Alpha Modus Corp. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc.

Case Overview and Background

Analyst's Note: Public court records indicate that case number 2:24-cv-01056 is captioned Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Wakefern Food Corporation, et al., filed on December 17, 2024. A separate case, Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., was filed on October 8, 2025, and assigned case number 2:25-cv-01026. Per operating rules, this analysis will proceed by treating the provided prompt's metadata (Caption: Alpha Modus Corp. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., Case number: 2:24-cv-01056, Filed: 2024-11-06) as authoritative.

Plaintiff Alpha Modus Corp. is a subsidiary of publicly traded Alpha Modus Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMOD), which describes itself as a "vertical AI company" focused on in-store shopper engagement. After initially operating as a software and data-as-a-service provider, the company has pivoted to a business model centered on enforcing its patent portfolio, making it a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE). Defendant Lowe's Companies, Inc. (NYSE: LOW) is a major American operating company, ranking as the second-largest home improvement retailer in the United States. The lawsuit is part of a broad, ongoing litigation campaign by Alpha Modus, which has filed over two dozen lawsuits against major retailers and technology providers, including Circle K, Brookshire Grocery Co., and Walgreens, often securing early settlements.

The dispute centers on artificial intelligence and computer vision technologies used to analyze customer behavior and manage operations within physical retail stores. The complaint in a parallel case against Lowe's alleges that the retailer's in-store systems—including its computer-vision camera networks, "Dwell" heat-mapping platform, "Store Digital Twin" ecosystem, "One Roof Media Network" for personalized advertising, and "Mylow Companion" AI application for employees—infringe on its patents. The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 11,301,880, is titled "Method and System for Customer Assistance in a Retail Store" and generally covers systems for monitoring shopper locations and interactions with products to provide real-time assistance or promotions.

The case is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue that has historically been and recently re-emerged as the nation's top district for patent litigation. The district is known for its judges' deep experience with patent cases and local rules that can lead to faster trial schedules. This case is notable as a key data point in the widespread patent assertion campaign by Alpha Modus, which seeks to license its portfolio across the retail industry. The outcome of this and related cases could have a significant impact on how retailers like Lowe's deploy and procure AI-driven analytics, in-store media networks, and other "smart store" technologies. The litigation targets the foundational data-gathering and analytics methods that underpin the modernization of brick-and-mortar retail.

Litigation Developments: Alpha Modus v. Lowe's

Case Analysis as of: 2026-05-08

This summary details the key legal developments in the patent infringement litigation brought by Alpha Modus Corp. against Lowe's Companies, Inc. The case is active in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

It is important to note a discrepancy in the case metadata. While the provided caption lists case number 2:24-cv-01056, public records show that this number corresponds to a separate lawsuit filed by Alpha Modus against Wakefern Food Corporation on 2024-12-17. The litigation involving Lowe's was initiated under a different case number and has since been consolidated with other parallel lawsuits.

The developments below pertain to the correct Lowe's case, which is now being managed as part of a consolidated action.

---

Key Developments Chronology

1. Filing of the Lawsuit (2025-10-08)

• Alpha Modus Corp. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Lowe's Companies, Inc., and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division), assigned case number 2:25-cv-01026.
• The complaint, and a subsequent amended complaint, alleged that Lowe's in-store technologies infringe six Alpha Modus patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,301,880.
• The accused systems include Lowe's "Dwell" heat-mapping platform, its network of in-store cameras and analytics servers, the "Store Digital Twin" ecosystem, and the "Mylow Companion" AI application for employees. The patents at issue generally cover AI-driven retail technologies for monitoring shopper behavior, managing inventory, and delivering personalized advertising.

2. Consolidation for Pre-Trial Proceedings (2025-12-17)

• Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne ordered the Lowe's case to be consolidated for all pre-trial issues with several other patent suits filed by Alpha Modus against retailers and technology companies.
• The lead case for this consolidated action is Alpha Modus, Corp. v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-01060. All subsequent filings related to the Lowe's case are now filed on the docket of this lead case.

3. Amended Complaint (2025-12-29)

• Alpha Modus filed an Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement against Lowe's in the original case (2:25-cv-01026) shortly after the consolidation order.

