Alpha Modus Corp v. Allerin Tech Pvt Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Alpha Modus, Corp. (Florida)
  • Defendant: Allerin Tech Pvt Ltd. (India)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Prince Lobel Type LLP
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00947, E.D. Tex., 09/12/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the basis that Defendant is a foreign corporation subject to suit in any U.S. judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "AllView" AI-powered toolset infringes a portfolio of patents related to the real-time monitoring and analysis of consumer behavior in brick-and-mortar retail environments.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using in-store sensors, cameras, and data analytics to understand shopper demographics, sentiment, and interactions with products to deliver personalized marketing and optimize store operations.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patents are part of a larger portfolio that Plaintiff has publicly listed on its website and has previously licensed to other parties outside of litigation.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,360,571 - "Method For Monitoring And Analyzing Behavior And Uses Thereof"

Issued July 23, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the challenge faced by brick-and-mortar retailers from "showrooming," where consumers inspect products in-store but purchase them online, and the general lack of pre-sale consumer data available to physical stores compared to online retailers (Compl. ¶22; ’571 Patent, col. 1:41-48).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system that uses in-store "information monitoring devices," such as cameras, to gather real-time data about shoppers, including their demographics (age, gender), sentiment (emotional state), and tracking information (movement, eye-tracking). This data is analyzed in real-time to provide personalized responses, such as targeted advertising on digital displays or coupons, to enhance the shopping experience and influence purchasing decisions (Compl. ¶23-24; ’571 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology provided a framework for brick-and-mortar retailers to leverage real-time data analytics, a practice previously dominated by online retailers, to directly influence in-store consumer behavior at the point of decision (Compl. ¶23; ’571 Patent, col. 2:31-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶25, 140).
• Claim 1 recites a method comprising the following essential steps:
  • Using one or more information monitoring devices (including video image devices) to gather information about persons at a location.
  • The gathering step includes collecting a demographic characteristic, a sentiment characteristic, and a tracking characteristic of the persons.
  • Providing an opt-out option to the persons.
  • Analyzing the gathered information in real time for persons who have not opted out.
  • Providing a response in real time based on the analyzed information, such as engaging the person with a display, sending a communication to a second person (e.g., a store employee), providing marketing information, or offering a coupon.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,853,825 - "Method for monitoring and analyzing behavior and uses thereof"

Issued December 1, 2020

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same challenge as its parent '571 Patent: the competitive pressure on brick-and-mortar stores from online retailers and the need to provide more personalized, data-driven in-store experiences (Compl. ¶32-33).
• The Patented Solution: This invention refines the patented solution by focusing on using real-time analysis to empower human interaction. The method involves gathering demographic and tracking information for a specific person, analyzing it in real time, and then using that analysis to select a sales associate and send a communication to that associate. This enables the sales representative to "directly interact with the first person in response to the communication," armed with data-driven insights (Compl. ¶35; ’825 Patent, col. 22:5-12).
• Technical Importance: The technology moves beyond automated digital responses to facilitate informed, real-time, human-to-human engagement in a retail setting, bridging the gap between data analytics and personal customer service (Compl. ¶34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶36, 164).
• Claim 1 recites a method comprising the following essential steps:
  • Using one or more information monitoring devices (including video image devices) to gather information about a first person at a retail store.
  • The gathering step includes collecting a demographic characteristic and a tracking characteristic of the first person.
  • Analyzing the gathered information in real time to generate a real time analysis of the first person.
  • Utilizing the real time analysis to select a sales associate.
  • Sending a communication to the selected sales associate that includes at least a portion of the gathered information or the analysis, enabling the associate to directly interact with the person.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,977,672 - "Method And System For Real-Time Inventory Management, Marketing, And Advertising In A Retail Store"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,977,672, "Method And System For Real-Time Inventory Management, Marketing, And Advertising In A Retail Store," issued April 13, 2021 (Compl. ¶37, 40).
• Technology Synopsis: The ’672 Patent claims a system that uses image recognition to identify a product inventory at a display location. The system then displays information and pricing about those products, receives real-time data about a customer, and generates a promotion for the customer based on behavioral analytics (Compl. ¶42, 46).
• Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶47, 187).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products perform functions including identifying inventory via image recognition, displaying product information and pricing, receiving real-time customer data, and generating promotions based on behavioral analytics (Compl. ¶186).

