2:25-cv-01003
Alpha Modus Corp v. Sensormatic Electronics LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Alpha Modus, Corp. (Florida)
- Defendant: Sensormatic Electronics, LLC (Nevada) and Johnson Controls International, PLC (Ireland)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Prince Lobel Tye LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01003, E.D. Tex., 10/03/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant Johnson Controls International PLC being a foreign corporation and maintaining a regular and established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas. Defendant Sensormatic Electronics, LLC is alleged to be a subsidiary and alter ego of Johnson Controls.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' in-store shopper analytics products and services infringe four patents related to the real-time monitoring and analysis of consumer behavior and inventory management in retail environments.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using in-store sensors, such as video cameras, to analyze shopper demographics, behavior, and product interactions to provide real-time, data-driven responses like targeted advertising, staff assistance, or inventory alerts.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patents are part of a family of continuing applications. Plaintiff also states it has previously entered into intellectual property licensing agreements outside of litigation, suggesting a history of monetizing its patent portfolio.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-07-19 | '825, '550, '890, '880 Patents - Earliest Priority Date |
| 2020-12-01 | U.S. Patent No. 10,853,825 Issued |
| 2021-06-22 | U.S. Patent No. 11,042,890 Issued |
| 2022-04-12 | U.S. Patent No. 11,301,880 Issued |
| 2024-07-16 | U.S. Patent No. 12,039,550 Issued |
| 2025-10-03 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,853,825 - "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 online competition and "showrooming," where customers examine products in-store but purchase them online ('825 Patent, col. 1:43-52). These physical retailers lack the real-time consumer data needed to provide the personalized experiences common in e-commerce (Compl. ¶24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method using in-store "information monitoring devices," such as video cameras, to capture data about shoppers ('825 Patent, Abstract). The system gathers demographic data (e.g., gender, age) and tracking data (e.g., movement, eye movement), analyzes it in real-time, and uses the analysis to select and notify a sales associate, enabling a direct, personalized interaction with the shopper ('825 Patent, col. 22:6-11). The system architecture is depicted in Figure 1 of the patent, showing sensors and displays in a retail store connected to a cloud server ('825 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This technology was designed to equip physical retailers with data analytics capabilities similar to those of online stores, allowing them to counter competitive pressures by enhancing the in-store customer experience (Compl. ¶23).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶26).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- Using information monitoring devices, including video cameras, to gather information about a person in a retail store.
- Gathering a "demographic characteristic" (e.g., gender, age) and a "tracking characteristic" (e.g., movement, eye movement) of the person.
- Analyzing the gathered information in real time to generate a real-time analysis.
- Utilizing the analysis to "select a sales associate from a group of sales associates."
- Sending a communication to the selected associate containing the gathered information or the analysis to facilitate a direct interaction with the person.
U.S. Patent No. 12,039,550 - "Method for Enhancing Customer Shopping Experience in a Retail Store"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a "vital deficiency" in brick-and-mortar retail: the lack of real-time insight into in-store shopper behavior, a capability that online retailers routinely use to their advantage (Compl. ¶35).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for obtaining an "information analysis" of shoppers' activities by gathering traffic, product interaction, and object identification data from monitoring devices ('550 Patent, col. 21:48-col. 22:10). This comprehensive analysis is then provided to a "brand entity" which uses it to enhance the in-store experience through one of several means: engaging the customer with targeted content on displays, informing a sales associate for direct interaction, providing directed marketing, or issuing a coupon ('550 Patent, col. 22:18-44).
- Technical Importance: The method provides a framework for physical retailers and brands to capture granular behavioral data and dynamically adjust marketing and merchandising in response, thereby bridging a critical data gap with their online counterparts (Compl. ¶35).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶49).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- Obtaining an "information analysis" about shopping activities based on information gathered by monitoring devices.
- The gathered information must comprise "gathered traffic information," "gathered product interaction information," and "gathered object identification information."
- Providing the information analysis to a "brand entity" to enhance the in-store shopping experience.
- Enhancing the experience through a method selected from a group, including engagement via displays, engagement via a second person (e.g., a sales associate), provision of marketing, or provision of a coupon.
