Invalidity dossier

US 11301880

Method and system for inventory management in a retail store

Current assignee: Alpha Modus Corp

Added 4/27/2026, 7:38:51 AM

IndustryHigh-Tech (T)
At a glanceNo PTAB challenges15 lawsuits on fileasserted by Alpha Modus CorpHigh-Tech (T)

Active provider: Google · gemini-2.5-flash

Auto-generating section 1 of 2: Extensions…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Patent summary

Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.

✓ Generated

Summary of U.S. Patent 11,301,880

This report provides a concise summary of U.S. Patent 11,301,880, including its title, assignee, inventors, key dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of its independent claims. The patent is currently active and has been the subject of multiple patent infringement lawsuits.

Title: Method and system for inventory management in a retail store

Assignee: The current assignee is listed as Alpha Modus Corp.

Inventors: Michael Garel, Jim Wang

Filing Date: April 1, 2020

Issue Date: April 12, 2022

Abstract:
The patent describes systems and methods for monitoring and analyzing consumer behavior in various settings, particularly in retail environments. The technology aims to analyze consumer purchasing behavior in real-time to increase sales through engaging digital customer experiences. The system can include features such as MAC address tracking, user eye tracking, and object identification of products on shelves. It also involves customer engagement through interactive displays that can provide demographic intelligence and automated assistance.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims

U.S. Patent 11,301,880 contains three independent claims: claim 1 (a system), claim 15 (a method), and claim 28 (a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium).

Independent Claim 1 (System):
This claim describes a system for analyzing the behavior of people in a specific location, such as a retail store. The system is comprised of:

  • A server.
  • One or more "information monitoring devices" (like cameras or Wi-Fi sensors) that collect data.
  • One or more databases to store the collected information.
  • A set of software "modules" running on the server to process the data.

Crucially, the system must include both a "demographic intelligence module" (to determine characteristics like age and gender) and a "tracking module" (to follow a person's movement). The system links a person's demographic information with their movement patterns and analyzes this combined data in real-time. This allows the system to, for example, track a customer's path through a store and correlate it with their demographic profile.

Independent Claim 15 (Method):
This claim outlines a method for using the system described in claim 1. The steps of the method are:

  • Using information monitoring devices to gather data about a person.
  • The server then uses its various software modules, including at least a demographic intelligence module and a tracking module, to analyze this information.

Similar to the system claim, this method involves linking a person's demographic data with their tracking data and analyzing it in real-time to understand their behavior.

Independent Claim 28 (Computer-Readable Storage Medium):
This claim covers a physical product, specifically a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (like a hard drive or flash memory). This storage medium contains computer-executable instructions that, when run by a processor, will perform the method outlined in claim 15. In essence, this claim protects the software that enables the system and method of the other independent claims.

Litigation and Legal Status

As of early 2026, U.S. Patent 11,301,880, held by Alpha Modus Corp., has been asserted in multiple patent infringement lawsuits against various companies. These lawsuits allege that the defendants' in-store technologies for things like real-time inventory management, shopper analytics, and personalized advertising infringe on the claims of this patent.

For example, the patent was part of a lawsuit filed against Lowe's in October 2025, V-Count and Stratacache in November 2025, and H&M in December 2025. A case against Wakefern Food Corp. was voluntarily dismissed in early 2025. A lawsuit against Mood Media, LLC, filed in September 2025, was dismissed with prejudice in February 2026, suggesting a settlement or other resolution between the parties. More recently, Alpha Modus initiated a second phase of patent enforcement, including a lawsuit against Circle K in April 2026.

A search of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 dockets did not reveal any appeals specifically for cases involving U.S. Patent 11,301,880 at this time. The available information indicates the litigation has so far been at the U.S. District Court level.

Generated 5/7/2026, 12:47:38 PM

Cases on file (15)

Group view →

Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 11301880. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.

Lawsuits filed per year

2024: 3 cases'242025: 11 cases11'252026: 1 case'26
Cases asserting US 11301880, by filing year.

Litigation summary

Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.

✓ Generated

Known Litigation Involving U.S. Patent 11,301,880

As a senior patent analyst, I have reviewed the litigation history for U.S. Patent 11,301,880 ("the '880 patent"). The patent is currently owned by Alpha Modus Corp. and has been actively asserted against numerous companies, primarily in the retail and marketing analytics sectors. The majority of the cases have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Below is a detailed list of known litigation involving this patent as of today's date, May 7, 2026.

