PTAB

IPR2015-00153

Securus Technologies Inc v. Global Tel Link

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Digital telecommunications call management and monitoring system
  • Brief Description: The ’021 patent describes a centralized, computer-based telecommunication system for use in penal or similar institutions. The system is designed to control, record, monitor, and report telephone usage, including authenticating users and routing calls over a network.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Apple - Claims 1-23 are anticipated by Apple under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Apple (Patent 7,881,446).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Apple, which was not considered during the original prosecution of the ’021 patent, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. The Apple reference describes a "telephony system and method with enhanced validation" for inmate communications systems that employs call control facilities located off institutional premises, similar to the ’021 patent. Petitioner contended that Apple’s disclosure meets all limitations of the independent claims (1, 7, 16, and 20) as well as all dependent claims.

    • Petitioner asserted that the "central platform" limitation is met by Apple’s disclosure of an IP Telephony Switch (IPTS) and associated components that provide centralized call control functions. Crucially, Petitioner argued that Apple teaches that this central platform can be located either "offsite" (as required by claim 1) or "on-site" at the correctional facility (as required by claim 20). Apple’s Figure 5 was cited as disclosing an off-site "ICS provider data network facilities," while its Figure 6 was cited as disclosing an on-site platform comprising gateways and an admin terminal.

    • The limitation of a "central platform for processing said telephone call" was argued to be met by Apple's networked functional elements, such as the IPTS, SMDR collection/processing, and billing verification components, which collectively manage and process inmate calls.

    • For the "routing means" or "gateway" elements (claims 1, 7, 20), Petitioner pointed to Apple’s disclosure of Foreign Exchange Station (FXS) and Foreign Exchange Office (FXO) gateways. These gateways are described in Apple as connecting on-site telephone terminals to the central platform and routing signals using Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). Petitioner noted that Apple’s IPTS includes a high-speed router for routing IP packets to these gateways, satisfying the routing requirements.

    • Petitioner argued that Apple’s disclosure of an "administrative terminal" meets the "administrative workstation" limitation for monitoring conversations without detection (claims 1, 7, 20). Apple explicitly describes providing law enforcement with the ability to "silently monitor an ongoing conversation."

    • The claims’ requirements for recording conversations and storing audio for caller identification were mapped to Apple's disclosure of call recording, storage, and retrieval features. Petitioner specifically pointed to Apple’s use of biometric techniques, including storing a "spoken speech sample" (voiceprint) in a database for later comparison to verify a caller's identity.

    • Finally, Petitioner mapped the billing-related claim limitations to Apple's description of administrative functions, which include "billing control, billing validation," and "billing records." Apple’s administrative terminals are described as being used to review call records and manage billing, thereby communicating with the central platform for billing purposes. Petitioner argued that since Apple discloses each element of the independent claims, it also anticipates the narrower dependent claims, which add further detail on these disclosed features (e.g., specifying a VoIP connection or user authentication methods).

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-23 of the ’021 patent as unpatentable.