U.S. Patent No. 11,042,890 - "Method and System for Customer Assistance in a Retail Store"
Technology Synopsis
This patent describes a method for analyzing customer interactions with products in real-time to provide targeted assistance (Compl. ¶45). The method uses monitoring devices to gather "object identification information" for a product a person is interested in, as well as "sentiment information" (e.g., facial expression analysis) regarding the product. This data is analyzed in real-time to manage inventory and provide a response, such as directing a customer or employee, displaying marketing, or issuing a coupon (Compl. ¶48).
Asserted Claims
At least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶73).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that the Accused Products gather object identification and sentiment information, analyze it in real-time, and provide responsive engagement or marketing (Compl. ¶¶70-72).
U.S. Patent No. 11,301,880 - "Method and System for Inventory Management in a Retail Store"
Technology Synopsis
This patent discloses a method for real-time inventory management based on shopper behavior analysis (Compl. p. 14 ¶¶5, 7). The method uses monitoring devices to gather "product interaction information" (e.g., a product being picked up or carried away) and "object identification information." The data is analyzed to manage inventory, and a response is provided, such as sending a communication to a retail employee to check stock levels, restock a product, or update an inventory order (Compl. p. 15 ¶10, p. 16).
Asserted Claims
At least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶98).
Accused Features
The complaint accuses Defendants' products of gathering product interaction and object identification information, analyzing it in real-time, and providing responses regarding product inventory (Compl. ¶¶94-97).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are a suite of Defendants' shopper analytics technologies, products, and services, collectively referred to as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶20). Specific examples cited include Shopper Journey, Traffic Insights, ShopperTrak Analytics, TrueVUE Inventory Intelligence software, Shrink Analytics with Video Intelligence, and associated hardware such as Aurora sensors (Compl. ¶20, ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Products are alleged to provide retailers with solutions for loss prevention, inventory management, and shopper analytics (Compl. p. 17 ¶11). The complaint alleges these products use "information monitoring devices, including video image devices," to gather information about persons in retail stores, including demographic and tracking characteristics (Compl. ¶21, ¶23). This data is allegedly analyzed in real-time by systems connected to a server or database to "segment store visitors and their shopping paths," among other functions (Compl. p. 17 ¶12, Compl. ¶24). The complaint alleges that the financial gains from these products have been "substantial" and provided Defendants with "competitive advantages" (Compl. p. 17 ¶16). The complaint provides a visual example of the demographic and sentiment analysis allegedly performed, showing a person's face annotated with data for gender, age, and happiness (Compl. p. 6, Fig. 2).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'825 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 a first person... wherein the... devices comprise one or more video image devices | The Accused Products utilize monitoring devices, including video image devices such as Aurora sensors, to gather information about people in retail stores. | ¶21 | col. 21:35-46 |
| the step of gathering information... comprises gathering a demographic characteristic... selected from a group consisting of gender of the first person, approximate age of the first person... | The Accused Products collect demographic characteristics of persons in proximity to the monitoring devices. | ¶23 | col. 21:47-54 |
| the step of gathering information... comprises gathering a tracking characteristic... selected from a group consisting of movement of the first person... | The Accused Products collect tracking characteristics of persons in proximity to the monitoring devices. | ¶23 | col. 21:55-62 |
| analyzing in real time... the information gathered by the information monitoring devices... to generate a real time analysis of the first person... | The Accused Products analyze in real-time the information gathered by the monitoring devices. | ¶24 | col. 22:1-5 |
| utilizing the real time analysis to select a sales associate from a group of sales associates... and sending a communication to the sales associate... | The real-time analysis is utilized to select and send a communication to a sales associate. | ¶25 | col. 22:6-11 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be the scope of the phrase "select a sales associate from a group." The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused system performs an affirmative selection of a specific staff member, as the claim language suggests, or if it provides a more general alert to a pool of associates, which may or may not meet the claim limitation.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the system sends a "communication" to an associate (Compl. ¶25). A potential point of dispute is what technical evidence exists to demonstrate that this communication contains "at least a portion of (A) the information gathered... (B) the real time analysis, or (C) both," as specifically required by claim 1(d).
