DCT
2:25-cv-01026
Alpha Modus Corp v. Lowe's Companies Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Alpha Modus, Corp. (Florida)
- Defendant: Lowe's Companies, Inc. and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC (North Carolina)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Prince Lobel Tye LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01026, E.D. Tex., 10/08/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant operates multiple retail stores and a distribution center within the district, which constitute regular and established places of business.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s in-store analytics and retail media technologies infringe six patents related to real-time analysis of consumer behavior for inventory management, marketing, and store layout optimization.
- Technical Context: The patents address technology for brick-and-mortar retailers to collect and analyze in-store customer data—such as traffic patterns, product interactions, and demographics—to dynamically personalize marketing and manage inventory, aiming to compete with the data-driven advantages of online retail.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff has entered into intellectual property licensing agreements for its patented technology outside of litigation and maintains a public-facing website listing the Asserted Patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-07-19 | Earliest Patent Priority Date (’672, ’890, ’880, ’120, ’550 Patents) |
| 2021-04-13 | U.S. Patent No. 10,977,672 Issues |
| 2021-06-22 | U.S. Patent No. 11,042,890 Issues |
| 2021-06-29 | U.S. Patent No. 11,049,120 Issues |
| 2022-04-12 | U.S. Patent No. 11,301,880 Issues |
| 2024-07-02 | U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731 Issues |
| 2024-07-16 | U.S. Patent No. 12,039,550 Issues |
| 2025-10-08 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,977,672 - “Method And System For Real-Time Inventory Management, Marketing, And Advertising In A Retail Store”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the challenge brick-and-mortar retailers face from online competitors who leverage real-time data to personalize customer experiences, a phenomenon exacerbated by "showrooming," where customers examine products in-store but purchase them online (Compl. ¶ 25; ’672 Patent, col. 1:47-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that equips physical retail locations with capabilities similar to online stores. It uses in-store devices like cameras for image recognition to monitor inventory on shelves, gathers real-time data about nearby customers (e.g., demographics, behavior), and uses that data to generate and display targeted promotions on in-store screens, all in real-time ('672 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:55-65; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a technical framework for brick-and-mortar stores to dynamically influence in-store purchasing decisions at the point of sale, countering a key advantage held by e-commerce platforms (Compl. ¶ 27).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 96).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
- A server with one or more processors and memory.
- The server is caused to identify, via image recognition, an inventory of retail products at a visual display location.
- The server displays information about the products on the visual display.
- The server determines, in real-time, current pricing information for the products.
- The server displays the current pricing on the visual display.
- The server receives real-time data of a customer from one or more information monitoring devices.
- The server generates a promotion for the customer based on behavioral analytics.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the ’672 Patent.
U.S. Patent No. 11,042,890 - “Method And System For Customer Assistance In A Retail Store”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the need for brick-and-mortar retailers to better understand and react to real-time customer interactions with products to enhance the shopping experience and provide targeted assistance (Compl. ¶ 36).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where in-store monitoring devices gather specific information about a shopper, including identifying the product they are interested in and their "sentiment information" (e.g., emotional reaction) toward that product. This data is analyzed in real-time to trigger a response, such as sending a sales associate to help, displaying targeted marketing, or issuing a coupon ('890 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-54). Figure 2 from the patent, reproduced in the complaint, depicts the system's alleged capability to perform facial analysis to determine a customer's demographic data and sentiment (Compl. p. 6).
- Technical Importance: The technology claims to add a layer of qualitative analysis (sentiment) to quantitative data (product interaction), allowing for more nuanced and potentially more effective real-time marketing and customer service responses (Compl. ¶ 37).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 119).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
- Using one or more information monitoring devices to gather information about a person at a retail store.
- The gathering step comprises gathering object identification information of a product the person is interested in purchasing.
- The gathering step also comprises gathering sentiment information of the person with respect to the product.
- Analyzing the gathered information in real time to manage inventory.
- Providing a response in real time based on the analysis, selected from a group of options (e.g., sending a communication, engaging via a display, providing marketing, offering a coupon).
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the ’890 Patent.
U.S. Patent No. 11,301,880 - “Method And System For Inventory Management In A Retail Store”
- Technology Synopsis: The ’880 Patent describes a method for real-time inventory management. It uses video monitoring devices to gather "product interaction information," specifically tracking when products are picked up and carried away by shoppers, and combines this with object identification to analyze shopping activities and trigger real-time inventory management responses, such as sending an employee to restock a shelf (Compl. ¶¶ 45-46, 49, 50).
- Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 50, 143).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Lowe’s in-store analytics and associate-facing applications, which surface inventory information, infringe the ’880 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 86-87, 142, 146-147).
U.S. Patent No. 11,049,120 - “Method And System For Generating A Layout For Placement Of Products In A Retail Store”
- Technology Synopsis: The ’120 Patent discloses a method for optimizing the physical layout of products in a retail store. It uses monitoring devices to gather "traffic information" (e.g., customer movement, stops, and duration of stops) and "product interaction information" (e.g., products viewed or picked up). This data is analyzed to generate a layout analysis, which is then used to modify the store's product placement (Compl. ¶¶ 55-56, 59, 60).
- Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 60, 169).
- Accused Features: Infringement allegations against the ’120 Patent are directed at Lowe's "Dwell" computer-vision initiative that generates heat maps, its Store Digital Twin ecosystem, and its spatial intelligence tools that are allegedly used to generate recommendations for improving store layout (Compl. ¶¶ 86, 171).
U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731 - “Method For Personalized Marketing And Advertising Of Retail Products”
- Technology Synopsis: The ’731 Patent describes a method for personalized marketing by first obtaining an "information analysis" about a person's shopping activities, then tracking the person's location using separate monitoring devices. Based on the determined location, the system provides a communication to the person via an interactive device, which can include a retail store location for a related product and a targeted marketing message or coupon (Compl. ¶¶ 66-67, 70, 71).
- Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 71, 192).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses Lowe's retail media network and its AI companion application of providing targeted communications like promotions and coupons based on consumer location and shopping activity analysis (Compl. ¶¶ 86, 192, 194-195).
U.S. Patent No. 12,039,550 - “Method for Enhancing Customer Shopping Experience in a Retail Store”
- Technology Synopsis: The ’550 Patent discloses a method where an information analysis of shopping activities (including traffic, product interaction, and object identification) is gathered and provided to a "brand entity." This information is then used by the brand entity to enhance the in-store experience through targeted engagement, such as displaying content on in-store screens, directing a store employee to interact with the customer, or providing marketing and coupons (Compl. ¶¶ 77, 81-82).
- Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 82, 216).
- Accused Features: The allegations target Lowe’s One Roof Media Network, which operates as a retail media platform, and its use of in-store analytics to drive interactive and personalized marketing content, allegedly in conjunction with brand partners (Compl. ¶¶ 86, 215, 217).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies a collection of Defendant’s technologies as the "Accused Products." These include: (a) an in-store camera network (Axis/Genetec) and associated analytics servers; (b) the "Dwell" computer-vision initiative for generating heat maps and alerts; (c) the Store Digital Twin ecosystem; (d) the Lowe's One Roof Media Network for retail media; (e) the Mylow Companion associate AI application; (f) spatial intelligence and data analysis tools; and (g) Lowe's Innovation Labs products and services (Compl. ¶ 86).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Products are described as components of Defendant’s "Total Home Strategy," which aims to create a "seamless omnichannel experience" and improve operational efficiency (Compl. ¶ 85). Functionally, they are alleged to operate within Defendant's retail stores to perform in-store analytics and power associate-facing applications that provide product and inventory information (Compl. ¶ 87). Figure 1 from the patents, reproduced in the complaint, illustrates the general architecture of such a system, showing various in-store devices connected to a cloud network and a server (Compl. p. 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'672 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (A) identify, via image recognition, an inventory of one or more retail products physically located at the first visual display location in the retail store | Defendant's in-store camera network and "Dwell" computer-vision initiative are used for in-store analytics to identify products. | ¶¶ 86, 97 | col. 12:15-22 |
| (B) display, on the first visual display, information about one or more of the one or more retail products | Defendant's retail media operations and associate-facing applications surface product and inventory information. | ¶¶ 87, 97 | col. 12:55-61 |
| (C) determine, in real-time, current pricing information regarding the one or more retail products | The Mylow Companion AI application and other data analysis tools are used to determine product information, including pricing. | ¶¶ 86, 97 | col. 21:51-57 |
| (D) display, on the first visual display, the current pricing information regarding the one or more retail products | The Accused Products display current pricing information. | ¶¶ 87, 97 | col. 12:55-61 |
| (E) receive, using one or more information monitoring devices at the first visual display location, real-time data of a customer | Defendant's camera network, Dwell initiative, and spatial intelligence tools gather real-time data on customer presence and behavior. | ¶¶ 86, 97 | col. 10:20-35 |
| (F) generate a promotion of one or more of the one or more retail products... for the customer based on behavioral analytics | Defendant's data analysis tools and retail media network allegedly generate targeted promotions based on analysis of customer behavior. | ¶¶ 86, 97 | col. 13:3-9 |
