DCT
2:25-cv-01000
Alpha Modus Corp v. Navori SA
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Alpha Modus, Corp. (Florida)
- Defendant: Navori SA (Switzerland) and meldCX Pty Ltd (Australia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Prince Lobel Tye LLP
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-01000, E.D. Tex., 10/02/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the basis that Defendants are foreign corporations and therefore subject to suit in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ integrated digital signage and AI-powered analytics platforms infringe four patents related to the real-time monitoring and analysis of consumer behavior in physical retail environments.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using in-store sensors, primarily video cameras, to analyze shopper demographics, sentiment, and behavior to enable personalized, real-time advertising on digital displays.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff has entered into several intellectual property licensing agreements outside of litigation. The four asserted patents share a common priority date and are part of a single patent family, covering different aspects of a retail analytics system.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-07-19 | Priority Date for ’571, ’550, ’890, and ’731 Patents |
| 2019-07-23 | U.S. Patent No. 10,360,571 Issues |
| 2021-06-22 | U.S. Patent No. 11,042,890 Issues |
| 2024-07-02 | U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731 Issues |
| 2024-07-16 | U.S. Patent No. 12,039,550 Issues |
| 2025-08-01 | Navori completes acquisition of Signagelive (approx. date) |
| 2025-10-02 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,360,571 - “Method For Monitoring And Analyzing Behavior And Uses Thereof”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the challenge faced by brick-and-mortar retailers from the practice of “showrooming,” where consumers examine products in-store but purchase them online, often from a competitor offering a better price (’571 Patent, col. 1:41-54). This is attributed to the lack of real-time consumer data available to physical retailers compared to their online counterparts (Compl. ¶23).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to capture and analyze shopper data in real-time within a physical store (’571 Patent, Abstract). As depicted in Figure 1, information monitoring devices like cameras (103) and interactive displays (107) gather data on shoppers, which is processed to determine characteristics like demographics and sentiment (Fig. 2). This analysis is then used to provide a real-time response, such as personalized content on a display or a coupon from a printer (108), to influence a purchasing decision (’571 Patent, col. 4:1-8).
- Technical Importance: The technology sought to provide physical retailers with the data-driven personalization capabilities that were, at the time, largely exclusive to e-commerce, thereby enabling them to deliver more relevant in-store marketing (’571 Patent, col. 2:31-39).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶80).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- Using information monitoring devices, including video devices, to gather information about persons at a location.
- Gathering specific information types: a demographic characteristic (e.g., gender, age), a sentiment characteristic, and a tracking characteristic (e.g., movement, eye movement).
- Providing an opt-out option to the persons.
- Analyzing the gathered information in real-time, excluding data from persons who have opted out.
- Providing a real-time response based on the analysis, selected from a group including engagement on a display, communication to a second person (e.g., a store employee), marketing information, or a coupon.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 12,039,550 - “Method for Enhancing Customer Shopping Experience in a Retail Store”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the "vital deficiency in conventional brick-and-mortar stores: the lack of real-time insight into in-store shopper behavior that online retailers routinely exploit" (Compl. ¶34).
- The Patented Solution: The claimed solution is a method focused on a specific business-to-business-to-consumer workflow. It involves first obtaining an "information analysis" about shoppers' activities by gathering data on traffic, product interaction, and object identification (’550 Patent, Abstract). This analysis is then provided to a "brand entity" (e.g., a product manufacturer). Finally, the brand entity uses this analysis to "enhanc[e] the in-store shopping experience" through targeted engagement, such as personalized content on a display or interaction with a store employee (Compl. ¶¶36-37).
- Technical Importance: This method provides a framework for product manufacturers (brands) to leverage in-store analytics to directly influence how their products are marketed at the point of sale within a third-party retail environment (Compl. ¶35).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶103).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- Obtaining an information analysis about the shopping activities of persons, comprising gathered traffic information, gathered product interaction information, and gathered object identification information.
- Providing the information analysis to a "brand entity" for enhancing the in-store shopping experience.
