CheckWizard LLC v. Northern Trust Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CheckWizard LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Northern Trust Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00514, W.D. Tex., 11/05/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to systems for capturing images on a mobile device and sharing them as a composite "image entity" that includes an associated data profile.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the creation and transmission of intelligent, data-rich images in mobile computing environments, a foundational concept for modern social media and digital communication platforms.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation of a series of applications dating back to 2004, suggesting a potentially complex and lengthy prosecution history that may be relevant to claim construction.

I.I. Case Timeline

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

II.I. 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.

II.I.I. The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a prior art where communication was primarily voice- or text-based, and digital images on mobile devices were static files with "limited utility and no functionality that could be associated with the image" ('514 Patent, col. 1:52-56). This limited the potential for more intelligent, image-centric communication.
• 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" ('514 Patent, col. 5:65-67). This profile can contain associated collateral data such as audio, voice, text, location, time, and even executable functions, transforming a simple image into an interactive object for sharing across a network ('514 Patent, col. 6:28-34; Fig. 1). The system is designed to enable secure, intelligent communication between mobile devices using these data-rich images as the primary medium ('514 Patent, col. 2:10-23).
• Technical Importance: The approach of bundling an image with a rich set of metadata and functions as a single, transmissible "entity" was a conceptual step toward making images dynamic and interactive rather than just static visual files.

II.I.II. Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’514 Patent (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative:
• Essential Elements of Claim 1:
  • 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 recognized users of the virtual network via their devices and/or applications.
• The complaint does not specify assertion of any dependent claims but refers generally to infringement of the patent (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

III.I. Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly detailed in "charts incorporated into this Count" via an exhibit (Compl. ¶11, 13).

III.II. Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context. The referenced Exhibit 2 containing this information was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or specific factual allegations mapping product features to claim elements; instead, it incorporates by reference an external exhibit that was not attached to the filed complaint (Compl. ¶13-14). The infringement theory is therefore stated in general terms. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant directly infringes by making, using, selling, or importing products that practice the technology claimed in the ’514 Patent (Compl. ¶11). The complaint further alleges that Defendant's employees directly infringe by internally testing and using these products (Compl. ¶12).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Given the general nature of the allegations, disputes may arise over several technical and legal questions:
  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the accused products, once identified, perform the specific step of "construct[ing] an image entity using the acquired image and an image profile," as required by the claims. The defense may argue that its products simply transmit standard image files (e.g., JPEG with EXIF data) and that this does not meet the definition of a specially "constructed" image entity as described in the patent specification.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that Defendant's systems create and use an "image profile" that is distinct from, yet associated with, the image data itself? The analysis will likely focus on the architecture of the accused systems and whether they create a composite data structure or handle image and metadata as separate items.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

V.I. "image entity"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central concept of the invention. Its construction will determine whether the claim covers any system that associates an image with metadata, or if it is limited to the specific software-defined structure where an image and an "image profile" are combined to "form one composite resultant entity" ('514 Patent, col. 3:1-3). Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope is likely dispositive of infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself defines the construction of an "image entity" as "using the acquired image and an image profile of the acquired image," which could be argued to cover any logical association.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the image entity as a "unitized... distinct and identifiable digital entity" with "embedded multimedia capabilities" ('514 Patent, col. 7:14-16) and a "purely digital image entity... comprising of an image and an image profile" ('514 Patent, col. 6:38-40). This language could support a narrower construction requiring a specific, integrated data object.

V.II. "image profile"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the scope of data that must be associated with the image to form the claimed "image entity." Whether this requires a specific collection of data types (e.g., audio, text, location) or can be satisfied by any metadata will be critical.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the image profile "associates the image with collateral information such as audio, voice, text, speech, location, time data," etc. ('514 Patent, col. 5:67-col. 6:4). The use of "such as" suggests this list is exemplary, not exhaustive.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 of the patent depicts the "IMAGE ENTITY" (120) as composed of an "IMAGE" (130) and a "PROFILE" (121) that contains numerous specific fields like "AUDIO," "LOCATION," "FUNCTION," and "BEHAVIOR" ('514 Patent, Fig. 1). A defendant might argue this figure illustrates a requirement for a structured profile with multiple, distinct data types.

VI. Other Allegations

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

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "image entity," described in the patent as a novel, software-defined composite object, be construed to cover modern digital images that carry standardized, embedded metadata (like EXIF data), or is there a fundamental structural and functional difference?
2. A second key issue will be one of evidentiary proof: As the complaint lacks any specific technical details about the accused products, a central question for discovery will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that Defendant's systems actually perform the affirmative step of "constructing" an image entity by combining an image with a separate "image profile," as opposed to merely capturing, storing, and transmitting a conventional image file.