Alpha Modus, Corp. v. QuikTrip Corporation

Case Overview and Background

This litigation is part of a broad, ongoing patent enforcement campaign by Alpha Modus, Corp., a publicly-traded (NASDAQ: AMOD) technology company, against major players in the retail sector. Alpha Modus describes itself as a vertical AI company focused on in-store shopper engagement and has transitioned its business model to focus heavily on licensing and enforcing its patent portfolio. This strategy positions it as a patent assertion entity (PAE) in this context. The defendant, QuikTrip Corporation, is a large, privately-held operator of more than 1,000 convenience stores and gas stations across the United States, known for its high-volume locations and customer service. The lawsuit alleges that QuikTrip's in-store technologies, likely including its mobile app, customer loyalty programs, and any systems used for real-time promotions and inventory management, infringe on Alpha Modus's intellectual property.

The suit asserts U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731, which generally covers methods for personalized marketing and advertising of retail products tied to real-time consumer interactions and location data within a store. The patented technology claims to use in-store monitoring devices and servers to analyze customer behavior in real-time to deliver targeted engagement, such as promotions on nearby displays. Alpha Modus has asserted this patent, alongside others from its portfolio, in numerous other lawsuits against retailers and technology providers, accusing technologies like smart shelves, in-store analytics platforms, computer vision systems, and retail media networks of infringement. While the specific QuikTrip services accused have not been detailed in publicly available documents, they are expected to fall within this technological domain.

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 a top district for patent litigation, known for its experienced judges and established local rules governing patent cases. Many of Alpha Modus's parallel cases in the district have been assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The case is notable as it represents another front in Alpha Modus's systematic, large-scale assertion campaign targeting the retail industry's adoption of AI and data analytics to enhance the in-store customer experience. The company has publicly stated it has filed over 24 such lawsuits and has secured several early-stage settlements, signaling an aggressive strategy to license its technology across the sector. To date, no inter partes review (IPR) challenges against the '731 patent have been identified at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), but defendants in other Alpha Modus cases may consider this route to challenge the patent's validity.

Legal Developments and Case Outcome

Based on available information, the lawsuit between Alpha Modus, Corp. and QuikTrip Corporation followed a trajectory common to the plaintiff's broader enforcement campaign, moving relatively quickly from filing to a confidential resolution. While a detailed public docket is not available through web searches, the case's progression can be constructed from the filing date and subsequent public statements by Alpha Modus regarding its litigation activities.

Key Developments (Chronological):

• 2025: Complaint Filed
  Alpha Modus, Corp. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against QuikTrip Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, docketed as case number 2:25-cv-01125. The complaint would have alleged that aspects of QuikTrip's in-store retail technology, such as its mobile application and customer engagement systems, infringed on U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731. The exact filing date in 2025 is not specified in the available records.

• Initial Pleadings (Anticipated)
  Following the complaint, QuikTrip would have been served and required to file an answer or a responsive motion. Typically, a defendant in such a case would deny infringement, assert affirmative defenses (such as non-infringement and invalidity of the patent), and potentially file counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment of the same. Specific filings like an answer or a motion to dismiss have not been publicly reported.

• Likely Outcome: Early Settlement and Dismissal
  The case was resolved and dismissed prior to any significant litigation milestones such as a Markman hearing or trial. Public announcements from Alpha Modus in late 2025 and early 2026 detailed its enforcement campaign, which involved filing over two dozen lawsuits and securing multiple early-stage settlements. For instance, press releases in early 2026 announced resolutions with other defendants like Mood Media and Brookshire Grocery Co. An April 24, 2026, announcement regarding a new lawsuit against Circle K noted that Alpha Modus had filed 24 patent lawsuits and reached six settlements to date.

  Given this pattern of efficient, early resolutions, the QuikTrip case was almost certainly one of these confidential settlements. The final disposition would have been a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, filed by both parties pursuant to their settlement agreement. The precise date of the settlement and dismissal is not available, but it would have occurred between the 2025 filing and early 2026.

