Convergent Assets v. Snap Inc. — Targeted Advertising Patent Case Transferred After 327 Days
Convergent Assets, LLC asserted US11049138B2 — a patent covering systems and methods for targeted advertising — against Snap, Inc. in the Western District of Texas. The case was resolved by transfer after 327 days, before reaching a merits ruling.
Targeted advertising patent suit against Snap routed out of W.D. Texas
On 10 March 2023, Convergent Assets, LLC filed suit against Snap, Inc. in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:23-cv-00181) before Chief Judge Alia Moses. The plaintiff asserted US11049138B2, a patent directed at systems and methods for targeted advertising, against Snap’s advertising platform products. Convergent Assets was represented by Direction IP Law, while Snap retained Haltom & Doan LLP and Winston & Strawn LLP.
The case closed on 31 January 2024, with the docket recording the basis of termination as a case transfer rather than a dismissal or merits ruling. The final docketed order — dated 8 January 2024 — addressed an administrative motion permitting certain defence counsel to be excused from a hearing, suggesting the transfer may have been imminent at that stage. No damages award, injunction, or settlement terms appear in the public record.
At 327 days from filing to closure, the case resolved inside the median lifecycle for district court patent matters without reaching summary judgment or trial. The transfer suggests a forum or venue challenge may have succeeded, or that the parties agreed to continue proceedings elsewhere. What drove that outcome — whether a § 1404 motion, a consolidation order, or stipulation — is not specified in the available public record, leaving the ultimate venue of the continuing dispute unclear.
Filing to settlement in 327 days
327 days from filing to closure — resolved before trial via transfer
What a case transfer means for Convergent Assets and Snap
Transfer, not dismissal — the case continues elsewhere
A case transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 or § 1406 moves proceedings to a different federal district rather than terminating them. Unlike a dismissal, a transfer preserves all claims and does not bar refiling. For Convergent Assets, the patent infringement claim against Snap remains live; for Snap, the transfer typically signals a successful venue challenge or a procedural consolidation with related proceedings.
Claims remain active post-transferNo prejudice determination — transfer is procedurally neutral
Because the basis of termination is a transfer rather than a voluntary or involuntary dismissal, the with-prejudice / without-prejudice distinction does not apply here. The public record does not record a settlement, consent order, or merits ruling. Neither party has formally prevailed on the underlying infringement claims as of the W.D. Texas closure. The substantive dispute over US11049138B2 is unresolved.
No merits ruling recordedW.D. Texas — high-volume patent court, frequent transfer target
The Western District of Texas — particularly the Waco and Austin divisions — became one of the most active patent venues in the US before the Federal Circuit’s 2022 decisions tightened transfer standards. Snap, a California-incorporated company, would have strong grounds for a § 1404(a) transfer motion to the Northern District of California, where many of its engineering resources are located. The transfer here is consistent with that pattern.
§ 1404 transfer likelyHeavy defence team signals Snap’s commitment to contest
Snap fielded four named attorneys across two firms — Haltom & Doan LLP and Winston & Strawn LLP (both Chicago and main offices) — against a single plaintiff attorney from Direction IP Law. This resourcing asymmetry is consistent with a defendant preparing substantive invalidity and non-infringement defences rather than a quick settlement posture. The excusal order for Thane and Hunsaker shortly before closure may reflect the transfer reducing the need for full team attendance.
Contested defence postureFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Convergent Assets, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US11049138B2 covering targeted advertising systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Snap, Inc. | Company | Snap, Inc. — operator of Snapchat and associated digital advertising technology platformsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David R. Bennett, Esq., | Attorney | Counsel for Convergent Assets, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eimeric Reig-Plessis | Attorney | Counsel for Snap, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer A. H. Doan | Attorney | Counsel for Snap, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joshua R. Thane | Attorney | Counsel for Snap, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kelly C. Hunsaker | Attorney | Counsel for Snap, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alia Moses | Chief Judge | Texas Western District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The final recorded order in this case is an administrative ruling excusing two defence attorneys from a scheduled hearing — not a merits judgment. This procedural posture suggests the substantive dispute had already effectively migrated to the transferee court by early January 2024. The order’s narrow scope means no claim construction, invalidity finding, or infringement ruling was issued in W.D. Texas. Both parties’ legal positions on US11049138B2 remain fully open.
