CheckWizard LLC v. American National Bank Of Texas

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CheckWizard LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: American National Bank of Texas (TX)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00826, E.D. Tex., 08/21/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas and has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to capturing images on a mobile device and packaging them with associated data and functions into a shareable "image entity" for distribution on a virtual network.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for creating and sharing rich, interactive image-based communications on mobile devices, a concept foundational to many modern social media and messaging applications.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review 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"

The complaint identifies U.S. Patent No. 10,140,514, issued November 27, 2018 (’514 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that prior art mobile communication was primarily voice-based, with image-sharing functionalities limited to simple viewing of static files. This approach failed to leverage images as a richer, more intuitive medium for communication and interaction (ʼ514 Patent, col. 1:19-56).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system for creating a composite digital object called an "image entity." This is accomplished by using a mobile device to capture an image and then associate it with an "image profile," which can contain collateral information such as audio, text, location data, executable functions, and relationships to other images (ʼ514 Patent, col. 6:27-34; FIG. 1). This "image entity" can then be shared across a "virtual network" of users, can be dynamically constructed, and can be configured to exist only for a limited duration of time (ʼ514 Patent, col. 3:52-58).
• Technical Importance: The patent describes a shift from treating images as simple attachments to creating integrated, data-rich objects for communication, an approach that anticipates features now common in modern messaging and social media platforms (ʼ514 Patent, col. 1:41-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the asserted technology.

• Independent Claim 1: A 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;
  • 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 specifically identify any accused products, methods, or services. It refers generally to "Defendant products" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly detailed in an "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶11, 13). This exhibit was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of any accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim charts that allegedly compare the patent's claims to "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶13-14). In the absence of these charts or any other specific factual allegations, the infringement theory is limited to the conclusory statement that Defendant "directly infringed one or more claims of the ’514 Patent" (Compl. ¶11).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

The bare-bones nature of the complaint raises fundamental questions about the basis of the infringement claim.

• Scope Questions: A primary question will be how the plaintiff intends to map the elements of the asserted claims, which are directed to a "mobile device" with "cameras," onto the products or services of a bank.
• Technical Questions: It is unclear what feature of the Defendant's unspecified products allegedly performs the central claim step of "construct[ing] an image entity" by combining a captured image with an "image profile" containing the types of collateral data described in the ’514 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "image entity"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core novel component of the invention. Whether the Defendant's systems create a data structure that meets this definition will be critical to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope determines whether the claims cover any system that associates metadata with an image, or if a more specific, structured combination is required.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes an image entity as a "unitized... distinct and identifiable digital entity" and a "composite resultant entity," which could be argued to cover a wide range of methods for packaging images with data (ʼ514 Patent, col. 7:14-15; col. 3:1-2).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 and the detailed description show an image entity (120) comprising an image (130) and an "image profile" (121) that includes numerous specific data types like audio, function, behavior, and relationships (ʼ514 Patent, col. 6:30-34). A defendant may argue that an accused data structure must contain these specific components to qualify as an "image entity."

The Term: "virtual network"

• Context and Importance: The claims require that the "image entity" be made accessible to users of a "virtual network." The definition of this term will determine whether the defendant's user ecosystem qualifies as the type of network contemplated by the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract provides a broad, non-limiting list of examples, including "social networks, professional networks, enterprise networks, family networks, [and] friends networks," suggesting the term could apply to any system connecting a group of users for a specific purpose (ʼ514 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes this network in the context of "people networks" where an entity is propagated among users to facilitate "rich and meaningful communication and interaction" (ʼ514 Patent, col. 9:35-49). This language might support an argument that the term requires a system focused on interpersonal communication, as distinguished from other types of client-server networks.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint makes no allegations of indirect infringement. The single count is for "Direct Infringement" (Compl. ¶11).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not include a count for willful infringement and pleads no specific facts regarding pre-suit knowledge by the Defendant. The prayer for relief includes a request for a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, a remedy that can be based on willful infringement or litigation misconduct (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶E.i).

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

• A central issue will be one of technological applicability: how will the plaintiff establish that the defendant's banking products—which are not mobile devices primarily designed for image sharing—infringe claims directed to constructing and sharing "image entities" on a "virtual network"? The complaint provides no factual basis to connect the patented technology to the defendant's business.
• An immediate procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: does a complaint that fails to identify any accused product and provides no factual allegations mapping product features to claim limitations meet the plausibility standard required to survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)?