Alpha Modus Corp. v. Walmart Inc.

Case Overview and Background

Alpha Modus Corp. v. Walmart Inc. is a patent infringement case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, and assigned to Judge Alfred H. Bennett. The plaintiff, Alpha Modus Corp., a subsidiary of the publicly-traded Alpha Modus Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMOD), describes itself as a "vertical AI company" that develops and patents technologies for in-store shopper engagement and analytics. After initially focusing on commercializing its technology, the company has pivoted to a patent-assertion business model, filing numerous lawsuits against major retailers. The defendant is Walmart Inc., the multinational retail corporation. Walmart is a frequent target of patent litigation across various technology sectors.

The lawsuit alleges that Walmart's in-store systems, likely including its computer vision and retail media platforms, infringe on U.S. Patent No. 11,301,880. This patent, entitled "System and Method for Analyzing and Influencing a Consumer," generally covers methods for capturing and using real-time consumer and product interaction data within a retail environment to provide targeted content or enhance the customer experience. Alpha Modus's broader patent portfolio, which it is systematically enforcing, claims to cover the "core infrastructure layer" of modern AI-driven retail, including real-time consumer behavior analysis, AI-powered personalization, intelligent inventory systems, and sensor-based checkout.

This case is notable as part of a large-scale, systematic patent enforcement campaign by Alpha Modus against the retail sector. The company has publicly announced filing over two dozen lawsuits and has signaled its intent to file many more, positioning itself as a key intellectual property holder in the rapidly expanding field of AI-enhanced physical retail. The choice of a Texas federal court is significant; Texas districts have historically been popular venues for patent plaintiffs due to their fast dockets and a perception of being favorable to patent holders. While the Western and Eastern Districts are more famous for patent litigation, the Southern District has also seen a significant rise in patent case filings, making it a venue of increasing importance.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

As of May 8, 2026, there is no publicly available information detailing specific legal developments or the outcome in the Alpha Modus Corp. v. Walmart Inc. case (4:25-cv-01727). Searches of court records, legal news outlets, and company press releases reveal extensive information about the plaintiff's broader litigation campaign but no docket entries, substantive motions, or rulings specific to the Walmart matter.

This lack of public information suggests the case may be in a very early procedural stage or that the parties are engaged in private discussions that have not yet resulted in court filings. The following analysis is based on the plaintiff's established pattern of litigation against other retailers.

Filing and Initial Pleadings (Chronology Inferred from Typical Case Progression)

• Complaint (2025-04-10): Alpha Modus Corp. filed its complaint in the Southern District of Texas, alleging that Walmart infringes U.S. Patent No. 11,301,880. This patent is part of a larger portfolio that Alpha Modus asserts against numerous players in the retail and retail technology sectors. The infringement allegations likely target Walmart's in-store analytics, retail media networks, and AI-driven systems for monitoring consumer behavior.
• Answer and Counterclaims: A search of public records and legal news did not uncover Walmart's answer or any counterclaims. In federal court, a defendant typically has 21 days to respond after service of the summons and complaint, though extensions are common. It is probable that Walmart has filed an answer, but the document is not available through the performed searches.

Pre-Trial Motions, Claim Construction, and Discovery

There is no public record of significant pre-trial motions, such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay. Likewise, there is no indication that the case has progressed to a Markman hearing for claim construction or entered into substantive discovery.

This is consistent with the pattern seen in Alpha Modus's other lawsuits, many of which resolve before reaching these litigation milestones. The company has publicly stated it has achieved at least six early-stage settlements in its campaign of over two dozen lawsuits. For example, its cases against Brookshire Grocery Co. and Mood Media were dismissed with prejudice following settlements before any significant court rulings on the merits.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

A search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records did not reveal any Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) petitions filed by Walmart challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,301,880. While defendants in patent litigation frequently use PTAB proceedings to challenge the asserted patent's validity, it does not appear that Walmart has taken this step to date, or if it has, the filing is not yet publicly indexed and reported.

Outcome and Present Posture

The case is officially listed as "Active." However, given Alpha Modus's clear strategy of filing suits followed by settlements, the current posture is most likely one of negotiation. The company's CEO, William Alessi, has characterized their approach as a "structured and disciplined" enforcement effort. Many of their cases against other retailers, such as Kroger and Wakefern Food Corp., have been resolved confidentially and dismissed with prejudice, often within months of filing.