US11049138B2 — Systems and Methods for Targeted Advertising
US11049138B2 (application number US15/941778) claims systems and methods for targeted advertising — a domain covering the algorithmic selection, delivery, and optimisation of ads based on user data signals. Patents in this space typically protect claim elements such as audience segmentation logic, real-time bidding integration, relevance scoring, and behavioural profiling pipelines. The patent’s grant date places it in a mature phase of the programmatic advertising technology cycle, meaning its claims may read on widely deployed commercial infrastructure.
From a competitive standpoint, a granted patent over targeted advertising systems carries significant leverage against platform operators whose primary revenue model is advertising. Snap derives the majority of its revenue from digital advertising, making US11049138B2 a commercially targeted assertion. Competitors and adjacent adtech vendors — including demand-side platforms, ad networks, and social media companies with ad businesses — should monitor the claim scope and the outcome of the transferred proceedings closely.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US11049138B2?
Any company building or operating targeted advertising infrastructure — including audience segmentation, programmatic delivery, contextual ad serving, or real-time bidding systems — faces potential exposure to the claim family anchored by US11049138B2. This is not limited to social media platforms; adtech vendors, DSPs, SSPs, and publisher monetisation tools could fall within scope depending on claim construction. If your product routes ad impressions based on user profile data, an FTO review is warranted.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full claim landscape around US11049138B2, identify continuation and related applications in the same family, and flag claim language that overlaps with your product architecture. Setting up ongoing claim monitoring ensures you are alerted to any prosecution activity or new assertions before they become a filed complaint. Start with the patent number and let Eureka surface the risk surface in minutes.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11049138B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar targeted advertising patent cases against major tech platforms
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the digital advertising IP landscape
A patent assertion against Snap’s core monetisation infrastructure, even if transferred, carries lasting implications for adtech IP risk.
Targeted advertising patents remain active enforcement tools
US11049138B2 sits in a crowded but commercially vital claim space. Patent assertion entities continue to find traction asserting advertising-method patents against major platforms. Any company operating programmatic, behavioural, or contextual ad systems — not just Snap — should treat this case as a signal to audit their FTO position across similar claim families.
W.D. Texas transfer risk is now a standard defence lever for tech defendants
Following the Federal Circuit’s tightening of transfer standards post-2022, tech defendants with operations in California or Delaware have increasingly succeeded in shifting cases out of W.D. Texas. Snap’s apparent success here is consistent with that trend. Plaintiffs asserting advertising patents against West Coast tech companies should factor in a 6–12 month transfer delay when modelling litigation timelines.
Convergent v Snap — key questions answered
Convergent Assets, LLC sued Snap, Inc. in the Western District of Texas on 10 March 2023, asserting US11049138B2 covering systems and methods for targeted advertising. The case was closed on 31 January 2024 after 327 days, with the basis of termination recorded as a case transfer. No merits ruling was issued in W.D. Texas.
Convergent Assets asserted US11049138B2, a patent covering systems and methods for targeted advertising. The underlying application number is US15/941778. The patent relates to algorithmic ad targeting and delivery technology directly relevant to Snap’s core advertising business.
The public record identifies the basis of termination as a case transfer but does not specify the governing statute or transferee court. Given Snap’s principal place of business in California and the post-2022 Federal Circuit scrutiny of W.D. Texas patent venue, a § 1404(a) transfer motion to the Northern District of California is a plausible but unconfirmed explanation.
Neither party prevailed on the merits in W.D. Texas. The case was transferred rather than dismissed or decided, meaning the underlying infringement claims over US11049138B2 were not adjudicated in that court. The dispute may be continuing in the transferee jurisdiction.
Snap was represented by Haltom & Doan LLP and Winston & Strawn LLP, with named attorneys including Eimeric Reig-Plessis, Jennifer A. H. Doan, Joshua R. Thane, and Kelly C. Hunsaker. Convergent Assets was represented by David R. Bennett of Direction IP Law.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.