Alpha Modus Corp. v. Best Buy Co., Inc.

Case Overview & Background

This patent infringement case is part of a broad, ongoing assertion campaign by Alpha Modus Corp., a subsidiary of the publicly-traded Alpha Modus Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMOD), against numerous players in the retail sector. Alpha Modus, which describes itself as a "vertical AI company focused on real-time, in-store shopper engagement," began as a software-as-a-service provider before shifting its business model to focus on enforcing its growing patent portfolio. Public statements from its CEO and SEC filings indicate a strategic decision to monetize its intellectual property through licensing and litigation, positioning the company as an innovator protecting foundational technology rather than a non-practicing entity (NPE). The defendant, Best Buy Co., Inc., is a major multinational retailer of consumer electronics, operating hundreds of stores across North America and generating billions in annual revenue. This litigation represents a clash between a technology-focused patent holder and an established brick-and-mortar retail giant adapting to modern, data-driven sales environments.

The lawsuit alleges that Best Buy's in-store systems, which likely include customer analytics, inventory management, and personalized digital advertising, infringe on Alpha Modus's intellectual property. The single patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 11,301,880, generally relates to systems and methods for tracking consumer interactions with products in a retail environment and providing tailored information or advertisements based on that behavior. According to the complaint, which has not been made publicly available, the '880 patent is part of a larger family of patents that Alpha Modus claims covers the "core infrastructure layer" of modern AI-driven retail. These technologies encompass real-time consumer behavior analysis, AI-powered personalization at the point of purchase, and intelligent inventory systems. Alpha Modus has asserted this patent family against dozens of other retailers, including The Kroger Co., Lowe's, and Circle K, signaling a wide-ranging enforcement effort.

The case is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue that has historically been, and has recently re-emerged as, the most popular district for patent litigation in the United States, particularly for patent assertion entities. The district is known for its experienced patent judges and case management procedures that tend to move cases toward trial relatively quickly, which can create pressure for early settlements. This case has been assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, who handles one of the largest patent dockets in the country and is a key reason for the district's popularity among plaintiffs. The case is notable as it is a key data point in Alpha Modus's large-scale litigation campaign targeting the foundational technologies of the AI-driven retail industry. The outcome of this and parallel cases could have a significant impact on how retailers are able to deploy in-store analytics and personalization technologies. As of May 2026, Alpha Modus has disclosed filing 24 such lawsuits and has reached six early-stage settlements.

Key Legal Developments and Case Outcome

As of May 2026, litigation between Alpha Modus Corp. and Best Buy Co., Inc. remains in its early stages, with limited public information available regarding its specific progress. The case is proceeding alongside a widespread litigation campaign by Alpha Modus against numerous other retailers.

Filing and Initial Pleadings

• 2025-02-08: Complaint Filed
  Alpha Modus Corp. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Best Buy Co., Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,301,880. The case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

• "Initial Pleading Stage" (as of late 2025)
  In a Form 424B3 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Alpha Modus Holdings, Inc. confirmed the filing of the lawsuit against Best Buy and stated that as of December 22, 2025, the case was in its "initial pleading stage". This indicates that the complaint had been served and the case was likely awaiting Best Buy's formal response. Details regarding Best Buy's answer or any counterclaims are not available in the public record.

Substantive Motions and Other Proceedings

• Pre-trial Motions & Claim Construction: There is no publicly available information indicating that any substantive pre-trial motions—such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or for summary judgment—have been filed or ruled upon in this case. Likewise, there is no information to suggest the case has progressed to a Markman hearing for claim construction.

• Parallel PTAB Proceedings: A search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records did not reveal any inter partes review (IPR) or other post-grant proceedings filed by Best Buy Co., Inc. challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,301,880.

Outcome and Present Posture

• Active Status: The case is considered active. There have been no public announcements or court records indicating a settlement, dismissal, or judgment. This specific lawsuit is one of many similar cases filed by Alpha Modus, several of which have ended in early-stage settlements. However, the status of the Best Buy case remains pending.

Given the typical timeline of patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, the case is likely proceeding through discovery. However, without access to the specific court docket, further details on scheduling orders, discovery milestones, or upcoming deadlines cannot be confirmed.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

Based on counsel appearances in other, parallel patent infringement cases filed by Alpha Modus Corp. as part of its broad retail technology litigation campaign, the company consistently retains a combination of national patent litigation counsel and local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas. While the specific notice of appearance for the Best Buy case (2:25-cv-01182) is not publicly available through web searches, the legal teams in these highly similar cases provide a reliable indication of the plaintiff's representation.

Lead Counsel:

• Stamatios "Stamo" Stamoulis (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Mr. Stamoulis is a veteran patent litigator, and his firm is frequently tapped by patent holders to act as lead counsel in infringement campaigns across the country, including in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Richard C. Weinblatt (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: As a named partner of the firm, Mr. Weinblatt has extensive experience in patent litigation and works alongside Mr. Stamoulis in many of the firm's patent assertion cases.

Local Counsel:

• Robert M. Parker (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C. (Tyler, TX)
  • Note: A former Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Parker is a highly respected litigator who founded a boutique firm that frequently serves as local counsel for parties in East Texas federal court.

• Johnny Ward (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX)
  • Note: Mr. Ward is one of the most active and well-known local counsel for patent plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Texas, with a long track record in high-stakes intellectual property disputes.

It must be explicitly stated that while these firms and attorneys represent Alpha Modus in its broader litigation campaign, including numerous cases filed in the same court, their formal appearance in the specific action against Best Buy has not been confirmed through publicly accessible docket records. Alpha Modus has disclosed that its litigation campaign is a core part of its business model, and in SEC filings, it has noted the importance of retaining effective legal counsel for these enforcement actions.

Defendant's Counsel of Record

As of May 8, 2026, no attorneys have filed a formal notice of appearance on behalf of Best Buy Co., Inc. in this case, according to publicly available information. The case was filed on February 8, 2025, and an SEC filing by Alpha Modus confirmed it was still in the "initial pleading stage" as of late December 2025. This posture suggests that Best Buy may have received extensions to file its answer to the complaint, which is a common practice in complex patent litigation.

However, based on counsel in other recent patent infringement cases filed against Best Buy, particularly in Texas federal courts, the company frequently retains a consistent team of national and local counsel. It is therefore likely that some or all of the following attorneys and firms will represent Best Buy in this matter once an appearance is entered.

Likely Lead National Counsel:

• Jason E. Mueller (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Thompson Coburn LLP (Dallas, TX)
  • Note: Mr. Mueller has appeared as lead counsel for Best Buy in other recent patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas, including in Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Best Buy Co., Inc. (5:24-cv-00174). His firm has significant experience defending against non-practicing entities (NPEs) in this venue.

• Lauren Anne Kickel (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Thompson Coburn LLP (Dallas, TX)
  • Note: Ms. Kickel has also appeared alongside Jason Mueller representing Best Buy in recent Eastern District of Texas patent litigation.

Likely Local Counsel:

• Aaron Williams (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Potter Minton, P.C. (Tyler, TX)
  • Note: Mr. Williams and his firm frequently serve as local counsel for major corporations in the Eastern District of Texas, including appearing for Best Buy in the Fall Line Patents case. The firm has handled hundreds of patent cases in the district.

It must be explicitly stated that while these attorneys have represented Best Buy in highly similar, recent patent cases in the same court, their formal appearance in Alpha Modus Corp. v. Best Buy Co., Inc. (2:25-cv-01182) has not yet been confirmed through publicly accessible docket records. No responsive pleadings or notices of appearance from Best Buy's counsel were found in web-based searches of court records.