Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Casey's General Stores, Inc.

Case Overview and Background

This litigation is part of a broad, systematic patent enforcement campaign by Alpha Modus, Corp. against the retail sector, targeting companies that use in-store artificial intelligence and data analytics to engage with customers. The plaintiff, Alpha Modus, Corp., is a publicly traded company that began as a retail technology provider and has since pivoted its business model to focus on monetizing its patent portfolio through litigation and licensing. The defendant, Casey's General Stores, Inc., is a major, publicly-traded operator of over 2,500 convenience stores and gas stations across the Midwestern and Southern United States, known for its prepared foods, including pizza. Casey's, like many modern retailers, utilizes customer-facing technology, including a popular mobile app and the "Casey's Rewards" loyalty program, to engage with its millions of customers.

The lawsuit alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731, which is broadly directed to a "Method for personalized marketing and advertising of retail products." The patent covers systems that monitor consumer behavior in real-time within a physical store to deliver targeted digital content and promotions. While a specific complaint against Casey's has not been publicly identified, Alpha Modus's parallel lawsuits against other retailers like Kroger, Lowe's, and Circle K target a wide range of technologies, including loyalty programs, mobile apps, in-store digital signage, AI-driven analytics, and personalized marketing platforms. It is therefore highly probable that Alpha Modus is accusing Casey's Rewards program, its mobile application, and any in-store systems that analyze customer traffic or personalize promotions of infringing the '731 patent.

The case is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs for its fast trial schedules and juries that are perceived as being plaintiff-friendly. This case is notable primarily as a component of Alpha Modus's aggressive litigation strategy, which the company's CEO has described as a systematic campaign to license a patent portfolio believed to cover the foundational "infrastructure layer" of modern AI-driven retail. The company has filed over two dozen similar lawsuits and has publicly announced its intent to continue pursuing enforcement, making this case a key data point for tracking patent assertion entity (PAE) activity in the rapidly evolving retail technology sector. It is important to note that while the provided case number (2:25-cv-00923) corresponds to an Alpha Modus case in the Eastern District of Texas, public records associate that specific number with The Kroger Co. as the defendant, indicating a possible discrepancy in the case metadata.

Correction of Case Metadata

Initial analysis has revealed a significant discrepancy in the case metadata provided. While the case caption is listed as Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Casey's General Stores, Inc., the assigned case number, 2:25-cv-00923, definitively corresponds to a separate lawsuit filed by the same plaintiff against The Kroger Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

This is confirmed by multiple sources, including:

• An April 14, 2026, Form 10-K filed by Alpha Modus Holdings, Inc. with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which explicitly states: "On August 29, 2025, Alpha Modus filed a patent infringement lawsuit against The Kroger Company...The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00923)..."
• Publicly available litigation data from services like RPX Empower, which lists case number 2:25-cv-00923 as Alpha Modus, Corp. v. The Kroger Co., filed on August 29, 2025, and assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• News reports detailing an amended complaint filed by Alpha Modus against Kroger in the same litigation, citing the -923 docket number.

While some litigation tracking websites do list a case between Alpha Modus and Casey's with the -923 number, the direct evidence from the plaintiff's own SEC filings and detailed docket information services is authoritative.

Consequently, a detailed chronological history of substantive legal developments for Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Casey's General Stores, Inc. cannot be provided as no alternative, correct docket number or specific case filings (such as a complaint or answer) have been located through extensive searches. The litigation is noted as "Active/Ongoing" on some databases, but without a docket, no specific events can be verified.

The remainder of this analysis will focus on the known context of Alpha Modus's litigation campaign and the absence of parallel administrative patent challenges, which would be relevant to any such case.

Key Legal Developments (General Campaign Context)

As of May 7, 2026, no public records of specific legal filings, motions, or court orders for a case between Alpha Modus and Casey's General Stores are available. Alpha Modus has a consistent practice of issuing press releases announcing new infringement lawsuits, as it did with cases against Circle K, H&M, and others. The absence of such a release for a suit against Casey's is noteworthy and may suggest the matter was resolved before a formal complaint was widely publicized or served, or that it was filed without a corresponding announcement.