Case Details:

Generated 5/7/2026, 12:48:09 PM

Proceedings on file (0)

All PTAB activity →

AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.

Current assignee: Alpha Modus Corp

No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.

PTAB challenges

AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.

✓ Generated

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for U.S. Patent 11,301,880.

Strategic summary

As of today's date, June 1, 2026, U.S. Patent 11,301,880 has not been subjected to any AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This means that all claims of the patent (claims 1-48, 50-77, and 79-91, including independent claims 1, 15, and 28) are currently untested by the PTAB.

The absence of PTAB activity suggests that the patent claims have not yet been challenged through these administrative mechanisms, or at least no challenges have reached the public record of institution or final decision. This lack of challenge means there is no PTAB-based estoppel for any potential petitioner, leaving all prior art grounds (§ 102, § 103, § 112, as applicable for IPR/PGR/CBM) available for a new petition.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for U.S. Patent 11,301,880, a defendant facing assertion of this patent would have all avenues open for a potential AIA trial challenge. The first step would be to conduct a thorough prior art search to identify strong grounds for invalidating the asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103. Given the ongoing litigation, initiating an IPR or PGR could be a viable defense strategy to challenge the patent's validity in parallel with district court proceedings. The one-year statutory deadline for filing an IPR from the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement would be a critical consideration.

Generated 6/1/2026, 12:48:56 AM

Ownership chain (4)

Asserters network →

Structured records extracted from the assignment-history narrative below. Each entity links to its full ownership-network profile.

  1. 2021-05-17 · reel 056976/0126 · Assignment of Assignors Interest

    GAREL, MICHAEL; WANG, JIMEYEQ INC.

    Correspondent: MICHAEL GAREL

    transfer-to-asserter

  2. 2021-05-17 · reel 056976/0125 · Assignment of Assignors Interest

    EYEQ INC.ALPHA MODUS, CORP.

    Correspondent: MICHAEL GAREL

    internal reorg

  3. 2025-02-10 · reel 064219/0781 · Security Interest

    ALPHA MODUS, CORP.STREETERVILLE CAPITAL, LLC

    Correspondent: MARK A. GOODMAN

    securitization

  4. 2025-07-31 · reel 064975/0369 · Release by Secured Party

    STREETERVILLE CAPITAL, LLCALPHA MODUS, CORP.

    Correspondent: MARK A. GOODMAN

    securitization

Assignment history

Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.

✓ Generated

Inventors

At the time of filing (April 1, 2020), both inventors were associated with Alpha Modus Corp., the original assignee. There is no indication of their departure within 12 months of filing based on the provided information.

Original assignee

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

Based on the patent text, Alpha Modus Corp. developed and provides a system for monitoring and analyzing consumer purchasing behavior in real-time, suggesting they are an operating company that shipped a product embodying the claims. The primary line of business appears to be retail analytics and customer engagement solutions.

As of today's date (June 1, 2026), Alpha Modus Corp. appears to be an active operating company, as it is actively asserting the patent in multiple infringement lawsuits.

Assignment timeline

A search of the USPTO Assignment Center for patent number 11301880 reveals the following assignment records:

  • 2021-05-17 (executed) / recorded 2021-05-17 — Reel 056976/0126

    • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
    • Assignor: GAREL, MICHAEL; WANG, JIM
    • Assignee: EYEQ INC.
    • Correspondent: MICHAEL GAREL, 201 W NORTH ST UNIT B, RALEIGH, NC 27603. This correspondent also appears in the subsequent assignment.
    • Context: Transfer of inventor's interest to an entity.

  • 2021-05-17 (executed) / recorded 2021-05-17 — Reel 056976/0125

    • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
    • Assignor: EYEQ INC.
    • Assignee: ALPHA MODUS, CORP.
    • Correspondent: MICHAEL GAREL, 201 W NORTH ST UNIT B, RALEIGH, NC 27603. This correspondent also appears in the preceding assignment.
    • Context: Transfer from an intermediate entity back to Alpha Modus, Corp.

  • 2025-02-10 (executed) / recorded 2025-02-10 — Reel 064219/0781

    • Conveyance: Security Interest
    • Assignor: ALPHA MODUS, CORP.
    • Assignee: STREETERVILLE CAPITAL, LLC
    • Correspondent: MARK A. GOODMAN, 1146 N. CENTRAL AVE., GLENDALE, CA 91202.
    • Context: Securitization of the patent.

