CheckWizard LLC v. Bokf NA

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CheckWizard LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: BOKF, NA. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: [CheckWizard LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/checkwizard-llc) v. Bokf NA., 2:25-cv-00828, E.D. Tex., 08/21/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the district and having committed alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to systems and methods for capturing images on a mobile device and sharing them as enriched "image entities" within a network for a limited time.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the architecture of mobile image sharing systems, a foundational component of modern social media, messaging, and mobile commerce applications.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-01-30	’514 Patent Priority Date
2018-11-27	’514 Patent Issue Date
2025-08-21	Complaint Filing Date

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.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes prior art mobile communication as being primarily voice- or text-based. It notes that while mobile devices could send and receive images, those images had "limited utility and no functionality that could be associated with the image," existing as discrete, static files. (‌’514 Patent, col. 1:30-56).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system for creating and sharing a "virtual image entity." This entity is a composite digital object created by a mobile device's processor that combines a captured image with an "image profile," which can contain collateral data such as audio, text, location, time, and executable functions. (‌’514 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:27-34). This "unitized" entity can then be shared across a "virtual network" of users, exist for a specific duration, and be used to launch applications or actuate functions. (‌’514 Patent, col. 3:57-4:4; col. 7:14-24).
• Technical Importance: This architecture describes a method for transforming static images into dynamic, interactive objects, a concept central to modern feature-rich image sharing applications where images are bundled with metadata, user tags, and interactive elements. (‌’514 Patent, col. 1:61-2:10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead incorporating by reference a separate, non-proffered exhibit. (Compl. ¶13-14). The patent contains three independent claims (1, 12, and 21) that are the likely basis for the suit. Claim 1, a device claim, is representative:
  • 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 in communication with the one or more servers.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name any specific accused products or services. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in "Exhibit 2," an exhibit that was not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶11, ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of the accused instrumentalities. It alleges only that the unspecified products "practice the technology claimed by the '514 Patent." (Compl. ¶13). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement by incorporating claim charts from an external "Exhibit 2," which was not provided with the publicly filed document. (Compl. ¶13-14). Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The complaint's substantive infringement allegation is limited to the conclusory statement that the "Exemplary Defendant Products incorporated in these charts satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '514 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶13).

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the patent’s claim language and the general nature of the dispute, several points of contention may arise once the accused products are identified.
  • Scope Questions: A central issue may be the scope of the term "virtual network." The patent describes this in the context of "social networks, professional networks, enterprise networks, family networks, [and] friends networks." (‌’514 Patent, Abstract). The infringement analysis will raise the question of whether the defendant's system, once identified, constitutes such a "virtual network" as contemplated by the patent.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint provides no technical details on the accused products. A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused products in fact "construct an image entity using the acquired image and an image profile," as required by Claim 1 of the ’514 Patent, or if they perform a more conventional function of transmitting a raw image file alongside separate, unbundled metadata.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "image entity"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the core concept of the asserted claims. Whether the accused system creates an "image entity" will be a dispositive issue. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether merely transmitting an image file with standard metadata is sufficient to infringe, or if a more specific, integrated data structure is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention’s object is to enable an image to be combined with other data "to form one composite resultant entity." (‌’514 Patent, col. 3:1-3). It is also described as a "unitized" and "distinct and identifiable digital entity." (‌’514 Patent, col. 7:14-16). This language may support a broad definition covering any data structure that bundles an image with related information for transmission.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides a detailed diagram (Fig. 1) and description of the "image profile" component of the entity, listing numerous specific data types such as audio, voice/speech, function, behavior, and relationships. (‌’514 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 6:27-34). This could support a narrower construction requiring the "image entity" to be a complex object comprising a rich and multi-faceted profile, not just simple metadata.

• The Term: "virtual network"

  • Context and Importance: The claims require that the sent "image entity" be accessible to "recognized users of the virtual network." The definition of this term will dictate the types of systems to which the patent applies.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Abstract provides a non-limiting list of examples, including "social networks, professional networks, enterprise networks, family networks, friends networks and other networks." (‌’514 Patent, Abstract). The open-ended "and other networks" phrase could support an expansive reading.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly frames the network in a social or interpersonal context, describing it as "A virtual network of people joined together for a specific purpose." (‌’514 Patent, Abstract). This focus on a network of people for communication purposes could support an argument that the term does not cover a system where a single user transmits data to a non-human or institutional entity.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain sufficient detail for analysis of indirect or willful infringement.

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

• Evidentiary Gap: Given the complaint’s reliance on a missing exhibit to identify both the accused products and the asserted claims, a primary issue is an evidentiary gap. The case cannot be substantively analyzed or defended until the plaintiff provides the factual basis for its infringement allegations, specifying which products are accused and how they are alleged to operate.
• Definitional Scope: A core legal question will be one of definitional scope: can the term "image entity," which the patent describes as a "unitized" composite object with a rich "image profile," be construed to cover the common industry practice of transmitting an image file alongside separate metadata, or does it require a more integrated and functionally complex data structure?
• Network Context: The case may also turn on the interpretation of "virtual network." A key question for the court will be whether this term, rooted in the patent's context of interpersonal communication networks, can extend to cover a user's data transmission to a centralized corporate system, should that prove to be the accused environment.