'890 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) using one or more information monitoring devices to gather information about a person at a retail store | Defendant uses its network of in-store cameras and associated analytics servers to gather information about persons in its stores. | ¶¶ 86, 119 | col. 9:19-25 |
| (A) gathering object identification information of a product that the person is interested in purchasing | The Accused Products use computer vision and data analysis tools to identify products with which a person is interacting. | ¶¶ 86, 120 | col. 12:15-22 |
| (B) gathering sentiment information of the person with respect to the product | The complaint alleges that the Accused Products perform functions including gathering sentiment information of the person. | ¶120 | col. 9:59-65 |
| (b) analyzing the information in real time... to manage inventory of the products | Defendant's analytics servers and Dwell computer-vision initiative allegedly analyze gathered information in real-time. | ¶¶ 86, 121 | col. 2:50-54 |
| (c) providing a response in real time based upon the analyzed information | Defendant's Mylow Companion AI app and retail media network provide responses, such as product information or promotions. | ¶¶ 86, 121 | col. 18:30-44 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Functional Capability: A primary technical question may be whether the Accused Products actually perform all the functions required by the claims. For example, regarding the ’890 Patent, the complaint alleges the gathering of "sentiment information" (Compl. ¶ 120), but provides no specific facts detailing how Defendant's systems accomplish this. The patent specification, in contrast, explicitly links this term to facial analysis (e.g., ’890 Patent, Fig. 2).
- System Integration: The complaint identifies a broad collection of Defendant's technologies as the "Accused Products." This raises the question of whether these components operate as a single, integrated system that practices every step of an asserted claim, or if they are disparate systems whose functionalities do not combine to meet all claim limitations.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"behavioral analytics" ('672 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because it dictates the type of data processing required to trigger the "generate a promotion" step. A narrow construction could limit the claim to sophisticated analysis, whereas a broad construction could cover more basic metrics.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract refers generally to "monitoring and analyzing consumer purchasing behavior in real-time" ('672 Patent, Abstract), which could suggest that any analysis of customer actions, such as tracking movement or dwell time, qualifies.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also highlights specific, advanced technologies like "MAC address tracking, user eye tracking, [and] object identification" as part of the system's features ('672 Patent, Abstract; col. 10:1-14). A party might argue that "behavioral analytics" requires one or more of these specifically disclosed methods.
"sentiment information" ('890 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term represents a specific category of data that must be gathered to infringe Claim 1 of the ’890 Patent. The case may turn on whether Defendant's systems are shown to collect data meeting the construed definition of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a standalone textual definition, which may support an argument for applying its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially encompassing inferences of sentiment from actions other than facial expressions.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a clear example in Figure 2, which shows facial analysis software outputting values for "Anger," "Happy," and "Sad" ('890 Patent, Fig. 2). The description of the "Demographic Intelligence Module" also links sentiment to analysis of "video images" ('890 Patent, col. 9:59-65), suggesting the term is tied to facial recognition technology.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for each of the six asserted patents. The factual basis is that Defendant implements and utilizes the Accused Products in its stores and "encourages, directs, aids, and abets" their use in a manner consistent with its own instructions, demonstrating specific intent to cause infringement (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 108, 110, 112).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The complaint primarily bases this on post-suit knowledge, stating that Defendant has been aware of the patents "at least as early as the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶ 89). The complaint also asserts that Plaintiff lists the Asserted Patents on its public website, which may be used to argue that Defendant knew or was willfully blind to the patents prior to the suit (Compl. ¶ 17).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: what specific data do Defendant's accused analytics systems actually capture and analyze? The dispute may center on whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that the Accused Products perform specific, claimed functions such as gathering "sentiment information" ('890 Patent) or if the allegations are based on functions the technology is merely capable of but does not perform in practice.
- A central issue will be one of system integration: can Plaintiff prove that Defendant’s various accused technologies—from in-store cameras to associate-facing AI applications and retail media networks—operate as a single, cohesive system that satisfies all limitations of any single asserted claim? Alternatively, the defense may argue that these are disparate, non-integrated systems that do not collectively practice the patented methods.
- The case will likely also involve a critical question of definitional scope: will key claim terms like "behavioral analytics" ('672 Patent) be construed broadly to encompass common retail metrics like customer traffic and dwell time, or will they be limited to the more sophisticated and specific techniques disclosed in the patents, such as eye-tracking and facial analysis?