Alpha Modus Corp v. Circle K Stores Inc

Case Overview and Background

This patent infringement lawsuit pits Alpha Modus Corp., a publicly traded (NASDAQ: AMOD) technology company, against Circle K Stores Inc., a major operator of convenience store chains. Alpha Modus, which describes itself as a "vertical AI company focused on real-time, in-store shopper engagement," has pivoted from commercializing its own retail technology to a broad patent-licensing and enforcement campaign. This strategy positions it as a patent assertion entity (PAE) in this context, leveraging a portfolio of patents related to in-store AI and analytics. The defendant, Circle K, is a large multinational operator of convenience stores and an operating company that utilizes various retail technologies to manage its stores and engage with customers.

Alpha Modus alleges that Circle K's modern retail systems infringe on five of its U.S. patents. The accused technologies encompass a wide range of Circle K's in-store operations and customer-facing applications, including AI-powered self-checkout systems, in-store analytics using cameras, inventory management software, digital signage, and features within the Circle K mobile app such as mobile checkout and the "Inner Circle" rewards program. The asserted patents claim inventions foundational to these types of AI-driven retail environments:

• U.S. Patent 10,360,571: A method for monitoring and analyzing the behavior of people in a specific location using information monitoring devices.
• U.S. Patent 12,423,718: A system for providing customer assistance in a retail store.
• U.S. Patent 11,301,880: A method and system for providing personalized advertisements to a customer in a retail store.
• U.S. Patent 12,026,731: A system for using augmented reality to provide product information in a retail setting.
• U.S. Patent 11,042,890: A method for managing inventory in a retail store using real-time data.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, a prominent figure who oversees one of the largest patent dockets in the nation. This venue is historically significant in patent litigation, known for its specific patent rules and experience in handling complex infringement cases, making it a preferred forum for patent plaintiffs. The lawsuit is notable as it represents a key filing in Alpha Modus's systematic, multi-front patent enforcement campaign against the retail sector, which the company announced has already involved 24 lawsuits and resulted in six early settlements. The case highlights a broader industry trend of litigation targeting the adoption of AI, computer vision, and data analytics in physical retail environments.

Legal Developments & Case 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 currently limited to the initial filing, as substantive responses and parallel administrative challenges have not yet materialized on the public record.

Chronological Developments

• 2026-04-23: Complaint Filed
  Alpha Modus Corp. filed its patent infringement complaint against Circle K Stores Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case 2:26-cv-00335). The filing is part of what Alpha Modus describes as a "second phase" in its broad patent enforcement campaign, which has already seen 24 lawsuits filed against various retailers and technology companies. The complaint accuses a range of Circle K's in-store technologies—from AI-powered self-checkout and analytics to its mobile app—of infringing five U.S. patents.

• Present Status: Awaiting Defendant's Response
  The case is currently pending Circle K's first responsive pleading. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant typically has 21 days to respond to a complaint after service. This deadline is imminent, and Circle K is expected to file either an answer to the complaint or a pre-trial motion, such as a motion to dismiss or a motion to transfer venue. As of today, no counsel has formally appeared for Circle K, and no response has been filed on the public docket.

Expected Future Developments & Strategic Considerations

• Answer and Counterclaims: Circle K is expected to deny infringement and assert that Alpha Modus's patents are invalid as a standard defensive pleading.
• Motion to Transfer Venue: A common early-stage motion in the Eastern District of Texas is a motion to transfer the case to a more convenient forum. Circle K may argue that the case has a more substantial connection to another district where its U.S. operations are headquartered, witnesses are located, or evidence is stored.
• Motion to Stay Pending IPR: A significant strategic move for defendants in Alpha Modus's campaign could be to challenge the validity of the asserted patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). If inter partes review (IPR) petitions are filed and instituted, the district court case against Circle K could be stayed (paused) pending the outcome of the PTAB's review. This is a common defense tactic used to gain leverage and potentially invalidate patents in a specialized, lower-cost forum before proceeding with expensive district court litigation.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

As of today, a search of the USPTO's PTAB databases reveals no currently pending or concluded IPR or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings filed against the five patents asserted against Circle K (U.S. Patent Nos. 10,360,571; 12,423,718; 11,301,880; 12,026,731; and 11,042,890).

However, given Alpha Modus's extensive litigation campaign involving over two dozen defendants, it is highly probable that one or more of the accused infringers will file IPR petitions against the patents. In a similar, since-settled case, the defendant's hiring of a law firm known for its PTAB practice suggested that an administrative challenge was being considered. The outcome of any such future PTAB proceeding would have a significant impact on this case and all other cases in Alpha Modus's campaign.

Outcome and Present Posture

The case is active and open. There has been no settlement, dismissal, or judgment. Alpha Modus has publicly stated its "structured and disciplined approach to intellectual property enforcement" and has settled at least six of its earlier lawsuits. This history suggests that an early business resolution is a possible outcome, but the company has also expressed its readiness to litigate "through every stage of the process." The immediate future of the litigation hinges on the defensive strategy Circle K chooses to employ in its forthcoming response.

Plaintiff Representatives

Based on the initial complaint filed on April 23, 2026, Alpha Modus Corp. has retained a combination of national and local counsel known for their work in patent litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas.

---

Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC

This Wilmington, Delaware-based firm appears to be serving as lead national counsel for Alpha Modus in its broader patent enforcement campaign.

• Stamatios "Stam" Stamoulis - Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Experience: Stamoulis has over two decades of experience in intellectual property law and has litigated patent cases nationwide, including in the Eastern District of Texas. His firm specializes in representing patent owners in complex infringement disputes.

• Richard C. Weinblatt - Of Counsel

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Experience: Weinblatt is a registered patent attorney with extensive experience in patent litigation. His firm notes it has handled over 2,000 cases and its attorneys have combined experience of over 40 years.

---

Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry PLLC)

This well-known Longview, Texas firm is serving as local counsel. The firm has a long history and a national reputation for trial work in the Eastern District of Texas, particularly in high-stakes patent cases. In 2024, the firm was renamed Miller Fair Henry PLLC, though it continues at the same location with much of the same team.

• Johnny Ward - Local Counsel

  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX)
  • Experience: A founder of the firm, Johnny Ward is a highly respected East Texas trial lawyer with a long track record of success in major patent infringement cases.

• T. John Ward - Local Counsel

  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX)
  • Experience: A former U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, he is a nationally recognized expert in patent litigation and now serves as of counsel, focusing on patent and complex commercial cases.

---

Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C.

This Tyler, Texas-based boutique litigation firm is also serving as local counsel. The firm was founded by a former federal judge and regularly assists national law firms in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Christopher P. "Chris" Hanba - Local Counsel
  • Firm: Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C. (Tyler, TX)
  • Experience: Hanba's signature appears on the original complaint filed in the case. The firm has extensive patent litigation experience, handling disputes across a wide range of technologies.

Defendant Counsel for Circle K Stores Inc.

As of May 14, 2026, no outside counsel has formally appeared on the public docket to represent Circle K Stores Inc. in this litigation.

The case was filed on April 23, 2026, and a summons was issued the same day. Circle K's deadline to file a response to the complaint—typically an answer or a motion to dismiss—has not yet passed, and it is common for counsel to file their notice of appearance concurrently with that first responsive pleading.

Given the nature of the case and the defendant, it is expected that Circle K will be represented by a national law firm with a significant patent litigation practice, along with local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas. However, until a formal notice of appearance is filed with the court, the specific attorneys and firms remain unconfirmed.