Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Zara USA

This lawsuit is a key front in a broad patent enforcement campaign by Alpha Modus, Corp., a publicly-traded technology company (NASDAQ: AMOD) that describes itself as a leader in AI-driven, in-store retail technology. While the company began as a software and data-as-a-service provider, it has pivoted its business model to focus on licensing and asserting its patent portfolio, leading some to classify it as a patent assertion entity. The defendant, Zara USA, Inc., is the American operating arm of the global fast-fashion giant Inditex, a major brick-and-mortar and online retailer. Alpha Modus alleges that Zara's retail operations—specifically its use of in-store technologies like RFID garment tracking systems, digital surveillance, mobile app features, and inventory replenishment platforms—infringe on its patents. The primary patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 11,042,890, is titled “Method And System For Customer Assistance In A Retail Store” and generally covers technology for assisting customers through real-time monitoring and engagement. Three other patents relating to retail analytics and inventory intelligence were also asserted in the original complaint.

The case was filed on November 14, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and is assigned to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap, a prominent figure in patent litigation. This venue is historically favored by patent plaintiffs for its expertise and rules favorable to patent holders. The lawsuit is notable not as a standalone dispute, but as part of a large-scale, systematic enforcement strategy by Alpha Modus. As of early 2026, the company had filed nearly two dozen lawsuits against a wide array of major retailers and technology providers, with its CEO stating the number could reach triple digits. Alpha Modus frames its campaign not as patent trolling, but as a necessary step to protect its foundational intellectual property that underpins the modern, AI-driven retail experience, including shopper analytics, personalized marketing, and frictionless checkout. The company has publicly stated its goal is to drive licensing revenue and partnerships, and it has already secured several early-stage settlements in other cases.

Key Legal Developments and Case Outcome

As of May 7, 2026, the patent infringement lawsuit filed by Alpha Modus, Corp. against Zara USA, Inc. and its parent company, Industria de Diseño Textil, S.A. (collectively "Zara"), is in its initial stages. The case is postured for early discovery and scheduling conferences, with no dispositive motions or claim construction events having taken place. The litigation remains pending.

Filing and Initial Pleadings

• 2025-11-14: Complaint Filed
  Alpha Modus filed a complaint for patent infringement against Zara in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-01125). The lawsuit alleges that Zara's in-store technologies—including its RFID tracking systems, mobile app features, and inventory management platforms—infringe on four Alpha Modus patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 11,042,890; 11,301,880; 12,026,731; and 12,354,121. The case was assigned to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Alpha Modus is seeking monetary damages, including a reasonable royalty and enhanced damages for alleged willful infringement, as well as injunctive relief.

• 2026-01-08: Service of Process
  Defendant Zara USA, Inc. was formally served with the summons and complaint.

• 2026-02-04: Motion for Extension to Answer
  Zara filed an unopposed motion seeking an extension of time to file its answer to the complaint.

• 2026-02-07: Extension Granted
  The court granted Zara's motion, extending the deadline for its answer to May 4, 2026.

• 2026-05-04: Defendants' Answer (Anticipated)
  As of the current date, Zara's answer to the complaint was due on May 4, 2026. While the document has not yet been sourced through web searches, it is expected to have been filed on or around this date. The content of the answer, including any affirmative defenses or potential counterclaims of non-infringement or patent invalidity, will be a key development.

Pre-Trial Motions and Scheduling

The case has not yet progressed to substantive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or for summary judgment.

• 2026-04-23: Scheduling Conference Set
  Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne issued an order setting a scheduling conference for May 28, 2026, before Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This conference will establish the case schedule, including deadlines for discovery, claim construction proceedings, and other pre-trial matters.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

There is currently no public record of Zara or its parent company, Industria de Diseño Textil, S.A., having filed any petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) or other post-grant challenges against U.S. Patent No. 11,042,890 or the other asserted patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Such a filing would be a significant strategic development and could potentially lead to a motion to stay the district court case.

Settlement and Final Disposition

The case remains active and pending. There has been no public announcement or court filing indicating a settlement between Alpha Modus and Zara. While Alpha Modus has reported settling other lawsuits in its broader litigation campaign, the early stage of this specific case makes a resolution unlikely to have occurred yet. No trial, verdict, or final judgment has been reached.

Plaintiff's Counsel Identified in Alpha Modus Retail Tech Litigation

Analysis Date: May 7, 2026

Attorneys from the Boston-headquartered law firm Prince Lobel Tye LLP have appeared on behalf of plaintiff Alpha Modus, Corp. in its patent infringement lawsuit against Zara USA. The firm is spearheading the retailer's broad national litigation campaign. Docket entries confirm the appearance of at least one attorney, and the firm's broader litigation team for Alpha Modus includes partners with extensive experience in high-stakes patent assertion and trials.

While a case of this nature in the Eastern District of Texas often involves a local firm, no Texas-based local counsel has formally appeared on the docket as of the last available update. The Prince Lobel team is handling the case primarily from its Boston and Austin offices.

---

Counsel of Record for Alpha Modus, Corp.

Lead Counsel

• Matthew Vella – Partner & Co-Chair, Intellectual Property Group

  • Firm & Location: Prince Lobel Tye LLP, based in California and associated with the Boston office.
  • Noteworthy Experience: An IP strategist who has led teams that generated over a billion dollars in patent licensing and litigation revenue; formerly President and CEO of patent licensing company Acacia Research.

• Christopher E. Hanba – Partner

  • Firm & Location: Prince Lobel Tye LLP, Austin, TX.
  • Noteworthy Experience: A trial lawyer who has appeared in over 120 intellectual property cases and serves as lead counsel in patent and trade secret litigation involving software, AI, network security, and semiconductor technologies.

Additional Counsel

• Joshua G. Jones – Partner

  • Firm & Location: Prince Lobel Tye LLP, Austin, TX.
  • Noteworthy Experience: An experienced intellectual property litigator and trial lawyer focused on patent, trademark, and copyright litigation; has represented clients in the telecommunications sector. He is the first attorney from the firm to have filed a notice of appearance in this specific case.

• Ariana Deskins Pellegrino – Partner

  • Firm & Location: Prince Lobel Tye LLP, Austin, TX.
  • Noteworthy Experience: A trial attorney focused on patent litigation who has secured favorable judgments and settlements in federal courts and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in cases involving software, semiconductors, and consumer products.

As of early May 2026, counsel from the Texas-based intellectual property firm Potter Minton has appeared on behalf of defendant Zara USA. It is common for national retailers like Zara to also engage a larger, national law firm as lead counsel, with a firm like Potter Minton serving as local counsel, but no other firms have yet been identified from available public records.

The attorneys of record for Zara USA, Inc. are detailed below. Information regarding counsel for the parent company, Industria de Diseño Textil, S.A., is not yet available in the public docket.

Counsel for Defendant Zara USA, Inc.

• Name: Shaun W. Hassett
  • Role: Local Counsel (presumed)
  • Firm: Potter Minton, PC (Tyler, Texas)
  • Note: Mr. Hassett filed a motion for an extension of time to file an answer on behalf of Zara USA on February 4, 2026 (Dkt. 11). His practice focuses on complex patent litigation, and he has significant experience in the Eastern District of Texas, having previously secured favorable jury verdicts and dismissals for major technology companies in the venue.