US 11042890

Patent Analysis: US 11,042,890

Date of Analysis: April 26, 2026

This report provides a concise summary of United States Patent number 11,042,890, including its key bibliographic details and a plain-language overview of its independent claims.

Bibliographic Information

Litigation and Legal Status

As of the date of this analysis, the provided information indicates that the patent family is involved in litigation across several US District Courts, including in Texas and Illinois. The legal status of the patent is listed as "Active." I do not have access to real-time court dockets and therefore cannot provide an up-to-the-minute status of any ongoing litigation.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims

This patent contains three independent claims: claim 1 (a system), claim 26 (a method), and claim 49 (a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium). Below is a simplified explanation of what each of these claims protects.

Independent Claim 1: The System

This claim describes a comprehensive system for monitoring and analyzing the behavior of people in a specific location, such as a retail store. The core components of this system are:

• A Server: The central processing unit of the system.
• Information Monitoring Devices: These are devices like cameras, Wi-Fi sensors, and interactive displays that collect data about people in the location.
• Databases: Where the collected information is stored.
• A Plurality of Software Modules: These are different software programs running on the server that perform specific tasks. The claim specifies that the system must include at least a "demographic intelligence module" (to determine characteristics like age and gender) and a "tracking module" (to follow a person's movement).

In essence, claim 1 protects the physical and software infrastructure that can identify who a person is demographically, track where they go within a defined area, and then analyze this combined information.

Independent Claim 26: The Method

This claim focuses on the process of using the system described in claim 1. The key steps of this method are:

• Gathering Information: Using one or more monitoring devices to collect data about a person.
• Implementing Modules: Having a server run a variety of software modules, again with the requirement of at least a "demographic intelligence module" and a "tracking module."
• Analyzing the Information: Using these software modules to process and make sense of the collected data.

This claim protects the act of collecting and analyzing customer data in a retail environment using the specified combination of technologies.

Independent Claim 49: The Non-Transitory Computer-Readable Storage Medium

This claim covers the software itself. It describes a physical storage medium (like a hard drive or server memory) that contains computer-executable instructions. When these instructions are run by a processor, they perform the method outlined in claim 26.

Essentially, this claim protects the software product that enables the entire customer monitoring and analysis system to function. It covers the code that instructs the hardware how to gather, process, and analyze the data from the monitoring devices.

Disclaimer: This analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The interpretation of patent claims is a complex legal matter that can vary based on specific circumstances and judicial interpretation.

Litigation Involving US Patent 11,042,890

As of May 1, 2026, US patent 11,042,890, assigned to Alpha Modus Corp., is involved in an active and broad litigation campaign. The patent is being asserted against numerous companies in the retail sector, alleging infringement of its claims covering in-store customer monitoring and analysis technologies.

The plaintiff in these cases is consistently Alpha Modus, Corp., a subsidiary of Alpha Modus Holdings, Inc. The company has publicly stated its intent to enforce its intellectual property portfolio. As of April 2026, Alpha Modus had filed 24 patent enforcement actions, with some early cases resulting in confidential settlements.

While specific court documents for each case mentioning US patent 11,042,890 are not all publicly available through general searches, news reports and press releases confirm a pattern of litigation. The lawsuits generally target retailers' use of technologies for real-time consumer behavior analysis, AI-driven personalization, and in-store engagement platforms.

Below is a list of known litigation based on available information. Note that this patent is often asserted alongside other patents in the Alpha Modus portfolio.

The strategy appears to be widespread, targeting a variety of entities including retailers, integrators, and technology vendors involved in modern, data-driven retail systems. The primary venue for these lawsuits appears to be the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a common jurisdiction for patent litigation.

Proceedings overview

As of May 31, 2026, there are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for US Patent 11,042,890. This means the patent's claims have not been challenged or adjudicated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). For a defendant, this indicates that all claims remain untested by PTAB challenges, and an IPR/PGR-based defensive posture would need to initiate new proceedings.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US Patent 11,042,890 are UNTESTED at the PTAB. No claims have been canceled, sustained, or modified through IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings. This means the patent has not been subjected to the scrutiny of an AIA trial, which can often narrow or invalidate claims.

The absence of PTAB activity implies that the estoppel landscape under § 315(e)(2) is clear, as no petitioner has been barred from raising prior-art grounds against this patent. All potential prior-art grounds (e.g., under § 102 or § 103) remain available for a new challenger.

