Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Meijer, Inc.

This patent infringement lawsuit is part of a broad litigation campaign by Alpha Modus, Corp. against the retail industry. The plaintiff, Alpha Modus (NASDAQ: AMOD), is a technology company describing itself as a "vertical AI company focused on real-time, in-store shopper engagement and attribution." While it develops and licenses its own AI-driven retail technologies, it has also become a prolific patent asserter, filing dozens of lawsuits against major retailers and technology providers. The defendant, Meijer, Inc., is a large, privately-owned, family-operated supercenter chain with over 500 stores throughout the Midwest. The lawsuit accuses Meijer of infringing Alpha Modus's patents through its use of modern in-store technologies. These allegedly infringing systems include those used for real-time customer analytics, point-of-sale monitoring, personalized advertising, and AI-driven inventory management, which are central to the modern "one-stop shopping" experience Meijer provides.

The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, centers on U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731. This patent, titled "Method for personalized marketing and advertising of retail products," generally covers systems and methods for monitoring and analyzing consumer behavior in a physical location in real-time to deliver targeted engagement and advertising. The selection of the Western District of Texas is significant; the court, particularly under Judge Alan Albright, became the most popular venue in the nation for patent plaintiffs due to its fast-paced dockets and historical reluctance to transfer cases, although a 2022 order has since mandated the random assignment of new patent cases filed in the Waco division.

The lawsuit is notable primarily as a component of Alpha Modus's aggressive, widespread enforcement campaign targeting the retail sector's adoption of AI and data analytics. Alpha Modus has publicly disclosed filing over 24 enforcement actions against companies such as Lowe's, Kroger, Walgreens, and Circle K, with its CEO stating the company "built this platform to scale" its enforcement efforts. This wave of litigation highlights a significant trend of patent assertion focused on the rapidly evolving technologies that underpin modern physical retail, including customer tracking, targeted digital signage, and intelligent inventory systems. The outcomes of these cases, including the one against Meijer, could have a broad impact on how retailers are able to deploy such technologies.

Key Legal Developments and Case Status

As of May 7, 2026, the patent infringement lawsuit between Alpha Modus, Corp. and Meijer, Inc. remains in its early stages. Specific docket entries and filings are not widely available through public legal research portals, indicating that the case has likely not progressed to substantive litigation milestones. The present posture of the case is active and ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

A chronological summary of known and discernible developments follows:

Filing and Initial Pleadings (2025)

• Complaint: Alpha Modus, Corp. filed a patent infringement complaint against Meijer, Inc. in 2025, initiating the lawsuit. The case was assigned the civil action number 1:25-cv-01527. The complaint almost certainly accuses Meijer of infringing U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731, titled "Method for personalized marketing and advertising of retail products." Based on Alpha Modus's litigation campaign, the allegations likely center on Meijer's use of in-store technologies for customer analytics, personalized advertising, and inventory management. The specific filing date in 2025 and the full complaint document are not available from the conducted research.
• Answer and Counterclaims: There is no publicly available information regarding Meijer, Inc.'s answer to the complaint or any counterclaims it may have filed. In typical patent litigation, a defendant's answer is due within 21 days of service of the summons and complaint, or longer if waivers are granted.

Pre-trial Motions, Claim Construction, and Discovery

• Substantive Motions: A search for substantive pre-trial motions, such as motions to dismiss, transfer venue, or stay the case, did not yield any results for this specific litigation. Given that many of Alpha Modus's other lawsuits have been filed in the Eastern District of Texas, a motion to transfer from the Western District would be a plausible but, as yet, unconfirmed development.
• Claim Construction (Markman): The case has not reached the claim construction stage. This phase, where the court determines the legal meaning of patent terms, typically occurs after initial pleadings and discovery.
• Discovery: No significant discovery milestones or disputes have been publicly reported.

Trial, Verdict, and Final Disposition

• The case is not near trial, and no verdict has been issued.
• The final disposition is undetermined. The case is currently designated as "Active/Ongoing." It is plausible the parties could reach a settlement, as Alpha Modus has done in at least six of its other enforcement actions against retailers. For example, Alpha Modus announced settlements with Brookshire Grocery Co. in March 2026 and Mood Media in January 2026, resulting in dismissals with prejudice.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

• A thorough search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records shows no inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) proceedings have been filed specifically challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731. Defendants in Alpha Modus's broader campaign have considered PTAB challenges, but as of this date, none appear to have been instituted against the patent asserted in the Meijer case. The absence of a PTAB challenge means the district court litigation is not currently impacted by a parallel validity review.

