CheckWizard v. H&R Block Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CheckWizard (NM)
  • Defendant: H&R Block, Inc. (MO)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00148, E.D. Tex., 02/06/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas and having committed alleged acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that unspecified products and services from Defendant infringe a patent related to creating, managing, and sharing "image entities"—images combined with associated data and functionality—within a network for a limited time.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for making image-based communication more functional by bundling images with metadata and executable functions, enabling interactive use on mobile devices beyond simple viewing.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent claims priority back to an application filed in 2004, a fact that may be relevant to assessing the scope of its claims against the backdrop of technology from that era.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,140,514 - Capturing and sharing images with mobile device users including for a limited duration of time, issued Nov. 27, 2018

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that prior art communication methods, while capable of transmitting images to mobile devices, failed to endow those images with deeper utility and functionality, treating them as simple files for viewing rather than as interactive objects (’514 Patent, col. 1:45-56).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system for creating a "virtual image entity," which is a data structure combining a digital image with an associated "image profile" (’514 Patent, col. 5:62-6:19). This profile can contain collateral information such as audio, text, location data, and executable functions (e.g., Fig. 1). These "image entities" can be propagated through a network of users, exist for a limited duration, and be used for more intelligent, interactive communication (’514 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:13-25).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to transform static image sharing into a dynamic, data-rich, and functional form of communication on mobile platforms (’514 Patent, col. 2:1-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patent's device claims.
• 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 whether it will assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name. It refers to them generally as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11, ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context. It makes only the conclusory allegation that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the ’514 Patent" (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant's "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the '514 Patent but provides no specific factual allegations in the body of the complaint to support this claim (Compl. ¶11). Instead, it states that "Exhibit 2 includes charts comparing the Exemplary '514 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶13). As this exhibit was not filed with the complaint, a detailed infringement analysis based on the provided documents is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold issue for the court may be whether the complaint, by failing to identify any specific accused products or allege any facts regarding their operation, provides sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
  • Technical Questions: Assuming the case proceeds, a central question will be what specific feature(s) of Defendant's products are alleged to constitute the claimed "image entity." It will be necessary to determine what evidence Plaintiff possesses that Defendant's systems "construct an image entity using the acquired image and an image profile," as required by the claim, rather than simply transmitting an image file with standard metadata.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "image entity"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central concept of the invention. Its construction will determine the scope of infringement, specifically what kind of data structure qualifies. The dispute will likely focus on whether a standard image file with attached metadata infringes, or if a more complex, integrated data object is required.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 defines the term simply by its method of creation: "an image entity using the acquired image and an image profile of the acquired image" (’514 Patent, col. 16:12-14). This could support a broad reading covering any combination of an image and its metadata.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes an "image entity" as a "unitized as a distinct and identifiable digital entity" with "embedded multimedia capabilities... and executable functions" (’514 Patent, col. 7:14-18) and a "supersized packet of digital data" (’514 Patent, col. 7:43-45). This language may support a narrower construction requiring a single, integrated data object with specific functional properties.

• The Term: "virtual network"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the community of users who can access the shared "image entity." Its construction is critical to determining whether the accused system operates in an infringing environment. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if routine business document sharing constitutes a "virtual network."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract provides a non-exhaustive list, including "social networks, professional networks, enterprise networks, family networks, friends networks and other networks," suggesting the term has a wide scope (’514 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes such networks as a "virtual network of people joined together for a specific purpose" (’514 Patent, Abstract). A party could argue this requires a more formally defined group or purpose than, for example, a simple one-to-one communication between a customer and a service provider.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not allege willful or indirect infringement. In its prayer for relief, it requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which could entitle it to attorney's fees (Compl. p. 4, ¶E.i). However, the complaint pleads no specific factual basis (such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent) to support this request.

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

1. Procedural Sufficiency: The most immediate issue is procedural: does the complaint's failure to identify any specific accused products or allege any supporting facts for infringement meet the plausibility pleading standard required to survive a motion to dismiss?

2. Definitional Scope of "Image Entity": Should the case proceed, a core technical and legal question will be one of definitional scope. Can the term "image entity", as described in the patent, be construed to read on a standard digital image file transmitted with associated metadata, or does it require a more complex, integrated, and functional data structure as described in the patent's detailed description?

3. Scope of "Virtual Network": A key legal question will concern the interpretation of "virtual network". The court will need to determine whether this term encompasses routine, secure data sharing within a corporate or client-service context, or if it is limited to the more socially defined networks (e.g., "friends networks," "family networks") explicitly mentioned in the patent.