Alpha Modus, Corp. et al. v. Cooler Screens, Inc.

Case Overview and Background

This patent infringement lawsuit represents a key battleground in the rapidly evolving retail technology sector, pitting a prolific patent assertor against an innovator in in-store digital advertising. Plaintiff Alpha Modus, Corp., a subsidiary of the publicly-traded Alpha Modus Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMOD), is a technology company that has pivoted from a retail-tech operator to a patent-assertion business focused on monetizing its intellectual property. Initially a software and data-as-a-service provider, Alpha Modus now focuses on licensing and enforcing its patent portfolio, which it claims covers foundational methods for capturing and using consumer and product interaction data inside physical stores. The defendant, Cooler Screens, Inc., is a well-funded technology and in-store media company that replaces traditional glass cooler and freezer doors in retail stores with IoT-enabled digital smart screens. These screens serve as a point-of-sale merchandising and advertising platform, displaying product information, promotions, and dynamic ads based on contextual data like time of day, weather, and nearby products, rather than personal identity.

The lawsuit, filed on August 21, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, accuses Cooler Screens' technology of infringing at least U.S. Patent No. 10,360,571. The '571 patent, titled "Method for monitoring and analyzing behavior and uses thereof," generally covers a system using monitoring devices (like cameras and sensors) to gather information about a person's behavior in a specific location, analyze it in real-time, and use that analysis to drive engagement or sales. Alpha Modus alleges that Cooler Screens' digital doors—which use cameras and sensors to detect consumer presence and serve contextual ads—practice the methods claimed in its patent. The case is assigned to Judge Jorge L. Alonso. The choice of the Northern District of Illinois is significant; it is a popular venue for patent litigation, particularly "Schedule A" cases against online sellers, and Cooler Screens itself is headquartered in Chicago.

This case is notable for several reasons. It is part of a much broader, aggressive litigation campaign by Alpha Modus, which has filed over 20 lawsuits against major retailers and technology providers, signaling a strategic effort to monetize its patents across the entire retail AI and digital signage ecosystem. The suit directly against Cooler Screens followed prior settlements Alpha Modus secured with major retailers Kroger and Walgreens over their use of the very same Cooler Screens technology. This pattern of suing customers to apply pressure on the technology provider is a common tactic in patent assertion. The litigation also unfolds against the backdrop of a separate, high-profile contract dispute between Cooler Screens and Walgreens, where the retailer ultimately removed the digital doors from its stores amid claims of technical glitches and a soured partnership. The outcome of this case could have a significant impact on the burgeoning in-store retail media market, potentially forcing a key player to license technology that underpins its business model or face an injunction.

As of May 8, 2026, the patent infringement litigation between Alpha Modus and Cooler Screens remains in its early stages. Key developments have been limited to the initial filings, with no significant pre-trial motions, claim construction, or trial events having taken place.

Filing & Initial Pleadings (2025)

• 2025-08-21: Complaint Filed
  Alpha Modus, Corp. and Alpha Modus Holdings Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Cooler Screens, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case was assigned case number 1:25-cv-10004 and Judge Jorge L. Alonso.

  The complaint alleged that Cooler Screens' digital smart display systems, used in retail stores, infringe on several Alpha Modus patents related to in-store consumer engagement, analytics, and data-driven retail technologies. The patents-in-suit included U.S. Patent Nos. 10,360,571, 10,977,672, and 11,042,890.

  This lawsuit followed prior confidential settlements Alpha Modus had reached with major retailers Kroger and Walgreens concerning their use of the same Cooler Screens technology.

Case Status (as of April 2026)

• Present Posture: Initial Pleading Stage
  According to an Annual Report on Form 10-K filed by Alpha Modus Holdings, Inc. with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on March 31, 2026, and attached to a prospectus on April 14, 2026, the case against Cooler Screens was still "in its initial pleading stage." This indicates that as of early April 2026, the litigation had not progressed to significant events such as substantive motion practice (e.g., motions to dismiss or for summary judgment), a claim construction (Markman) hearing, or trial.

No public record or news reporting indicates further developments such as an answer from Cooler Screens, motions to dismiss or transfer, or a trial schedule. The case is considered ongoing.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

There is no evidence of any inter partes review (IPR) or other post-grant proceedings having been filed by Cooler Screens at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,360,571 or the other patents asserted in this litigation. A review of PTAB records and legal commentary on related Alpha Modus litigation does not show any such parallel challenges initiated by Cooler Screens.

Counsel for Plaintiff Alpha Modus, Corp.

Based on their representation of Alpha Modus in its broader patent enforcement campaign and their established reputation in plaintiff-side patent litigation, the likely counsel of record for the plaintiffs are the attorneys from Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC. While the specific notice of appearance for this case is not available through public web search, SEC filings by Alpha Modus Holdings, Inc. repeatedly reference their litigation strategy, and docket entries from numerous other Alpha Modus patent cases show the following attorneys as lead counsel.

Lead Counsel

• Name: Stamatios "Sam" Stamoulis

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Noteworthy Experience: Co-founder of his firm, he has over 20 years of experience in intellectual property litigation, having previously practiced at O'Melveny & Myers LLP and Fish & Richardson P.C.

• Name: Richard C. Weinblatt

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Noteworthy Experience: A registered patent attorney and co-founder of his firm, he focuses on patent litigation and appeals and formerly practiced at Fish & Richardson, P.C.

There is no public record of local counsel having filed a notice of appearance in the Northern District of Illinois for this case as of the latest available information. Similarly, no in-house counsel for Alpha Modus has formally appeared on the docket. The case remains in the initial pleading stages.

As of May 8, 2026, counsel for the defendant, Cooler Screens, Inc., has not been identified in publicly available records for the patent infringement case Alpha Modus, Corp. et al. v. Cooler Screens, Inc. (1:25-cv-10004) in the Northern District of Illinois.

Counsel for Defendant Cooler Screens, Inc.

Status: No Appearance of Counsel on Public Record

A comprehensive search of court records, legal news databases, and company press releases reveals no notice of appearance or other filings identifying the attorneys or law firm representing Cooler Screens in this matter.

According to an SEC filing by plaintiff Alpha Modus Holdings, Inc. on March 31, 2026, the case was still "in its initial pleading stage." This status, nearly eight months after the initial complaint was filed on August 21, 2025, suggests that Cooler Screens may not have yet filed a responsive pleading, such as an answer or a motion to dismiss, which would require an attorney to formally appear on the docket. It is possible that the defendant has received an extension of time to respond or that any filings related to legal representation have been sealed or are otherwise not yet reflected in publicly accessible databases.