Given the active litigation campaign noted in the litigation summary, the lack of PTAB challenges is somewhat unusual for a patent being asserted broadly. This could indicate several possibilities:

• The patent was recently issued (June 22, 2021), and the current litigation campaign may have begun before defendants could mount a PTAB challenge.
• Potential petitioners may be negotiating settlements or cross-licensing agreements, or they might be preparing petitions that have not yet been filed or publicly indexed.
• The asserted claims may be perceived as robust enough to discourage PTAB challenges, or the specific prior art required for a strong petition has not yet been identified or effectively deployed.
• The litigations are recent (many filings in 2025 and 2026), suggesting that defendants may still be within the one-year window to file IPR petitions after being served with a complaint (35 U.S.C. § 315(b)).

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US Patent 11,042,890, a defendant facing assertion of this patent currently has an open field to pursue an AIA trial.

1. Prior Art Search: Conduct a comprehensive prior art search specifically targeting the claims being asserted in litigation to identify strong grounds for an IPR or PGR petition.
2. Timing: Be mindful of the one-year statutory bar for filing an IPR petition from the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement (35 U.S.C. § 315(b)).
3. Petition Filing: If strong prior art is found, consider filing an IPR petition. An IPR can be a cost-effective way to challenge patent validity compared to district court litigation. The absence of prior PTAB challenges means there's no institutional precedent or estoppel to navigate.
4. Monitor PTAB Docket: Continuously monitor the USPTO PTAB End-to-End (E2E) system for any newly filed petitions related to US11042890, as other defendants in the ongoing litigation may initiate proceedings.My search confirms that the USPTO ODP API's information is correct: there are no completed or active PTAB proceedings listed for US11042890. The search results show recent patent infringement lawsuits filed by Alpha Modus Corp. against various retailers, many of which are recent (late 2025, early 2026). This timeline suggests that defendants may still be within the window to file IPR petitions, or are in the early stages of preparing such filings. The patent itself was issued in June 2021, making it relatively new for comprehensive PTAB challenges to have run their course.

Therefore, the initial assessment that there are no PTAB proceedings on file remains accurate based on current public records.

My response should clearly state this absence, as instructed, and then provide the strategic implications.

Confidence Score: 5/5 - The search results confirm the initial data, and the implications of no PTAB activity are straightforward.## Proceedings overview

As of May 31, 2026, there are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for US Patent 11,042,890. This means the patent's claims have not been challenged or adjudicated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). For a defendant, this indicates that all claims remain untested by PTAB challenges, and an IPR/PGR-based defensive posture would need to initiate new proceedings.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US Patent 11,042,890 are UNTESTED at the PTAB. No claims have been canceled, sustained, or modified through IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings. This means the patent has not been subjected to the scrutiny of an AIA trial, which can often narrow or invalidate claims.

The absence of PTAB activity implies that the estoppel landscape under § 315(e)(2) is clear, as no petitioner has been barred from raising prior-art grounds against this patent. All potential prior-art grounds (e.g., under § 102 or § 103) remain available for a new challenger.

Given the active litigation campaign noted in the litigation summary, the lack of PTAB challenges is somewhat unusual for a patent being asserted broadly. US Patent 11,042,890 was issued on June 22, 2021, and many of the reported infringement lawsuits by Alpha Modus Corp. against various retailers were filed in late 2025 and early 2026. This timeline suggests that defendants may still be within the one-year window to file IPR petitions after being served with a complaint (35 U.S.C. § 315(b)), or are in the early stages of preparing such filings.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US Patent 11,042,890, a defendant facing assertion of this patent currently has an open field to pursue an AIA trial.

1. Prior Art Search: Conduct a comprehensive prior art search specifically targeting the claims being asserted in litigation to identify strong grounds for an IPR or PGR petition.
2. Timing: Be mindful of the one-year statutory bar for filing an IPR petition from the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement (35 U.S.C. § 315(b)).
3. Petition Filing: If strong prior art is found, consider filing an IPR petition. An IPR can be a cost-effective way to challenge patent validity compared to district court litigation. The absence of prior PTAB challenges means there's no institutional precedent or estoppel to navigate.
4. Monitor PTAB Docket: Continuously monitor the USPTO PTAB End-to-End (E2E) system for any newly filed petitions related to US11042890, as other defendants in the ongoing litigation may initiate proceedings.

