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

Case Overview: Alpha Modus Asserts Retail AI Patents Against Lowe's In-Store Technology

In a case with significant implications for the AI-driven retail sector, Alpha Modus, Corp. has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against home improvement giant Lowe's Companies, Inc.. The plaintiff, Alpha Modus, operates as a patent assertion entity, having transitioned from a retail-tech operator to a business model focused on enforcing its portfolio of patents related to in-store consumer analytics and engagement. The defendant, Lowe's, is a major national retailer that has been actively deploying advanced technology in its stores to enhance customer experience and streamline operations. The lawsuit alleges that various in-store systems used by Lowe's, such as its computer vision-powered "Dwell" technology for customer assistance, digital twins of stores for layout optimization, and its retail media network, infringe on Alpha Modus's patented inventions. This case is part of a broader, aggressive enforcement campaign by Alpha Modus, which has filed over two dozen similar lawsuits against other major retailers and technology providers.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, initially asserted six patents, although the authoritative record for U.S. Patent 12,423,718, "Method and system for customer assistance in a retail store," is tied to this case. This patent generally covers systems for monitoring customer behavior in a store and providing assistance. The other patents originally mentioned in press releases and SEC filings relate to technologies for real-time inventory management, personalized in-store advertising, and using behavioral data to engage with shoppers. The choice of the Eastern District of Texas is significant; once the nation's top venue for patent cases, it has recently seen a resurgence in popularity among patent plaintiffs due to its experienced judiciary and reputation for moving cases to trial quickly. This has made it a key battleground for high-stakes patent disputes, though statistics on trial outcomes suggest the "plaintiff-friendly" label is debatable.

The case is notable as it highlights the increasing intersection of artificial intelligence, computer vision, and patent law within the retail industry. Lowe's has publicly detailed its use of sophisticated AI, including NVIDIA's Omniverse for creating "digital twins" of its stores and computer vision to monitor inventory and customer behavior—the very types of systems targeted by the lawsuit. For its part, Alpha Modus, which faces its own financial pressures as a publicly-traded company, has stated its strategy is to systematically license its portfolio across the retail sector. The company has already reached several settlements in its broader campaign. The outcome of this litigation could influence how retailers assess infringement risk when adopting next-generation AI and IoT (Internet of Things) solutions to modernize their physical stores.

Legal Developments & Case Outcome

As of the current date, May 7, 2026, the patent infringement litigation between Alpha Modus and Lowe's is in its early stages. The proceedings have been shaped by Alpha Modus's broader, multi-front legal campaign and a strategic consolidation of cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

Filing, Consolidation, and Initial Pleadings (2025)

• Initial Complaint (2025-10-14): Alpha Modus, Corp. filed its patent infringement complaint against Lowe's Companies, Inc. and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC. The lawsuit, as initially reported, asserted six patents related to AI-driven retail technologies, including systems for inventory management, customer assistance, and personalized advertising. The accused technologies include Lowe's "Dwell" heat-mapping platform, its Store Digital Twin ecosystem, and the "One Roof Media Network," among others.
• Case Consolidation (2025-12-17): In a significant procedural development, Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne ordered this case to be consolidated for all pretrial matters with a lead case, Alpha Modus, Corp. v. [Lead Defendant], Case No. 2:25-cv-01060. This move is consistent with the court's practice of managing multiple lawsuits filed by the same plaintiff asserting overlapping patents against different defendants. All future filings are to be made in the lead case, though each individual case remains active for trial purposes. Note: Some docket aggregators may show a filing date of October 8, 2025, and a different case number (2:25-cv-01026), but the authoritative case number for the patent-in-suit is 2:25-cv-01145, filed October 14, 2025, and assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.
• Amended Complaint (2025-12-29): Following the consolidation, Alpha Modus filed an amended complaint. This is a common step in patent litigation to refine allegations or add patents. In a parallel case against Kroger, Alpha Modus amended its complaint to add patents, including the '718 patent at issue here, indicating an evolving assertion strategy.
• Motion to Dismiss (2025-12-15): Prior to the consolidation order, Lowe's filed a motion to dismiss. The specific grounds for this motion are not detailed in the available search results, but such motions often argue for failure to state a claim (e.g., insufficient detail in infringement allegations) or challenge patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The resolution of this motion would likely occur within the consolidated proceedings.
• Answer Deadline Extended (2026-01-09): The parties agreed to extend the deadline for Lowe's to formally answer the complaint to January 26, 2026.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings (Status Unknown)

A common strategy for defendants in patent litigation is to challenge the validity of the asserted patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) through inter partes review (IPR). An IPR petition allows a party to argue that a patent is invalid based on prior art, using a lower burden of proof than in district court.

