CheckWizard v. Regions Bank

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CheckWizard (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Regions Bank (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00151, 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 acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to methods for capturing images on a mobile device, combining them with profile data to create a functional "image entity," and sharing them over a network.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the creation of dynamic, interactive digital image objects for communication, a concept foundational to modern messaging and social media applications that handle rich media.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, post-grant proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

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 November 27, 2018.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes a need to move beyond primarily voice-based mobile communication toward more robust image-based systems. It notes that prior art methods for sharing images on mobile devices offered limited utility and functionality, failing to fully leverage images as an interactive medium. (’514 Patent, col. 1:21-57).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system for creating a "virtual image entity," which is a composite digital object combining a captured image with an "image profile." This profile can contain a wide array of associated data, such as audio, text, location, time, and even executable functions. This "image entity" can then be transmitted across a network, exist for a specified duration, and enable more dynamic and intelligent communication. (’514 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:37-40; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The described technology sought to transform a static digital image into a dynamic, multi-faceted data package, making the image itself an interactive medium for communication rather than a simple attachment. (’514 Patent, col. 2:44-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’514 Patent without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶11). Claim 1 is the first independent claim of the patent.
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A mobile device associated with a user affiliated with a virtual network.
  • 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.
  • A transmit unit configured to send the image entity to one or more servers.
  • The sent image entity is accessible to recognized users of the virtual network via user devices or applications.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, method, or service (Compl. ¶11). It refers generally to "Defendant products" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly detailed in an external exhibit not attached to the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 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 makes only a conclusory allegation that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '514 Patent." (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference an external claim chart (Exhibit 2) that was not provided with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14). Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The complaint's narrative infringement theory alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims, but provides no specific factual support for this assertion (Compl. ¶13).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question will be how the patent-defined term "image entity" is construed and whether any data structure created by the accused, but unidentified, products can be shown to meet that definition by combining an "image" with an "image profile" as claimed.
• Technical Questions: Without identification of an accused product, a threshold question is what evidence Plaintiff will offer to show that Defendant’s system "constructs" and "sends" a specific, unified "image entity" to its servers, as opposed to transmitting an image file and its associated metadata as separate data elements.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "image entity"

• Context and Importance: This term is a neologism central to the patent's claims, representing the composite digital object that is created and transmitted. The outcome of the infringement analysis will heavily depend on whether the data objects handled by the accused system fall within the court's construction of this term.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "image entity" as a "unitized" and "distinct and identifiable digital entity" with "embedded multimedia capabilities," suggesting a focus on the logical grouping of image and data rather than a specific file format. (’514 Patent, col. 7:14-21).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 depicts the "image entity" (120) as a discrete structure composed of a distinct "image" (130) and "image profile" (121). This could support an argument that the claim requires a specific, formally combined data structure, not just a conventional image file with loosely associated metadata. (’514 Patent, col. 6:27-40; Fig. 1).

The Term: "image profile"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the "collateral information" that must be combined with the image to form the claimed "image entity". The scope of this term will determine what types of associated data in an accused system can satisfy this claim limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides an extensive and non-limiting list of potential components for the profile, including "audio, voice, text, speech, location, time data, handwriting, encryption/decryption, compression/decompression, description, behavior, function and relationships." (’514 Patent, col. 5:1-5).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the term requires a single, cohesive profile object containing the associated data, rather than disparate metadata elements handled by different parts of a larger system, based on its depiction as a singular component (121) in Figure 1. (’514 Patent, col. 6:30-34).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead any facts to support a claim for indirect infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement or plead any facts related to pre-suit knowledge of the patent. The prayer for relief includes a request for a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but the body of the complaint offers no factual basis to support such a finding (Compl. ¶ E.i).

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

• Pleading Sufficiency: An initial issue will be whether the complaint, which fails to identify any accused product and relies on an unprovided external exhibit for its infringement allegations, satisfies the plausibility standard required for patent infringement complaints under Federal Circuit precedent.
• Definitional Scope: A core merits question will be one of definitional scope: can the term "image entity", a concept rooted in a 2004-priority application, be construed to cover the data structures used in modern mobile applications, and what specific combination of image and metadata is required to meet the claim limitations?
• Evidentiary Challenge: A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what evidence can Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that Defendant's systems "construct" a single, unified "image entity" as claimed, rather than employing more conventional methods of handling image files and associated metadata as separate, albeit related, pieces of information?