US 10360571

Summary of U.S. Patent 10,360,571

Title: Method for monitoring and analyzing behavior and uses thereof.

Assignee: Alpha Modus Corp.

Inventors: Michael Garel, Jim Wang.

Filing Date: July 18, 2014.

Issue Date: July 23, 2019.

Abstract: Systems for monitoring and analyzing behavior in various applications and uses thereof. Generally, the systems (and uses thereof) are for monitoring and analyzing consumer purchasing behavior in real-time to drive sales via engaging digital customer experiences. In embodiments, the disclosed system can include a retail store system that features and includes MAC address tracking, user eye tracking, object identification of goods on shelves, open API, advertising broker rules engine. In addition, the system can include a customer engagement with interactive output displays including displays with demographic intelligence, displays with demographics and MAC-panels throughout store at product, displays with demographics and MAC-single panel or few panels scattered throughout store, automated customer assistance at shelf, customer purchase at shelf.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

This patent has three independent claims: claim 1, claim 19, and claim 36.

Claim 1: This claim describes a system for monitoring and analyzing the behavior of people in a specific location, such as a retail store. The system uses various "information monitoring devices" (like cameras and Wi-Fi sensors) to collect data. This data is then processed by a server running several software "modules." Key modules include a "demographic intelligence module" to determine characteristics like age and gender, and a "tracking module" to follow a person's movement within the location. The system is designed to link these two types of information to analyze a person's behavior in real-time.

Claim 19: This claim outlines a method for using the system described in claim 1. It involves using the information monitoring devices to gather information about a person, and then using the server's modules to analyze that information. At least one of these modules must be a demographic intelligence module and at least one must be a tracking module.

Claim 36: This claim covers a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (like a hard drive or flash memory) that contains instructions for a computer to perform the method of claim 19. In essence, it claims the software that enables the system to function. This software, when run, will use monitoring devices to gather information about a person and then analyze it using the various modules, including at a minimum, a demographic intelligence and a tracking module.

CAFC Docket Search:

A search of the CAFC (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) dockets for 2026 did not yield any specific results for US Patent 10,360,571. However, litigation involving this patent has been noted in other federal courts, such as the U.S. District Courts for the Western and Eastern Districts of Texas. For example, a case in the Western District of Texas between Alpha Modus, Corp. and Mood Media, LLC involving this patent and others in its family was dismissed in February 2026. There is no indication at this time that any of these district court cases have been appealed to the CAFC.

Disclaimer: This summary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The legal status of the patent and the specifics of its claims should be verified with the USPTO and through legal counsel.

Known Litigation for U.S. Patent 10,360,571

As of May 7, 2026, U.S. Patent 10,360,571, assigned to Alpha Modus Corp., is involved in multiple patent infringement lawsuits. The patent is frequently asserted alongside other patents in the Alpha Modus portfolio, which relates to in-store AI, consumer analytics, and targeted digital advertising.

Below is a list of known litigation involving this patent:

Case: Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Mood Media, LLC

• Plaintiff: Alpha Modus, Corp.
• Defendant: Mood Media, LLC
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
• Case Number: 1:25-cv-01527
• Filing Date: September 18, 2025
• Status/Outcome: The case was resolved quickly, with a joint stipulated dismissal with prejudice filed on February 10, 2026. No damages were awarded, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs. The resolution was announced in a press release on January 22, 2026.

Case: Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Cooler Screens, Inc.

• Plaintiff: Alpha Modus, Corp. / Alpha Modus Holdings Inc.
• Defendant: Cooler Screens, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
• Case Number: 1:25-cv-10004
• Filing Date: August 21, 2025 (Announced August 25, 2025)
• Status/Outcome: This case appears to be ongoing. The lawsuit followed prior settlements Alpha Modus reached with Kroger and Walgreens concerning their use of Cooler Screens technology.

Case: Alpha Modus, Corp. v. The Kroger Co.

• Plaintiff: Alpha Modus, Corp.
• Defendant: The Kroger Co.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Case Number: 2:25-cv-00923
• Filing Date: 2025
• Status/Outcome: An amended complaint was filed on November 12, 2025, expanding the number of asserted patents. The case remains active.

Case: Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Wakefern Food Corp.

• Plaintiff: Alpha Modus, Corp.
• Defendant: Wakefern Food Corp.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Case Number: 2:24-cv-01056
• Filing Date: December 17, 2024
• Status/Outcome: This case concluded with a voluntary dismissal with prejudice on March 20, 2025, just 93 days after it was filed.

