other patents, that GTL claimed were infringed upon by Securus, were found by the Court not to be patentable, because the claims of both patents were too abstract and lacked the “inventive concept” necessary to make them eligible for patent protection.
Update (10/13/15): On October 7, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office – Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) ruled in favor of Securus and against Global Tel*Link’s (GTL) petition to invalidate a Securus patent. The disputed patent was Patent: 6,636,591 B1 “System and Method for Affecting Inmate Conduct with Good Behavior Discount Telephone Rates.”
Update (9/14/15): The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on Friday issued final written decisions granting Global Tel*Link’s request to invalidate two Securus Technologies patents:
- Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 8,577,003 (Centralized call processing), Case Number: IPR2014-00749
- Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 7,899,167 (Centralized call processing), Case Number: IPR2014-00493
Friday’s decisions are the first Final Written Orders issued from the 19 patent petitions GTL filed at the PTAB Between March 2014 and May 2015, in which GTL targeted a broad cross section of the Securus portfolio, alleging that the Securus patents mimic available consumer products, like Apple’s FaceTime. The rulings also signal the imminent demise of Securus’ pending claim in a Dallas federal court that GTL infringed the invalidated patents.
Update (7/2/15): A U.S. District Court judge in Dallas granted GTL’s request to immediately halt proceedings in Securus Technologies Inc.’s patent infringement suit against GTL until after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) decides whether three patents in the case are invalid. For its part, GTL voluntarily agreed to stay its counterclaims for patent infringement in the case so that the lawsuit would be halted in its entirety. Additionally, GTL has claims remaining in two separate cases alleging that Securus infringes a total of five GTL patents. Those cases are proceeding on schedule for trial in Dallas in February 2016, and if GTL is successful, Securus faces the potential of millions of dollars in past damages and the risk of injunctions preventing its use of GTL-patented products or future royalty payments to GTL for use of its technology.
Separately at the PTO, GTL has challenged the validity of 17 Securus patents across a range of technologies, comprising a cross-section of Securus’s patent portfolio. In its petitions to the PTO, GTL has asserted that Securus inflated its intellectual property portfolio by filing duplicative patents with minor changes, obtained patents covering a wide range of technologies already in the public domain and patented by other companies, made misleading statements to a patent examiner and secured patents without inventing any new technology. Decisions on these patent challenges are expected starting later this summer and continuing through 2016.
Update (6/4/15): According to a new press release, Securus expects some patents challenged by GTL to be invalidated by the PTAB. The release also estimates the cost of GTL’s patent offensive from $18 million to $27 million for those IPRs filed to date.
Securus CEO Richard Smith is also quoted saying, ‘”I can justify a GTL payment to Securus of $115 million, with a 10 to 25 year payment plan – based upon existing, pending, and future patents – for a license granting GTL access to all existing and future patents into perpetuity. On a net present value basis, that is $61 million – which is at the low end of what other licensees have paid on a percentage basis, so that is an okay deal for GTL.”
One wonders if GTL and Securus, with their frequent, dueling press releases on these cross patent challenges, are negotiating a license deal via press release.
Update (5/19/15): Global Tel*Link Corporation (GTL) today announced that it had filed 10 more petitions at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) as part of an expanding effort to invalidate the core of Securus Technologies Inc.’s patent portfolio.
From the press release, “GTL is determined to end Securus’ legacy of patent litigation,” Oliver said. “We are committed to exposing their baseless claims in court, to end their harassing lawsuits, and to stop the fear tactics that have been a plague on this industry for a decade.”
In these new filings before the PTAB, GTL alleges that 9 additional Securus patents and 209 additional patent claims are invalid. The patents that GTL has challenged include:
Update (4/03/15): In this ongoing patent war, Global Tel*Link has filed a total of 10 IPR’s of Securus’s patents, while Securus has filed three IPR’s against GTL. Additionally, Securus recently issued a press release stating that after a recent federal court ruling cleared the way, Securus Technologies has refiled its federal patent infringement lawsuit against Global Tel*Link (GTL) seeking damages from September 18, 2014. (The original lawsuit is described in detail in our original post below.)
According to the press release, Securus’s CEO estimates “GTL will owe us approximately $50 million in license fees – and I expect to collect that, and we have sought a permanent injunction that will deny them access to key products and features that they presently are offering.”
