Convergent Assets v. Walmart: E-Commerce Patent Suit Ends in Dismissal
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Convergent Assets LLC v. Walmart Inc. |
| Case Number | 4:24-cv-00740 |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas |
| Duration | Aug 2024 – Jul 2025 347 days |
| Outcome | Defendant Win – Dismissed with Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Walmart’s e-commerce and data intelligence infrastructure, algorithmic shopping platforms, big data analytics systems, and walmart.com. |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A patent assertion entity (PAE), also known as a non-practicing entity (NPE), focused on IP monetization.
🛡️ Defendant
The world’s largest retailer with extensive e-commerce infrastructure, data analytics, and digital retail transformation initiatives.
The Patent at Issue
The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 11,049,138 B2 (application number US15/941778), falls within the technology area of data analytics and algorithmic e-commerce systems. It broadly relates to systems and methods for processing consumer data to improve retail sales outcomes.
Accused Products
The complaint targeted Walmart’s e-commerce and data intelligence infrastructure, referencing Walmart’s algorithmic shopping platforms, big data analytics systems, and its consumer-facing retail website (walmart.com).
Legal Representation
- • Plaintiff Convergent Assets LLC: David R. Bennett and Steven Kalberg.
- • Defendant Walmart Inc.: Eric Hugh Findlay and Kelce Steven Wilson of Findlay Craft PC.
Developing similar e-commerce systems?
Check if your retail technology might infringe this or related patents.
Litigation Timeline & Procedural History
The case followed a relatively compressed timeline by Eastern District of Texas standards, resolving in just under a year.
- • August 15, 2024: Complaint filed by Convergent Assets LLC in the Eastern District of Texas.
- • July 28, 2025: Case closed via stipulated dismissal with prejudice.
- • Total Duration: 347 days.
The case was presided over by Chief Judge Sean D. Jordan. No trial occurred, and the matter resolved before reaching the merits phase, consistent with a negotiated exit.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The case was terminated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (c) — a stipulated dismissal with prejudice — covering all claims and counterclaims asserted by both parties. Critically, each party agreed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No damages award was entered, no injunctive relief was issued, and no court ruling on the merits of infringement or validity was rendered.
Verdict Cause Analysis
Because the case resolved by stipulation rather than judicial ruling, no claim construction order, invalidity finding, or infringement determination was made public. The “each party bears its own costs” provision suggests a mutual walk-away framing, common in NPE settlements where confidential terms are not disclosed. The absence of a fee-shifting outcome indicates that a negotiated exit was likely more efficient than pursuing fee recovery under *Octane Fitness*.
Legal Significance
This case does not generate binding precedent. As no merits ruling was issued, U.S. Patent No. 11,049,138 B2 emerges from this litigation with its validity and enforceability legally intact. Convergent Assets retains the patent and could theoretically assert it against other retailers or e-commerce platforms, though the with-prejudice bar applies exclusively to Walmart.
Filing a patent in retail technology?
Learn from this case. Use AI to draft stronger claims that can withstand litigation.
Power Your Patent Strategy with Eureka IP
From novelty searches to patent drafting, Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence.
FTO Analysis
Assess infringement risk
⚠️ Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in e-commerce and retail technology. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View the patent family and related continuation patents
- See which companies are active in data analytics and algorithmic retail patents
- Understand claim construction patterns for e-commerce systems
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Algorithmic e-commerce and data analytics
1 Patent at Issue
US 11,049,138 B2
Continuation Patents
Monitor US15/941778 family
✅ Key Takeaways
For Patent Attorneys
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) forecloses re-assertion against the same defendant.
Search related case law →No merits ruling preserves patent enforceability against third parties.
Explore precedents →Eastern District of Texas remains a preferred NPE venue; expect continued filings targeting retail technology.
View District analytics →Fee-shifting risk under *Octane Fitness* should be assessed early when defending against NPE assertions.
Analyze fee awards →For IP Professionals
Monitor US Patent No. 11,049,138 B2 and related continuations for assertions against other retail and e-commerce defendants.
Track patent family →Confidential settlement terms are presumed; public docket language does not confirm zero financial consideration.
Explore settlement data →For R&D Leaders
Commission FTO studies covering algorithmic recommendation and big data retail patents before product launches.
Start FTO analysis for my product →Design-around strategies should address both issued claims and published continuations in the US15/941778 family.
Try AI patent drafting →Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join thousands of IP professionals using Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyze competitive landscapes.