Other Identified Litigation:
The patent text and public records indicate a significant litigation campaign by Alpha Modus Corp., with numerous cases filed in late 2024 and throughout 2025, primarily in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. These include:

• Case Number: 2:24-cv-00022 (Texas Eastern District Court)
• Case Number: 2:24-cv-00918 (Texas Eastern District Court)
• Case Number: 2:24-cv-00919 (Texas Eastern District Court)
• Case Number: 2:25-cv-00931 (Texas Eastern District Court)
• Case Number: 2:25-cv-00947 (Texas Eastern District Court)
• Case Number: 2:25-cv-01120 (Texas Eastern District Court)
• Case Number: 1:25-cv-01466 (Texas Western District Court)
• Case Number: 4:25-cv-01727 (Texas Southern District Court)

On April 24, 2026, Alpha Modus announced it had initiated a second phase of its patent enforcement campaign, filing a suit against Circle K in the Eastern District of Texas and noting it had undertaken 24 enforcement actions to date.

The extensive litigation history demonstrates an active and ongoing strategy by Alpha Modus Corp. to enforce its patent portfolio against major players in the retail and media industries.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for U.S. Patent 10,360,571 as of the most recent ingest from the USPTO ODP API. A web search also did not surface any older or recently-filed proceedings. Therefore, all claims of the patent remain untested by PTAB. This means that a defendant facing assertion of this patent today does not have the benefit of prior PTAB invalidation of any claims.

Strategic summary

As no PTAB proceedings have been found for U.S. Patent 10,360,571, all claims of the patent (claims 1-35) are currently UNTESTED by the PTAB. There is no estoppel landscape established through AIA trial proceedings, meaning all prior-art grounds remain available for a potential petitioner. The absence of PTAB activity, despite active litigation in district courts, suggests that defendants in those cases may not have chosen to pursue an IPR or PGR, or that such petitions have not yet been filed or publicly recorded.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of U.S. Patent 10,360,571, it is important to note that no PTAB activity currently exists for this patent. This indicates that the patent has not been subjected to challenges under the AIA trial provisions. Therefore, all claims remain presumptively valid from a PTAB perspective.

Consider initiating a prior art search and analysis to determine the viability of filing an inter partes review (IPR) petition against the asserted claims. The absence of prior PTAB challenges means there are no existing institution decisions or final written decisions to build upon, but also no estoppel bars to overcome. This fresh slate could be an advantage, allowing for a comprehensive challenge based on newly identified prior art.

Inventors

• Michael Garel: Alpha Modus Corp.
• Jim Wang: Alpha Modus Corp.

No unusual patterns, such as all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing, are evident from the provided information.

Original assignee

The original assignee named on the issued patent is Alpha Modus Corp.

Based on the patent's description, Alpha Modus Corp. appears to be an operating company in the field of monitoring and analyzing consumer purchasing behavior in real-time to drive sales via engaging digital customer experiences. The litigation summary indicates they are actively asserting their patents against other companies in the retail and media industries, implying they likely ship products or provide services embodying the claims.

According to the provided Google Patents legal status, Alpha Modus Corp. is listed as the Current Assignee.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center search (performed on 2026-05-29) for US Patent 10360571 returned the following assignment records:

• 2014-08-01 (executed) / recorded 2014-08-01 — Reel 032609/0147

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: Michael Garel and Jim Wang (inventors)
  • Assignee: EYEQ INC.
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL GAREL, EYEQ INC., 1900 GUADALUPE ST, AUSTIN, TX, 78705
  • Context: Transfer from inventors to initial assignee.

• 2019-05-28 (executed) / recorded 2019-05-28 — Reel 047644/0400

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: EYEQ, INC.
  • Assignee: ALPHA MODUS, CORP.
  • Correspondent: JOHN GAREL, 110 S. BEDFORD ROAD, STE 300, MOUNT KISCO, NY, 10549. This correspondent's name or firm may recur in other patent assignment records.
  • Context: Reassignment from an earlier assignee back to Alpha Modus, Corp.

• 2025-02-10 (executed) / recorded 2025-02-10 — Reel 063717/0010

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: ALPHA MODUS, CORP.
  • Assignee: STREETERVILLE CAPITAL, LLC
  • Correspondent: John M. Fife, Streeterville Management, LLC, 300 East Randolph Street, Suite 40.150, Chicago, IL, 60601. This correspondent's name or firm may recur in other patent assignment records.
  • Context: Grant of a security interest, typically for financing.

• 2025-07-31 (executed) / recorded 2025-07-31 — Reel 064977/0681

  • Conveyance: Release By Secured Party
  • Assignor: STREETERVILLE CAPITAL, LLC
  • Assignee: ALPHA MODUS, CORP.
  • Correspondent: John M. Fife, Streeterville Management, LLC, 300 East Randolph Street, Suite 40.150, Chicago, IL, 60601. This correspondent's name or firm may recur in other patent assignment records.
  • Context: Release of the security interest, returning full rights to Alpha Modus, Corp.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10360571
    2014 : Filed by Alpha Modus Corp
         : Assigned to EYEQ INC.
    2019 : Issued
         : Assigned to ALPHA MODUS, CORP.
    2025 : Security Interest to STREETERVILLE CAPITAL
         : Security interest released to ALPHA MODUS