U.S. Patent No. 12,039,550 - "Method for Enhancing Customer Shopping Experience in a Retail Store"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,039,550, "Method for Enhancing Customer Shopping Experience in a Retail Store," issued July 16, 2024 (Compl. ¶48, 51).
• Technology Synopsis: The ’550 Patent claims a method of obtaining an "information analysis" about shopping activities (including traffic and product interaction data), providing that analysis to a "brand entity," and enhancing the shopping experience through various engagements based on that analysis (Compl. ¶53, 57).
• Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶58, 210).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products gather and analyze consumer behavior and product interaction information and generate personalized marketing or promotional content based on the collected information (Compl. ¶207, 209).

U.S. Patent No. 11,042,890 - "Method And System For Customer Assistance In A Retail Store"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,042,890, "Method And System For Customer Assistance In A Retail Store," issued June 22, 2021 (Compl. ¶59, 62).
• Technology Synopsis: The ’890 Patent claims a method for providing customer assistance by gathering object identification information of a product a person is interested in, along with the person's sentiment toward that product. This information is analyzed to manage inventory and provide a real-time response, such as directing the person to a location or engaging them with a display (Compl. ¶64, 67).
• Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶68, 234).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products gather object identification and sentiment information, analyze it in real time, and provide responses such as directing a person to a product location or offering coupons (Compl. ¶232-233).

U.S. Patent No. 11,301,880 - "Method And System For Inventory Management In A Retail Store"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,301,880, "Method And System For Inventory Management In A Retail Store," issued April 12, 2022 (Compl. ¶69, 72).
• Technology Synopsis: The ’880 Patent claims a method for inventory management that involves gathering information about shoppers' interactions with products (e.g., picking up or carrying products). This data is analyzed in real time to trigger inventory-related responses, such as sending a communication to a retail person to check inventory or re-stock a product (Compl. ¶74, 78).
• Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶79, 260).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products gather product interaction and object identification information, analyze it in real time, and provide responses related to inventory management (Compl. ¶258-259).

U.S. Patent No. 11,049,120 - "Method And System For Generating A Layout For Placement Of Products In A Retail Store"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,049,120, "Method And System For Generating A Layout For Placement Of Products In A Retail Store," issued June 29, 2021 (Compl. ¶80, 82).
• Technology Synopsis: The ’120 Patent claims a method for optimizing store layout by gathering traffic information (movement, stops) and product interaction information. This data is analyzed to generate a "layout analysis," which is then used to modify the store's first layout to generate a second, improved layout (Compl. ¶84, 88).
• Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶89, 284).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products gather traffic and product interaction information to generate layout information and make recommendations to improve the layout of products in the store (Compl. ¶282-233).

U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731 - "Method For Personalized Marketing And Advertising Of Retail Products"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731, "Method For Personalized Marketing And Advertising Of Retail Products," issued July 2, 2024 (Compl. ¶90, 93).
• Technology Synopsis: The ’731 Patent claims a method for personalized marketing that involves obtaining an analysis of a person's shopping activities, tracking the person's location, and then providing a communication to that person based on their location. The communication includes a retail store location and a product communication such as marketing or a coupon (Compl. ¶95, 99).
• Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶100, 308).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products analyze product interaction information, track consumer location, and generate real-time communications including promotions and coupons (Compl. ¶306).

