CheckWizard LLC v. First United Bank

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CheckWizard LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: First United Bank (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00515, W.D. Tex., 11/05/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to methods for capturing an image on a mobile device, combining it with profile data to create an "image entity," and sharing that entity over a network for a limited time.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to intelligent, context-aware image sharing on mobile devices, where images are packaged with associated data and executable functions.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit claims priority back to an application filed in 2004, a fact that may be relevant to claim construction and the scope of prior art. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent.

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 asserts that prior art mobile communication was primarily voice-based and that image sharing functionalities were limited to simple viewing. These systems allegedly lacked the ability to endow an image with related data, context, and executable functions, thus limiting its utility. (’514 Patent, col. 1:18-56).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system for creating a "virtual image entity." A user's mobile device acquires an image and combines it with an "image profile" containing collateral information such as text, location data, user profiles, or relationships to other images. (’514 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This composite "image entity" can then be transmitted over a network, exist for a specific duration, and be associated with functions that can be launched by interacting with the image. (’514 Patent, col. 3:52-58).
• Technical Importance: The claimed technology sought to transform static image sharing into a more dynamic and interactive form of communication by bundling images with rich metadata and functionality. (’514 Patent, col. 2:1-8).

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 method claim 21 is representative of the patent's core method concepts.

• Independent Claim 21:
  • 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 display of the constructed image entity;
  • wherein the constructed image entity is accessible to one or more recognized users of a virtual network via one or more client devices through applications in communication with the one or more servers.

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" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" without further specification. (Compl. ¶¶11, 13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context. It alleges only that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '514 Patent." (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that "Exhibit 2 includes charts comparing the Exemplary '514 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not attach this exhibit (Compl. ¶13). The narrative infringement theory is conclusory, asserting that the accused products "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶13). No specific facts are alleged to map product features to claim elements.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: The bare allegations in the complaint, when read against the patent, suggest several potential areas of dispute.
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Defendant's product, presumably a financial services application, constitutes a "virtual network" for sharing "image entities" in the manner contemplated by the patent, which provides examples such as "social networks, professional networks, [and] family networks" (’514 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Questions: Claim 21 requires "constructing an image entity using the acquired image, one or more other images, and an image profile." A key factual question will be what evidence supports the allegation that Defendant's process uses not only the primary acquired image but also "one or more other images" to construct the accused data object.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "image entity"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central construct of the invention. Its definition will be critical for determining whether a data record created by a mobile banking application (e.g., a remote deposit transaction) qualifies as the claimed "image entity." Practitioners may focus on whether the term implies a specific data structure with dynamic, ephemeral properties.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines an image entity as comprising an image and an "image profile," where the profile associates the image with "collateral information such as audio, voice, text, speech, location, time data," and other attributes (’514 Patent, col. 5:65-col. 6:4). This could support an argument that any object combining an image with metadata infringes.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract states that the "digital image entity comes into existence at a specified time, exists for a desired duration of time, and ceases to exist at a set time." This language, along with descriptions of the entity being "dynamically constructed and deconstructed," suggests a transient, purpose-built object rather than a persistent data record (’514 Patent, col. 3:52-58).

• The Term: "virtual network"

• Context and Importance: The asserted claims require the image entity to be accessible to users of a "virtual network." The scope of this term will determine if a closed, transactional system like a bank's mobile platform falls within the claims.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification includes "enterprise networks" in its list of exemplary virtual networks (’514 Patent, Abstract). This could be argued to encompass a bank’s proprietary network for its employees and customers.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly frames the utility of these networks in the context of social interaction and communication among individuals, citing "social networks," "family networks," and "friends networks" as primary examples (’514 Patent, col. 9:38-44). This context may support a narrower construction limited to platforms for interpersonal communication rather than financial transactions.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain sufficient factual allegations to analyze claims for indirect or willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "image entity," described in the patent as a dynamic object that can be programmed to exist for a limited duration, be construed to cover a conventional data record containing an image and metadata, such as that created during a mobile check deposit transaction?
• A second key issue will be one of contextual application: Does the term "virtual network," illustrated in the patent primarily through examples of social and interpersonal communication platforms, read on the closed and secure transactional environment of a mobile banking application?
• An essential evidentiary question will be one of factual support: As the complaint lacks specific factual allegations, discovery will focus on whether the accused system actually performs all claimed steps, particularly the requirement in method claim 21 of using "one or more other images" in addition to the primary captured image to "construct" the accused "image entity."