CheckWizard LLC v. United Services Automobile Association

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CheckWizard LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: United Services Automobile Association (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00513, W.D. Tex., 11/05/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products or services infringe a patent related to systems for capturing images on a mobile device, associating them with data to create a shareable "image entity," and sharing them over a network.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the creation of data-rich, functional image objects for mobile communication, a foundational concept for features now common in modern social media, messaging, and enterprise applications.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent claims priority back to a 2004 application, indicating a long prosecution history. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or other procedural events.

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.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a prior art where mobile communication was primarily voice- or text-based, and images, if shared, were treated as simple, discrete files without integrated functionality or rich associated data, thereby limiting their utility (ʼ514 Patent, col. 1:18-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for creating a "virtual image entity," which is a composite digital object combining an acquired image with an "image profile" ('514 Patent, col. 3:65-col. 4:1). This profile can contain a wide range of "collateral information," including audio, text, location data, time stamps, and even executable functions that can be launched by interacting with the image ('514 Patent, FIG. 1; col. 6:27-40). This dynamic "image entity" can be shared across various networks, exist for a limited duration, and be updated or transformed based on user profiles or other factors ('514 Patent, col. 3:52-57).
• Technical Importance: The patent's approach conceptualized images not as static files but as dynamic, data-rich objects whose functionality could be defined and shared, prefiguring features now central to mobile social media and interactive enterprise applications ('514 Patent, col. 2:45-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims," including "exemplary method claims," but does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented system.
• Independent Claim 1 recites essential elements including:
  • 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 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 products by name (Compl. ¶11). It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in "charts" contained in an Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or its market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement but incorporates its substantive allegations by reference to an external document, Exhibit 2, which was not provided (Compl. ¶13-14). The complaint itself offers no narrative description of how any accused products meet the specific limitations of the asserted patent claims. Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the provided documents.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the patent’s claims and the likely nature of Defendant’s business in financial and insurance services, the infringement analysis may raise several key questions:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Defendant's user base for a mobile application constitutes a "virtual network" as contemplated by the patent. The patent's specification frequently refers to "people networks" such as "social networks, professional networks, enterprise networks, family networks, [and] friends networks" ('514 Patent, Abstract), raising the question of whether a network of an institution's customers falls within that scope.
  • Technical Questions: A dispute could arise over whether the combination of an image and its associated metadata in Defendant's system (e.g., a photo of a damaged vehicle linked to a claim number) meets the patent's definition of an "image entity" constructed with an "image profile." The patent describes the "image profile" as containing elements like "description, behavior, function and relationships to other images/objects" ('514 Patent, col. 5:1-5), which suggests a more complex data structure than simple metadata.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "image entity"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core novel element of the claimed invention. The scope of this term will be critical in determining whether simply associating an image file with metadata is sufficient to infringe, or if a more integrated, functional digital object is required.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the term broadly as a "composite resultant entity" created by combining an image with other forms of digital data such as "text, voice, audio, [and] data" ('514 Patent, col. 3:1-3).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes an "image entity" as a "distinct and identifiable digital entity" having "embedded multimedia capabilities, location, security and executable functions" ('514 Patent, col. 7:14-18). A defendant may argue this language requires the image entity to be a single, unitized data object with inherent, executable functionality, not merely a conventional image file linked to external data.

The Term: "virtual network"

• Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires that the mobile device user be "affiliated with a virtual network." The interpretation of this term will determine whether the patent applies only to social-style networks or more broadly to any group of users connected through a server, such as the customers of a financial institution using its mobile app.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract mentions "enterprise networks" and "other networks," which could be argued to encompass a network of a company's customers and employees ('514 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses social examples, describing "a virtual network of people joined together for a specific purpose such as social networks, professional networks, enterprise networks, family networks, friends networks" ('514 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:38-42). This context may support an argument that the term implies a community or "people network" with user-to-user interaction, rather than a simple client-server architecture.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. It does, however, request in its prayer for relief that the case be "declared exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285" (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶ E.i.). The complaint pleads no facts regarding pre-suit knowledge of the patent or egregious conduct.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "virtual network," described in the patent primarily in the context of social and professional "people networks," be construed to cover the user base of a corporate mobile application for financial or insurance services?
• A key technical question will be one of structural composition: does the combination of an image and its associated data in the accused services constitute the claimed "image entity," particularly given the patent’s description of such entities as being "unitized" and having "embedded... executable functions"?
• An initial procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: given that the complaint's substantive infringement allegations are incorporated entirely by reference to an unfiled exhibit, the initial phase of the case may focus on whether the complaint provides the Defendant with fair notice of the infringement claims as required by federal pleading standards.