- Enhancing the in-store shopping experience via an action from the brand entity, selected from a group including engagement on a display, engagement by a second person (e.g., an employee), or provision of marketing/coupons.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 11,042,890 - “Method And System For Customer Assistance In A Retail Store”
- Technology Synopsis: The patent claims a method for providing customer assistance by using monitoring devices to gather information about a person's interaction with a specific product. The method involves gathering "object identification information" of a product a person is interested in and the person's "sentiment information" with respect to that product, analyzing it in real-time to manage inventory, and providing a targeted response (Compl. ¶¶43, 46).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶127).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products perform functions such as gathering object identification and sentiment information, analyzing it in real-time, and providing responses like directing a person to a location, providing marketing, or offering coupons (Compl. ¶¶125-126).
U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731 - “Method For Personalized Marketing And Advertising Of Retail Products”
- Technology Synopsis: The patent claims a method for personalized marketing that combines product interaction analysis with location tracking. The method involves obtaining an analysis of a person's shopping activities, tracking the person's location within the store, and then providing a communication via an interactive device that includes both a location to purchase a product and a personalized product communication (e.g., marketing, coupon, or purchase option) (Compl. ¶¶53, 57).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶151).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products analyze product interaction information, track consumer locations, and generate real-time communications such as store-specific promotions, coupons, and purchase options (Compl. ¶¶147, 149).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Accused Products" are identified as the combination of Navori's Signagelive digital signage platform and meldCX's Viana AI-powered Analytics Platform (Compl. ¶66).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the integrated system provides an "AI powered toolset" for machine vision, facial recognition, and object detection (the Viana platform) that is used to trigger personalized content on digital signage (the Signagelive platform) (Compl. ¶66).
- This functionality is allegedly used in retail environments to personalize content based on shopper demographics, mood, and even specific items of clothing (Compl. ¶67). A screenshot from an apparent marketing video for the Accused Products depicts the system identifying a "MALE 30-40 CALM" and a "FEMALE >40 HAPPY" to trigger targeted advertising on a nearby screen (Compl. p. 18).
- Another marketing graphic suggests the system tracks shopper dwell times near displays (Compl. p. 17). The complaint positions the Accused Products as a solution for "levelling the playing field" between disadvantaged "bricks and mortar" retailers and analytics-driven online retailers (Compl. ¶67).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’571 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| using one or more information monitoring devices to gather information about persons... wherein the... devices comprise one or more video image devices | The Accused Products utilize "Viana AI-enabled cameras," which are video image devices, to gather information about shoppers in retail stores. | ¶¶66, 76 | col. 21:45-47 |
| gathering a demographic characteristic... selected from a group consisting of gender of the persons, approximate age of the persons... | The Viana platform analyzes shopper demographics, as shown in a marketing video screenshot identifying a "MALE 30-40" and "FEMALE >40." | ¶¶67, 78; p. 18 | col. 21:50-55 |
| gathering a sentiment characteristic of the persons... using the one or more video image devices | The Viana platform analyzes shopper "mood," as shown in the marketing video screenshot identifying shoppers as "CALM" and "HAPPY." | ¶¶67, 78; p. 18 | col. 21:56-59 |
| gathering a tracking characteristic of the persons... selected from a group consisting of movement of the persons relative to the one more information monitoring devices... | The system tracks shopper presence and movement, as evidenced by its ability to measure dwell times near displays. | ¶¶67, 78; p. 17 | col. 21:60-66 |
| providing an opt-out option to the persons in the group of persons | The complaint alleges that the Accused Products provide an opt-out option to persons in proximity to the devices. | ¶79 | col. 22:3-6 |
| analyzing in real time... the information gathered... except for the subset of opt-out persons | The Accused Products are described as performing "real-time analytics" to create "intelligent engagement" and trigger personalized content. | ¶¶65, 77 | col. 22:7-17 |
| providing a response in real time based upon the analyzed information... (i) engaging the person... using one or more displays and content being displayed... is selected based upon the analyzed information | The Signagelive platform uses the real-time analysis from Viana to trigger and display personalized promotional content on digital signage. | ¶¶67, 68 | col. 22:18-27 |
’550 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| obtaining an information analysis about the shopping activities of a plurality of persons, wherein... the gathered information comprises gathered traffic information... gathered product interaction information... and gathered object identification information | The Viana platform performs "audience measurement" (traffic) and "object detection and classification" (product interaction/object ID). | ¶¶65-66, 102 | col. 21:50-65 |
| providing the information analysis to a brand entity for enhancing in-store shopping experience... wherein the brand entity is an entity that provides one or more brand products to one or more brick-and-mortar retails store | The complaint alleges the Accused Products practice the methods of the '550 Patent, which includes providing analysis to a brand entity. | ¶¶100, 102 | col. 22:10-15 |
| enhancing the in-store shopping experience... by an experience from the brand entity selected from the group consisting of (i) engagement of the customer based upon the information analysis | The Signagelive platform delivers personalized content and promotions on in-store displays based on the Viana analysis. | ¶¶67, 102 | col. 22:19-27 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Factual Basis for "Opt-Out": A central question for the '571 Patent will be the factual support for the "providing an opt-out option" limitation. The complaint makes a conclusory allegation (Compl. ¶79) but provides no description, user interface screenshot, or other evidence of how a person could exercise this option in the Accused Products.
