CheckWizard LLC v. Bankunited Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:

  • Plaintiff: CheckWizard LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: BankUnited, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC; DNL Zito

• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-03196, N.D. Tex., 11/20/2025

• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has committed acts of patent infringement there.

• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products and services infringe a patent related to capturing images on mobile devices and associating them with collateral data to create shareable, interactive "image entities."

• Technical Context: The technology concerns enhancing image-based communication on mobile devices by bundling images with profiles of related data and functions, allowing images to serve as a medium for more complex interactions.

• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-01-30	U.S. Patent No. 10,140,514 Earliest Priority Date
2016-06-15	U.S. Patent No. 10,140,514 Application Filing Date
2018-11-27	U.S. Patent No. 10,140,514 Issue Date
2025-11-20	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 describes prior art mobile communication as primarily voice- or text-based, noting that while mobile devices could send and receive images, these were static files with limited utility and functionality. The specification states that human beings relate better to image-based communication, and prior art systems did not enable an image to be "endowed with different types of related information" or functionality that could be launched from the image itself (’514 Patent, col. 1:30-57).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for creating a "virtual image entity," which is a composite data structure combining a captured image with an "image profile." This profile associates the image with collateral information such as audio, text, location, time, and even executable functions (’514 Patent, col. 6:27-41; Fig. 1). This "image entity" can then be transmitted over a network and made accessible to users for a specific duration, effectively turning a static picture into an interactive, multi-faceted piece of content (’514 Patent, col. 3:52-58).
• Technical Importance: The described solution aims to shift mobile communication from simple file sharing to a more integrated, image-centric model where images act as containers for rich data and interactive functions (’514 Patent, col. 1:58-63).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" and refers to "exemplary method claims" but does not identify any specific claims being asserted (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is a representative system claim.
• 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.
  • Wherein 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, but its general reference to "one or more claims" suggests this possibility (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name any specific accused products. 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 provides no specific details about the functionality of the accused products. It alleges that Defendant directly infringed by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the accused products, and also by having its employees "internally test and use" them (Compl. ¶¶11-12). Given that the defendant is BankUnited, Inc., the accused instrumentalities are likely related to mobile banking applications or services that involve image capture (e.g., mobile check deposit), but the complaint does not make such specific allegations.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '514 Patent" and that they "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '514 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶13). It states that detailed comparisons are provided in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2; however, this exhibit was not provided with the complaint document (Compl. ¶¶13-14). The infringement theory is therefore presented in a conclusory manner, alleging that Defendant's products infringe "literally or by the doctrine of equivalents" (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not contain sufficient detail for a tabular analysis of the infringement allegations.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: As the complaint lacks specific factual allegations tying any particular feature of a BankUnited product to the patent claims, a primary point of contention will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that Defendant’s systems in fact "construct an image entity using the acquired image and an image profile," as required by the patent.
  • Scope Questions: What constitutes a "virtual network" in the context of a banking application? The patent describes social and professional networks, raising the question of whether a network of a bank's customers qualifies under a proper construction of the term.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "image entity"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in every independent claim and is central to the invention. The dispute will likely hinge on whether the data structures created by Defendant's mobile applications—for example, a mobile check deposit transaction that combines a check image with user, account, and deposit data—meet the definition of the claimed "image entity." Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a neologism defined by the patentee.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes an "image entity" as a "purely digital image entity 120 comprising of an image and an image profile" that can be "efficiently communicated across a wired or wireless physical network" (’514 Patent, col. 6:38-42). This could support a broad definition covering any digital object that bundles an image with associated metadata for transmission.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes the "image entity" in more specific terms, stating it is "unitized as a distinct and identifiable digital entity, said unitized image entity having embedded multimedia capabilities, location, security and executable functions" (’514 Patent, col. 7:14-18). This language could support a narrower construction requiring the data package to be a single, discrete unit with integrated, executable functionality beyond simple data storage.

• The Term: "image profile"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the data associated with the image to form the "image entity." Its construction will determine what kind of collateral information must be bundled with an image to infringe. Whether routine transactional data associated with a mobile check deposit, for instance, constitutes an "image profile" will be a key question.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 3 provides a broad list of potential components, stating the "image profile defines a relationship between the acquired image and one or more other images." The specification further lists an extensive and non-limiting set of components, including "audio, voice/speech, language, text, handwriting, data, location, time, encryption, compression, description, function, behavior and relationship" (’514 Patent, col. 6:29-34). This suggests the term could cover nearly any metadata linked to an image.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 depicts the "image profile" (121) as a structured component of the "image entity" (120) that is formally "construct[ed]" by the system's processors (’514 Patent, Claim 1). This could imply that the data must be intentionally and formally structured into a specific "profile" format, rather than merely being data that is incidentally transmitted along with an image file.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the patent’s central terms, "image entity" and "image profile," which are described in the context of creating rich, interactive, and social media-like objects, be construed to cover the functional data packages used in utilitarian financial transactions like mobile check deposit?

• A second key issue will be evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint makes only conclusory allegations of infringement without identifying any specific product or functionality. A threshold question for the case will be whether the Plaintiff can substantiate these claims with specific evidence showing how BankUnited’s systems meet the limitations of the asserted claims, particularly the "constructing" and "sending" of the specific "image entity" structure.