Note on Case Number Discrepancy: Publicly accessible court record aggregators show the case number 1:25-cv-01527 assigned to unrelated matters in other federal districts. Additionally, one third-party patent litigation analytics report erroneously associates this case number with a settled lawsuit, Alpha Modus v. Mood Media. Per operating rules, the case metadata provided at the outset is treated as authoritative, establishing this case number for the Alpha Modus v. Meijer litigation in the Western District of Texas. The discrepancies likely stem from clerical errors in the third-party databases.

Counsel for Plaintiff Alpha Modus, Corp.

As of May 7, 2026, no attorneys have formally filed a notice of appearance for the plaintiff, Alpha Modus, Corp., in the specific case Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Meijer, Inc., 1:25-cv-01527, according to publicly available records. The case remains in a very early stage, and docket information is not widely accessible.

However, based on Alpha Modus's extensive and consistent litigation campaign against other retailers, it is highly probable that the company is represented by the same legal team that has appeared in its other recent patent infringement lawsuits. This team is composed of attorneys from several firms known for handling patent litigation.

The likely counsel for Alpha Modus are:

• Firm: Dickinson Wright PLLC

  • Christopher E. Hanba (Role: Lead Counsel): A Member in the firm's Troy, Michigan office. Hanba is an intellectual property litigator who has represented Alpha Modus in numerous other cases.
  • Joshua G. Jones (Role: Counsel): A Member based in the firm's Austin, Texas office. He has appeared for Alpha Modus in its other Texas-based lawsuits.
  • Ariana D. Pellegrino (Role: Counsel): An associate in the firm's Troy, Michigan office specializing in intellectual property litigation.
  • Jordan E. Garsson (Role: Counsel): An associate in Dickinson Wright's intellectual property practice.

• Firm: The Dacus Firm, PC

  • Deron R. Dacus (Role: Lead Counsel / Local Counsel): The firm's principal in Tyler, Texas. Dacus is a veteran East Texas trial lawyer with extensive experience in patent litigation and has represented Alpha Modus in its other cases filed in Texas.

• Firm: Haltom & Doan

  • Joshua R. Thane (Role: Local Counsel): A partner at the Texarkana, Texas firm. Thane has served as local counsel for Alpha Modus in its Eastern District of Texas litigation.

This legal team composition is evident from the docket of parallel litigation, such as Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Brookshire Grocery Co. (2:24-cv-00919) in the Eastern District of Texas, where attorneys from Dickinson Wright, The Dacus Firm, and Haltom & Doan all appeared on behalf of Alpha Modus. The repeated use of this lineup across its numerous lawsuits against retailers suggests they form the core of Alpha Modus's enforcement effort.

Counsel for Defendant Meijer, Inc. Not Yet Publicly Available

As of May 7, 2026, counsel of record for the defendant, Meijer, Inc., in the patent infringement case Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Meijer, Inc. (1:25-cv-01527, W.D. Tex.) has not been publicly identified.

A search of court records, including the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) service, and legal news outlets reveals no docket entries indicating that Meijer has formally appeared or filed an answer to the complaint. In federal court, a defendant's counsel is officially identified upon filing a notice of appearance or an initial responsive pleading. Given the case was filed in 2025 and is in its early stages, it is likely that service of process is still underway or has only recently been completed. Until Meijer's legal team makes its first filing, the specific attorneys and their law firms will not be listed on the court's official docket.

Note on Case Number Discrepancy: It is important to reiterate a discrepancy noted in prior research. Some third-party litigation databases have erroneously associated case number 1:25-cv-01527 with a separate, settled lawsuit, Alpha Modus v. Mood Media. Per the operating rules for this analysis, the provided case metadata identifying the parties as Alpha Modus and Meijer is considered authoritative. However, this data conflict may contribute to the difficulty in finding case-specific documents and attorney appearances.

Likely Representation:

While no counsel has formally appeared, large corporations like Meijer typically retain national law firms with deep expertise in intellectual property and patent litigation. Meijer is headquartered in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and often utilizes law firms from its home state for significant litigation. Leading Michigan-based intellectual property firms that could potentially represent Meijer include Brooks Kushman, Miller Canfield, Honigman, and Fishman Stewart. However, without a formal notice of appearance on the docket, any specific firm's involvement is speculative.