U.S. Patent No. 12,354,121 - "Method And System For Shopping In A Retail Store"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,354,121, "Method And System For Shopping In A Retail Store," issued July 8, 2025 (Compl. ¶101, 103).
• Technology Synopsis: The ’121 Patent claims a method for an integrated shopping experience where a system identifies a person, gathers their shopping information (traffic, product interaction), maintains a real-time list of products they have retained, tracks them to a point-of-sale area, and interfaces with a payment system to complete the purchase (Compl. ¶105, 109).
• Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶110, 332).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products enable "grab and go, self-check-out, and mobile scan and go purchases in point-of-sale areas" by tracking retained products (Compl. ¶331).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is Allerin's "AllView" product and associated systems (Compl. ¶126).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes AllView as an "AI powered toolset" providing machine vision, optical character recognition, facial recognition, and object detection and classification (Compl. ¶126). For the retail industry, its alleged use cases include "Grab and Go Technology, Self-Check-Out," "Retail Image Recognition and Analytics," and "Improving Shopper Experience" (Compl. ¶127). The complaint includes a table summarizing AllView's purported use cases across various industries (Compl. ¶127). Plaintiff further alleges that AllView's functionality includes tracking customer interactions, optimizing store layouts, and analyzing shopper demographics and behavior (Compl. ¶128). These alleged functions form the basis of the infringement claims across the asserted patent portfolio.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 10,360,571 Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 10,853,825 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint makes broad allegations that the Accused Products perform the functions recited in the claims (e.g., collecting demographic, sentiment, and tracking data). A central question will be what specific, non-conclusory factual evidence Plaintiff can provide to demonstrate that the AllView system performs the particular multi-step combinations required by each independent claim, such as the "opt-out" step in the ’571 Patent or the "select a sales associate" step in the ’825 Patent.
  • Scope Questions: The infringement theory for the ’825 Patent hinges on selecting and communicating with a human "sales associate". The analysis may raise the question of whether this term, as defined and used in the patent, reads on modern retail environments that may use remote support staff, automated chatbots, or other non-traditional forms of customer assistance.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "sentiment characteristic" (’571 Patent, Claim 1(a)(v))

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because it requires the accused system to do more than just identify a person; it must allegedly analyze their emotional state (e.g., happy, sad, angry). The viability of the infringement allegation depends on whether the "facial recognition" functionality of the Accused Product can be shown to perform this specific type of analysis as contemplated by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require a specific technical capability beyond simple demographic analysis.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself does not limit how the sentiment is gathered, only that it is a "characteristic of the persons." The specification mentions determining sentiment "based upon video images captured by cameras" but does not limit it to this method, which may support a broader interpretation covering various analytical techniques (col. 10:55-65).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's Figure 2, which is reproduced in the complaint, provides a specific example of sentiment analysis, showing outputs for "Anger," "Happy," "Sad," and "Surprise" with corresponding numerical values (Compl., p. 6; ’571 Patent, Fig. 2). A defendant may argue this exemplary embodiment narrows the term to specific, quantifiable emotional states.

• The Term: "select a sales associate" (’825 Patent, Claim 1(c))

• Context and Importance: This step distinguishes the ’825 Patent's method from a fully automated system by requiring the real-time analysis to be used for a human-centric action: choosing a specific employee for interaction. Infringement will depend on whether the Accused Products are alleged to do more than simply send a generic alert, but rather to perform a selection process based on the analysis.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is broad, requiring only "utilizing the real time analysis to select a sales associate from a group of sales associates." This could be interpreted to cover any system that uses analytics to route a notification to one of several available employees (col. 22:43-45).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description discusses an "Automated Customer Assistance at Shelf Module" which can "alert a nearby employee" (col. 18:2-7). This language, focusing on proximity, could be used to argue for a narrower construction that requires the selection to be based on factors like the associate's physical location within the store.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint includes a separate count for induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The complaint alleges that Defendant encourages, directs, and aids its customers (e.g., retailers) to use the Accused Products in a manner that directly infringes the patented methods, and that this is consistent with Defendant's promotions and instructions (Compl. ¶150, 152, 154, 174, 178).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has been aware of the patents and infringement at least as early as the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶144, 168). It further alleges, upon information and belief, that Defendant knew of or was willfully blind to the patented technology prior to the suit and acted with blatant disregard for Plaintiff's patent rights (Compl. ¶145, 169).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint asserts infringement of numerous, highly specific multi-step method claims across a large patent portfolio. A key question will be whether Plaintiff can produce sufficient factual evidence to show that the accused AllView system, as commercially offered and used, actually performs each of the specific combinations of limitations recited in the asserted claims, or if its functionality is more general in nature.
• A second central question will be one of claim construction and technical scope: The viability of the infringement case will likely turn on the court's construction of terms such as "sentiment characteristic." The dispute will question whether the alleged "facial recognition" of the accused product meets the specific definition of sentiment analysis as described and claimed in the patent, or if there is a fundamental mismatch in technical operation.
• Finally, the case presents a question of infringement allocation: With a large number of asserted patents covering overlapping aspects of in-store analytics (e.g., inventory management, customer assistance, layout generation), a significant issue may be disentangling the specific functionality of the accused product and mapping it to the distinct claims of each patent, raising potential challenges related to claim differentiation and damages apportionment.