DCT

2:25-cv-00150

CheckWizard v. PlainsCapital Bank

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00150, E.D. Tex., 02/06/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the district, committing acts of infringement in the district, and causing harm to the Plaintiff in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to capturing, packaging, and sharing images with associated data on mobile devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns creating and sharing complex digital "image entities" that bundle images with other data and executable functions, intended for communication over networks of mobile devices.
  • Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is part of a larger family of patents stemming from an application filed in 2004, suggesting a lengthy history of prosecution and related technology development. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or licensing history.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-01-30 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,140,514
2016-06-15 Application Filing Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,140,514
2018-11-27 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,140,514
2025-02-06 Complaint Filing Date

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. (’514 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that prior art communication on mobile devices was primarily text- or voice-based, failing to leverage the intuitive, information-rich nature of image-based communication. Existing systems treated image files as simple, separate attachments with limited utility and functionality. (Compl. ¶9; ’514 Patent, col. 1:21-34, 1:50-57).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system for creating a composite "image entity." This entity is not just an image file but a structured digital object that combines an image with an "image profile" containing associated data (e.g., text, audio, location, time) and executable functions. This allows images to become interactive and functional, propagated across a "virtual network" of users for a specific purpose and potentially for a limited duration of time. (’514 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:1-9, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed technology aimed to transform static images into dynamic, multi-faceted communication tools for mobile networks, enabling more sophisticated and secure interactions than simple file sharing. (’514 Patent, col. 2:10-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, referring only to "Exemplary '514 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the 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.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, method, or service by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" and "Defendant products identified in the charts." (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 alleges that Defendant's employees "internally test and use these Exemplary Products." (Compl. ¶12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations detailing how the accused products infringe the ’514 Patent. Instead, it alleges that infringement is demonstrated in claim charts included as Exhibit 2, which was not publicly filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶13-14). The narrative infringement theory is limited to the general assertion that the Defendant directly infringes "by making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the unidentified "Exemplary Defendant Products." (Compl. ¶11). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Pleading Sufficiency: A primary question is whether the complaint's reliance on an unprovided exhibit and its failure to identify any accused product meets the plausibility pleading standards established by Twombly and Iqbal.
    • Technical Questions: Without identification of the accused products or specific allegations, it is unclear what evidence Plaintiff will offer to show that the Defendant’s systems perform the specific functions claimed. Key questions will involve whether the accused systems "construct an image entity" as that term is defined in the patent, or merely transmit standard image files, and whether they operate as part of a "virtual network" as contemplated by the inventors.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "image entity"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in all independent claims and is a neologism central to the patent. Its construction will be critical. A broad definition could potentially read on standard methods of transmitting images with metadata, while a narrow definition would require the specific, complex data structure described in the specification. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case depends on whether Defendant's conventional systems create something that meets this specialized definition.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes an image entity as a "composite resultant entity" formed from an image and other data, and as a "unitized" digital entity. (’514 Patent, col. 3:1-3, col. 7:14-15).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a highly detailed structure for the image entity, which comprises an image (130) and an image profile (121), which itself contains numerous specific sub-components like audio (140), text (151), encryption (180), function (191), and behavior (192). (’514 Patent, Fig. 1, col. 6:27-34).

  • The Term: "virtual network"

  • Context and Importance: This term, also in the independent claims, defines the environment in which the "image entity" is shared. The dispute will likely center on whether this term can describe a standard client-server banking system or if it requires a specific type of user-to-user social or purpose-driven network.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes it broadly as a "virtual network of people joined together for a specific purpose." (’514 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly provides specific examples of such networks, such as "social networks, professional networks, enterprise networks, family networks, friends networks and other networks," suggesting the term implies a defined group of affiliated individuals, not just any user of a service. (’514 Patent, col. 9:38-44).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege any facts that would support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly use the word "willful" but requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285. (Compl. p. 4, ¶E.i). It does not, however, plead any specific facts to support an allegation of pre-suit knowledge of the patent or egregious infringement conduct.

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

  1. Pleading and Proof: A threshold issue is whether the complaint, lacking any identification of an accused product and providing no specific factual allegations of infringement beyond reference to an unfiled exhibit, can survive a motion to dismiss. Subsequently, the key evidentiary question will be what proof Plaintiff can muster to show that Defendant’s systems, presumably related to mobile banking, perform the highly specific operations described in the patent.
  2. Definitional Scope: The case will likely turn on claim construction, specifically whether the patent's specialized, inventor-coined terms like "image entity" and "virtual network" can be interpreted broadly enough to read on the features of a conventional commercial software application, or if they are limited to the specific, socially-oriented communication system detailed in the patent’s embodiments.