There is no public information available from the search results indicating that Lowe's or any other defendant has filed an IPR petition against U.S. Patent 12,423,718. However, given Alpha Modus's extensive litigation campaign against numerous retailers, it is a strategic option that defendants are likely considering. Successful institution of an IPR could lead to a motion to stay the district court case pending the PTAB's final decision.

Current Posture and Expected Developments

As of early May 2026, the case remains in the initial pleading and pretrial stage, governed by the consolidation order. Key upcoming milestones would typically include:

• A ruling on Lowe's motion to dismiss.
• The formal answer and any counterclaims from Lowe's, if not already filed under seal in the lead consolidated case.
• A scheduling order from the court that will set deadlines for fact and expert discovery, claim construction (Markman) briefing, and dispositive motions.

Alpha Modus has a stated strategy of enforcing its portfolio to drive licensing deals and has successfully settled several other lawsuits against retailers and technology companies. The company's CEO, William Alessi, has expressed confidence in their patent position and preparedness to take cases to a verdict if necessary. The resolution of this case will likely depend on the early rulings from the court, the potential for PTAB challenges, and the outcomes of settlement negotiations between the parties.

Plaintiff's Counsel Retained for National Patent Enforcement Campaign

Alpha Modus, Corp. is represented by attorneys from the Boston-based intellectual property and litigation firm Prince Lobel Tye LLP. This firm is counsel for the plaintiff across its broad patent enforcement campaign, which includes more than two dozen lawsuits filed against major retailers and technology companies in various federal courts, with a heavy concentration in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Docket reports and litigation summaries from parallel cases within this campaign consistently show the same team of attorneys appearing on behalf of Alpha Modus. A retail patent litigation report from October 2025 explicitly names Prince Lobel Tye as plaintiff's counsel in the Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc. et al matter. The legal team's repeated appearances in these related, high-stakes patent cases indicate a cohesive strategy for monetizing the Alpha Modus patent portfolio.

The identified counsel of record for Alpha Modus, Corp. are:

• Christopher E. Hanba (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Prince Lobel Tye LLP (Boston, MA)
  • Note: Hanba is a partner whose practice focuses on complex intellectual property litigation, and he is listed on the complaint in several of Alpha Modus's enforcement actions in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Joshua G. Jones (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Prince Lobel Tye LLP (Boston, MA)
  • Note: Jones is a partner at the firm specializing in patent litigation and has filed notices of appearance in multiple Alpha Modus cases, including those against 7-Eleven and Zara.

• Ariana D. Pellegrino (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Prince Lobel Tye LLP (Boston, MA)
  • Note: Pellegrino is an attorney in the firm's intellectual property group and is named on the docket in related patent litigation for an Alpha Modus-affiliated entity.

As of the current date, no local counsel based in Texas has formally filed a notice of appearance on the public docket for this specific case, though it is standard practice and likely to occur as the case proceeds. Similarly, no in-house counsel for Alpha Modus has entered an appearance. The litigation appears to be managed externally by the specialized team at Prince Lobel Tye.

Counsel for Defendant Lowe's Has Not Yet Appeared

As of May 7, 2026, outside counsel for defendants Lowe's Companies, Inc. and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC has not yet filed a notice of appearance on the public docket for this case. The case's status is "Initial pleading stage," which is consistent with the early phase of litigation where the defendant has been served but may not have formally responded or entered an appearance through counsel.

It is standard procedure for defendants to secure representation and for their counsel to file an appearance before or at the time of filing a responsive pleading, such as an answer or a motion to dismiss. Given the filing date of October 14, 2025, the deadline for such a response has likely been subject to extensions, which is common in complex patent litigation.

While no outside firm has been formally retained on the docket, the litigation will be overseen by Lowe's corporate legal department based in Mooresville, North Carolina. The in-house attorneys with primary responsibility for litigation and intellectual property are:

• Name: Juliette Pryor

  • Role: Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer, and Corporate Secretary (In-house)
  • Firm: Lowe's Companies, Inc. (Mooresville, NC)
  • Note: Appointed in May 2023, Pryor oversees all legal, compliance, and risk management functions for the company.

• Name: Erica Irvin

  • Role: Senior Vice President, Commercial and Innovation Law (In-house)
  • Firm: Lowe's Companies, Inc. (Mooresville, NC)
  • Note: Irvin joined Lowe's in 2024 with responsibility for intellectual property, privacy, and legal support for the company's technology organizations.

The specific outside attorneys and their law firm(s) who will serve as trial and local counsel will be identified once their notices of appearance are filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.