Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Brookshire Grocery Co.

Case Overview and Background

Parties and Accused Technology
This litigation involved Plaintiff Alpha Modus, Corp., a subsidiary of the publicly-traded Alpha Modus Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMOD), against Defendant Brookshire Grocery Co. Alpha Modus describes itself as a "vertical AI company" that develops and licenses technologies for real-time, in-store shopper engagement. While it has commercial products and partnerships, its recent public strategy heavily emphasizes monetizing its patent portfolio through enforcement actions. The company has filed over 20 such lawsuits, leading some to characterize it as a patent assertion entity, though its CEO insists it is an innovator protecting its inventions. The defendant, Brookshire Grocery Co., is a family-owned regional supermarket operator based in Tyler, Texas, with over 200 stores under various brands across several states. The lawsuit alleged that Brookshire's use of in-store technologies for real-time consumer behavior analysis, digital advertising, and AI-driven customer engagement infringed Alpha Modus's patents.

Asserted Patent and Procedural Posture
The lawsuit centered on U.S. Patent No. 11,042,890, though some reports indicate a broader assertion of up to five patents may have been involved. The '890 patent, titled "System and method for analysis of data in a retail store," generally covers systems that use sensors to collect data on shopper interactions with products and use that data to make marketing or operational decisions. Alpha Modus has asserted this and related patents against numerous other retailers, including Lowe's and Circle K. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue long known for its experience with patent cases and rules favorable to patent plaintiffs, which has recently seen a resurgence as the nation's top district for patent litigation. The case was designated 2:24-cv-00919 and was filed on November 12, 2024. The litigation was short-lived, concluding on March 6, 2026, when the parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice, indicating a settlement had been reached.

Notability and Industry Context
The case is notable as part of a broad, systematic, and ongoing patent assertion campaign by Alpha Modus targeting the retail technology sector. The company's CEO has publicly stated an intent to sue a large number of retailers, integrators, and technology providers who deploy modern in-store analytics and engagement systems. This strategy positions Alpha Modus as a key intellectual property holder in the rapidly growing retail media and AI-driven commerce space. The quick settlement with Brookshire Grocery is consistent with Alpha Modus's reported pattern of resolving cases in early stages. For other companies in the retail industry, this case and the broader Alpha Modus campaign highlight significant intellectual property risk associated with deploying third-party AI and IoT (Internet of Things) platforms for in-store analytics, smart displays, and personalized marketing.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

The litigation between Alpha Modus, Corp. and Brookshire Grocery Co. in the Eastern District of Texas was a short-lived case, characteristic of Alpha Modus's broader patent assertion strategy, which often results in early settlements. The case was resolved before any substantive rulings on the merits or claim construction occurred.

Chronological Developments:

• 2024-11-12: Complaint Filed. Alpha Modus, Corp. filed a patent infringement complaint against Brookshire Grocery Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00919). The complaint alleged that Brookshire's use of in-store analytics and targeted advertising technologies infringed U.S. Patent No. 11,042,890. This filing was part of a large wave of lawsuits Alpha Modus initiated against dozens of retailers and technology providers.

• 2025-01-21: Brookshire's Answer and Counterclaims. Brookshire Grocery Co. filed its Answer to the complaint. In addition to denying infringement, Brookshire asserted counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not infringe the '890 patent and that the patent was invalid for failing to meet the requirements of U.S. patent law, including sections 101 (patentable subject matter), 102 (novelty), 103 (obviousness), and 112 (written description and enablement). This is a standard defensive posture in patent litigation.

• 2025-08-22: Motion to Stay Pending IPR Filed by Defendant. Brookshire filed a motion to stay the district court case pending the outcome of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding it intended to file with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In its motion, Brookshire argued that a stay would conserve judicial and party resources, as a PTAB finding of invalidity would likely dispose of the entire case. Motions to stay are common when a parallel PTAB challenge is initiated, as IPRs offer a faster and often more successful path for defendants to invalidate patent claims.

• 2025-09-15: IPR Petition Filed. As indicated in its motion, a petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,042,890 was filed with the PTAB. While docket information for this specific case does not name the petitioner, the timing aligns with the motion to stay and is consistent with defensive strategies in similar Alpha Modus cases. Other defendants sued by Alpha Modus, such as Lowe's, also filed IPRs against patents in the same family.

• 2026-02-27: Joint Motion to Dismiss Filed. The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss all claims and counterclaims. The filing of a joint motion typically signals that a settlement has been reached between the parties.

• 2026-03-06: Case Terminated. The court granted the parties' joint motion. The case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning Alpha Modus cannot refile the same claim against Brookshire Grocery Co. in the future. The terms of the settlement were not publicly disclosed, which is common in such agreements. The dismissal occurred before the court ruled on the motion to stay and well before the PTAB would have made a decision on whether to institute the IPR. The timing suggests the settlement was likely a strategic business decision by both parties to avoid the continued cost and uncertainty of litigation.

Counsel for Plaintiff Alpha Modus, Corp.

Based on court filings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the following attorneys and law firms appeared as counsel of record for the plaintiff, Alpha Modus, Corp.

• Name: Stamatios "Tom" M. Stamoulis

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Associates LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note on Experience: Tom Stamoulis is a prominent patent litigator known for representing patent assertion entities in districts like Delaware and the Eastern District of Texas.

• Name: Richard C. "Chris" Harris

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Associates LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note on Experience: Chris Harris frequently litigates alongside Tom Stamoulis, representing patent owners in assertion campaigns across the country.

• Name: Justin A. Allen

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Allen & Hightower, LLP (Tyler, TX)
  • Note on Experience: As local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas, Justin Allen provides expertise in local court rules and procedures for out-of-state lead counsel.

• Name: S. Calvin Capshaw

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux, LLP (Gladewater, TX)
  • Note on Experience: Calvin Capshaw is a veteran and highly respected local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas, frequently engaged by both plaintiffs and defendants in patent cases.

Counsel for Defendant Brookshire Grocery Co.

Representation for the defendant, Brookshire Grocery Co., was handled by attorneys from the Tyler, Texas-based law firm Potter Minton, a firm well-recognized for its extensive experience in patent litigation within the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Name	Firm	Location	Role	Notability
Michael E. "Mike" Jones	Potter Minton, P.C.	Tyler, TX	Lead Counsel	A veteran trial lawyer with decades of experience who has been designated a "go-to" attorney for Fortune 500 companies in intellectual property litigation.
Allen F. Gardner	Potter Minton, P.C.	Tyler, TX	Of Counsel	An experienced litigator repeatedly named a Texas Super Lawyer for intellectual property litigation; he was a shareholder at Potter Minton during the case.