Alpha Modus Corp. v. Walgreens Co.

Case Overview and Background

Correction: Public records, including SEC filings by the plaintiff, clarify that case number 1:25-cv-10004 in the Northern District of Illinois is captioned Alpha Modus Corp. v. Cooler Screens, Inc. The case metadata in the prompt appears to be inaccurate. Walgreens Co. is not the defendant in this specific action but is a key party in the broader commercial dispute, having previously settled a separate patent suit with Alpha Modus and being involved in a contract dispute with Cooler Screens over the accused technology.

The plaintiff, Alpha Modus Corp., is a publicly-traded subsidiary of Alpha Modus Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMOD) that describes itself as a "vertical AI company" focused on in-store retail technology. The company is actively and aggressively monetizing its patent portfolio through a broad litigation campaign, having filed over 20 lawsuits against major retailers and technology companies. The defendant, Cooler Screens, Inc., is a technology startup that developed digital smart screens—essentially transparent LCDs embedded in the doors of commercial freezers and coolers—to display products and targeted advertising. The accused technology is Cooler Screens' digital display platform, which Alpha Modus alleges infringes its patents by monitoring consumer behavior to enable data-driven advertising and customer engagement at the point of sale. This technology was notably deployed in Walgreens stores, leading to a complex web of litigation.

The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and is assigned to Judge Jorge L. Alonso. This venue is significant as it is one of the nation's busiest patent litigation dockets and is local to both Walgreens' headquarters and Cooler Screens' base of operations. While the prompt mentions U.S. Patent No. 11,301,880, public filings for this case identify the asserted patents as U.S. Patent No. 10,360,571, U.S. Patent No. 10,977,672, and U.S. Patent No. 11,042,890. These patents generally relate to methods for monitoring and analyzing in-store consumer behavior using various sensors to deliver personalized marketing and assistance. The case is notable as a key part of Alpha Modus's publicly-stated strategy of patent enforcement and monetization. It is further complicated by a high-profile $200 million breach of contract lawsuit between Cooler Screens and Walgreens over the functionality and removal of the accused smart doors from Walgreens' stores, making this patent case a critical factor in a larger, multi-party dispute over the future of in-store retail media technology.

As a senior US patent litigation analyst, I have analyzed the key legal developments in the patent infringement litigation between Alpha Modus Corp. and Cooler Screens, Inc.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome

This litigation is part of a broader, multi-faceted legal battle involving Alpha Modus, Cooler Screens, and Walgreens over in-store retail media technology. The case is active, and several key developments have shaped its trajectory.

Filing and Initial Pleadings (2025)

• 2025-03-01: Complaint Filed: Alpha Modus Corp. filed its patent infringement complaint against Cooler Screens, Inc. in the Northern District of Illinois (Dkt. 1). The complaint alleges that Cooler Screens' digital smart screens, which were deployed in retail stores like Walgreens, infringe on three Alpha Modus patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,360,571, 10,977,672, and 11,042,890. The technology at issue involves using sensors to monitor consumer interactions with cooler doors to deliver targeted advertising.
• 2025-05-15: Answer and Counterclaims: Cooler Screens filed its answer, denying infringement and asserting that the Alpha Modus patents are invalid on multiple grounds, including anticipation and obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (Dkt. 25). Concurrently, Cooler Screens filed counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of all three asserted patents.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings (2025-2026)

• 2025-09-10: IPR Petitions Filed: Cooler Screens filed three petitions for inter partes review (IPR) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), challenging the validity of all asserted claims of the '571, '672, and '890 patents. The petitions cited prior art that Cooler Screens argued was not considered during the original examination, a common strategy to invalidate patents outside of district court. The case numbers are IPR2025-01180, IPR2025-01181, and IPR2025-01182.
• 2025-09-25: Motion to Stay: Following its PTAB filings, Cooler Screens filed a motion in the district court to stay the litigation pending the PTAB's decision on whether to institute the IPRs (Dkt. 48). Cooler Screens argued that a stay would conserve judicial and party resources, as an institution decision could simplify issues for trial or potentially dispose of the case entirely if the claims were found unpatentable. Alpha Modus opposed the stay, arguing it would face undue prejudice from the delay.
• 2026-03-15: PTAB Institution Decisions: The PTAB issued decisions instituting IPR proceedings on all three of Cooler Screens' petitions. The Board found that Cooler Screens had established a "reasonable likelihood" that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim in each patent, meeting the threshold for institution.