It is highly probable that the Alpha Modus v. Walmart case will follow a similar trajectory, resulting in a confidential settlement and dismissal before any substantive litigation occurs. Unless the parties file public notices of settlement or dismissal, or a significant dispute arises and generates a court opinion, further details of this specific case are unlikely to become public.

Based on a review of Alpha Modus Corp.'s broader litigation campaign, the company consistently retains the same law firms to represent it across numerous patent infringement cases filed in Texas. While the specific notice of appearance for the Walmart case (4:25-cv-01727) is not publicly available through general web searches, filings in parallel cases identify the company's legal representatives. It is highly probable that the same counsel is representing Alpha Modus in its suit against Walmart.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record (Inferred from Parallel Litigation)

The following attorneys have appeared for Alpha Modus Corp. in its other recently filed patent lawsuits in Texas, such as its cases against The Kroger Co., Albertsons Companies, Inc., and Brookshire Grocery Company.

• Edmond G. LaFour, Lead Counsel

  • Firm: LaFour Law P.C.
  • Office Location: Houston, Texas
  • Note: Mr. LaFour is an experienced patent litigator who frequently represents patent-assertion entities in Texas federal courts.

• John C. Hsueh, Of Counsel

  • Firm: LaFour Law P.C.
  • Office Location: Houston, Texas
  • Note: Mr. Hsueh has over two decades of experience in intellectual property law, including extensive patent litigation and prosecution work.

• Justin Kurtz, Of Counsel

  • Firm: The Kurtz Law Firm, P.C.
  • Office Location: Austin, Texas
  • Note: Mr. Kurtz is a seasoned trial lawyer with significant experience in complex commercial and intellectual property litigation in Texas courts.

Important Caveat: As of May 8, 2026, no attorneys have formally filed a notice of appearance that is publicly accessible via general web search for the specific Alpha Modus Corp. v. Walmart Inc. matter. The counsel listed above is based on their representation of the plaintiff in numerous, concurrent lawsuits involving the same patent portfolio and legal strategy. This information is subject to change if different counsel appears in the Walmart case.

Counsel for Defendant Walmart Inc.

As of May 8, 2026, searches for the public docket and legal news reporting on case number 4:25-cv-01727 do not identify any outside counsel who have filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Walmart Inc. This confirms the findings from the "Key Legal Developments" section that specific filings for this case are not publicly available through general legal research tools. The case was filed over a year ago, so it is almost certain that Walmart has retained counsel and responded to the complaint, but these filings are not accessible via the searched databases.

However, based on Walmart's established patterns in high-stakes patent and technology litigation, and public information about its in-house legal team, the following individuals and firms are relevant to the company's defense strategy.

In-House Counsel

• Name: Sri Atluri

  • Role: Chief IP Counsel.
  • Firm: Walmart Inc. (Bentonville, AR).
  • Note: Atluri leads Walmart's intellectual property legal strategy, including managing patent portfolios and overseeing litigation and enforcement actions to reduce IP risk.

• Name: Jerry Huang

  • Role: Senior Vice President and Chief Counsel for Product & Technology.
  • Firm: Walmart Inc. (Bentonville, AR).
  • Note: Huang leads the legal strategy for Walmart's technology and AI initiatives and manages the legal teams supporting the company's Global Tech and Product organizations.

Likely Outside Counsel (Based on Industry Practice)

Large corporations like Walmart typically retain national law firms with deep expertise in patent litigation, particularly in plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions like Texas. While no firm has appeared in this specific case, firms with the following profiles are frequently hired for such matters:

• Fish & Richardson P.C.: A premier, globally-recognized IP law firm that handles more patent cases in U.S. district courts than any other firm. They have extensive experience in all popular patent venues, including Texas district courts.
• Sidley Austin LLP: This firm has a highly-ranked patent litigation practice with over 100 lawyers focused on the area, known for handling "bet the company" cases for major corporations in the tech and software sectors.

Without a notice of appearance on the public docket, it is not possible to definitively name the outside counsel of record for Walmart in this case.