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. While EYEQ INC. (first assignee) and ALPHA MODUS, CORP. (original and current assignee) operate in related fields, there isn't enough information solely from the assignment records to definitively label EYEQ INC. as a shell entity. EYEQ INC. is described as providing "security and intelligence solutions" and "remote video monitoring and security intelligence solutions," and "in-store analytics and engagement". Alpha Modus Corp. is described as an AI company focused on in-store shopper engagement. This could represent a transfer between two operating companies with related business interests. Streeterville Capital, LLC is an investment firm, and their involvement as a secured party (not outright owner) in a security interest transaction doesn't indicate a shell entity transfer for the purpose of patent assertion.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. None of the assignees (EYEQ INC., ALPHA MODUS, CORP., STREETERVILLE CAPITAL, LLC) are widely recognized as high-frequency NPEs on public lists such as RPX or Unified Patents. However, Alpha Modus, Corp. itself is an active asserter of its patents, as evidenced by the litigation summary. Streeterville Capital, LLC is an investment firm providing flexible growth financing solutions to public companies, which suggests a financial role rather than a direct assertion role.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. John M. Fife of Streeterville Management, LLC is listed as the correspondent for both the "Security Interest" (Reel 063717/0010) and the subsequent "Release By Secured Party" (Reel 064977/0681) transactions. His involvement in both these financial-related filings indicates a recurring role.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. The assignments show a transfer from inventors to EYEQ INC., then back to Alpha Modus, Corp., followed by a security interest and release. There are no multiple consecutive assignments through chained LLCs in a short timeframe that would suggest cascading transfers typically associated with NPE patterns.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The initial assignment to EYEQ INC. occurred in 2014. The reassignment to Alpha Modus, Corp. occurred in 2019. The first identified litigation against Mood Media, LLC was filed in September 2025. The security interest and release transactions with Streeterville Capital, LLC occurred in February and July 2025, which is within six months of the Mood Media filing. However, Alpha Modus, Corp. had already initiated other litigation prior to these transactions, with cases filed in late 2024 (e.g., Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Wakefern Food Corp. filed December 2024). Therefore, the security interest transactions in 2025 are not pre-litigation transfers, but rather occurred during an ongoing litigation campaign.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication from the assignment records or provided context that any of the assignors or assignees have undergone bankruptcy proceedings leading to a patent fire-sale.
7. Privateering — unclear. While Alpha Modus Corp. is an operating company that licenses its technology and also enforces its patents through litigation, there is no explicit evidence from the assignment records to suggest that any transfer was made to an NPE to assert on Alpha Modus's behalf against competitors (privateering). The litigation summary shows Alpha Modus Corp. as the plaintiff.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at any known defensive aggregators like RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or Open Invention Network.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence

While Alpha Modus Corp. is an operating company actively developing and licensing AI technologies for retail, the recurrent correspondent, John M. Fife, on the 2025 security interest and release filings (Reel 063717/0010 and 064977/0681) is a signal sometimes associated with financial entities involved in patent assertion campaigns, even if Streeterville Capital itself is a legitimate investment firm. The litigation summary further indicates Alpha Modus Corp.'s aggressive enforcement of its patent portfolio, a characteristic often shared with NPEs, despite their operating company status. This combination, particularly the financial transactions during an active litigation period with a repeat correspondent, elevates the confidence to moderate that some NPE-like financial strategies are at play.

USPTO Assignment Center search for US10360571: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (and searching by patent number US10360571).

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 10,360,571, I will consult the citations listed on the patent itself. Since I cannot directly access the USPTO database to search for "specific patent number 10360571" and then pull its citations in the same manner a human would use the USPTO site, I will rely on the Google Patents link which often mirrors this information.

Based on the provided full patent text and the Google Patents link for US10360571B2, the patent itself does not explicitly list "prior art references" in a dedicated section with detailed descriptions and their anticipation of claims. Instead, the patent document, under the "Prior art keywords" section, lists terms like "information," "persons," "customer," "monitoring devices," and "devices". The background section discusses existing challenges in retail, such as "lack of consumer purchasing data prior to the sale" and current methods like "focus groups, traffic counting devices, surveys, feedback from employees, and shopper shadows" as being insufficient. It also mentions "algorithms known in the art (such as Intel AIM Suite or SightCorp Crowdsight)" for demographic intelligence.

To provide specific patent citations and their relevance, I would typically look for a "References Cited" section within the patent document. Since this is not directly provided in the format requested within the provided text, and I cannot perform a live, interactive search of the USPTO database to extract this specific list, I cannot fulfill the request for a detailed breakdown of each prior art patent citation.

Therefore, I cannot provide a list of full citations, publication/filing dates, brief descriptions, and which claims they potentially anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on the provided text.

I cannot perform an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as requested because the "Prior Art section" that should contain a list of prior art references is not provided in the current context. To conduct such an analysis, I would require specific prior art documents to evaluate against the claims of US Patent 10,360,571.