2:26-cv-00279
CheckWizard LLC v. Hancock Whitney Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: CheckWizard LLC (New Mexico)
- Defendant: Hancock Whitney Corp. (Mississippi)
- Plaintiff's Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
- Case Identification: 2:26-cv-279, E.D. Tex., 04/06/2026
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to systems and methods for capturing images on a mobile device, associating them with profile data, and sharing them with other users for a limited duration of time.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the management and sharing of digital images from mobile devices, a foundational capability for modern social media, messaging, and enterprise communication platforms.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events 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 | Application for U.S. Patent No. 10,140,514 Filed |
| 2018-11-27 | U.S. Patent No. 10,140,514 Issued |
| 2026-04-06 | 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"
- 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 "'514 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that prior art communication methods were primarily voice- or text-based, and while mobile devices could send and receive images, those images had "limited utility and no functionality that could be associated with the image" or launched from subsets of the image" ʼ514 Patent, col. 1:48-56
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system for creating a "virtual image entity" which combines a captured image with an "image profile" containing associated data like audio, text, location, and time ʼ514 Patent, col. 3:64-68 This composite digital object can then be propagated across a network to other users, exist for a specific duration, and cease to exist at a set time, enabling more dynamic and functional image-based communication ʼ514 Patent, col. 3:52-55 '514 Patent, abstract Figure 1 illustrates a mobile device (100) that can acquire an image and combine it with various profile data types (121) to form an "image entity" (120) ʼ514 Patent, col. 6:1-26
- Technical Importance: The technology describes a framework for treating images not as static files but as dynamic, data-rich objects with defined lifecycles, a concept central to ephemeral messaging applications and modern digital content management.
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 Compl. ¶11 Claim 21 is a representative independent method claim.
- Essential Elements of 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 a display.
- Wherein the image entity is accessible to recognized users of a "virtual network" via client devices and applications in communication with the servers.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The complaint does not name any specific accused products or services Compl. ¶11 It refers generally to "Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count below (among the 'Exemplary Defendant Products')" Compl. ¶11 These charts are part of Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the complaint document Compl. ¶13
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges direct infringement by Defendant making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing infringing products, as well as by its employees internally testing and using them Compl. ¶11 Compl. ¶12 However, the complaint incorporates its substantive infringement allegations entirely by reference to claim charts in an external document, Exhibit 2, which was not provided Compl. ¶13 Compl. ¶14 Without this exhibit, a detailed analysis of the infringement theory is not possible based on the provided documents.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint's lack of a detailed infringement theory makes it difficult to identify specific terms in dispute. However, based on the technology described in the '514 Patent and the language of representative Claim 21, the following terms may be central to the case.
The Term: "image entity"
Context and Importance: This is a core term, seemingly coined by the patentee, that defines the fundamental digital object at issue. The scope of what constitutes an "image entity"-specifically what types of data must be combined with an image-will be critical to determining infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the term describes a "virtual image entity by software means" that comprises an image profile associating the image with "collateral information such as audio, voice, text, speech, location, time data, handwriting, encryption/decryption, compression/decompression, description, behavior, function and relationships to other images/objects" ʼ514 Patent, col. 5:1-5 A party could argue this list is exemplary, not exhaustive.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that an "image entity" requires more than just standard metadata, pointing to the patent's emphasis on creating a "composite resultant entity" with "executable functions" and a defined lifecycle ʼ514 Patent, col. 3:1-3 ʼ514 Patent, col. 7:15-19
The Term: "virtual network"
Context and Importance: Claim 21 requires the image entity to be accessible to "recognized users of a virtual network." The definition of this term will determine what types of user communities or platforms fall within the claim's scope (e.g., a public social media platform, a private enterprise messaging group, a simple peer-to-peer connection). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will define the applicable environments for infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes "a virtual network of people joined together for a specific purpose such as social networks, professional networks, enterprise networks, family networks, friends networks and other networks" (ʼ514 Patent, abstract). This broad list could support an interpretation covering many types of online communities.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 recites "a user affiliated with a virtual network," which could suggest a requirement for a formal affiliation or membership, potentially excluding more open or public networks where users are not explicitly "recognized" or "affiliated" in a structured manner ʼ514 Patent, claim 1
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain factual allegations to support either induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre- or post-suit knowledge of the '514 Patent. The prayer for relief requests that the case be declared "exceptional" and seeks attorneys' fees, but the body of the complaint provides no factual basis to support a claim of willful infringement Compl. p. 4
VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
Given the limited information in the complaint, the initial phase of the case will likely focus on clarifying the scope of the allegations. The central questions that emerge are:
- A core issue will be one of specificity: what specific products are accused of infringement, and which claims of the '514 Patent are asserted against them? The answers, presumably contained in the un-filed Exhibit 2, are necessary before any substantive analysis can occur.
- A key legal and technical question will be one of definitional scope: does the accused technology create a composite "image entity" by combining an image with an "image profile" as those terms are defined and described in the patent's specification, or does it handle images and their metadata in a manner distinct from the patented invention?
- A final question will concern the boundary of the claims: what constitutes a "virtual network" under the patent's definition, and do the accused systems operate within such a network of "recognized users"? The answer will determine whether the accused platforms fall inside or outside the claimed environment.