DCT
6:23-cv-00181
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 asserted based on Defendant Snap Inc. having a regular and established place of business in the Western District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Snapchat Ads platform infringes a patent related to systems and methods for targeted advertising that use social networking activity and user browsing behavior to generate relevant recommendations.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue is in the field of online behavioral advertising, where user data from social media and other online activities is analyzed to deliver more personalized and effective advertisements.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer and claims priority through a long chain of continuation and provisional applications, indicating a protracted 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 Patent Priority Date (Prov. App. No. 60/910,581) |
| 2021-06-29 | U.S. Patent No. 11,049,138 Issues |
| 2023-03-10 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11049138 (“Systems and Methods for Targeted Advertising”), issued June 29, 2021.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a deficiency in prior art advertising systems where advertisements are selected based on simple keyword matches on a webpage a user is currently viewing. This approach, the patent contends, often fails to align with the user's actual current preferences or interests (’138 Patent, col. 1:46-50).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more sophisticated method for generating targeted ads by first mining "social-network data" to create "relationship data" that identifies associations between words, categories, and assets (’138 Patent, Abstract). This system then analyzes a target user's "browse information," identifies words from that browsing activity, and uses the pre-established relationship data to find related concepts and associated advertisements, which are then provided to the user (’138 Patent, col. 2:12-42). A key aspect is the use of factors like recency and frequency to weight these relationships, aiming for more timely and relevant ad delivery.
- Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from purely contextual advertising to a more complex model that leverages the rich, dynamic data generated by user interactions on social networks to infer interests.
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 from content associated with social networking activity, such as a user post.
- Generating second data that indicates an association between words from the first data, where the association’s degree corresponds to a ranking based on the recency of the content.
- Identifying, on a computing system: (1) a word from a target user's browse information, (2) a second, related word determined from the recency-ranked second data, and (3) a content item (e.g., an ad) with a keyword corresponding to that second word.
- Providing a portion of that content item from a data repository to the user's device.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies "Snapchat Ads" as the Accused Instrumentality (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- Snapchat Ads is described as a self-serve platform that allows advertisers to deliver targeted advertisements to users of the Snapchat application (Compl. ¶12). The complaint alleges that the platform analyzes user-generated content, such as public stories, to identify user interests and behaviors (Compl. ¶13). It is further alleged that the platform uses this information, as well as data from user activity on and off Snapchat, to serve relevant ads (Compl. ¶¶12-13, 15). The complaint includes a screenshot from Snap’s help documentation describing how content is categorized and labeled with keywords (e.g., "puppy") to understand user preferences. This screenshot is from an article titled "Understanding Content & User Preferences" (Compl. p. 5, ¶13).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’138 Patent Infringement Allegations
| 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 allegedly analyzes the content of users' public stories on the Snapchat platform to identify words, which are used to understand user interests and behaviors. | ¶13 | col. 24:1-4 |
| 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 topics by analyzing recently posted user content, thereby creating associations between keywords and ranking them such that more recent associations are prioritized over older ones. A supporting visual shows "Top Trends for Last Week" on Snapchat (Compl. p. 11, ¶14). | ¶14 | col. 24:5-13 |
| 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 | Snapchat allegedly collects user "browsing data" and compares it with the user's recent story activity to identify interests. Advertisers then target these interests by creating ad campaigns with related keywords, which Snapchat matches to users. A screenshot titled "Snapchat Ads Targeting" is provided (Compl. p. 12, ¶15). | ¶15 | col. 24:30-38 |
| and providing a portion of the content item retrieved from a data repository to the target user device. | The Snapchat Ads platform allegedly delivers the identified relevant advertisements (the "content item"), which are stored on Snapchat's servers (the "data repository"), to the target user's device. | ¶16 | col. 24:39-42 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be the proper construction of "ranking based on a recency of the content." The complaint equates this with identifying "trending" topics (Compl. ¶14). The question for the court will be whether a general "trending" algorithm meets the specificity of this claim limitation, or if the patent requires a more particular method of weighting and ranking based on time-based factors.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that Snap collects "browsing data" and compares it to recent user stories (Compl. ¶15). The specific technical mechanisms by which Snap's system performs this comparison and determines that a "second word" is "related to the word" from the browse information will be a key factual question. The evidence must show that the accused system performs this multi-step identification process as claimed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "ranking based on a recency of the content"
Context and Importance: This term is a core inventive concept that distinguishes the claimed method from simply matching keywords. The outcome of the case may depend on whether Snap's "trending" algorithm (Compl. ¶14) is found to meet this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be the primary mechanism for prioritizing certain content associations over others.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the plain language of the claim is broad and covers any system where newer content is prioritized over older content when determining associations. The claim itself does not specify a particular mathematical formula for the ranking.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could point to the specification’s discussion of weighting relationships based on how recently words were published (e.g., "More recent relationships may be given greater weight than older relationships") (’138 Patent, col. 8:46-49) or sampling user momentum over specific time windows (col. 18:21-35) to argue that a more complex, calculated weighting is required.
The Term: "browse information"
Context and Importance: The infringement theory depends on Snap identifying a word in the user's "browse information." The scope of this term will define the universe of user activities that can serve as the starting point for infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes this step as "access[ing] browse information of a target user to identify one or more first words" (’138 Patent, col. 2:34-36). This general language, coupled with discussions of "user tracking data" (col. 5:20), could support a construction that includes a wide range of user activities, both within an application and on the broader web.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples of contextual targeting based on the text of "an email or a web page" a user is currently accessing (’138 Patent, col. 15:35-39). A party could argue this context suggests "browse information" is limited to more traditional web browsing history (e.g., URLs) rather than all in-app user interactions.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Snap provides its customers (advertisers) with access to and instructions for the Snapchat Ads platform, with the specific intent that they use it to create targeted campaigns in a manner that performs the steps of the claimed method (Compl. ¶17).
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," which is central to the patent's purported improvement, be construed to cover the functionality of a general-purpose "trending" algorithm as alleged in the complaint, or does the patent’s specification require a more specific, weighted calculation that the accused system may not perform?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical causation: What evidence can be presented to demonstrate that the accused Snapchat Ads system performs the specific, sequential logic of Claim 28—namely, that it generates recency-ranked word associations from user posts and then uses those specific associations to find ads related to a user’s separate browsing activity? The dispute may focus on whether this claimed causal chain exists in Snap's complex advertising ecosystem or if the alleged functions are products of disconnected data models.