Inventors

• Michael Garel: Employer not specified in the patent document.
• Jim Wang: Employer not specified in the patent document.

No information available in the patent document to determine if inventors departed the original assignee within 12 months of filing.

Original assignee

The original assignee named on the issued patent is Alpha Modus Corp.. The patent abstract and description indicate that Alpha Modus Corp. develops systems for monitoring and analyzing consumer purchasing behavior in real-time to drive sales via engaging digital customer experiences, particularly in retail settings. Information from the patent itself does not confirm whether they shipped a product embodying the claims, but the description details a "system of the present invention" which "utilizes one or more in-store computer systems tied to a cloud database and application server to monitor, analyze, and influence consumer purchasing behavior."

As of May 1, 2026, Alpha Modus Corp. is actively involved in patent litigation, indicating that they are an operating entity asserting their intellectual property.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center was searched for patent number US11042890.

• 2020-11-18 (executed) / recorded 2020-11-18 — Reel 056461/0815

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: Michael Garel, Jim Wang (Inventors)
  • Assignee: EYEQ INC.
  • Correspondent: Jeffrey B. Fromm, Fromm Law Firm, LLC, 295 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017
  • Context: Transfer from inventors to an entity named EYEQ INC.

• 2020-11-18 (executed) / recorded 2020-11-18 — Reel 056461/0815

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: EYEQ INC.
  • Assignee: ALPHA MODUS, CORP.
  • Correspondent: Jeffrey B. Fromm, Fromm Law Firm, LLC, 295 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017. This correspondent also appears on the preceding assignment in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer from EYEQ INC. to Alpha Modus, Corp. This appears to be an internal reorg or a rapid subsequent transfer after the initial inventor assignment.

• 2025-02-10 (executed) / recorded 2025-02-10 — Reel 063380/0173

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: ALPHA MODUS, CORP.
  • Assignee: STREETERVILLE CAPITAL, LLC
  • Correspondent: John M. Fife, Streeterville Capital, LLC, 300 E Randolph St., Ste 40.150, Chicago, IL 60601.
  • Context: Securitization of the patent by Alpha Modus, Corp. to Streeterville Capital, LLC.

• 2025-07-31 (executed) / recorded 2025-07-31 — Reel 063380/0172

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: STREETERVILLE CAPITAL, LLC
  • Assignee: ALPHA MODUS, CORP.
  • Correspondent: John M. Fife, Streeterville Capital, LLC, 300 E Randolph St., Ste 40.150, Chicago, IL 60601. This correspondent also appears on the preceding assignment in this chain.
  • Context: Release of the security interest by Streeterville Capital, LLC, returning full rights to Alpha Modus, Corp.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11042890
    2013 : Priority date
    2020 : Filed by Alpha Modus Corp
         : Assigned inventors to EYEQ INC
         : Assigned EYEQ to Alpha Modus Corp
    2021 : Issued
    2025 : Security Interest to Streeterville Cap
         : Release by Streeterville Cap

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Unclear.

   • EYEQ INC.: The patent record shows a transfer from inventors to EYEQ INC. and then immediately to Alpha Modus, Corp. on the same day (2020-11-18, Reel 056461/0815). The business of EYEQ INC. in the context of this patent is not clearly defined, though other entities named "EyeQ" exist in different sectors like aesthetics or video monitoring. This rapid transfer could indicate an intermediate holding entity, but without more information on EYEQ INC.'s primary business in relation to these claims, it's unclear if it's a shell entity specifically for patent holding.
   • Alpha Modus, Corp.: While Alpha Modus, Corp. is an active litigant, its SEC filings indicate it is an operating company involved in AI-enabled retail technology and financial services infrastructure, suggesting it is not solely a licensing entity.
   • Streeterville Capital, LLC: This entity appears as a secured party in a financing arrangement (2025-02-10, Reel 063380/0173) and then released that interest (2025-07-31, Reel 063380/0172). Streeterville Capital is a venture capital firm that makes investments. Their role here is related to financing, not necessarily indicating a shell entity for patent assertion.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. Alpha Modus, Corp. is the current assignee and is known to be actively asserting this patent in litigation against numerous companies in the retail sector.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present.

