Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Murphy USA, Inc.

Case Overview and Background

This active patent infringement lawsuit pits Alpha Modus, Corp., a publicly traded firm focused on monetizing its portfolio of artificial intelligence and retail technology patents, against Murphy USA, Inc., a major operator of gas stations and convenience stores. Alpha Modus, which describes itself as a "vertical AI company," has initiated a broad litigation campaign, filing over two dozen lawsuits against a wide array of retailers and technology companies. This pattern of widespread assertion against operating companies positions Alpha Modus as a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE) in practice, a shift from its origins as a retail-tech operator. The defendant, Murphy USA, is a Fortune 500 company operating over 1,700 retail fueling stations across 27 states, often located near Walmart stores.

The lawsuit alleges that Murphy USA's customer engagement and analytics technologies infringe on at least one Alpha Modus patent. The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731, is broadly titled "Method for Personalized Marketing and Advertising." The technology generally covers systems and methods for using in-store sensors and data analysis to provide personalized advertising and manage retail operations. While the specific Murphy USA systems accused of infringement are not detailed in the available public information, Alpha Modus's broader litigation campaign targets retailers' use of technologies like AI-driven personalization at the point of purchase, real-time consumer behavior analysis, and intelligent inventory systems.

The case is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue that has historically been, and has recently resurged as, the most popular district for patent litigation in the United States. The district is known for having judges with deep experience in patent law and a reputation for moving cases toward trial relatively quickly, factors attractive to patent plaintiffs. This case is notable as part of Alpha Modus's aggressive and large-scale enforcement campaign targeting the foundational technologies of modern AI-driven retail. The outcome of this and parallel cases could have a significant impact on how retailers and their technology providers deploy systems that analyze in-store customer behavior. Murphy USA has previously been a defendant in the Eastern District of Texas, including a 2015 case that resulted in a $9.25 million jury award against them for infringing patents related to fuel pricing systems.

As of May 7, 2026, the patent infringement lawsuit Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Murphy USA, Inc. remains in its early stages, with no significant legal developments or a definitive outcome publicly available. The case is part of a broader litigation campaign by Alpha Modus to enforce a portfolio of patents related to in-store retail technology.

Filing & Initial Pleadings (2025)

• Complaint Filing (2025): In 2025, Alpha Modus, Corp. filed a complaint for patent infringement against Murphy USA, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case was assigned docket number 2:25-cv-00947. The precise filing date has not been identified in public records, but the suit was confirmed in a subsequent SEC filing by Alpha Modus's parent company, Alpha Modus Holdings, Inc.
• Patents at Issue: The lawsuit asserts infringement of nine patents, including U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731. According to an Alpha Modus SEC filing dated March 31, 2026, the other asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 10,360,571; 10,853,825; 11,049,120; 11,042,890; 11,301,880; 10,977,672; 11,544,550; and 12,039,121.
• Allegations of Infringement: The patents asserted by Alpha Modus generally cover technologies related to in-store consumer analytics and engagement. Public filings describe the patented technology as encompassing "real-time shopper engagement, digital signage, autonomous retail optimization, consumer behavior analysis to optimize product layout, inventory management, and other technologies to enhance consumers' in-store experience at the point of decision."
• Answer/Response: As of its March 31, 2026, SEC filing, Alpha Modus characterized the case as being in the "initial pleading stage." No answer, counterclaims, or motion to dismiss from Murphy USA is available in the public record.

Key Legal Developments & Current Posture

As of early May 2026, there are no publicly documented substantive legal developments beyond the initial filing.

• Pre-trial Motions: There is no record of significant motions concerning dismissal, venue transfer, or summary judgment.
• Claim Construction: The case has not proceeded to a Markman hearing for claim construction.
• Trial or Settlement: No trial has been scheduled. While Alpha Modus has a well-documented strategy of settling its patent lawsuits, often resulting in dismissals with prejudice, there has been no press release or public filing announcing a settlement in this specific case.
• Status: Litigation databases currently list the case as "Active/Ongoing." However, without specific docket entries detailing recent activity, this status is unconfirmed and may not reflect confidential settlement negotiations.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

There are no records of any Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings having been filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731. This absence of a PTAB challenge is common in cases that are in the early stages or are resolved before significant litigation expenses are incurred.

Plaintiff's Counsel Unable to Be Confirmed via Public Searches

As of May 7, 2026, the specific attorneys of record representing plaintiff Alpha Modus, Corp. in its patent infringement lawsuit against Murphy USA, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (2:25-cv-00947) cannot be definitively identified through publicly available web search resources.

While Alpha Modus has filed numerous similar patent lawsuits in the same district and retained consistent legal representation in those matters, court filings specifically for the case against Murphy USA, such as the complaint or notices of appearance that would list the attorneys, are not available through the general web searches conducted. Case dockets and documents are typically accessed through the federal judiciary's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system, which was not directly searched.

Likely Counsel Based on Parallel Litigation

Based on a broad campaign of similar lawsuits filed by Alpha Modus, the company's legal team is consistently led by attorneys from Prince Lobel Tye LLP, with a well-known Texas-based firm serving as local counsel. It is highly probable that the same firms and attorneys are involved in the Murphy USA case.

Expected Lead Counsel:

• Name: Christopher E. Hanba
• Firm: Prince Lobel Tye LLP (Austin, TX office)
• Note: Mr. Hanba's firm biography explicitly lists him as lead counsel for Alpha Modus in its nationwide patent enforcement campaign, covering technologies related to AI-powered retail and fintech. He has been the signatory on filings in other Alpha Modus cases. Press releases from Alpha Modus also name Mr. Hanba (previously of Dickinson Wright PLLC) as having been retained for its intellectual property enforcement efforts.

Expected Local Counsel:

• Name: J. Wesley Hill (or other attorneys from the same firm)
• Firm: J. Wesley Hill, P.C. (formerly of Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, now Miller Fair Henry PLLC) (Longview, TX)
• Note: Mr. Hill is a veteran patent litigator in the Eastern District of Texas with counsel of record appearances in over 1,100 cases. His former firm, Ward, Smith & Hill, has frequently acted as local counsel for patent plaintiffs in the district, and this role would be consistent with standard practice in such litigation.

Without direct access to the case docket, the precise roles and the full list of attorneys who have formally appeared in Alpha Modus v. Murphy USA remain unconfirmed.

Defendant's Counsel of Record Not Publicly Available

As of May 7, 2026, information identifying the specific attorneys who have filed a notice of appearance to represent the defendant, Murphy USA, Inc., in this case is not available through public web searches of court records or legal news databases.

Litigation records for Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Murphy USA, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00947, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, do not appear in publicly indexed sources that would typically name the counsel of record. For a definitive list of attorneys, one would need to consult the case docket directly through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) service.

While public sources and prior litigation records indicate law firms that have represented Murphy USA in past patent and commercial litigation, there is no confirmation that these firms are involved in the current case. For example, news articles from 2015 show that Murphy USA was a defendant in a different patent infringement case in the same district, Freeny, et, al., v. Murphy USA, Inc., Case No. 2:13-CV-791, but there is no indication that the same counsel would be retained for this 2025 case. Other documents show various firms representing Murphy USA on transactional or other litigation matters.

Without access to the official court docket, any identification of counsel would be speculative. No press releases, law firm announcements, or news articles pertaining to this specific case have named Murphy USA's defense counsel.