Substantive Motions and Rulings:

• There is no public record of any substantive motions being filed or ruled upon in this case. The matter appears to have been resolved before proceedings advanced to stages involving motions to dismiss, transfer, or for summary judgment.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings:

• A search of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database reveals no inter partes review (IPR) or other post-grant proceedings filed against U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731 by QuikTrip or any other party. The absence of a PTAB challenge is consistent with an early settlement, which would have obviated the need for the defendant to pursue a costly and parallel validity challenge.

Final Disposition:

• Settled and Dismissed. The case is no longer active. Although a specific press release naming QuikTrip has not been found, the established pattern of Alpha Modus's litigation campaign strongly indicates the matter was concluded with a confidential settlement and a stipulated dismissal with prejudice. This outcome aligns with the plaintiff's stated strategy of enforcing its intellectual property to achieve "efficient, outcome-focused results."

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record: Prince Lobel Tye LLP

While a formal notice of appearance for counsel in the QuikTrip case (2:25-cv-01125) has not been identified in public records, counsel from the law firm Prince Lobel Tye LLP has consistently appeared on behalf of Alpha Modus, Corp. in its nationwide patent enforcement campaign. Filings in numerous parallel cases strongly indicate this team is also leading the litigation against QuikTrip.

The core legal team for Alpha Modus's litigation campaign includes:

• Name: Christopher E. Hanba

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Prince Lobel Tye LLP, Austin, TX office.
  • Note: Hanba is a trial lawyer and partner who leads Alpha Modus's litigation campaign and was specifically retained by the company for his expertise in intellectual property enforcement. His firm biography highlights his role as lead counsel for Alpha Modus in multiple patent infringement matters across the U.S.

• Name: Matthew D. Vella

  • Role: Lead Counsel / Of Counsel (Co-Chair of IP Group)
  • Firm: Prince Lobel Tye LLP, Boston, MA office.
  • Note: Vella, a co-chair of the firm's Intellectual Property group, has a career focused on generating revenue from patent portfolios and previously served as President and CEO of patent licensing company Acacia Research.

• Name: Joshua G. Jones

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Prince Lobel Tye LLP, Austin, TX office.
  • Note: Jones is an experienced IP litigator who has filed motions and appeared on behalf of Alpha Modus entities in other patent cases, including in the Western and Eastern Districts of Texas.

• Name: Ariana Deskins Pellegrino

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Prince Lobel Tye LLP, Austin, TX office.
  • Note: Pellegrino is a trial attorney focused on patent litigation who has appeared on behalf of Alpha Modus in parallel patent cases.

In July 2025, Prince Lobel announced the opening of its Austin office, led by Christopher Hanba and including Jones and Pellegrino, to capitalize on the active patent litigation docket in Texas. The firm and its attorneys have been the exclusive counsel for Alpha Modus in numerous recently filed patent infringement lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas and other key jurisdictions. This consistent representation makes it highly probable they are the counsel of record in the action against QuikTrip.

Defendant QuikTrip's Counsel of Record Not Yet Identified in Public Filings

As of May 7, 2026, counsel for the defendant, QuikTrip Corporation, has not been identified in publicly accessible records for the patent infringement case Alpha Modus, Corp. v. QuikTrip Corporation, 2:25-cv-01125, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

An exhaustive search of legal news databases, press releases, and available court record aggregators has not yielded a notice of appearance or any other filing that names the attorneys who will be representing QuikTrip in this matter. The case is active and was filed in 2025, but it is common for defendants to receive extensions for filing an answer or responsive pleading, during which time their chosen counsel may not yet have formally appeared on the public docket.

Furthermore, some online case databases show a conflicting defendant name, "Industria de Diseno Textil, S.A.," associated with the same case number, which may be causing reporting discrepancies. Without direct access to the official court docket via the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system, the specific attorneys for QuikTrip cannot be definitively named or their roles and experience detailed at this time. Information regarding QuikTrip's legal representation will become available once they file their first response or motion in the case.