CheckWizard v. Independent Bank Group Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CheckWizard (NM)
  • Defendant: Independent Bank Group, Inc. (TX)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00149, E.D. Tex., 02/06/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to systems for capturing images on mobile devices, associating them with data profiles to create "image entities," and sharing them on a network for a limited duration.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for creating more functional and intelligent image-based communication on mobile devices, moving beyond simple image viewing to include associated data and executable functions.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation of a series of applications dating back to 2004, indicating a lengthy prosecution history that may be relevant to claim scope. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or post-grant proceedings involving the patent.

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

• 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. (Compl. ¶8-9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that prior art mobile communication was primarily voice-based and that existing digital methods treated image files as discrete, static attachments. This limited their utility, as they were not endowed with related information or executable functions that could leverage the image itself. (’514 Patent, col. 1:21-34, 1:50-57).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for creating a "virtual image entity," which is a data structure that combines a captured image with a detailed "image profile." (Compl. ¶9; ’514 Patent, col. 5:65-col. 6:2). This profile can contain collateral information like audio, text, location, and time, as well as executable functions and relationships to other objects. (’514 Patent, FIG. 1). These "image entities" can then be propagated across a network to specific users, exist for a defined period of time, and then cease to exist. (’514 Patent, col. 3:52-58).
• Technical Importance: The described technology aimed to enable a more intelligent and interactive form of image-based communication, where images serve as a functional interface rather than just passive content. (’514 Patent, col. 2:1-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "exemplary method claims" without specifying claim numbers, but incorporates by reference a non-provided exhibit with claim charts. (Compl. ¶11, 13). Independent method claim 21 is representative of the inventive method.
• Independent Claim 21 Elements:
  • acquiring an image using an interface to one or more cameras of the mobile device;
  • constructing an image entity using the acquired image, one or more other images, and an image profile of the acquired image;
  • transmitting the image entity to one or more servers to update and/or refresh display of the constructed image entity;
  • wherein the constructed image entity is accessible to one or more recognized users of a virtual network via one or more client devices.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to infringement of "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in charts within "Exhibit 2." (Compl. ¶11, 13). However, this exhibit was not filed with the complaint, and no specific products are named in the complaint itself.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide any description of the accused products' features, functions, or market context. Given the Defendant's name, "Independent Bank Group, Inc.," the accused products are likely related to mobile banking applications, such as those with mobile check deposit functionality. (Compl. ¶3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement by incorporating by reference claim charts from an exhibit that was not provided. (Compl. ¶13-14). The narrative alleges that the unidentified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '514 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶13). Due to the lack of a provided claim chart or any substantive description of the accused product, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary issue will be whether a feature like a mobile check deposit in a banking app falls within the scope of the claims. For example, does the combination of a check image with transactional data (account number, deposit amount) constitute the feature-rich "image entity" described in the patent, which includes elements like "behavior" and "relationships to other images/objects"? (’514 Patent, col. 6:31-34). Further, a question arises as to whether a closed banking network qualifies as the "virtual network" (repeatedly described in a social context in the patent) required by the claims. (’514 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:38-44).
• Technical Questions: Claim 21 requires "constructing an image entity using the acquired image, one or more other images, and an image profile." A key factual question will be whether the accused process, such as depositing a single check by capturing its front and back, meets the "one or more other images" limitation in the manner contemplated by the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"image entity"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central concept of the asserted patent. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the data structure created by the accused banking application (e.g., a check image plus transaction details) is construed as an "image entity." Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition appears to contemplate more than simple data association.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines an image entity broadly as a combination of an image and an "image profile," which associates the image with "collateral information such as audio, voice, text, speech, location, time data, handwriting," and other attributes. (’514 Patent, col. 5:65-col. 6:4).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures suggest a more complex structure, where the profile includes "description, behavior, function and relationships to other images/objects." (’514 Patent, FIG. 1; col. 6:31-34). A defendant may argue that the term requires these specific executable or relational attributes, not just static transactional data.

"virtual network"

• Context and Importance: Claim 21 requires the "image entity" to be accessible to users of a "virtual network". The patent's context for this term will be critical in determining if a private, transactional system like a banking platform infringes.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that any software-defined network of users, including customers of a specific bank using its app, constitutes a "virtual network."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract and specification repeatedly frame the network in social terms, referring to "social networks, professional networks, enterprise networks, family networks, friends networks and other networks." (’514 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:40-42). A defendant could argue this context limits the term's scope to collaborative or community-based platforms, excluding a one-to-one transactional banking system.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement or knowledge of the patent. It does include a prayer for a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is a separate standard from willfulness. (Compl. ¶E.i.).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "image entity", which the patent describes with rich, interactive, and relational attributes for use in "people networks," be construed to cover the data associated with a captured check image within a private, transactional mobile banking application?
• A second central question will be evidentiary and factual: assuming a viable claim construction, can the plaintiff demonstrate that the accused banking product performs the specific technical steps of the asserted claims, such as constructing the entity from "one or more other images" and making it accessible for a "limited duration of time" as required by other claims in the patent? (e.g., ’514 Patent, Claim 12).