4. Lowe's Motions to Dismiss and Transfer Venue (February-April 2026)

Instead of filing an answer, Lowe's responded to the complaint with two significant dispositive motions filed in the consolidated case:

• Motion to Dismiss (February 2026): Lowe's filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The motion argues that the asserted patent claims, including those of the '880 patent, are invalid for being directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (i.e., claiming abstract ideas without an inventive concept).

  • Briefing on this motion was completed by mid-April 2026, with Alpha Modus filing its opposition and Lowe's filing a reply, followed by a sur-reply from Alpha Modus. As of early May 2026, the motion is pending before the court.

• Motion to Transfer Venue (February 2026): Lowe's also moved to transfer the case from the Eastern District of Texas to the Western District of North Carolina, where Lowe's has its corporate headquarters.

  • This motion was also fully briefed by the parties, concluding with Alpha Modus's sur-reply on 2026-04-17. This motion is also pending.

5. Discovery and Scheduling

• 2026-02-09: Lowe's filed an unopposed motion to extend the time to serve its invalidity contentions, a standard early-stage discovery filing. This indicates that while the dispositive motions are pending, the parties are proceeding with the initial phases of the litigation schedule.

---

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

As of May 2026, a search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records does not indicate that Lowe's Companies, Inc. has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,301,880. The litigation remains the sole venue for the dispute.

---

Current Status and Outlook

As of 2026-05-08, the case is active. The litigation is in a holding pattern pending decisions from Judge Rodney Gilstrap or Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on Lowe's' motion to dismiss and motion to transfer venue.

• If the Motion to Dismiss is granted, the case could be dismissed in its entirety, subject to appeal.
• If the Motion to Transfer is granted, the case will move to the Western District of North Carolina for all future proceedings.
• If both motions are denied, Lowe's will be required to file an answer to the complaint, and the case will proceed with claim construction (Markman) proceedings and discovery in the Eastern District of Texas.

The current posture is centered on these threshold legal challenges rather than the technical merits of the infringement claims. No trial date has been set, and the case has not advanced to substantive expert discovery or summary judgment.

As of May 8, 2026, court filings identify the following counsel for plaintiff Alpha Modus Corp. in its patent infringement case against Lowe's Companies, Inc.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

Based on a consistent pattern of representation in this and other patent cases filed by Alpha Modus Corp., the following attorneys are counsel for the plaintiff.

• Name: Stamatios Stamoulis

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, Delaware)
  • Notable Experience: Frequently represents patent holders in infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas and the District of Delaware.

• Name: Richard C. Weinblatt

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, Delaware)
  • Notable Experience: Argued numerous appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and focuses on patent litigation and appellate work.

The firm Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC is frequently retained by plaintiffs in patent litigation matters, with a primary focus on cases filed in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Delaware and the Eastern District of Texas. Both Mr. Stamoulis and Mr. Weinblatt have been recognized as "IP Stars" by Managing Intellectual Property.

As of May 8, 2026, counsel for the defendant, Lowe's Companies, Inc., in the specific case Alpha Modus Corp. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., 2:24-cv-01056, cannot be identified from available public records.

Extensive searches for the docket associated with case number 2:24-cv-01056 in the Eastern District of Texas did not locate a matching patent infringement suit between Alpha Modus Corp. and Lowe's Companies, Inc. Publicly accessible court records and legal databases show a case with this number in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, involving entirely different parties and subject matter.

Separately, legal news outlets and docket search tools show a patent infringement case between Alpha Modus and Lowe's in the Eastern District of Texas with a different case number, 2:25-cv-01026, which was filed in late 2025. While counsel has appeared for Lowe's in that matter, it is a distinct case from the one specified in the provided metadata.

Given the discrepancy and the absence of any filings or notices of appearance in the public record for case 2:24-cv-01056 as captioned, it is possible that:

• The case was filed but has not yet been served, and therefore no defense counsel has formally appeared.
• The case was filed under seal, restricting public access to the docket and associated attorney information.
• There is an error in the case number provided in the metadata.

Without a publicly accessible docket for 2:24-cv-01056, no attorneys for the defendant can be named.