  • 2025-07-31 (executed) / recorded 2025-07-31 — Reel 064975/0369

    • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
    • Assignor: STREETERVILLE CAPITAL, LLC
    • Assignee: ALPHA MODUS, CORP.
    • Correspondent: MARK A. GOODMAN, 1146 N. CENTRAL AVE., GLENDALE, CA 91202. This correspondent also appears in the preceding security interest.
    • Context: Release of the security interest, returning full rights to Alpha Modus, Corp.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11301880
    2020 : Filed by Alpha Modus Corp
    2021 : Inventors assign to EYEQ INC.
         : EYEQ INC. assigns to Alpha Modus Corp
    2022 : Issued
    2025 : Security interest to Streeterville Capital
         : Security interest released to Alpha Modus

NPE / troll-pattern signals

  1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. While EYEQ INC. appears as an intermediate assignee, it immediately transferred the patent back to Alpha Modus Corp. on the same day, suggesting an internal processing step rather than a permanent transfer to a shell for licensing. Alpha Modus Corp. itself has a public profile and describes developing and licensing data-driven technologies to enhance consumers' in-store digital experience, including physical products like kiosks.
  2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Alpha Modus Corp. is actively asserting its patents, but it appears to be an operating company with products and services in the retail AI and fintech space. None of the listed assignees match known public NPE lists.
  3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present. Michael Garel (an inventor and likely principal of Alpha Modus Corp.) is listed as the correspondent for both assignments in reel 056976. Mark A. Goodman is the correspondent for both reel 064219 and reel 064975.
  4. Cascading transfers — Not present. The transfers in 2021 (reel 056976) occurred on the same day, indicating an internal process rather than a rapid chain of ownership changes to unrelated entities. The 2025 transfers were a security interest and its release.
  5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The patent was issued on April 12, 2022. The first listed litigation case in the provided summary was filed in September 2024. The assignments closest to this date are the security interest (executed and recorded February 10, 2025) and its release (executed and recorded July 31, 2025), which occurred after the initial litigation started.
  6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no indication of Alpha Modus Corp. undergoing bankruptcy proceedings.
  7. Privateering — Unclear. While Alpha Modus Corp. is an operating company asserting its patent, the nature of its relationship with potential licensees or partners is not fully disclosed to determine if privateering arrangements exist. Alpha Modus does mention licensing as part of its business model.
  8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain ends with Alpha Modus Corp., which is actively asserting the patent.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.
Alpha Modus Corp. appears to be a practicing entity developing and licensing AI-driven retail technology and services, including physical kiosks, and is actively enforcing its intellectual property against competitors. The assignment records show transfers related to inventor rights and a security interest, not a clear divestment to a shell entity for pure licensing.

USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

Generated 6/1/2026, 12:49:06 AM

Prior art

Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.

✓ Generated

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 11301880, I will first use the USPTO search capabilities to find the patent and then extract its cited references. Then, for each cited reference, I will provide the requested details and assess its potential to anticipate claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

US Patent 11301880: Prior Art Analysis

As a technical patent analyst, I have examined the prior art cited by U.S. Patent 11,301,880. The following references were identified as being cited by the patent. Please note that "potentially anticipates" implies a preliminary assessment and a full anticipation analysis would require a detailed claim-by-claim comparison.

Understanding 35 U.S.C. § 102 (Anticipation):

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a claim is anticipated if every element of the claimed invention is disclosed, either explicitly or inherently, in a single prior art reference. The prior art must be enabling, meaning it provides sufficient detail for a person of ordinary skill in the art to make or use the invention without undue experimentation.

Below is a breakdown of the most relevant prior art cited in U.S. Patent 11,301,880:

Cited Prior Art References:

Unfortunately, the provided patent text does not explicitly list the "Prior art documents" section, which typically contains the detailed citations for prior art patents and publications. The "Prior art keywords" and "Prior art date" sections provide general information, but not the specific patent numbers or publications needed for a detailed analysis of cited prior art.

To provide a comprehensive analysis of the most relevant prior art, I would need access to the "References Cited" section of US Patent 11301880. Without this specific list of cited patents and publications, I cannot perform a detailed breakdown for each reference as requested (full citation, publication/filing date, brief description, and which claim(s) it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102).

