CheckWizard LLC v. First Financial Bank

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CheckWizard LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: First Financial Bank (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC; DNL Zito
• Case Identification: 4:25-cv-01314, N.D. Tex., 11/20/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas because Defendant has an established place of business in the District and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unidentified products and services infringe a patent related to capturing images on a mobile device, associating them with metadata to create an "image entity," and sharing them over a network.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to methods for managing and sharing digital images via mobile devices, a foundational capability for modern social media and mobile banking applications like remote check deposit.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit claims priority back to an application filed in 2004, suggesting that the scope of its claims may be interpreted in the context of mobile device technology from that era, which predates the modern smartphone.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-01-30	U.S. Patent No. 10,140,514 Priority Date (via application 10/769,621)
2016-06-15	Application leading to the '514 Patent filed
2018-11-27	U.S. Patent No. 10,140,514 issued
2025-11-20	Complaint filed

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 Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a prior art environment where mobile communication was primarily voice-based, and while mobile devices were gaining image acquisition capabilities, the images themselves had "limited utility and no functionality that could be associated with the image" (Compl. Ex. 1, ’514 Patent, col. 1:50-57). The patent sought to move beyond simple image viewing to a more intelligent, image-centric communication system.
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system for creating a "virtual image entity," which is a digital package combining a captured image with an associated "image profile" (’514 Patent, col. 5:26-31). This profile contains collateral data such as audio, text, location, time, and relationships to other images, transforming a static picture into a rich, functional data object (’514 Patent, col. 6:28-34). These image entities can then be constructed, shared across networks, and made to exist for a specific, limited duration of time (’514 Patent, col. 3:52-57).
• Technical Importance: The invention describes a framework for treating images not merely as files to be viewed, but as programmable objects with associated data and behaviors, a concept that underpins many modern digital media applications (’514 Patent, col. 7:13-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint refers to "exemplary method claims" but does not identify specific claims asserted (Compl. ¶11). It incorporates by reference a claim chart exhibit that was not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶14).
• Independent method claim 21 is representative of the technology and includes the following essential elements:
  • Acquiring an image using an interface to one or more cameras of the mobile device;
  • Constructing an image entity using the acquired image, one or more other images, and an image profile of the acquired image;
  • Transmitting the image entity to one or more servers to update and/or refresh a display of the constructed image entity;
  • Wherein the constructed image entity is accessible to one or more recognized users of a virtual network.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, service, or instrumentality (Compl. ¶11). It refers generally to "Defendant products identified in the charts" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" without naming or describing them (Compl. ¶11, ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of any accused instrumentality. It alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '514 Patent" but provides no specific facts describing how they do so (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an "Exhibit 2" that was not provided with the filing, preventing a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations (Compl. ¶13-14). The complaint’s narrative theory of infringement is limited to the conclusory statement 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).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Lacking specific infringement allegations, any analysis is preliminary. However, based on the patent's claims and the nature of the defendant, key disputes may center on the following questions:
  • Technical Questions: What specific functionality in a banking product could be alleged to "construct an image entity" by combining an image with "one or more other images" and an "image profile" as required by claim 21? Does a process like mobile check deposit, which captures a check image and associates it with account data, meet the detailed structural and functional requirements of the claimed "image entity"?
  • Scope Questions: How will the term "virtual network," which the patent associates with social, professional, and family networks, be interpreted in the context of a financial institution's user base (’514 Patent, col. 10:38-41)? Does the user-bank relationship constitute the type of "virtual network" contemplated by the patent?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "image entity"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central component of the invention. Its construction will determine whether the accused functionality, once identified, involves the specific type of data object claimed by the patent. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires more than simply an image file with associated metadata.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the image entity comprises an "image profile that associates the image with collateral information such as audio, voice, text, speech, location, time data," among other things, suggesting a broad collection of possible data types (’514 Patent, col. 5:65-col. 6:5).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly describes the image entity as a "distinct and identifiable digital entity" that is "unitized" with "embedded multimedia capabilities, location, security and executable functions" (’514 Patent, col. 7:13-19). This language may support a narrower construction requiring a specific, self-contained object structure with embedded executable functions, rather than just a loose association of data.

• The Term: "image profile"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the "collateral information" that, when combined with an image, creates the claimed "image entity." The scope of this term is critical to determining what types of data must be associated with an image to infringe.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 describes the image profile simply as being "of the acquired image," which could be read broadly to include any data associated with that image. The specification lists a wide variety of potential data components, including "description, behavior, function and relationships to other images/objects" (’514 Patent, col. 5:1-5).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 of the patent depicts the "Image Profile" (121) as a specific component containing discrete fields for "audio" (140), "location" (170), "function" (191), and "behavior" (192), among others. This detailed depiction could be used to argue that the term requires a structured profile with these specific categories of information, not just any arbitrary metadata.

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

Given the limited factual allegations in the complaint, the initial phase of the case will likely focus on fundamental pleading and discovery issues before reaching the merits.

• A primary issue will be one of specificity: The complaint does not identify any accused products or provide factual allegations detailing how Defendant, a financial bank, infringes claims directed to creating and sharing complex "image entities" on a "virtual network." The initial proceedings may therefore center on whether the complaint meets federal pleading standards.
• A central question of definitional scope will be dispositive: How will the court construe the patent's core concept of an "image entity"—a "unitized" data object with an "image profile" containing fields like "behavior" and "function"? Whether this term can be read to cover systems like mobile check deposit, which associate check images with transactional data, will likely determine the outcome of the case.