'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, (i) the information analysis is an analysis of gathered information by one or more information monitoring devices... | The Accused Products embody a system for monitoring and analyzing consumer behavior and product interaction information in a retail store setting. | ¶46 | col. 21:48-54 |
| the gathered information... comprises gathered traffic information... gathered product interaction information... and gathered object identification information... | The accused functions include gathering and analyzing information to track consumer interactions with products, identifying products of interest, and associating such information with consumer data. | ¶48 | col. 21:55-22:10 |
| providing the information analysis to a brand entity for enhancing in-store shopping experience... | The system generates marketing or promotional content based on the collected information in real-time, which is provided to its customers. | ¶48 | col. 22:11-17 |
| 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 complaint alleges that the Accused Products perform functions covered by Claim 1, which includes generating marketing or promotional content based on the collected information. | ¶48 | col. 22:18-27 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The infringement theory relies on Defendants "providing the information analysis to a brand entity." A likely point of contention will be whether Defendants' retail customers (e.g., Kroger, Adidas) qualify as a "brand entity" under the patent's definition, which is "an entity that provides one or more brand products to one or more brick-and-mortar retails store."
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement of Claim 1 generally, which includes four alternative methods for "enhancing the in-store shopping experience" (Compl. ¶49). A key evidentiary question will be which specific method is practiced by the Accused Products and what technical proof demonstrates that the system's generation of "marketing or promotional content" (Compl. ¶48) meets the specific limitations of one of those claimed methods.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"select a sales associate" ('825 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance
This term is critical because it implies an active, intelligent step beyond a simple notification. The infringement case for the ’825 Patent may depend on whether the accused system is shown to perform a specific selection from a group of potential associates, or if it merely broadcasts an alert. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require a more sophisticated function than a generic help request system.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses "sending a communication to an employee of the retail store to signal the employee to interact with the customer," which could be argued to encompass any system that directs an available associate ('825 Patent, col. 4:38-41).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself, "select a sales associate from a group of sales associates," suggests a discrete choice among multiple options, rather than a general broadcast. The prosecution history may be referenced to determine if the patentee distinguished the invention from prior art based on this specific selection capability.
"brand entity" ('550 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance
The entire method of Claim 1 of the '550 Patent is directed toward providing an analysis to a "brand entity." The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether Defendants' customers—who are typically retailers selling products from multiple brands—fall within this definition.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself provides a definition: "the brand entity is an entity that provides one or more brand products to one or more brick-and-mortar retails store" ('550 Patent, col. 22:15-17). This language could be argued to plainly cover retailers like Levi's or Adidas, which are listed as Defendants' customers (Compl. ¶7).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that in the context of the retail industry, a "brand entity" refers to the brand owner or manufacturer (e.g., the maker of a product), not the multi-brand retailer that sells it. The analysis could explore whether other parts of the specification or the prosecution history support a more limited definition focused on product manufacturers rather than sellers.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges induced infringement for all four patents-in-suit. The allegations are based on Defendants knowingly encouraging, aiding, and directing their customers to use the Accused Products in a manner that infringes, consistent with Defendants' "promotions and instructions" (Compl. ¶¶36, 40, 59, 63, 83, 87, 108, 112).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement for all four patents. The basis for willfulness appears to be post-suit knowledge, as the complaint alleges Defendants have been aware of the patents and their infringement "at least as early as the filing of this Complaint" and have continued their activities despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶¶15, 30, 53, 77, 102).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "brand entity" in the '550 Patent be construed to cover multi-brand retailers that are Defendants' customers, and does the accused system's alerting function constitute "selecting" a specific sales associate as required by the '825 Patent?
- A second central question will be one of functional specificity: what evidence demonstrates that the accused analytics platform performs the discrete, sequential steps recited in the asserted method claims—such as gathering "sentiment information" ('890 Patent) or generating specific inventory-related communications ('880 Patent)—as opposed to providing generalized business intelligence from which a retailer might independently take such actions?
- Finally, the case may raise a question of infringement locus: given that the asserted claims are methods performed by a system of distributed components (sensors, servers, associate devices), the parties will need to establish which entity—Defendant, its retail customer, or both—performs or controls all the steps required to establish direct infringement for each asserted claim.