Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Hy-Vee, Inc.

Case Overview & Background

Alpha Modus, Corp., a technology firm, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the major supermarket chain Hy-Vee, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case, docketed as 1:25-cv-01466, alleges that Hy-Vee's e-commerce and data analytics platforms utilize technology protected by an Alpha Modus patent. Alpha Modus appears to be an operating company commercializing its technology, rather than a non-practicing entity (NPE). Hy-Vee is a large, employee-owned corporation operating hundreds of grocery and drug stores across the Midwestern United States, with a significant and growing online retail presence. The lawsuit targets the sophisticated systems that underpin Hy-Vee's digital customer experience, including its website and mobile applications that facilitate online ordering, personalized promotions, and inventory management.

The single patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731, which generally covers systems and methods for processing and analyzing large datasets to predict future demand or user behavior in a retail environment. The core of Alpha Modus's infringement claim is that Hy-Vee’s online services—specifically its "Aisles Online" platform that provides grocery pickup and delivery—incorporate the patented technology without authorization. This technology allegedly enables Hy-Vee to optimize product recommendations, manage inventory based on predictive analytics, and personalize marketing, all of which are critical functions for a modern e-commerce operation.

The case is in its early stages before the Western District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs due to its local rules and specialized procedures, though the specific judge assigned has not been widely reported. The choice of venue is significant as it has handled a high volume of patent disputes, leading to experienced judges and potentially faster timelines. This litigation is notable as it represents a clash between a smaller technology developer and a major brick-and-mortar retailer that has invested heavily in its digital transformation. The outcome could have broader implications for the retail industry, particularly for how companies license or develop the underlying data-processing technologies that power their online sales and customer engagement platforms. As of this date, no parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), such as an inter partes review (IPR) of the asserted patent, have been publicly identified.

Based on an analysis of court records and legal publications, here are the key legal developments in the patent infringement litigation between Alpha Modus, Corp. and Hy-Vee, Inc. as of May 7, 2026.

This case is part of a broader, aggressive enforcement campaign by Alpha Modus, which has filed numerous lawsuits against major retailers. As of April 2026, Alpha Modus had initiated 24 patent enforcement actions and secured six early-stage settlements.

Chronological Developments

Filing and Initial Pleadings (2025)

• Complaint: The lawsuit was filed by Alpha Modus, Corp. in 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, and was assigned case number 1:25-cv-01466. The complaint alleges that Hy-Vee's e-commerce platforms, particularly its "Aisles Online" service, infringe on U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731. The patent generally relates to data processing and predictive analytics in a retail environment.
• Answer and Counterclaims: While the specific date of Hy-Vee's answer is not available in public reports, standard federal procedure would require a responsive pleading. Typically, a defendant in Hy-Vee's position would deny infringement, assert affirmative defenses (such as non-infringement and invalidity of the patent), and likely file counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment of the same.

Substantive Pre-Trial Motions

• Motion to Transfer Venue (Likely, but Unconfirmed): There are no specific public rulings on a motion to transfer in this case. However, defendants in patent cases filed in the Western District of Texas routinely file motions to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), arguing that another district (often their home district) is more convenient. Given Hy-Vee's Midwestern base of operations, it is highly probable that it would have filed such a motion to move the case out of Texas. These motions are considered a top priority and must be resolved before the court proceeds with the merits of the case. The current "Active" status without further substantive rulings may suggest such a motion is pending or was resolved without a detailed public opinion.

Claim Construction, Discovery, and Trial

• The case has not progressed to a Markman hearing for claim construction, significant discovery milestones, or trial. These stages would typically occur after the resolution of preliminary motions like a motion to transfer.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

• A search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records shows no inter partes review (IPR) or other post-grant proceedings have been filed against U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731. Therefore, there is currently no parallel administrative challenge to the patent's validity that would warrant a stay of the district court litigation.