   • Jeffrey B. Fromm, Fromm Law Firm, LLC, appears on both inventor-to-EYEQ INC. and EYEQ INC.-to-Alpha Modus, Corp. assignments (2020-11-18, Reel 056461/0815).
   • John M. Fife, Streeterville Capital, LLC, appears on both the Security Interest and Release by Secured Party assignments (2025-02-10, Reel 063380/0173 and 2025-07-31, Reel 063380/0172).

4. Cascading transfers — Unclear. There are two transfers on the same day (2020-11-18, Reel 056461/0815) from the inventors to EYEQ INC. and then to Alpha Modus, Corp., which is rapid. However, these are early in the patent's life and appear to be part of the initial assignment process rather than serial transfers through multiple shell LLCs designed for assertion.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The litigation timeline provided indicates lawsuits filed as early as November 2024 (e.g., against Brookshire Grocery Co.), while the security interest and release by Streeterville Capital, LLC occurred in February and July 2025, respectively (2025-02-10, Reel 063380/0173 and 2025-07-31, Reel 063380/0172). The initial assignments to Alpha Modus, Corp. were in November 2020 (Reel 056461/0815), well before the first known litigation.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No evidence in the assignment records or provided context indicates a bankruptcy fire-sale.

7. Privateering — Unclear. While Alpha Modus, Corp. is litigating, the current information doesn't explicitly state whether they are asserting on behalf of another operating company against competitors in a privateering arrangement. Their SEC filings suggest an operating business focused on retail technology.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent is currently held by Alpha Modus, Corp., which is actively asserting it, rather than being held by a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence

The strong signal is the ongoing and widespread litigation by Alpha Modus, Corp., which has filed numerous patent infringement lawsuits. The recurrence of the same correspondent attorney across multiple assignments (Jeffrey B. Fromm and John M. Fife) also contributes to this finding, suggesting a coordinated legal strategy (Reel 056461/0815, Reel 063380/0173, Reel 063380/0172). Although Alpha Modus Corp. positions itself as an operating company in SEC filings, the extensive litigation campaign points towards a business model heavily reliant on patent enforcement.

USPTO Assignment Center Search: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 11,042,890 and provide the requested details, I need to access the full citation list from the USPTO database for this specific patent. The provided patent text does not include the list of prior art citations.

I will attempt to use the USPTO Patent Public Search tool to retrieve the prior art cited in US patent 11,042,890. However, directly performing a live search and extracting specific data points for each citation (full citation, publication/filing date, brief description, and which claim(s) it potentially anticipates) is beyond my current capabilities in this interactive format. The USPTO search interface generally allows users to view patent documents, but extracting and summarizing the details of each cited prior art in the specified format for analysis is a manual process.

Therefore, I cannot, with high confidence, provide the most relevant prior art for US patent 11,042,890 and the detailed analysis for each citation as requested, without direct, programmatic access to the USPTO's internal citation data and the ability to parse and summarize the content of each cited patent.

If you can provide a list of the cited prior art patents for US11042890, I would be able to analyze them and provide the requested information for each.

The provided patent text for US Patent 11,042,890, titled "Method and system for customer assistance in a retail store," outlines a "Prior art date" of July 19, 2013, and "Prior art keywords" such as "information," "customer," "person," "product," and "devices." However, it does not explicitly cite or reference specific prior art publications or patents that could be combined for an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, this analysis will rely on the general state of the art as described within the patent's "BACKGROUND" section, which represents knowledge available to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the priority date.

General State of the Art (as described in US11042890's Background)

The patent itself details the challenges faced by brick-and-mortar retailers prior to the invention. These challenges highlight the existing technological landscape and the recognized problems in the retail industry at the time:

• Online vs. Brick-and-Mortar: Online retail leveraged "data driven practices to provide optimized messaging to their customers that will influence their purchasing," an ability brick-and-mortar retailers "do not have today."
• Lack of Pre-Sale Data: The retail industry faced "the lack of consumer purchasing data prior to the sale." Existing methods for determining pre-POS consumer behavior included "focus groups, traffic counting devices, surveys, feedback from employees, and shopper shadows," all deemed insufficient.
• Customer Information Gap: Consumers expect relevant in-store information, but store associates often lack sufficient product knowledge, and "trusted third party reviews—which are not available in-store today" often lead customers to competitor websites via mobile devices (showrooming).
• Known Technologies: The patent mentions the existence of "very expensive products that can be installed on shelves to only watch a customer's eyes and determine where they are looking." It also refers to demographic intelligence "algorithms known in the art (such as Intel AIM Suite or SightCorp Crowdsight)" to determine age, gender, and sentiment. Furthermore, it acknowledges that "Smart phones and other mobile devices today have WIFI and Bluetooth built into them" and "are continuously broadcasting a header which contains that particular devices Media Access Control (MAC) address." The patent also describes that using signal strength and algorithms, "the system is able to determine the distance of the mobile device from the receiver/transmitter of the system."

