DCT
2:24-cv-00977
Convergent Assets LLC v. Snap Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Convergent Assets LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Snap Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
- Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00181, W.D. Tex., 03/10/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining a regular and established place of business within the district and committing alleged acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Snapchat Ads platform infringes a patent related to methods for targeted advertising based on social networking and user browsing activity.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for delivering relevant digital advertisements by analyzing a user's social media posts and browsing history to infer interests, rather than relying solely on keywords from a single webpage.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer and is a continuation of a series of applications tracing back to a provisional application filed in 2007, indicating a lengthy prosecution history. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or post-grant proceedings involving the patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-04-06 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,049,138 |
| 2021-06-29 | U.S. Patent No. 11,049,138 Issued |
| 2023-03-10 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,049,138 - "Systems and Methods for Targeted Advertising"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a deficiency in prior art targeted advertising systems where ads are selected based on keywords from the specific webpage a user is currently viewing. This approach is described as often failing to "align with the current preferences or interests of the viewer" and may result in uninteresting or duplicative advertisements (’138 Patent, col. 1:47-50, col. 3:23-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more sophisticated method that first obtains "word data" from social network activity (e.g., posts, blogs) to create "word relationships," which are weighted based on factors like recency. It then analyzes a target user's "browse information" to identify words, finds related words within the previously generated relationship data, and provides advertisements corresponding to those related words (’138 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:4-12). This creates a link between a user's broad social media context and their immediate browsing activity to improve ad targeting.
- Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from context-specific keyword matching to a more holistic, user-centric model that leverages the richer data available from social networking platforms to infer user interest over time. (Compl. ¶11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 28 (’138 Patent, Compl. ¶12).
- The essential elements of independent claim 28 are:
- Obtaining first data indicating words in content associated with social networking activity that includes a user post on a social networking site.
- Generating second data indicating an association between first words of the indicated words and indicating a degree of the association, where the degree of association corresponds to a ranking based on a recency of the content, wherein a first ranking of a first degree of association is greater than a second ranking of a second degree of association based on the multiple words related to the first degree of association having a more recent content relationship than the multiple words related to the second degree of association.
- Identifying, at a computing system, a word in browse information of a target user device, a second word determined based on the second data to be related to the word, and a content item having an associated keyword that corresponds to the second word.
- Providing a portion of the content item retrieved from a data repository to the target user device.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "Snapchat Ads" platform (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that Snapchat Ads is a platform for delivering targeted advertisements to users based on their social media activity, such as posting public stories (Compl. ¶12). The system is alleged to analyze words from these stories to identify user interests and behaviors (Compl. ¶13). A screenshot provided in the complaint states the platform allows advertisers to "Reach the Snapchat Generation based on their interests, behaviors, location, and more" (Compl. p. 4). The complaint further alleges the platform uses information about user activities on other services to inform ad targeting, which it characterizes as collecting "browse information" (Compl. ¶15; Compl. p. 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 28) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| obtaining first data indicating words in content associated with social networking activity that includes a user post on a social networking site; | Snapchat Ads analyzes the content of public stories posted by users on its social media platform to identify words that indicate users' interests and behaviors. The complaint includes a screenshot describing how Snapchat categorizes content based on keywords, such as "my cute puppy." (Compl. p. 5). | ¶13 | col. 5:4-12 |
| generating second data indicating an association between first words of the indicated words and indicating a degree of the association, the degree of the association corresponds to a ranking based on a recency of the content...; | Snapchat allegedly identifies "trending" words and phrases based on recent user posts, prioritizing them over older content. This process is alleged to generate "second data" where associations are ranked by recency. A visual in the complaint shows "Top Trends for Last Week," suggesting a recency-based ranking system. (Compl. p. 11). | ¶14 | col. 8:46-53 |
| identifying, at a computing system, a word in browse information of a target user device, a second word determined based on the second data to be related to the word, and a content item having an associated keyword that corresponds to the second word; and | Snapchat is alleged to collect "browse information" from user visits to webpages and compare it with interests derived from recent stories. When a user's inferred interests relate to keywords specified by an advertiser, a relevant ad ("content item") is identified for that user. | ¶15 | col. 2:34-41 |
| providing a portion of the content item retrieved from a data repository to the target user device. | The Snapchat Ads platform delivers the identified advertisements to users. These ads are described as being uploaded by advertisers, stored on Snapchat's servers (a "data repository"), and then provided to target users from those servers. | ¶16 | col. 2:56-59 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the data Snapchat collects from users constitutes "browse information" as contemplated by the patent. The complaint alleges this includes activities on third-party services that share data with Snap (Compl. p. 6), the precise nature of which may be a point of dispute.
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory hinges on whether Snapchat's algorithm for identifying "trending" topics functions as a "ranking based on a recency of the content" as required by the claim. The defense may argue that its "trending" algorithm is more complex and not based on recency alone, raising a question about the functional operation of the accused system versus the specific claim language.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"ranking based on a recency of the content"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the novelty of the claimed method, distinguishing it from simple keyword matching. The dispute will likely focus on whether Snap's algorithm for determining "trending" content, which may incorporate multiple factors, meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the difference between a "trending" score and a pure "recency" rank could be a critical non-infringement argument.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification discusses weighting relationships based on a combination of "frequency or popularity," "recency," and "authority" (’138 Patent, col. 8:37-40). This could support a construction where "based on" means recency is a required factor but not necessarily the sole or primary one.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself explicitly calls out a "ranking based on a recency of the content," without mentioning other factors. The specification also notes, "More recent relationships may be given greater weight than older relationships" (’138 Patent, col. 8:49-51), which could be used to argue that recency must be the determinative component of the ranking.
"browse information"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term dictates the scope of user activity that can satisfy the third step of the claim. The infringement case requires showing that Snap identifies a word from a user's "browse information" to trigger a targeted ad.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the term generally without a specific, limiting definition, referring to "browse information of a target user" and "user tracking data" which can include "data regarding a recent browse or purchase history" (’138 Patent, col. 2:34-35; col. 5:27-35). This may support a construction covering a wide range of user activities.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides examples of a user accessing a "web page or other network resource" and a "user's online browse information or history" (’138 Patent, col. 16:11-12, col. 16:51-52). This could be argued to limit the term to traditional web browsing history, potentially excluding certain in-app activities or data from partner services.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by actively encouraging its customers (advertisers) to use the Snapchat Ads platform in a manner that performs the steps of the claimed method. This is based on allegations that Defendant provides instructions and support for its platform (Compl. ¶17).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not include an explicit allegation of willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "ranking based on a recency of the content" be construed to read on Defendant's algorithm for identifying "trending" topics, which may consider factors beyond simple recency? The outcome of this construction will be pivotal to the infringement analysis.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what evidence will demonstrate that the accused Snapchat Ads system performs the claimed step of identifying a specific "word in browse information" of a user and then uses a "second word" derived from social media analysis to select and serve a targeted advertisement? The complaint outlines a theory, but demonstrating the actual, underlying technical mechanism will be central to the dispute.