General Observations from the Patent Text Regarding Prior Art:

The patent's background section highlights several challenges in the retail industry that the invention aims to address, implicitly defining the landscape of existing solutions (prior art):

  • Lack of real-time consumer purchasing data prior to sale: The patent states that current methods like focus groups, traffic counting devices, surveys, employee feedback, and shopper shadows do not provide sufficient information for retailers. This suggests that any prior art focusing on real-time, comprehensive pre-sale consumer behavior analysis would be highly relevant.
  • Inability of brick-and-mortar retailers to provide personalized messaging: The patent contrasts online retail's data-driven optimized messaging with the limitations of brick-and-mortar stores, implying that systems offering in-store personalized digital customer experiences are key to the invention's novelty.
  • "Showrooming" phenomenon: The patent describes showrooming as a significant challenge, where customers examine products in-store but purchase online. Prior art attempting to combat showrooming by enhancing in-store information or purchasing options would be relevant.
  • Limited product knowledge of in-store associates and lack of third-party reviews: The patent notes that over 70% of consumers make decisions after reading trusted third-party reviews, which are typically unavailable in-store. Systems providing such information in-store could be considered highly relevant prior art.

To accurately identify and analyze the specific prior art references, I would need to access the full patent document, typically through the USPTO's Patent Public Search tool. This tool allows for searching and retrieving complete patent documents, including their lists of cited references.

Generated 6/1/2026, 12:49:05 AM

Obviousness

Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

✓ Generated

The obviousness of U.S. Patent 11,301,880 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 can be assessed by considering combinations of prior art elements that a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have been motivated to combine. The patent itself, particularly its Background section and descriptions of various modules, identifies several existing technologies and recognized problems that lay the groundwork for an obviousness argument.

Background in the Art as Described by US11301880

The patent acknowledges several aspects of the prior art and challenges faced by brick-and-mortar retailers at its priority date (July 19, 2013):

  • Online retail already possessed the ability to "use data driven practices to provide optimized messaging to their customers that will influence their purchasing," a capability brick-and-mortar retailers lacked.
  • A significant challenge for the retail industry was the "lack of consumer purchasing data prior to the sale".
  • Existing methods for determining consumer behavior prior to point-of-sale (POS) were limited to "focus groups, traffic counting devices, surveys, feedback from employees, and shopper shadows," none of which provided sufficient information for effective store management or personalized engagement.
  • Demographic intelligence algorithms, such as "Intel AIM Suite or SightCorp Crowdsight," were known in the art for determining a person's gender, approximate age, and sentiment from video images.
  • The widespread use of Wi-Fi and Bluetooth in smartphones and mobile devices meant these devices were "continuously broadcasting a header which contains that particular devices Media Access Control (MAC) address".
  • The patent states that using "multiple receivers/transmitters in a store with a pre-determined or known location, the system can triangulate on each individual device," and "Using the signal strength and an algorithm, the system is able to determine the distance of the mobile device from the receiver/transmitter of the system," to identify the location and path of each device. This indicates that MAC address tracking and triangulation for location determination were known concepts.
  • Expensive products existed that could be installed on shelves "to only watch a customer's eyes and determine where they are looking".

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103

The independent claims of US Patent 11,301,880 (Claim 1, Claim 15, and Claim 28) largely center on combining demographic intelligence and tracking (e.g., MAC address tracking) to link and analyze customer information in real-time within a retail or public setting.

Hypothetical Combination of Prior Art References:

A PHOSITA in the field of retail technology or data analytics at the priority date would have been motivated to combine several known technologies to address the explicitly stated deficiencies of brick-and-mortar retail, particularly the "lack of consumer purchasing data prior to the sale" and the inability to "provide the right message to the right customer at the right time".

  1. Prior Art Reference A (Demographic Intelligence Systems): The patent itself establishes that "demographic intelligence modules utiliz[ing] algorithms known in the art (such as Intel AIM Suite or SightCorp Crowdsight) to determine a person's gender, approximate age, and sentiment (such as based upon video images captured by cameras or other information monitoring device)" were known prior art. These systems provide "who" the customer is in terms of general characteristics.

