Convergent Assets v. Dick’s Sporting Goods: Patent Suit Ends in Prejudicial Dismissal
Convergent Assets LLC filed suit against Dick’s Sporting Goods in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting US11049138B2 against the retailer’s e-commerce website. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice after 202 days, with each side bearing its own legal costs.
E-Commerce Patent Assertion Ends in Bilateral Walk-Away
On June 21, 2024, Convergent Assets LLC filed a patent infringement action against Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 4:24-cv-00567), before Judge Sean D. Jordan. The suit alleged infringement of US11049138B2 — an e-commerce technology patent — through the operation of the defendant’s retail website, www.dickssportinggoods.com.
The case closed on January 9, 2025, when both parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (c), extinguishing all claims and counterclaims with prejudice. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: Convergent Assets is permanently barred from reasserting the same claims against Dick’s Sporting Goods on the same patent. Critically, no fee award was entered — each party absorbs its own litigation costs.
At 202 days, the resolution is notably swift for an E.D. Texas patent docket, consistent with a negotiated settlement reached before significant motion practice or claim construction. The public record does not disclose any financial consideration exchanged, license terms, or the catalyst for resolution. The with-prejudice, own-costs structure is a hallmark of a confidential settlement, though the specific commercial terms — if any — remain unknown.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 202 days
202 days — faster than the E.D. Texas median for patent infringement actions, suggesting early resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41 stipulated dismissal extinguishes all claims permanently
A dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires the consent of all parties who have appeared. The with-prejudice designation goes further than a standard voluntary dismissal — it operates as a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes. Convergent Assets cannot refile these specific infringement claims against Dick’s Sporting Goods on US11049138B2.
Permanent bar on refilingConvergent Assets permanently forfeits its infringement claims
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, Convergent Assets surrendered its ability to reassert US11049138B2 against Dick’s Sporting Goods in any future action. This is materially different from a without-prejudice dismissal, which would preserve refiling rights. The own-costs arrangement means no fee-shifting penalty, but the litigation investment yields no public judicial remedy. Any value extracted — if any — would be found in undisclosed settlement terms.
No refiling rights retainedDick’s Sporting Goods secures full dismissal with no admitted liability
Dick’s Sporting Goods exits the litigation with prejudice running in its favour — Convergent Assets cannot revive these claims. The own-costs structure means Dick’s bears its own legal fees, suggesting neither side secured a dominant litigation position sufficient to justify a fee-shifting argument. Kirkland & Ellis and Holland & Knight’s involvement signals Dick’s mounted a substantive defence, consistent with early settlement leverage.
Full exit, no admitted liabilitySwift closure limits precedent but leaves US11049138B2 enforcement intact vs. others
Because no claim construction, validity ruling, or merits decision was entered, US11049138B2 remains entirely unchallenged as a matter of public record. Other e-commerce retailers operating websites with similar functionality cannot rely on this case as prior art or a defensive precedent. Convergent Assets retains full enforcement rights against third parties, making this patent a continued risk for the online retail sector.
Patent survives, enforcement risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Convergent Assets, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US11049138B2, an e-commerce technology patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. | Company | Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. — major U.S. specialty sporting goods retailer with a large e-commerce presenceSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David R. Bennett | Attorney | Counsel for Convergent Assets, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven Kalberg | Attorney | Counsel for Convergent Assets, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | David R. Bennett | Law Firm | Representing Convergent Assets, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brandon Ross Weber | Attorney | Counsel for Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James John Lomeo | Attorney | Counsel for Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeanne Marie Heffernan | Attorney | Counsel for Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph Allen Loy | Attorney | Counsel for Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Justin S. Cohen | Attorney | Counsel for Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Holland & Knight LLP (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kirkland & Ellis LLP | Law Firm | Representing Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sean D. Jordan | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The joint stipulation invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — the bilateral dismissal mechanism — combined with Rule 41(c) to extend the with-prejudice effect to Dick’s Sporting Goods’ counterclaims. The explicit ‘WITH PREJUDICE’ language forecloses any future action by either party on the same claims. The own-costs provision is notable: it indicates neither party sought — or could credibly sustain — an exceptional-case fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285. No merits determination was recorded, leaving patent validity and infringement scope unresolved as matters of public record.