Motivation to Combine Known Technologies

The "BACKGROUND" section of US11042890 provides a strong motivation for a PHOSITA to combine existing technologies. The overarching problem is the inability of brick-and-mortar retailers to offer "a richer experience than they can obtain online" and to "provide the right message to the right customer at the right time" to combat "showrooming" and increase in-store sales.

A PHOSITA in the field of retail technology, recognizing these explicit needs, would be motivated to adapt and integrate known data-gathering and personalization techniques (prevalent in online retail) into physical store environments. The goal would be to bridge the gap in customer behavior data prior to sale and to deliver targeted, real-time engagement to in-store shoppers.

Obviousness Analysis of Independent Claims

Given the general state of the art as described, the independent claims (Claim 1: system, Claim 26: method, Claim 49: computer-readable medium) appear to combine known elements and functionalities in a manner that would have been obvious to a PHOSITA, motivated by the clearly articulated problems in the retail industry.

Combination of Known Elements:

1. Demographic Intelligence: The patent explicitly states that algorithms for determining a person's gender, approximate age, and sentiment were "known in the art (such as Intel AIM Suite or SightCorp Crowdsight)." A PHOSITA would understand how to incorporate such a "demographic intelligence module" into a system for customer analysis.
2. Tracking Modules (e.g., MAC address tracking): The patent describes the known behavior of mobile devices broadcasting MAC addresses and methods to determine location via signal strength and triangulation. Therefore, a "tracking module" utilizing MAC addresses (or other mobile device tracking) would be a known technical capability. "Traffic counting devices" were also known, albeit considered insufficient.
3. Information Monitoring Devices: Cameras, sensors, displays, Wi-Fi devices, and kiosks were common electronic devices capable of gathering information.
4. Server, Databases, Software Modules: These are standard components of any computing system designed for data processing and management.
5. Interactive Displays and Engagement: Digital signage and interactive displays for marketing and information dissemination were known in various commercial settings.
6. Real-time Analysis and Personalized Messaging: Online retail already demonstrated the benefits of "data driven practices" for "optimized messaging" in real-time. The application of real-time data processing to local, in-store data would be an expected extension of these known online capabilities.

Obvious Combination:

A PHOSITA, faced with the challenge of providing brick-and-mortar retailers with "a richer experience than they can obtain online" and the ability to "provide the right message to the right customer at the right time", would be motivated to combine the following known elements:

• Combine known demographic intelligence systems (e.g., using cameras and known algorithms) with known mobile device tracking techniques (e.g., MAC address sniffing and triangulation using Wi-Fi receivers). The motivation is to generate comprehensive customer profiles including demographics and movement patterns, which is a clear enhancement over existing "focus groups, traffic counting devices, surveys, feedback from employees, and shopper shadows." The patent itself states the system "can be able to link the information from the person gathered in the demographic intelligence module and the tracking module", suggesting this linkage was a recognized beneficial step.
• Integrate these data gathering and analysis capabilities into a central server and database system to process the information in real-time. This addresses the "lack of consumer purchasing data prior to the sale" and mimics the "data driven practices" of online retail.
• Connect this system to in-store interactive displays to deliver personalized marketing and advertising messages based on the real-time analyzed demographic and tracking data. This directly addresses the "biggest impediments" of "Delivering the right message to the right time to a customer that influences purchasing" and aims to provide the "richer experience" desired by brick-and-mortar stores.

The independent claims, in essence, describe a system and method for applying data-driven personalization techniques, already proven in online retail, to the physical retail environment using existing and well-understood technologies for data collection (demographics, tracking) and delivery (interactive displays). The motivation to do so is explicitly and strongly articulated in the patent's own background section, making the combination of these known elements and functionalities to achieve the described outcomes an obvious endeavor for a PHOSITA at the time of the invention.