- Scope of "Brand Entity": For the '550 Patent, a potential dispute may arise over the term "brand entity" and the act of "providing the information analysis to" it. The infringement theory may depend on whether Defendants' business model involves delivering analytics to third-party product manufacturers for their use in retail stores, or if the retailer itself is considered the "brand entity," which could raise questions of claim scope.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "providing an opt-out option" (’571 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because privacy-related features like opt-outs can be technically and legally distinct system requirements. Infringement of Claim 1 hinges on the presence of this feature, and the complaint's lack of factual detail suggests this will be a contested element. Practitioners may focus on whether a passive policy constitutes "providing an option" or if an affirmative user-facing mechanism is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is functional and does not specify how the option must be provided (e.g., via a website, on a display, through a mobile app). A party might argue any available method for a user to prevent data analysis meets this limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an example: "Should a customer decide to opt-out of the MAC tracking system, the customer can do so via the web" (’571 Patent, col. 11:35-37). A party may argue this web-based example, tied to a specific tracking technology, informs the meaning of the term and suggests a more concrete mechanism is required than what may be present in the accused system.
- The Term: "brand entity" (’550 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The structure of Claim 1 requires a multi-party transaction: analysis is obtained, provided to a brand entity, and then used by the brand entity. The definition of "brand entity" is therefore central to determining if the accused commercial service, which is marketed to retailers, fits the claimed method. The dispute may turn on whether the retailer operating the store is itself the "brand entity," or if the claim requires a separate product manufacturer (e.g., Coca-Cola, as a brand entity, using the analysis within a Walmart, the retailer).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim defines a brand entity as "an entity that provides one or more brand products to one or more brick-and-mortar retails store" (’550 Patent, col. 22:13-15). A party could argue that a retailer with its own private-label products (e.g., Costco's Kirkland Signature) meets this definition, allowing the retailer to be both the store operator and the "brand entity."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The overall context of the patent discusses enabling manufacturers and merchandisers to monetize advertising and optimize product placement within a retail store (’550 Patent, col. 13:32-48). This may suggest the "brand entity" is intended to be distinct from the "brick-and-mortar retail store" operator, implying a three-party system (analyst, brand, retailer).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all four patents. The theory is that Defendants knowingly induce their customers (e.g., retailers) to use the Accused Products in a manner that directly infringes the asserted method claims, and that this inducement is supported by Defendants’ own promotions and instructions (e.g., Compl. ¶¶90, 94, 113, 117).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all four patents. The primary basis for knowledge is alleged to be post-suit, beginning with the filing of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶70). The complaint also makes allegations of pre-suit knowledge "on information and belief" but does not provide a specific factual basis for such pre-suit awareness (e.g., Compl. ¶¶84-85).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Evidentiary Sufficiency on Operability: A primary issue will be whether the evidence, once produced, shows that the Accused Products actually operate in a way that meets specific, functional claim limitations. For example, regarding the '571 Patent, what evidence will demonstrate that the system "provid[es] an opt-out option," a feature alleged conclusorily but not substantiated with factual detail in the complaint?
- Alignment of Business Model with Claim Scope: A core question will be one of definitional scope and business model alignment: does the Defendants' service of providing an analytics and advertising platform to a retailer satisfy the '550 Patent's requirement of "providing the information analysis to a brand entity"? The case may turn on whether the "brand entity" can be construed as the retailer itself, or if the claim requires a three-party system involving a separate product manufacturer.