Federal Court Rules That Actsoft Alcohol Bracelet Can’t Actually Monitor Blood Alcohol Content

AMS Calls Patent-Infringement Loss a Win for Their SCRAM System   July 16, 2009, Littleton, CO – Denver-based Alcohol Monitoring Systems (AMS) has recently lost a long-standing patent infringement case against Tampa, Florida-based Actsoft. But company officials are calling the loss a win for its industry-leading SCRAM System.   AMS manufactures SCRAMÒ, the Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor. On the market since 2003, the system has monitored more than 102,000 alcohol offenders in 47 states. The lawsuit, filed by AMS in 2007 in Colorado’s Federal District Court, challenged that Actsoft violated AMS’ intellectual property with their product, “HAS,” or House Arrest Solution, which Actsoft says combines GPS location monitoring with an embedded “continuous alcohol monitoring” component.   In what AMS CEO Mike Iiams calls a “surprise” ruling by the court, in April, the presiding judge in the case ruled that Actsoft did not violate AMS patents—because the product does not actually calculate Blood Alcohol Content (BAC), the de facto measurement used worldwide to determine whether an individual has consumed alcohol and the level of intoxication. “While it was a technical loss, the ruling confirmed what Actsoft testified to in court—that the continuous alcohol monitoring component of their bracelet didn’t in any way meet any of the criteria for being a reliable indicator of alcohol consumption,” says Iiams. According to court documents, Actsoft executives and lawyers testified and stated repeatedly throughout the case that their product does not monitor BAC, is not calibrated, cannot distinguish between consumed and environmental exposure to alcohol and requires a secondary breath or blood test to determine actual intoxication. “The reality is that a monitoring system that provides results that can’t be held up in court is of no use to the criminal justice system,” says Stephen K. Talpins, vice president of Industry Relations for Alcohol Monitoring Systems and a former DUI prosecutor for the Miami-Dade State Attorney in Florida. “A system that can’t distinguish between an environmental exposure to a product with alcohol and actual consumption is a substantial violation to an offender’s civil rights and due process. That type of system would do nothing to deter drinking and would have little more than a placebo effect on a high-risk alcohol offender sentenced to abstain from consuming alcohol for the safety of the community,” says Talpins.   According to Iiams, despite their view of the ruling as a win, the company is appealing the case. “The integrity of the technology and the trust that the courts place in us requires that we continue to vigorously defend any infringement on our intellectual property,” says Iiams. “Just because a company does a poor job of violating our patents does not mean it isn’t a violation,” he says. AMS plans to launch the next generation of their product in 2009. The new system will incorporate house arrest technology with their established alcohol monitoring system, opening up what the company says is a substantial market for higher risk offenders who courts want to monitor and limit their location. According to Iiams, the system will be the first one in the U.S. to combine location and curfew monitoring functions with continuous alcohol monitoring.