CheckWizard v. Bank Of America Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CheckWizard (NM)
  • Defendant: Bank of America Corporation (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00146, E.D. Tex., 02/06/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has committed the alleged acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that unspecified products and services of Defendant infringe a patent related to systems for capturing, packaging, and sharing images from mobile devices as interactive data entities.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the creation of "image entities," which combine a digital image with an associated data profile, enabling the image to be shared and function as an interactive object within a network for a limited time.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,140,514, "Capturing and sharing images with mobile device users including for a limited duration of time," issued November 27, 2018.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in prior art communication systems where images sent from mobile devices are treated as static, discrete files, separate from other forms of data like text or audio, which limits their utility and functionality (ʼ514 Patent, col. 1:19-55).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for creating a "digital image entity," which is a composite data structure that packages an image with an associated "image profile." This profile can contain related data (e.g., audio, text, location) and executable functions, transforming the image from a simple picture into an interactive object that can be shared and managed within a network (ʼ514 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:1-9). The system is designed to allow these image entities to exist for a specific duration and then cease to exist (ʼ514 Patent, col. 3:52-58).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to leverage the increasing capabilities of mobile devices by creating a more integrated and dynamic form of image-based communication, rather than simply transmitting static picture files (ʼ514 Patent, col. 2:10-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," referring to "Exemplary '514 Patent Claims" in an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 13). Independent claim 1 is representative:
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A mobile device associated with a user affiliated with a virtual network, the mobile device comprising:
  • one or more cameras configured to acquire an image;
  • one or more processors configured to construct an image entity using the acquired image and an image profile of the acquired image; and
  • a transmit unit configured to send the image entity to one or more servers, wherein the sent image entity is accessible to one or more recognized users of the virtual network via one or more user devices and/or applications in communication with the one or more servers.
• The complaint does not specify if dependent claims are also asserted.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not specifically name any accused products or services (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 13). It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts within an unattached "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities. It alleges that Defendant's employees internally test and use these products and that they have been made, used, sold, and imported by Defendant and/or its customers (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts provided in an "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶13). As this exhibit was not filed with the complaint, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

The narrative infringement theory is that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ʼ514 Patent and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '514 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶13). The complaint alleges direct infringement through Defendant's making, using, selling, and importing of the accused products, as well as through internal testing by its employees (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the accused system, presumably a financial services platform, constitutes a "virtual network" as contemplated by the patent. The patent describes such networks for purposes including "social networks, professional networks, enterprise networks, family networks, [and] friends networks" (’514 Patent, Abstract), raising the question of whether a bank's user base qualifies.
  • Technical Questions: A key technical dispute may focus on whether the accused products "construct an image entity using the acquired image and an image profile" as required by claim 1. The court may need to determine if the accused functionality involves creating a specific, integrated data structure as described in the patent, or if it merely transmits a standard image file with associated metadata, which may not meet the claim's requirements.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "image entity"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears to be the patentee's neologism for the core of the invention. Its construction will be critical. If construed broadly to cover any image file with metadata, the claim may be vulnerable to prior art. If construed narrowly, it may not read on the accused products. Practitioners may focus on this term because the distinction between a novel "image entity" and a conventional image file is central to the infringement and validity analysis.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes it as a "unitized... digital entity" with "embedded multimedia capabilities, location, security and executable functions" that is linked with other entities to form an "image network" (ʼ514 Patent, col. 7:14-22). This could support a broad definition covering various combinations of images and data.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 and its description detail an "image entity" (120) comprising not just an image (130) but a highly structured "image profile" (121) with specific attributes like "description" (190), "function" (191), "behavior" (192), and "relationship" (193). A party could argue the term requires this specific, complex structure, not just any collection of data associated with an image (ʼ514 Patent, col. 6:27-34).

• The Term: "virtual network"

  • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires the user to be "affiliated with a virtual network." The definition of this term will determine whether the user ecosystem of the accused product (e.g., customers of a bank) falls within the claim's scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract provides a broad list, stating a virtual network is for a "specific purpose such as social networks, professional networks, enterprise networks, family networks, friends networks and other networks" (ʼ514 Patent, Abstract). This inclusive language could support applying the term to a bank's defined customer base.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly discusses "people networks" where an "image entity" is propagated "to a specific device/user and or to a plurality of devices/user" to enable communication between them (ʼ514 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:40-50). This focus on user-to-user interaction could support a narrower construction that excludes systems where users primarily interact only with a central entity (like a bank) rather than with each other.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not include an explicit count for willful infringement or allege facts to support it, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent. However, the prayer for relief requests a judgment that the case be declared "exceptional" and that attorneys' fees be awarded (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶E.i).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the patentee's term "image entity" be construed to cover the data structures used in the accused products? The case may turn on whether Defendant's system simply transmits image files with standard metadata or creates a functionally integrated data object with a structured "image profile" as arguably required by the patent's specification.

2. A second central question will be one of claim scope and application: Does the user base of a large financial institution like Bank of America constitute a "virtual network" within the meaning of the claims, or does the patent's language limit the term to networks with more direct user-to-user social or collaborative interactions?

3. Finally, a key evidentiary question will be what proof Plaintiff can marshal to show infringement. Given the complaint's lack of specificity regarding the accused products and their operation, Plaintiff will bear the burden of demonstrating, through discovery and expert testimony, a direct mapping of the accused system's specific functionality onto the limitations of the asserted claims.