US11049138B2 — E-Commerce Website Functionality Patent
US11049138B2 was filed via application US15/941778 and covers technology in the e-commerce domain, asserted here against the operational features of www.dickssportinggoods.com. The patent’s grant designation (B2) indicates it was examined with published prior art references considered during prosecution. The specific claims scope — covering what aspects of online retail functionality — was not publicly adjudicated in this action, leaving claim interpretation to future litigation or inter partes review.
For the broader online retail sector, US11049138B2 represents a live enforcement risk. Convergent Assets’ willingness to file in E.D. Texas against a nationally recognised retailer of Dick’s Sporting Goods’ scale signals confidence in at least a credible infringement position. Without a validity or non-infringement ruling on record, any retailer operating a website with comparable e-commerce features — product search, cart, checkout, or similar transactional flows — should assess exposure. The patent family originating from US15/941778 warrants monitoring for continuations.
Should your e-commerce platform run an FTO against US11049138B2?
Any business operating an e-commerce website — particularly in the sporting goods, apparel, or general retail categories — should treat US11049138B2 as a live risk. The fact that Dick’s Sporting Goods, a major national retailer, was targeted suggests the patent’s claims are drafted broadly enough to reach mainstream online retail functionality. Product, engineering, and IP teams evaluating new website features or platform migrations should include this patent in pre-launch FTO reviews.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows you to map your website’s technical functionality against the claim language of US11049138B2 in minutes. Eureka can identify whether your product architecture falls within the patent’s independent claims, surface prior art that could support an invalidity argument, and flag related patents in the same family — giving your legal and R&D teams the intelligence they need before Convergent Assets files its next complaint.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11049138B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar E-Commerce Patent Infringement Cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions involving e-commerce and online retail technology filed in the Eastern District of Texas — the dominant venue for this patent category.
What this case signals for the e-commerce and online retail IP landscape
A swift with-prejudice exit in E.D. Texas leaves US11049138B2 unchallenged — and raises the enforcement risk for other online retailers.
E.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for e-commerce patent assertions
Filing in the Eastern District of Texas is a consistent tactic for patent assertion entities targeting online retail. The district’s patent-friendly reputation and docket management create early settlement pressure on defendants. Retailers operating e-commerce platforms should monitor new filings in this district against their technology stack.
No merits ruling means US11049138B2 carries full enforcement weight against third parties
The dismissal generated zero public precedent on claim scope, validity, or infringement. Any online retailer whose website shares functional characteristics with what US11049138B2 covers should treat this patent as live and enforceable. An FTO analysis against this patent is warranted for any business operating a comparable e-commerce platform.
Convergent v Dick’s — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation on January 9, 2025. Both parties agreed to extinguish all claims and counterclaims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (c), with each side bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees. No merits ruling or damages award was entered.
Convergent Assets asserted US11049138B2, filed under application number US15/941778, against the operation of Dick’s Sporting Goods’ e-commerce website at www.dickssportinggoods.com. The specific claims alleged to be infringed were not publicly detailed in the available docket record.
A with-prejudice dismissal operates as a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes. Convergent Assets is permanently barred from refiling the same infringement claims against Dick’s Sporting Goods based on US11049138B2. This is distinct from a without-prejudice dismissal, which would preserve the right to refile.
No. The dismissal is bilateral — it only bars Convergent Assets from suing Dick’s Sporting Goods on these claims again. US11049138B2 remains fully enforceable against any other party. Because no invalidity or non-infringement ruling was issued, other e-commerce operators cannot rely on this case as a defensive precedent.
The Eastern District of Texas is a frequently chosen venue by patent assertion entities due to its established patent litigation procedures and scheduling practices. Plaintiffs typically justify venue by asserting that the defendant conducts business — including online sales — within the district. E.D. Texas consistently ranks among the top districts nationally for patent infringement filings.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.