Alpha Modus Corp v. Circle K Stores Inc

Case Overview & Background

This patent infringement lawsuit is part of a large-scale litigation campaign initiated by Alpha Modus Corp., a technology company that has pivoted to patent assertion. The plaintiff, Alpha Modus, describes itself as an AI and machine learning innovator but is now primarily engaged in enforcing a portfolio of patents that it alleges cover foundational technologies for modern retail and analytics. The defendant, Circle K Stores Inc., is a major international operator of convenience stores and gas stations, with extensive operations across the United States. Alpha Modus functions as a patent assertion entity (PAE) in this context, leveraging patents developed internally to sue numerous companies across the retail and tech sectors. This case is one of over two dozen similar lawsuits filed by Alpha Modus, targeting a wide array of companies for their use of common in-store and customer-facing technologies.

The lawsuit accuses a broad suite of Circle K's technologies of infringing on five U.S. patents. The accused products and systems include Circle K's AI-powered self-checkout systems (from vendor Mashgin), its in-store analytics cameras, inventory management software (from vendor Relex Solutions), and its customer-facing mobile application, which provides features like mobile checkout, promotional offers, and the "Inner Circle" rewards program. The asserted patents generally relate to systems for data analysis, targeted content delivery, and system monitoring in a networked environment. The specific patents-in-suit are:

• U.S. Patent No. 10,360,571: A system for presenting targeted offers to consumers based on analyzing multiple data sources.
• U.S. Patent No. 11,042,890: A system for monitoring and managing the health of distributed electronic systems.
• U.S. Patent No. 11,301,880: A method for providing personalized digital content to users based on real-time data.
• U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731: A system for dynamically generating and displaying offers on a network of digital signs.
• U.S. Patent No. 12,423,718: A system for managing and presenting location-based offers and reward program information.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division), a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs for its expertise and case management procedures that can be favorable to patent holders. The case is assigned to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap, who handles one of the largest patent dockets in the country. The case's notability stems from its place within Alpha Modus's sweeping enforcement campaign, which has been characterized as a "second wave" of litigation targeting major players in the retail industry. The broad applicability of the asserted patents to common retail technologies means this campaign could have a significant impact on the industry. Furthermore, the sheer number of defendants involved makes it highly probable that one or more will challenge the patents' validity at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a development that would affect all related cases, including this one.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

As of May 14, 2026, the patent infringement litigation between Alpha Modus Corp. and Circle K Stores Inc. is in its earliest stages. Key developments are limited to the initial filing and public announcements, with substantive legal challenges and proceedings yet to occur.

Chronological Developments:

• 2026-04-23: Complaint Filed. Alpha Modus Corp. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Circle K Stores Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case 2:26-cv-00335). The complaint asserts five patents related to AI-driven retail technologies, including consumer behavior analysis, personalized advertising, inventory management, and checkout systems. The case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

• 2026-04-24: Plaintiff Announces Lawsuit. Alpha Modus issued a press release announcing the lawsuit against Circle K. The company characterized the suit as the beginning of a "second phase" in its broader patent enforcement campaign. In the announcement, Alpha Modus CEO William Alessi emphasized a "systematic approach" to enforcement and stated the company was "prepared to pursue it through every stage of the process." The release also noted that Alpha Modus had previously filed 24 patent lawsuits and secured six early-stage settlements.

Current Posture and Outlook:

• Initial Pleadings: The case is in the initial pleading stage. Circle K has not yet filed an answer, counterclaims, or any pre-trial motions. As of today, no counsel has formally appeared for the defendant on the docket.

• Parallel PTAB Proceedings: A search of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records reveals no Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) petitions filed by Circle K against the five asserted patents (U.S. Patents 10,360,571; 12,423,718; 11,301,880; 12,026,731; 11,042,890). This is not unexpected, as defendants often wait until later in a district court case to launch a parallel validity challenge at the PTAB.

• No Further Substantive Activity: There have been no motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay. The case has not progressed to claim construction (Markman hearing), significant discovery, trial, or final disposition.

The litigation remains active and in its infancy. Given Alpha Modus's public statements about its enforcement strategy and its track record of settling other cases, an early business resolution is a possibility. However, should Circle K choose to litigate, the next steps will likely involve filing an answer and counterclaims, followed by potential motions to dismiss or transfer the case out of the Eastern District of Texas.

Plaintiff Counsel for Alpha Modus Corp.

Counsel for the plaintiff, Alpha Modus Corp., appeared on the public docket with the filing of the original complaint on April 23, 2026 (Dkt. 1). The legal team comprises attorneys from The Dacus Firm, P.C., a Texas-based intellectual property litigation boutique, and The Falling Forward Law Firm, a firm focused on representing inventors and patent owners.

• Name: Brent E. Dacus

• Role: Lead Attorney

• Firm: The Dacus Firm, P.C. (Tyler, Texas)

• Note: Brent Dacus is a veteran patent litigator in the Eastern District of Texas, frequently representing patent-assertion entities in infringement campaigns.

• Name: Michael J. Staab

• Role: Attorney

• Firm: The Dacus Firm, P.C. (Tyler, Texas)

• Note: Michael Staab has experience in patent litigation across various technologies, representing both plaintiffs and defendants in federal courts.

• Name: Justin A. Allen

• Role: Attorney

• Firm: The Falling Forward Law Firm (Laguna Beach, California)

• Note: Justin Allen's practice focuses on representing inventors and patent owners in litigation and licensing efforts.

Counsel for Defendant Circle K Not Yet on Record

As of May 14, 2026, the defendant, Circle K Stores Inc., has not yet made an appearance in the case, and no attorneys have been formally named as counsel of record on the public docket for Alpha Modus Corp v. Circle K Stores Inc., 2:26-cv-00335, in the Eastern District of Texas.

The complaint was filed on April 23, 2026, and the summons was issued the same day. Typically, a defendant has 21 days after being served with the summons and complaint to file a response, such as an answer or a pre-trial motion. This period can be extended by agreement between the parties or by court order. Given the date, Circle K's deadline to respond is imminent or may have just passed, but delays between a filing and its appearance on the public docket are common.

Until Circle K files its first responsive pleading or a notice of appearance, the identities of its lead, local, and any in-house counsel involved will remain officially undisclosed in the court record. It is standard practice for a large corporation like Circle K to retain both a national law firm with deep patent litigation experience and a local Texas firm familiar with practice in the Eastern District.

Future filings, particularly a notice of appearance or an answer to the complaint, will formally identify the legal representatives for the defendant.