CheckWizard LLC v. Banc Of California

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CheckWizard LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Banc of California (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00827, E.D. Tex., 08/21/2025
• 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’s unidentified products and services infringe a patent related to capturing and sharing images that are combined with associated data profiles.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for creating and sharing "image entities"—digital packages combining an image with related data like text, location, and user information—for a limited duration over a network.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent claims priority back to an application filed in 2004, suggesting the technology predates the modern smartphone application ecosystem. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings 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"

• 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 describes a prior art environment where communication was primarily voice-based, and digital communication methods treated files like images, voice, and text as discrete, separate attachments, limiting their utility (’514 Patent, col. 1:17-30). The patent sought to address the lack of integrated, image-centric communication on mobile devices, which it describes as having limited data entry capabilities (’514 Patent, col. 1:45-56).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for creating a unified "image entity" which is a "composite resultant entity" combining an image with an "image profile" containing collateral information such as text, audio, location data, and user profiles (’514 Patent, col. 3:1-4; col. 5:1-5). This image entity can be dynamically constructed, shared across a "virtual image based network," and can be programmed to exist only for a specific duration or purpose (’514 Patent, col. 3:51-57). The system is designed to enable secure and efficient image-based communication between mobile devices, stationary devices, and servers (’514 Patent, col. 2:44-50).
• Technical Importance: The technology conceptualizes a framework for treating images not merely as static files but as interactive, data-rich objects that serve as the primary medium for communication and control of applications (’514 Patent, col. 2:35-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" and references "Exemplary '514 Patent Claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the system claimed by the patent.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A mobile device associated with a user affiliated with a virtual network, 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.
• 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 by name (Compl. ¶¶11, 13). It refers generally to "Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count" and "Exemplary Defendant Products," but the referenced charts were not included with 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 instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges direct infringement but does not provide claim charts or detailed infringement contentions in the body of the document. It states that "Exhibit 2 includes charts comparing the Exemplary '514 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" and that these charts demonstrate that the accused products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '514 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶13). As Exhibit 2 was not provided, this analysis is based on the patent's claims and the limited narrative allegations.

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: The primary question is what specific products are accused and what evidence supports the allegation that they perform each claimed step. Without the referenced claim charts, the complaint presents only conclusory allegations of infringement (Compl. ¶13).
• Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the scope of patent-specific terms. For example, does the Defendant’s system "construct an image entity" as required by claim 1, or does it handle a standard image file with associated metadata in a conventional manner? The definition of a "virtual network" affiliated with a user will also be critical, raising the question of whether it reads on generic internet services or requires the specific types of "people networks" described in the patent's specification (’514 Patent, col. 9:38-44).
• Technical Questions: A key technical question will be whether the accused products create an "image profile" that is integrated with an image to form a single "entity," as opposed to merely transmitting an image file and separate, related data. The patent describes the image entity as a "unitized...distinct and identifiable digital entity" (’514 Patent, col. 7:14-15), which may suggest a specific data structure that differs from conventional methods of data association.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "image entity"

• Context and Importance: This term, appearing in independent claim 1, is a neologism central to the patent. The infringement analysis will depend on whether this term is construed broadly to cover any image file associated with metadata, or narrowly to require the specific, integrated, and potentially executable software object described in the specification.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself requires only "constructing an image entity using the acquired image and an image profile," which could be argued to cover any process of combination (’514 Patent, col. 16:11-13).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes an "image entity" as a "distinct and identifiable digital entity, said unitized image entity having embedded multimedia capabilities, location, security and executable functions" (’514 Patent, col. 7:14-19). This language suggests a specific, self-contained object with functionality beyond a simple data file, potentially limiting the claim's scope to non-conventional data structures.

The Term: "virtual network"

• Context and Importance: This term in claim 1 defines the environment in which the "image entity" is shared. Its construction will determine whether the claim applies to widespread technologies like social media and cloud storage platforms or is limited to more specialized network architectures.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is generic, and the claim only requires that the user be "affiliated" with it and that "recognized users" can access the image entity on it (’514 Patent, col. 16:6-18). This could plausibly describe many common online services.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract and specification repeatedly refer to the creation of "virtual network[s] of people joined together for a specific purpose such as social networks, professional networks, enterprise networks, family networks, friends networks and other networks" (’514 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:38-44). This could support an argument that the term requires a network defined by specific user relationships rather than the internet at large.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not contain factual allegations to support willful infringement, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent or egregious conduct. The prayer for relief includes a request that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is often tied to findings of willfulness or litigation misconduct (Compl. ¶E.i).

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

1. A threshold procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint’s reliance on an unprovided external exhibit, without naming a single accused product or describing any specific infringing functionality, satisfy the federal pleading standards for patent infringement?

2. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can patent-specific terms like "image entity"—described in the specification as a "unitized" object with "embedded...executable functions"—be construed to cover the conventional handling of image files and metadata in modern mobile and web applications?

3. A central claim construction question will be the meaning of "virtual network": does this term encompass broad, general-purpose platforms for sharing content, or is it limited by the specification's disclosure to more structured "people networks" defined by specific user relationships and purposes?