Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Buc-ee's, Ltd.

Case Overview and Background

This lawsuit is part of a broad, multi-front patent enforcement campaign by Alpha Modus, Corp., a technology company that has pivoted to monetizing its intellectual property. The defendant, Buc-ee's, Ltd., is a large, rapidly expanding operator of convenience stores and travel centers, making it a target for patent assertions related to in-store retail technology. The case centers on technologies that analyze customer behavior and personalize marketing within a physical retail environment. While the lawsuit is designated as active, public docket information for this specific case number against Buc-ee's is conflicting, with official SEC filings from Alpha Modus associating this case number with a different defendant.

The plaintiff, Alpha Modus, Corp., is a subsidiary of the publicly-traded Alpha Modus Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMOD). Initially a retail technology operator, the company has shifted its business model to focus on enforcing its patent portfolio, which it describes as covering the "core infrastructure layer" of modern AI-driven retail. This includes technologies for real-time consumer behavior analysis, AI-driven personalization, intelligent inventory systems, and sensor-based checkout. Alpha Modus has filed over two dozen similar lawsuits against a wide range of retailers and technology providers, including Circle K, Lowe's, and The Kroger Co., signaling a systematic and aggressive monetization strategy. The defendant, Buc-ee's, Ltd., is a privately-held chain of exceptionally large convenience stores and travel centers, primarily located in Texas and the southeastern United States. Known for their massive retail footprint, extensive food service operations, and high volume of customer traffic, Buc-ee's stores are sophisticated retail environments that employ various technologies for point-of-sale, inventory management, and customer service.

The lawsuit asserts U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731, titled "Method for personalized marketing and advertising of retail products." This patent generally covers systems and methods for monitoring and analyzing consumer behavior in real-time within a store to deliver engaging digital experiences and drive sales. The technology uses devices like cameras and sensors to gather data on customer demographics and product interactions, which is then analyzed to provide personalized marketing. Although the specific Buc-ee's systems accused of infringement are not detailed in available public documents, they likely involve the company's point-of-sale (POS) systems, food ordering kiosks, and any in-store analytics platforms used to manage inventory and customer flow.

The case is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue long favored by patent plaintiffs for its expertise in patent matters and historically plaintiff-friendly reputation. Cases in this district are frequently assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, who manages one of the largest patent dockets in the country. The case's notability stems from its place within Alpha Modus's broader litigation campaign against the retail sector. This wave of lawsuits targeting major players like Buc-ee's could have a significant impact on the adoption and licensing of AI-driven analytics and customer engagement technologies in physical stores. As of May 2, 2026, no parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings challenging the validity of the '731 patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in connection with this case have been identified. However, it is critical to note a discrepancy in public records: an SEC filing by Alpha Modus lists case number 2:25-cv-01182 as a suit against H&M Fashion USA, Inc., not Buc-ee's, Ltd. This report proceeds based on the provided case caption, but this conflicting information is significant and suggests a potential error in the case metadata.

No Public Record of Legal Developments for Alpha Modus v. Buc-ee's

Despite a thorough search of federal court records, legal news databases, and public company filings, there are no specific legal developments, motions, or outcomes that can be chronologically listed for the case captioned Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Buc-ee's, Ltd., Case No. 2:25-cv-01182. The absence of any public docket or reporting on this specific matter strongly suggests that the case did not proceed in the public record.

This finding is reinforced by the critical discrepancy noted previously: the case number 2:25-cv-01182, assigned to this matter in the prompt, is associated with a different defendant in the plaintiff's own public disclosures. An SEC filing by Alpha Modus Holdings, Inc. identifies a suit with this case number as being filed against H&M Fashion USA, Inc., not Buc-ee's, Ltd. No alternative docket number for litigation between Alpha Modus and Buc-ee's has been identified.

Given this, it is not possible to provide a chronology of proceedings as requested. The case either was never formally prosecuted against Buc-ee's, was filed and immediately sealed or dismissed before any substantive events, or the caption information is incorrect.

Context from Alpha Modus's Broader Litigation Campaign

While no information exists for the Buc-ee's case, the general trajectory of Alpha Modus's extensive litigation campaign provides a clear pattern for how such a case would likely have progressed.

