Convergent Assets v. Snap Inc.: Patent Suit Over Snapchat Ads Dismissed With Prejudice
Convergent Assets LLC filed suit against Snap Inc. in the Central District of California alleging infringement of US11049138B2 through Snapchat Ads. The parties stipulated to a full dismissal with prejudice — covering all claims and counterclaims — just 88 days after filing, with each side bearing its own costs.
A swift exit: Snapchat Ads patent suit ends at 88 days
On February 5, 2024, Convergent Assets LLC, represented by Bunsow DeMory LLP and Direction IP Law, filed a patent infringement action against Snap Inc. in the Central District of California. The complaint alleged that Snap’s Snapchat Ads platform infringed US11049138B2, a patent directed at digital advertising technology filed under application number US15/941778.
On May 3, 2024 — just 88 days after filing — both parties filed a joint stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (c) to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice. Critically, each party agreed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, indicating no court-ordered fee award in either direction. The with-prejudice designation means Convergent Assets cannot re-file these specific claims against Snap on the same patent.
The speed of resolution — under three months — is consistent with either a confidential settlement that resolved the underlying commercial dispute or a strategic decision by the plaintiff to withdraw before significant litigation costs accumulated. The public record does not disclose whether any licensing agreement or financial consideration was exchanged, leaving the ultimate commercial outcome between the parties undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 88 days
88 days — well below the median district court patent case lifecycle, suggesting early resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41 stipulated dismissal with prejudice explained
A dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires both parties’ signatures, making it a mutual and consensual exit. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is the critical qualifier: it extinguishes the plaintiff’s right to re-file the same claims against Snap on US11049138B2 in any court. No court order on the merits was issued — the case ends procedurally, not substantively.
Permanent claim barConvergent Assets permanently closes the door on Snap litigation
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, Convergent Assets forfeits any future right to assert the same claims under US11049138B2 against Snap. Whether this reflects a confidential settlement providing compensation, a licensing resolution, or a strategic withdrawal is not disclosed in the public record. The 88-day timeline suggests the parties reached a resolution before discovery or claim construction proceedings commenced.
Claims extinguished vs. SnapSnap secures permanent protection from these specific claims
Snap Inc. benefits from the with-prejudice dismissal: Convergent Assets cannot re-assert the same infringement claims under US11049138B2 against Snapchat Ads in the future. The mutual cost-bearing provision means Snap avoided any fee award exposure. However, the dismissal does not constitute a judicial ruling that US11049138B2 is invalid or not infringed — the patent itself remains in force.
Protected from re-filingUS11049138B2 remains live — risk persists for other ad platforms
Because the dismissal carries no invalidity finding, US11049138B2 retains its full enforceability against other parties in the digital advertising ecosystem. Convergent Assets retains the right to assert this patent against other platforms or ad-tech companies. Competitors operating programmatic or targeted advertising systems should treat this case as a signal that the patent is actively being enforced.
Patent enforceable vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Convergent Assets, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US11049138B2 covering digital advertising technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Snap, Inc. | Company | Snap Inc. — developer and operator of the Snapchat social media and advertising platformSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Aaron Richard Hand | Attorney | Counsel for Convergent Assets, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David R. Bennett | Attorney | Counsel for Convergent Assets, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bunsow DeMory LLP | Law Firm | Representing Convergent Assets, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Direction IP Law | Law Firm | Representing Convergent Assets, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eimeric Reig-Plessis | Attorney | Counsel for Snap, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kelly C. Hunsaker | Attorney | Counsel for Snap, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Paul Benedict Salvaty | Attorney | Counsel for Snap, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Winston & Strawn, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Snap, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation references both Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and Rule 41(c), the latter confirming that Snap’s counterclaims are equally dismissed with prejudice. The ‘each Party to bear its own costs’ provision is a standard mutual waiver in stipulated dismissals, suggesting neither party had sufficient leverage to extract a fee award. No merits determination was made by the court — validity and infringement of US11049138B2 remain legally unresolved as between these parties.
US11049138B2 — Digital advertising technology asserted against Snapchat Ads
US11049138B2, filed under application number US15/941778, is the sole patent asserted in this action. The patent relates to digital advertising technology, and its assertion against Snapchat Ads — Snap’s core monetisation platform — suggests the claims are directed at features involved in ad targeting, delivery, or audience engagement optimisation. The patent has issued as a granted US utility patent and remains enforceable.
For the digital advertising sector, US11049138B2 represents an active enforcement risk. Convergent Assets’ decision to assert it against one of the largest social media advertising platforms signals commercial confidence in the patent’s claim scope. With the Snap case now closed without any invalidity finding, the patent’s enforceability is undiminished. Any platform company operating ad-targeting or programmatic advertising features with overlapping technical architecture should treat this patent as a live litigation risk.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US11049138B2?
Product teams and IP counsel at companies operating digital advertising platforms — particularly those involving targeted ad delivery, audience segmentation, or ad optimisation algorithms — should assess their exposure to US11049138B2 now. The patent has been actively asserted against a major social media ad platform, and its claims have not been invalidated. This is a direct signal that Convergent Assets is actively enforcing this asset.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables rapid claim-level mapping of US11049138B2 against your product’s technical architecture. Eureka can surface prior art, identify design-around opportunities, and flag related continuation or family patents that may extend Convergent Assets’ reach — giving your team the intelligence needed before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11049138B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar digital advertising patent cases in C.D. California
Explore patent infringement actions involving digital advertising technology litigated in the Central District of California with comparable assertion and resolution patterns.
What this case signals for the digital advertising IP landscape
A swift with-prejudice dismissal in an ad-tech patent case raises questions every platform company and IP team should be asking.
Speed of dismissal suggests pre-litigation resolution dynamics
At 88 days, this case resolved before any substantive court activity is likely to have occurred. This pattern is consistent with either a licensing agreement reached shortly after filing or a plaintiff reassessing assertion economics early. Ad-tech IP teams should monitor Convergent Assets’ filing activity for similar rapid-resolution patterns across other defendants.
With-prejudice exit protects Snap but leaves the patent intact
The dismissal provides Snap with a permanent bar against re-assertion of these specific claims — but US11049138B2 has not been adjudicated as invalid or non-infringed. Any other company operating digital advertising features similar to Snapchat Ads should conduct a focused FTO review against this patent, which remains in active enforcement.
Convergent v Snap — key questions answered
Convergent Assets LLC filed a patent infringement suit against Snap Inc. in the Central District of California on February 5, 2024, asserting US11049138B2 against Snapchat Ads. The parties stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice on May 3, 2024 — 88 days after filing — with each side bearing its own costs. No merits ruling was issued.
A with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars Convergent Assets from re-filing the same infringement claims under US11049138B2 against Snap Inc. It does not, however, invalidate the patent or prevent Convergent Assets from asserting it against other parties. The underlying patent retains full enforceability.
No. The stipulated dismissal with prejudice is a procedural termination — no court issued any ruling on the validity or infringement of US11049138B2. The patent remains granted and enforceable, and its claim scope was not adjudicated in this proceeding.
The 88-day resolution is well below the typical district court patent case lifecycle and is consistent with either a confidential licensing agreement or an early strategic withdrawal. The public record does not disclose whether financial consideration changed hands. The mutual cost-bearing provision suggests neither party held a dominant litigation position at termination.
No. The dismissal only resolves the dispute between Convergent Assets and Snap. US11049138B2 remains active and enforceable against third parties. Companies operating digital advertising platforms with similar technical features to Snapchat Ads should assess their independent exposure, as Convergent Assets retains full rights to assert the patent against other defendants.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.