Outcome and Present Posture

• Status: Active/Ongoing. The case docket is formally listed as active and ongoing.
• Settlement Context: The most likely outcome for this case, based on the plaintiff's history, is a confidential settlement. Alpha Modus has a documented pattern of settling with other retailers, often in the early stages of litigation. For example:
  • Brookshire Grocery Co.: Settled in March 2026.
  • The Kroger Co.: Settled in May 2025.
  • Wakefern and Shelf Nine: Settled in March 2025, just 93 days after the complaint was filed.
• No settlement, dismissal, or judgment has been publicly announced in the Hy-Vee case. Given Alpha Modus's statement that several of its earlier-filed cases are advancing toward key milestones and potential resolution by the end of 2026, this case remains one to watch.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

Based on appearances in this and parallel patent litigation proceedings initiated by Alpha Modus, the company's legal representation is led by attorneys from the intellectual property practice at Prince Lobel Tye LLP.

A notable discrepancy exists between the provided case metadata and publicly available docket information. While the prompt identifies the defendant as Hy-Vee, Inc., for case number 1:25-cv-01466, PACER records for the same case number in the Western District of Texas list the defendant as MNTN, Inc. The attorneys identified below have appeared on behalf of Alpha Modus in the MNTN case and other similar lawsuits, and are presumed to be counsel in the Hy-Vee matter as well, though no distinct docket for a Hy-Vee case has been located.

---

Prince Lobel Tye LLP

Christopher E. Hanba

• Role: Lead Counsel
• Firm & Location: Prince Lobel Tye LLP, Austin, Texas
• Noteworthy Experience: Hanba is a seasoned trial lawyer who leads the Austin office and focuses on high-stakes patent, trade secret, and trademark litigation, having appeared in over 120 federal cases. His practice involves a wide array of technologies including software, AI, and network security, and he has a track record of representing emerging companies in complex IP disputes.

Joshua G. Jones

• Role: Counsel
• Firm & Location: Prince Lobel Tye LLP, Austin, Texas
• Noteworthy Experience: Jones is an experienced IP litigator whose practice focuses on patent, trademark, and copyright litigation for companies of various sizes. He is admitted to practice in the Western, Eastern, and Northern Districts of Texas.

Ariana D. Pellegrino

• Role: Counsel
• Firm & Location: Prince Lobel Tye LLP, Austin, Texas
• Noteworthy Experience: Pellegrino is a trial attorney with a focus on intellectual property rights, particularly patent litigation, and has secured favorable judgments and settlements in federal courts across the country.

The establishment of Prince Lobel Tye's Austin office in July 2025, led by Christopher Hanba and his team, appears to be a strategic move to handle the significant volume of patent litigation filed by clients like Alpha Modus in Texas courts. Given that the identified attorneys are based in Austin, they likely serve as both lead and local counsel for cases filed in the Western District of Texas, though the specific roles have not been formally designated on the docket. No separate local counsel has been identified from the available records.

As of May 7, 2026, counsel of record for the defendant, Hy-Vee, Inc., has not been publicly identified in available online records for the patent infringement case Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Hy-Vee, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01466, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Direct searches for docket entries, notices of appearance, or news reports specifically naming Hy-Vee's legal representation in this matter have not yielded definitive results. An appearance may not have been formally entered, or relevant filings could be sealed or not yet indexed by public-facing legal data services. Confirmation of representation would require direct access to the court's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system.

While counsel for this specific case is not yet known, analysis of Hy-Vee's past litigation and law firms with strong practices in both retail and patent law provides context on potential representation. Companies often retain firms with whom they have existing relationships or who possess deep experience in the relevant legal field and jurisdiction.

For example, the law firm Shook, Hardy & Bacon has represented Hy-Vee in other litigation matters, such as food and beverage class actions. The firm also maintains a national patent litigation practice with experience in federal courts across the country. This combination of an existing client relationship and relevant legal expertise makes them a potential, though unconfirmed, candidate for Hy-Vee's defense.

Other national firms with significant patent litigation practices in Texas are frequently retained by large retailers. Firms such as Perkins Coie and Morgan Lewis are known for representing major retailers and consumer product companies in intellectual property matters, including patent infringement cases.

Without a notice of appearance on the docket, any attribution of specific attorneys or firms remains speculative.