Here are the USPTO IPR case numbers and the current case status for each:
GTL Inter Parties Review case number & status:
CBM2014-00166 Not Instituted
Securus Inter Parties Review case number & status:
IPR2015-00153 Not Instituted
Update (7/15/14): According to a Global Tel*Link press release issued today, the original patent lawsuit filed by Securus Technologies (see original blog post below) has been decided in GTL’s favor with the judge dismissing with prejudice all of the claims asserted by Securus Technologies against GTL and barring Securus from filing the same claims. The court also ordered Securus to pay GTL’s costs in the case.
Update (6/3/14): Global Tel*Link has filed with the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for Inter Partes Review (IPR) of six Securus Technologies’ patents. Introduced by the America Invents Act (AIA) as a counterpart to post-grant review, it is a procedure to challenge the validity of patent claims based on patents and printed publications. A petitioner for inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable one or more claims of a patent on a ground that could be raised under section 35 U.S.C 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.
The six patents being challenged are:
- Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 8,340,260 (Inmate management and call processing systems and methods), Case Number: IPR2014-00824
- Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 7,529,357 (Inmate management and call processing systems and methods), Case Number: IPR2014-00825
- Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 7,324,637, (Resource allocation system and method), Case Number: IPR2014-00810
- Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 6,636,591 (System and method for affecting inmate conduct with good behavior discount telephone rates), Case Number: IPR2014-00785
- Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 8,577,003 (Centralized call processing), Case Number: IPR2014-00749
- Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 7,899,167 (Centralized call processing), Case Number: IPR2014-00493
Update (5/6/14): Yesterday, Securus filed suit against Global Tel*Link and its Chief Executive Officer, Brian D. Oliver in response to the press release GTL filed on 3/11/14 (link to the press release in the update below). In its complaint, Securus claims, “Recently, unable to beat Securus fairly in the marketplace, GTL has embarked on a campaign to defame Securus in an attempt to damage its reputation in the eyes of its customers, culminating in its issuing a press release in which GTL and its Chief Executive Officer, Brian D. Oliver, egregiously and maliciously published numerous false, misleading, disparaging and defamatory statements about Securus’ products, services, intellectual property, and business practices.”
Update (10/21/13): Global Tel*Link has responded to Securus Technologies’ patent infringement lawsuit and this case is turning into a barn-burner. In a press release issued today, GTL unsurprisingly denies infringing the Securus patents, but also goes on to claim that “Securus is barred by contract from bringing patent claims against GTL, that Securus’ patents are invalid and were obtained through false statements and that GTL does not use Securus’ patented technology in any event.” It has also responded with filed claims of its own alleging that Securus has systematically infringed on GTL’s patented technology and asked the court to stop Securus’ unauthorized use.
Of particular interest is GTL’s claim that Securus’ patents were obtained by false statements. In its response to the court, GTL states that Securus patent 7,899,167 for Centralized Call Processing was obtained through “a knowing and deliberate misrepresentation” of U.S. Patent No. 7,505,406 in a response to a final rejection of the ‘167 patent application by the USPTO as being unpatentable over patent 7,505,406 and that this misrepresentation was made “with the intent to deceive the PTO for the purpose of obtaining allowance of the patent application.” As a result, GTL claims that “the ‘167 patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct before the PTO.” The added wrinkle in all this, besides the very serious charge of misrepresentation, is that the ‘406 patent is also owned by Securus (via its predecessor company Evercom). It will be interesting to see how this all plays out…
Update (10/4/13): In our original blog post below, we asked the question whether this law suit was filed “to extract royalties from GTL thereby adding to its cost of doing business (and competing against Securus for lucrative prison telecommunications and video visitation business) or if it is intended to hamstring GTL in the deployment of its competing services by forcing them to work around the patents.” We have some additional insight via a press release Securus issued today.
The press release states, “In the lawsuit, Securus also seeks an injunction permanently enjoining GTL from continuing to infringe Securus’s patents. Securus believes that the requested injunction would significantly impede GTL’s ability to exploit its current products and services in order to serve its existing or prospective clients in the inmate corrections industry. Securus intends to pursue the suit aggressively to a successful conclusion.”
Richard A. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer of Securus Technologies comments, “It is well known that Securus Technologies has by far the largest patent portfolio in the corrections industry and we have spent in excess of $200 million developing sophisticated technology – and we have solid patents. You cannot operate in our industry legally without having a patent license agreement with us and GTL’s license agreement expired in early August, 2013 – they did not renew the license agreement so we had to file this lawsuit.”
“Without an agreement, GTL cannot legally provide the Securus patented services to prisons and jails – so they cannot run their business and we will ask the Court to stop them,” said Smith. “If I was a GTL customer, I would be very concerned that they may not be able to continue my services – inmate calling is important to facilities and they cannot operate without this method of communication.”