Many of Alpha Modus's other lawsuits against retailers have followed a pattern of early resolution, often before significant litigation milestones are reached. For example:

• A suit against Brookshire Grocery Co. was resolved and dismissed with prejudice in March 2026.
• Litigation against Mood Media, LLC was dismissed with prejudice in February 2026 after just 145 days.
• Alpha Modus has announced at least six early-stage settlements across its 24 filed enforcement actions as of April 2026.

Given this pattern, it is plausible that the Casey's General Stores matter, if filed, was similarly resolved confidentially at a very early stage. However, without a docket record, this remains speculative. The case's current posture is best described as unconfirmed beyond its listing in some legal analytics databases.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

A thorough search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database reveals no Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings have been filed by Casey's General Stores or any other entity challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731.

The absence of a PTAB challenge is strategically significant. Defendants in Alpha Modus's broader campaign have thus far elected not to use this administrative path to invalidate the asserted patents, including the '731 patent. Instead, defendants appear to be settling early or defending the cases in district court. This indicates that, for now, the validity of the '731 patent has not been formally contested at the USPTO, and there is no parallel PTAB action that could lead to a stay or impact the district court litigation against any defendant, including Casey's.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

NOTE: As detailed in the "Case Overview," public records indicate a discrepancy in the provided case metadata. The case number 2:25-cv-00923, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, lists the defendant as The Kroger Co., not Casey's General Stores, Inc.. The counsel identified below is based on their appearance in the actual case numbered 2:25-cv-00923 and other parallel lawsuits filed by Alpha Modus in the same district, as part of the same litigation campaign. It is highly probable that this same legal team would represent the plaintiff in any action against Casey's General Stores.

Based on docket reports from parallel cases and press releases from Alpha Modus, the following attorney has appeared as lead counsel for the plaintiff:

---

• Name: Christopher E. Hanba
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Prince Lobel Tye LLP, Austin, TX office.
  • Notable Experience: A January 2024 press release announced that Alpha Modus had retained Hanba, then at the firm Dickinson Wright PLLC, to lead its intellectual property enforcement. His current firm profile at Prince Lobel, which he joined in July 2025, notes he has appeared in over 120 IP cases and lists Alpha Modus, Corp. as a representative client.

No other attorneys, including local counsel, are consistently named on the initial complaints filed in Alpha Modus's litigation campaign in the Eastern District of Texas. Therefore, based on currently available public information, only Mr. Hanba has formally appeared for the plaintiff.

Defendant's Counsel of Record

NOTE: The defendant in case number 2:25-cv-00923 is The Kroger Co., not Casey's General Stores, Inc. as stated in the provided case caption. This is confirmed by multiple public records, including a 2025 10-K filing from plaintiff Alpha Modus Holdings, Inc. and various docket reporting services. As such, no counsel has appeared for Casey's General Stores, Inc. in this matter.

As of the current date, counsel for the correct defendant, The Kroger Co., has not been explicitly named in publicly available documents, news reports, or press releases related to this specific case. A definitive identification of counsel requires a direct review of the docket sheet via PACER, which is not available through public web search.

However, based on representation in prior patent litigation, potential counsel can be noted:

• Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP: This firm has a significant history of representing Kroger in major patent disputes. Notably, they secured a victory for Kroger against NexusCard Inc. in a case concerning a loyalty card patent, winning at the district court and successfully defending the judgment at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

  • Noteworthy Attorneys from Past Cases: William P. Atkins (Partner) and Brian Nash (Counsel) led the team in the successful NexusCard litigation. It is plausible, but not confirmed, that Kroger could turn to this established relationship for the current litigation.

• Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP: While not specifically in a patent litigation context, Weil recently acted as a legal advisor for Kroger in a corporate acquisition context in early 2026. This indicates a high-level relationship between the company and the law firm.

Without a notice of appearance or other filing from the docket for case 2:25-cv-00923, any specific identification of attorneys for The Kroger Co. remains unconfirmed.