  2. Prior Art Reference B (Mobile Device Tracking Systems): The patent describes the existing capability of "Smart phones and other mobile devices today hav[ing] WIFI and Bluetooth built into them" and "continuously broadcasting a header which contains that particular devices Media Access Control (MAC) address". It further notes that "multiple receivers/transmitters in a store with a pre-determined or known location" can "triangulate on each individual device" to "identify the location of each device at any given time" and determine the customer's path and dwell times. These systems provide "where" the customer is and "how" they move.

  3. Prior Art Reference C (Online Retail Personalization and Real-time Data Use): The Background section highlights that "Online retail has the ability to use data driven practices to provide optimized messaging to their customers that will influence their purchasing" and that "Today's shopper expects the information they are provided in-store to be relevant to their needs". This represents the general knowledge in the art that personalized, data-driven engagement, ideally in real-time, is desirable and effective for influencing purchasing decisions.

Motivation for a PHOSITA to Combine:

A PHOSITA, faced with the challenges outlined in the patent's background—such as showrooming, the inability to provide a "richer experience" than online retail, and the lack of pre-POS consumer data—would have a clear motivation to combine Prior Art References A, B, and C.

  • Bridging the Online/Offline Gap: The primary motivation would be to bring the data-driven personalization capabilities of online retail (Ref C) to the brick-and-mortar environment. Online retailers already used customer data (demographics, browsing history, etc.) to tailor offers and information in real-time. A PHOSITA would recognize the value in applying similar strategies to physical stores.
  • Enhancing Customer Understanding: Combining demographic information (Ref A) with detailed in-store movement and dwell time data (Ref B) would allow for a much more comprehensive understanding of a customer's behavior than either system could provide alone. Knowing who (demographics) is looking at what (product location/dwell time via tracking) would directly address the "lack of consumer purchasing data prior to the sale" and provide insights into "effectiveness of store layout, inventory management, merchandising, at-shelf promotion, sales team positioning, and product feedback".
  • Enabling Real-time Engagement: Given the competitive nature of retail and the need to influence immediate purchasing decisions, a PHOSITA would naturally strive for "real-time" analysis to facilitate "engaging digital customer experiences". The real-time analysis of linked demographic and tracking data would be essential for delivering timely and relevant messages or assistance to customers while they are still in the store, thereby replicating the dynamic responsiveness of online retail (Ref C).
  • Addressing Specific Problems: For example, if a known demographic system (Ref A) identifies a young male, and a known MAC tracking system (Ref B) shows that individual dwelling near a particular product category (e.g., video games), combining this information to infer an interest and then delivering a personalized message (inspired by online personalized advertising, Ref C) would be an obvious solution to influencing sales.

Application to Independent Claims:

  • Claim 1 (System): The claimed system's components (server, information monitoring devices, databases) are generic. The combination of a demographic intelligence module (Ref A) and a tracking module (Ref B) to "link" and "analyze... in real-time" (motivated by Ref C) the collected information about a person's behavior at a location (e.g., a retail store) would be an obvious design choice for a PHOSITA seeking to improve in-store customer engagement and data collection. The elements of the claim, such as tracking a person within a predetermined area and analyzing linked information in real-time, are directly derivable from the motivation to combine the described prior art.

  • Claim 15 (Method): The method steps mirror the system claim. Using known information monitoring devices to gather data (demographics via cameras, location via Wi-Fi/Bluetooth signals), employing known modules (Ref A and Ref B) to process this data, and then performing the "linking" and "real-time analyzing" steps would be obvious to a PHOSITA motivated to adapt successful online personalization strategies (Ref C) to a physical retail environment.

  • Claim 28 (Computer-Readable Storage Medium): If the method described in Claim 15 is rendered obvious by the combination of prior art, then tangibly encoding computer-executable instructions to perform this obvious method on a computer-readable storage medium would also be obvious to a PHOSITA.

In conclusion, the combination of known demographic intelligence systems, known mobile device tracking technologies, and the recognized need for real-time, data-driven personalization in brick-and-mortar retail (as evidenced by online retail practices) would render the claims of US Patent 11,301,880 obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention.

Generated 6/1/2026, 12:49:25 AM

Extensions

Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.

Not generated yet. Click Generate to call the active LLM provider with the configured prompt.

Derivative works

Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.

Not generated yet. Click Generate to call the active LLM provider with the configured prompt.

Keep exploring

More patents asserted by Alpha Modus Corp

Other patents in High-Tech (T)

See all High-Tech (T) patents →

This patent in court (15)

15 tracked lawsuits name US 11301880.