The Original Post:
In a move reminiscent of the patent battle between Apple and Samsung, the two biggest players in the inmate communications services space are squaring off over patents.
Securus Technologies has sued Global Tel*Link (GTL) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas for infringing on four of its patents. At this time, it is unclear whether this is a strategy simply intended to extract royalties from GTL thereby adding to its cost of doing business (and competing against Securus for lucrative prison telecommunications and video visitation business) or if it is intended to hamstring GTL in the deployment of its competing services by forcing them to work around the patents. The patents cover services for centralized call processing, analyzing investigative information, identifying members of a gang, and visitation terminal user identification. So Securus is going after GTL for processing detainee phone calls, video visitation services and investigation tools.
The four patents at issue are:
1.) 7,899,167: “Centralized call processing” which includes 21 claims (2 indep.). It was filed 8/15/2003 & granted 3/1/2011.
Systems and methods which provide a centralized architecture for call processing. Embodiments utilize voice over Internet protocols (VoIP) to carry calls from a location at which calling services are provided to a centralized call processing platform providing call processing functionality, such as calling party identification, call validation, call routing, and connection to the public switched telephone network (PSTN). Call processing gateways may be utilized to provide plain old telephone service (POTS) analog line interfaces for use with a plurality of telephone sets disposed for use at a location and at least one wide area network (WAN) interface for providing high speed data communication to a centralized call processing platform. PSTN interfacing by a call processing platform may be provided as a VoIP connection to the PSTN and/or as POTS trunking. Call processing platforms may provide for data sharing, aggregation, and/or analysis across multiple facilities served.
2.) 7,860,222: “Systems and methods for acquiring, accessing, and analyzing investigative information” Includes 36 claims (2 indep.). Granted 12/28/2010.
Disclosed are systems and methods which provide availability of information on a network wide basis, with the network or information technology (IT) fabric spanning a wide range of institutions and other sources of information, including correctional facilities, without regard to which jurisdiction the source of information belongs, e.g. police, courts, federal investigation agencies, public databases etcetera. Embodiments provide an electronic based capability to identify useful information and for locating, collecting, compiling, aggregating, distilling, and/or reporting robust data.
3.) 7,805,457: “System and method for identifying members of a gang or security threat group” Includes 17 claims (4 indep.). Granted 9/28/2010
System and method for monitoring activity of detainees comprising identifying a detainee who is affiliated with a gang, searching one or more databases for information associated with the detainee, and correlating the information to identify individuals who may be affiliated with the gang. The databases may include call record databases, and the information associated with the detainee may include individuals called by the detainee, individuals who visit the detainee, telephone numbers called by the detainee, and sources of funding for the detainee’s calls voice and/or facial biometric identifiers. An alert may be triggered when the detainee calls a specified individual or telephone number.
4.) 8,031,850: “Systems and methods for visitation terminal user identification” Includes 46 claims (3 indep.). Granted 10/4/2011.
Systems and methods which collect information regarding users of controlled environment visitation terminals for identification of one or more parties to a visitation conversation are shown. Identifying information may be provided by various means, such as entry of a PIN, RFID, biometrics, etcetera. Embodiments provide a closed circuit visitation communication system in which a single port of a communication control system is used with respect to a pair of visitation terminals. Embodiments operate to prevent communication between a resident of a controlled environment facility and a visitor while identifying information is collected and verified. Thereafter, the resident and visitor may be placed in communication, whilst the identifying information may be utilized for such purposes as associating a recording of the conversation with the resident and/or visitor, issuing an alert to appropriate individuals that a conversation by one or more parties of interest is being conducted, collect investigative information, etcetera.
The timing is interesting given that the FCC has recently signaled that it will be moving to reduce the cost of interstate long distance calls in prisons and jails as as a result of Proposed Rule Making 12-375. If the FCC does so, this will potentially significantly reduce both companies margins for the highly lucrative detainee long distance calls thereby dealing GTL a one-two punch in its margins and service offering capabilities.
He is also the inventor of the patented meshDETECT, Secure Prison Cell Phone Solutions.
Latest posts by Brian (see all)
- meshDETECT® Announces Notice Of Allowance From The USPTO For Fourth Patent Covering Inmate Mobile Device Security - February 7, 2019
- Phones In Cells vs. Cellphones In Cells - January 6, 2019
- This Is a War - December 9, 2018