CheckWizard LLC v. Ally Financial Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CheckWizard LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Ally Financial Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC; DNL Zito
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-03195, N.D. Tex., 11/20/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Northern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to capturing images on mobile devices, creating a composite "image entity" with associated data, and sharing it within a network for a limited duration.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of mobile image messaging and social networking, a commercially significant sector of the software industry.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit claims priority to an application filed in January 2004, a date that precedes the widespread adoption of modern smartphone application ecosystems. The patent's issuance in 2018 followed a series of continuation applications.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-01-30	'514 Patent - Earliest Priority Date
2016-06-15	'514 Patent - Application Filing Date
2018-11-27	'514 Patent - Issue Date
2025-11-20	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

• 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's background section describes prior art communication methods as primarily voice-based, with digital methods like email handling files as discrete and separate attachments, which limits their utility ('514 Patent, col. 1:18-31). The patent identifies a need for more integrated, image-based communication that is more natural for human cognition ('514 Patent, col. 1:31-37).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system for creating and sharing a "virtual image entity" on a mobile device ('514 Patent, col. 3:65-67). This "image entity" is a composite digital object that combines a captured image with an "image profile" containing associated data such as audio, location, time, and relationships to other images ('514 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 6:27-34). The patent describes that this entity can be constructed to exist for a specific duration and then cease to exist ('514 Patent, col. 3:52-58).
• Technical Importance: The patent describes a framework for creating and sharing rich, ephemeral multimedia messages over a network of users, a concept that became a foundational element of mobile social media applications ('514 Patent, col. 4:21-27).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’514 Patent but does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is the first independent claim of the patent.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • 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, where the sent image entity is accessible to one or more recognized users of the virtual network.
• 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 products, methods, or services by name (Compl. ¶11). It refers generally to "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 functionality or market context of any accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶13). However, Exhibit 2 was not filed with the complaint. The body of the complaint asserts in a conclusory manner that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '514 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '514 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶13). Without the referenced exhibit or more specific factual allegations, a detailed analysis of the infringement theory is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "image entity"

• Context and Importance: This term, which appears in all independent claims, is a neologism central to the patent. The infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the accused functionality involves the creation of a composite digital object that meets the definition of an "image entity," or merely the transmission of a standard image file with associated metadata.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the term broadly as a "distinct and identifiable digital entity" that is "purely digital and virtual" ('514 Patent, col. 7:14-15; col. 10:36-37). This could support an argument that any digital representation of an image bundled with its metadata qualifies.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 and the detailed description present the "image entity" (120) as a structured object comprising an "image" (130, 131) and an "image profile" (121) which itself contains numerous distinct data types (e.g., audio, text, location, time, function, behavior, relationship) ('514 Patent, col. 6:27-34). This structure may support a narrower construction requiring a specific, multi-component data architecture beyond standard EXIF data.

• The Term: "virtual network"

• Context and Importance: This term from independent claim 1 defines the environment in which the "image entity" is shared. Its construction will determine what constitutes a qualifying network of users, which is a prerequisite for infringement.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract provides a broad, non-exhaustive list, stating the network can be for a "specific purpose such as social networks, professional networks, enterprise networks, family networks, friends networks and other networks" ('514 Patent, Abstract). This language may support a construction covering a wide range of user groupings.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes "virtual people networks" in terms of "specific individuals and their relationships with each other" ('514 Patent, col. 9:45-49). This may support an argument that the term requires a defined set of relationships between users, rather than an undifferentiated group of recipients.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain specific counts or factual allegations for indirect or willful infringement.

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

• A threshold procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint, which fails to identify any accused product or provide any factual basis for infringement beyond incorporating a missing exhibit, meet the plausibility standard required to survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)?
• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent's central term "image entity," described in the specification as a composite structure including an image and a detailed data "profile," be construed to cover the transmission of standard image files with embedded metadata as handled by contemporary mobile applications?
• A key validity question will relate to the state of the art: given the patent’s 2004 priority date, which predates the modern mobile app ecosystem, a central issue will be whether the scope of the asserted claims, once construed, is patentable over the technological landscape that existed at the time of the invention.