Securus Technologies, Inc. Patent litigation record

Company 9 cases

9 cases on record naming Securus Technologies, Inc.: 6 as claimant, 3 as respondent. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

Profile this company in Eureka
Litigation indexPatsnap Litigation Data··Docket source: PACER

9 cases on record

Cases on record
9
As claimant
6
As respondent
3
Patents held
Not recorded
Core tech
H04M1/64 · H04M15/00 · H04W4/24 · H04M11/00 · G06F17/30 · H04M1/60 · H04M17/00 · G08B13/14
Case no.PartiesRoleCourtFiledDurationOutcome
2:25-cv-00571 WebSock Global Strategies, LLC v. Securus Technologies, LLC Defendant E.D. Tex. 22 May 2025 447 d Voluntary dismissal
1:18-cv-01801 Inventergy LBS, LLC v. Securus Technologies, Inc. Defendant D. Del. 15 Nov 2018 95 d Voluntary dismissal
2017-2542 Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global TelLink Corporation Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 14 Sep 2017 82 d Closed
2017-1625 Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global TelLink Corporation Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 14 Feb 2017 294 d Closed
2017-1524 Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global TelLink Corporation Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 26 Jan 2017 313 d Closed
2016-2573 Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global TelLink Corporation Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 29 Aug 2016 319 d Closed
3:14-cv-04233 Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global TelLink Corporation Plaintiff N.D. Tex. 1 Dec 2014 211 d Case Stayed
3:14-cv-00829 Global TelLink Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc. Defendant N.D. Tex. 5 Mar 2014 530 d Procedural Outcome
3:13-cv-03009 Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global TelLink Corporation Plaintiff N.D. Tex. 2 Aug 2013 822 d Judgment on the Merits
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases naming Securus Technologies, Inc. in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

See what Securus Technologies is protecting

Portfolio, claim scope and where its coverage is thin. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Analyse this portfolio
10,000 free credits to start

About this summary. This page summarises the litigation records within the coverage and snapshot dates stated here. Counts describe records in that dataset and do not, by themselves, establish the conduct, litigation success or legal position of any person or organisation.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed. The filing of a claim is not a court finding, and a docket marked “closed” does not by itself establish infringement, validity, settlement or a decision on the merits.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Third-party names and marks. Party, attorney, judge and company names appear for identification only. Company names may be trademarks of their owners; their appearance does not, by itself, imply affiliation with or endorsement by Patsnap.

Corrections and privacy requests. To report an inaccurate record or attribution, use the “Report an incorrect record” link on this page. For requests concerning your personal information, including, where applicable, the rights to access, rectify, erase, restrict or object to processing, use the “Privacy request” link. We assess requests under applicable law. See our Privacy Policy for details of this processing.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.