• Systematic Filing and Early Settlements: Alpha Modus is engaged in a "systematic approach" to monetizing its patent portfolio, having filed over two dozen lawsuits against major retailers and technology companies, primarily in the Eastern District of Texas. The company's stated goal is to license its technology, and its strategy has led to a number of early, confidential settlements. As of April 2026, Alpha Modus reported it had reached six such settlements.
• Examples of Resolutions:
  • Kroger Co.: Alpha Modus announced a confidential settlement with Kroger in May 2025, resolving litigation in the Eastern District of Texas over patents related to intelligent retail display systems. The case was subsequently dismissed with prejudice.
  • Brookshire Grocery Co.: In March 2026, Alpha Modus announced it had resolved its patent litigation against Brookshire, also pending in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties moved for dismissal of the case with prejudice.
• Asserted Patent in Other Litigation: U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731, the patent at issue in the Buc-ee's matter, has been asserted by Alpha Modus in other lawsuits, including a case filed in November 2025 against Zara parent company Inditex.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

A search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database reveals no inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) proceedings filed by Buc-ee's, or any other entity, challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731. The absence of a PTAB challenge is consistent with the lack of active, public district court litigation involving this patent against Buc-ee's.

In summary, no public record of legal developments exists for Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Buc-ee's, Ltd. The available evidence indicates the provided case caption or number is incorrect and points to a broader litigation strategy by Alpha Modus that often results in early, non-public resolutions.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

No counsel has formally appeared in the public record for the specific case of Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Buc-ee's, Ltd., as no public docket for this matter has been identified. The case number provided, 2:25-cv-01182, corresponds to litigation filed by Alpha Modus against a different retailer, H&M Fashion USA, Inc., in the same court.

However, based on the consistent legal representation for Alpha Modus across its extensive patent litigation campaign in the Eastern District of Texas, the following attorneys and firms are the counsel of record for Alpha Modus in its parallel cases and would almost certainly have represented the company in any action against Buc-ee's.

---

Lead Counsel

• Name: Jonathan T. Suder

• Role: Lead Counsel

• Firm: Friedman, Suder & Cooke (Fort Worth, TX)

• Notable Experience: Suder is a prominent Texas-based patent litigator who has represented clients in numerous high-stakes intellectual property disputes, often in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas.

• Name: Corby R. Vales

• Role: Lead Counsel

• Firm: Friedman, Suder & Cooke (Fort Worth, TX)

• Notable Experience: Vales has significant experience in complex commercial and intellectual property litigation, frequently appearing alongside Jonathan Suder in patent enforcement campaigns.

• Name: Richard C. ""Ric"" Stark

• Role: Lead Counsel

• Firm: Friedman, Suder & Cooke (New York, NY)

• Notable Experience: Stark is a seasoned patent trial lawyer with a long career that includes serving as a partner at major national firms like Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP before joining Friedman, Suder & Cooke.

Local Counsel

• Name: T. John Ward Jr.

• Role: Local Counsel

• Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX)

• Notable Experience: Ward is a highly respected attorney in the Eastern District of Texas, frequently retained as local counsel for his deep familiarity with the district's judges, rules, and patent case procedures.

• Name: Wesley Hill

• Role: Local Counsel

• Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX)

• Notable Experience: Hill is a partner at one of the most active local firms for patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas and has been recognized as a leading intellectual property litigator.

No Public Record of Counsel for Buc-ee's in Disputed Case

As established in previous sections, public records for the case captioned Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Buc-ee's, Ltd., 2:25-cv-01182 (E.D. Tex.), are not available. The case number is publicly associated with a different defendant in Alpha Modus's own regulatory filings, and no public docket has been identified for litigation between Alpha Modus and Buc-ee's.

Consequently, no attorneys have filed a notice of appearance or made any other filing on behalf of the defendant, Buc-ee's, Ltd., in this matter. A comprehensive search of court records, legal news outlets, and company statements reveals no information regarding legal representation for Buc-ee's in any potential or actual patent dispute with Alpha Modus.

Should the case have been filed and immediately sealed, or settled prior to any responsive pleading from the defendant, counsel would not appear on a public docket. Given the lack of any public record of the case itself, it is not possible to identify the defendant's counsel of record.