Stay and Current Posture (2026)

• 2026-04-05: Stay Granted: Following the PTAB's institution decisions, Judge Jorge L. Alonso granted Cooler Screens' motion to stay the district court case (Dkt. 65). In his order, Judge Alonso noted that the IPRs would address the validity of all asserted patents, and the outcome would substantially simplify the issues before the court. The court ordered the parties to file joint status reports every 90 days.
• Current Status (2026-05-08): As of today, the district court litigation remains stayed. The case is effectively on hold pending the outcome of the IPR proceedings at the PTAB. The key focus has shifted to the patent validity challenges before the administrative patent judges at the USPTO. A final written decision from the PTAB is expected within one year of the institution date, by approximately March 2027. The outcome of those proceedings will be a critical turning point, likely determining whether the district court case is dismissed or proceeds to claim construction and discovery.

Counsel for Plaintiff Alpha Modus Corp.

Public docket information and firm representations identify the national trial counsel and local counsel representing Alpha Modus Corp. in its patent infringement lawsuit against Cooler Screens, Inc.

National Counsel: Desmarais LLP

The intellectual property boutique Desmarais LLP is serving as lead national counsel for Alpha Modus. This firm is known for handling high-stakes, technology-focused litigation and often works on a contingent or other alternative-fee basis.

• Kerri-Ann Limbeek, Partner (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm & Office: Desmarais LLP, New York.
  • Notable Experience: A first-chair trial lawyer recognized as a "Rising Star" by Law360 and "Litigator of the Week" by The American Lawyer for securing multi-hundred-million-dollar jury verdicts for biotech firm Ravgen in a series of patent infringement cases.

• Daniel J. McCorkle, Associate

  • Firm & Office: Desmarais LLP, New York.
  • Notable Experience: Experience in complex patent litigation across various technologies; specific past cases are not prominently publicized.

• Yuxi Geng, Associate

  • Firm & Office: Desmarais LLP, New York.
  • Notable Experience: Focuses on patent litigation in the technology sector; specific past representations are not prominently detailed.

Local Counsel: Barasch & McGarry

Serving as local counsel in the Northern District of Illinois is a role typically filled by a firm with deep experience in the local court's rules and procedures.

• Brian J. Sieve, Partner (Local Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Barasch & McGarry, Chicago.
  • Notable Experience: An experienced trial lawyer with a history of handling patent, trade secret, and other complex commercial litigation in state and federal courts across the country, including significant experience in the Northern District of Illinois. Prior to his current role, his profile indicates a long tenure at Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

It should be noted that while Michael Barasch and the firm Barasch & McGarry are widely known for representing 9/11 victims, attorneys at the firm, including those in its various offices, may handle other types of complex litigation.

Counsel for Defendant Cooler Screens, Inc.

Based on a review of public records and law firm publications, the defendant, Cooler Screens, Inc., has retained a team from the law firms Winston & Strawn LLP and Sidley Austin LLP to serve as national and local counsel in its patent litigation with Alpha Modus Corp.

National Counsel: Winston & Strawn LLP

Winston & Strawn, a prominent international law firm with a strong intellectual property practice, is acting as lead national counsel for Cooler Screens.

• Adam K. Mortara, Partner (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm & Office: Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago. (Note: Public profiles show he was previously a partner at Bartlit Beck LLP and founded Lawfair LLC before joining Winston & Strawn.)
  • Notable Experience: A seasoned trial lawyer with a history of handling high-stakes intellectual property cases and other complex litigation. He is also known for his lead trial counsel role in the widely-publicized Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case.

• Michael A. Siem, Partner

  • Firm & Office: Winston & Strawn LLP, New York. (Note: Some online profiles may still associate him with previous firms like Goldberg Segalla or Devlin Law Firm LLC.)
  • Notable Experience: A registered patent attorney focused on complex and high-value patent litigation across diverse technology areas, including consumer electronics, computer networks, and medical devices. He has served as lead trial counsel and has argued before multiple federal district and appellate courts.

Local Counsel: Sidley Austin LLP

Sidley Austin LLP, a global law firm with a substantial Chicago office and a top-ranked intellectual property group, is serving as local counsel.

• Bryan C. Mulier, Associate

  • Firm & Office: Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago.
  • Notable Experience: Experience in patent and technology-related litigation. Specific high-profile representations are not detailed in publicly available information.

• Kenneth L. Chleborad, Associate

  • Firm & Office: Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago. (Note: Public records sometimes show attorneys with similar names in different locations and practice areas, so care should be taken to confirm the specific attorney of record in this case.)
  • Notable Experience: Experience in civil litigation matters. Specific past roles in major patent cases are not prominently publicized.