CheckWizard v. Woodforest Financial Group Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CheckWizard (NM)
  • Defendant: Woodforest Financial Group, Inc. (TX)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: CheckWizard v. Woodforest Financial Group, Inc., 2:25-cv-00153, 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 certain unidentified products of Defendant infringe a patent related to creating, managing, and sharing data-rich, time-limited digital images on mobile devices.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for transforming digital images into composite "image entities" that bundle the image with an associated data profile, enabling enhanced functionality and communication across networks.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation of a series of applications dating back to 2004, suggesting a long development and prosecution history for the underlying technology. 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

Issued November 27, 2018. (Compl. ¶9; ’514 Patent, (45)).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that prior art mobile communication was primarily voice- or text-based, and while mobile devices could handle images, the images themselves had "limited utility and no functionality that could be associated with the image." (’514 Patent, col. 1:49-56). This created a need for more robust, image-centric communication that is more intuitive for users. (Compl. ¶9; ’514 Patent, col. 1:30-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system for constructing and managing a "virtual digital image entity." (’514 Patent, col. 3:49-51). This "image entity" is a composite data structure that combines a digital image with an "image profile" containing collateral information like audio, text, location, and executable functions. (’514 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 6:28-34). These entities can be dynamically created, shared across a network of users for a specific duration, and linked together to form "image networks." (’514 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:52-58).
• Technical Importance: The described technology sought to elevate a digital image from a static file to an interactive, data-rich object that could serve as a primary medium for complex communication on mobile devices. (’514 Patent, col. 2:1-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, referring only to "Exemplary '514 Patent Claims." (’514 Patent, ¶13). The patent includes three independent claims (1, 12, and 21). Claim 1 is representative of the system claims.

• Independent Claim 1 (System Claim):
  • 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 patent also contains independent claims directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Claim 12) and a method performed by a mobile device application (Claim 21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify the accused instrumentalities by name. It refers to them generically as "the Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count" and "Exemplary Defendant Products." (Compl. ¶11, ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes "one or more claims of the '514 Patent" through its "Exemplary Defendant Products." (Compl. ¶11). The pleading states that these products "practice the technology claimed by the '514 Patent" and that they "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '514 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶13).

To support these allegations, the complaint incorporates by reference "charts comparing the Exemplary '514 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" contained in an Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶13-14). However, Exhibit 2 was not filed with the complaint. The complaint therefore lacks specific factual allegations explaining how any feature of an accused product meets any particular limitation of an asserted claim.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Pleading Sufficiency: A foundational issue for the court will be whether the complaint, which fails to name any accused product and relies on an unattached exhibit for all substantive infringement allegations, contains sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief under prevailing federal pleading standards.
  • Technical Questions: A key question, once infringement contentions are served, will be what evidence demonstrates that Defendant’s products construct and transmit a composite "image entity" as described in the patent, rather than simply transmitting an image file alongside separate metadata.
  • Scope Questions: The analysis may turn on whether the accused products' functionality can be mapped to the patent’s concept of a "virtual network" of "recognized users" having access to the image entity. (’514 Patent, col. 16:6-14).

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 whether the data structures created and used by the accused products fall within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent describes it as more than just an image with metadata.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes it as a "distinct and identifiable digital entity" that is "unitized," which could support an argument that any data package combining an image with associated information qualifies. (’514 Patent, col. 7:14-16).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract and detailed description state the image entity "comprises of an image profile that associates the image with collateral information such as audio, voice," and executable functions. Figure 1 depicts the "image entity" (120) as a specific structure containing both an "image" (130) and a multi-component "image profile" (121). This may support a narrower construction requiring a specific, rich data structure. (’514 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1; col. 6:28-34).

• The Term: "image profile"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the "collateral information" that must be combined with an image to create the claimed "image entity." The breadth of this term dictates how much and what type of associated data is required for infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exclusive list of what the profile may comprise, including "audio, voice, text, data, function and other information." (’514 Patent, col. 2:36-39). This language could suggest that the presence of any one of these data types is sufficient.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly emphasizes the functional aspects of the profile, including "behavior" and "relationships." (’514 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 6:32-34). This could support a narrower construction requiring more than simple descriptive metadata, such as time or location stamps.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not include counts for indirect or contributory infringement and does not allege specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for such claims. (Compl. ¶¶11-12).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. It does, however, request a judgment that the case be declared "exceptional" and that attorneys' fees be awarded pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. (Compl. p. 4, ¶E.i).

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

• A primary issue will be one of procedural sufficiency: Does a complaint that omits the identity of the accused products and outsources all infringement allegations to an unattached exhibit satisfy the plausibility requirements for pleading patent infringement?
• A central dispute will likely be one of definitional scope: Can the patent’s term "image entity," described as a rich, composite object with an associated functional "profile," be construed to read on the data structures used by Defendant’s products, which may handle images and metadata in a more conventional manner?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of network and access control: What evidence demonstrates that the accused system makes images accessible to a "virtual network" of "recognized users" for a "limited duration," as recited in certain claims, versus employing standard user authentication and data retention policies?