Alpha Modus Corp. v. Levi Strauss & Co.

Case Overview and Background

This patent infringement suit is part of a broad, multi-front litigation campaign by plaintiff Alpha Modus Corp. against the retail technology sector. Alpha Modus, a publicly-traded "vertical AI company" (NASDAQ: AMOD), functions as a patent assertion entity, monetizing a portfolio of patents related to in-store analytics, artificial intelligence, and consumer behavior tracking. The company has filed dozens of similar lawsuits against major retailers and technology vendors. The defendant, Levi Strauss & Co., is a major global apparel company and an operating entity known for its denim wear. The lawsuit alleges that Levi Strauss & Co. uses in-store and online retail technologies that infringe on Alpha Modus's intellectual property. While the specific accused products are not detailed in available documents, they likely involve systems for inventory management, customer engagement, and data analytics used in Levi's retail operations.

The sole patent asserted in this case is U.S. Patent No. 11,301,880, titled "Method and system for inventory management in a retail store." This patent generally covers systems that use sensors and data analysis to monitor and manage product inventory within a physical retail environment. Alpha Modus has asserted this and related patents against numerous other companies, alleging that modern retail analytics platforms—which track shopper movement, manage inventory in real-time, and deliver personalized marketing—are covered by its inventions. One of Alpha Modus's other lawsuits targets Sensormatic, a retail analytics provider, and names Levi's as one of Sensormatic's customers, suggesting the infringement claims against Levi's may be based on its use of third-party technology.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the case is situated in a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs for its expertise in patent matters and case management procedures that can encourage early settlements. The case is notable not as a standalone dispute but as a key data point in Alpha Modus’s aggressive, large-scale enforcement strategy. The company has publicly stated that litigation is a core part of its business model to "standardize the market" around its technology by converting alleged infringers into licensees. This makes the suit against an iconic brand like Levi Strauss a significant test of its campaign's reach into the mainstream apparel market.

Key Legal Developments and Case Status

As of May 8, 2026, there is no publicly available information detailing specific legal developments in the patent infringement litigation between Alpha Modus Corp. and Levi Strauss & Co. (2:25-cv-01145) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Searches of court records databases, legal news outlets, and patent-specific resources have not yielded docket entries, rulings, or a final outcome for this particular case.

The lack of specific information is common for a case at this stage, particularly if it is part of a larger, ongoing litigation campaign where many actions proceed in parallel. Cases like this often resolve through confidential settlements before significant rulings are made, which would explain the absence of public records regarding motions, claim construction, or trial.

Broader Context of Alpha Modus's Litigation Campaign

The lawsuit is one of dozens filed by Alpha Modus against major retailers and technology providers. The company's stated strategy involves enforcing its patent portfolio to drive licensing deals, and it has successfully reached settlements in several other cases. For example, Alpha Modus announced the resolution of its suit against OptiSigns in November 2025, which involved the same '880 patent asserted against Levi Strauss. It also settled disputes with Walgreens and Kroger.

These settlements suggest a pattern where defendants may prefer to confidentially license the technology rather than engage in costly and protracted litigation, especially before key milestones like a Markman hearing, which defines the scope of the patent claims. Given that Alpha Modus has expressed its intent to continue this "systematic approach," it is likely that the Levi Strauss case is proceeding along a similar track, with litigation being a tool to facilitate licensing negotiations.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

A search for Inter Partes Review (IPR) or other post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for U.S. Patent No. 11,301,880 has yielded no results. This indicates that as of the current date, neither Levi Strauss & Co. nor any other defendant has publicly challenged the validity of this patent at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Defendants in patent litigation often file IPRs as a parallel strategy to invalidate the asserted patent, as the PTAB uses a lower standard of proof than district courts. The absence of such a filing could be a strategic choice or may indicate that the case is in early stages or nearing a private resolution.

Current Status and Outlook

The case remains officially active but without any public record of significant legal milestones. Given Alpha Modus's business model and history of early settlements, the most probable current posture is that the parties are engaged in confidential discussions. It is common for such cases to be dismissed via a joint stipulation once a settlement is reached, often without the terms being made public. Barring a public announcement from either party or a court filing indicating a settlement, the case is presumed to be in the pre-trial phase.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

Based on filings in the case and patterns in parallel litigation, the following attorneys and firms represent the plaintiff, Alpha Modus Corp.

• Stamatios Stamoulis | Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Stamoulis is a veteran patent litigator who frequently represents patent holders in the District of Delaware and the Eastern District of Texas. His firm specializes in representing patent plaintiffs.

• Richard C. Weinblatt | Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Weinblatt has over two decades of experience in intellectual property law, with a focus on patent litigation and appeals before the Federal Circuit. He and Stamoulis co-founded their firm after working at the IP boutique Fish & Richardson, P.C.

• Babatunde (Tunde) O. Alli | Local Counsel

  • Firm: Safe IP PLLC (Dallas, TX)
  • Note: As is required in the Eastern District of Texas, Alpha Modus has retained local counsel. While a specific notice of appearance for this case is not publicly available, Tunde Alli of Safe IP has served as local counsel for Alpha Modus in its other recent patent suits in the district, making his involvement highly probable.

Defendant's Counsel of Record

As of May 8, 2026, searches of publicly accessible court records and legal news databases do not show that counsel has made a formal appearance on behalf of defendant Levi Strauss & Co. in this case. The Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system for the Eastern District of Texas does not have a publicly visible notice of appearance for any defense attorneys in case number 2:25-cv-01145.

This situation is not unusual in the early stages of patent litigation, particularly when a defendant, such as Levi Strauss & Co., is a large corporation that may be evaluating its response strategy. It is probable that Levi Strauss & Co. has retained counsel and is engaged in pre-filing discussions or settlement negotiations with Alpha Modus Corp., but those attorneys have not yet been required to formally appear on the docket.

Based on historical representation in intellectual property matters, it is likely that Levi Strauss & Co. will be represented by a national law firm with a strong patent litigation practice. Levi's has previously turned to firms like Morrison & Foerster for complex IP disputes. The company’s internal legal department, led by General Counsel David Jedrzejek, would oversee the litigation strategy.

Until a notice of appearance or another official document is filed with the court, the specific attorneys representing Levi Strauss & Co. in this matter remain unconfirmed.