Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Wakefern Food Corp.

In a brief but notable case, patent assertion entity Alpha Modus, Corp. sued one of the nation's largest grocery cooperatives, Wakefern Food Corp., for patent infringement. Alpha Modus began as a retail technology startup but has since shifted its business model to the enforcement and monetization of its patent portfolio, which it developed based on its earlier operational efforts. The company, now a subsidiary of the publicly-traded Alpha Modus Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMOD), has launched a wide-ranging litigation campaign against dozens of retailers and technology companies. The defendant, Wakefern, is a retailer-owned cooperative founded in 1946 that operates hundreds of supermarkets under banners including ShopRite, The Fresh Grocer, and Fairway Market. The lawsuit accused Wakefern of infringing patents related to modern, data-driven retail technologies. While the complaint did not specify a single product, the accused services likely included Wakefern's online ordering, personalized loyalty programs, and other in-store systems that analyze customer behavior to enhance the shopping experience.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs for its fast dockets and experienced patent juries. Alpha Modus asserted U.S. Patent No. 10,360,571, titled "Method for monitoring and analyzing behavior and uses thereof," which generally covers systems that monitor and analyze consumer purchasing behavior in real-time to deliver targeted digital experiences. Though the case caption only lists the '571 patent, the underlying complaint asserted a total of five patents covering similar in-store retail intelligence technology. The case is significant not for any substantive legal ruling, but as an example of Alpha Modus's broader strategy of serial patent assertion followed by swift resolutions. The suit terminated just 93 days after filing via a voluntary dismissal with prejudice, strongly suggesting a confidential settlement was reached before any significant litigation milestones occurred. This pattern highlights a growing trend of patent enforcement in the AI-driven retail technology sector, where former operating companies leverage their intellectual property against established market players.

As a senior US patent litigation analyst, here are the key legal developments and the outcome of the patent infringement litigation between Alpha Modus, Corp. and Wakefern Food Corp.

Case Summary

This litigation was a brief encounter, lasting only 93 days from filing to termination. The case is representative of plaintiff Alpha Modus's broader intellectual property enforcement campaign targeting the retail technology sector. The dispute was resolved through a settlement that included a licensing agreement, which occurred before any significant litigation milestones, such as an answer from the defendant or claim construction, could take place.

Chronological Developments

2024-12-17: Complaint Filed
Alpha Modus, Corp. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Wakefern Food Corp. and its associate, Shelf Nine LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleged infringement of multiple U.S. patents, including those in the '571 patent portfolio, which relates to technologies for analyzing consumer behavior in real-time to enhance in-store marketing and advertising at the point of decision.

The case was one of many similar suits filed by Alpha Modus against major retailers, asserting patents that cover AI-driven retail technologies, smart displays, and real-time customer engagement analytics. For this case, Alpha Modus engaged attorney Christopher E. Hanba of Dickinson Wright PLLC.

Pre-Trial and Discovery: None
The case was terminated before Wakefern filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Consequently, the litigation did not advance to any substantive pre-trial motions, claim construction (Markman) hearings, or significant discovery milestones.

2025-03-17: Settlement Announced
Just three months after filing suit, Alpha Modus announced that it had reached a "groundbreaking settlement" with Wakefern and Shelf Nine. Key terms of the resolution included:

• A settlement agreement between Alpha Modus and Shelf Nine.
• A perpetual license for Alpha Modus's patented retail technology.
• An agreement for Alpha Modus to negotiate a strategic partnership with Shelf Nine's parent company, VSBLTY Groupe Technologies Corp., to integrate Alpha Modus's technology into VSBLTY's retail media network.

2025-03-20: Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice
Following the settlement announcement, Alpha Modus filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. The court formally dismissed all claims with prejudice on March 20, 2025, bringing the case to a close. The "with prejudice" stipulation means Alpha Modus cannot assert the same patent claims against Wakefern again. Each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs, which is typical in settlement-driven dismissals.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

A search of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database reveals no records of Inter Partes Review (IPR) or other post-grant proceedings filed by Wakefern Food Corp. against U.S. Patent No. 10,360,571 or related patents asserted by Alpha Modus. The rapid settlement and dismissal of the case—well before the deadline for a defendant to file an IPR petition—suggests that parallel PTAB litigation was not a direct factor in the resolution of this specific dispute.

Based on a review of the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the following attorneys were listed as counsel for the plaintiff, Alpha Modus, Corp.

Plaintiff's Counsel

• Dirk D. Thomas

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Dirk D. Thomas, PLLC (Washington, D.C.)
  • Note: A veteran patent litigator with over 30 years of experience, Thomas has first-chaired more than a dozen patent infringement trials and has secured over $300 million in awards and settlements for clients. He previously practiced at prominent firms including Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner; Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi; and McKool Smith.

• Bradford G. T. Laney

  • Role: Of Counsel / Local Counsel
  • Firm: Laney & Laney, P.C. (Houston, TX)
  • Note: Laney is a registered patent attorney and civil trial lawyer who handles high-stakes litigation, including numerous patent infringement cases in Texas federal courts. He is licensed before all Texas federal district courts and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Defendant Counsel for Wakefern Unlisted Due to Swift Dismissal

A review of the court docket and case history for Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Wakefern Food Corp. reveals that no defense counsel ever made a formal appearance on behalf of defendant Wakefern Food Corp.

The case was terminated by a voluntary dismissal with prejudice just 93 days after the complaint was filed. This dismissal occurred before Wakefern was required to file an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff can voluntarily dismiss a case without a court order at this early stage, before the defendant has formally responded in court.

Because the case was resolved and dismissed before any responsive pleadings were filed, no attorney for Wakefern ever filed a notice of appearance. Consequently, the public record does not contain the names of the outside counsel or law firms that Wakefern may have retained to negotiate the settlement that preceded the dismissal.