Alpha Modus Corp v. 7 Eleven Inc

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-01060, E.D. Tex., 01/30/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Johnson Controls International is a foreign corporation subject to suit in any district and maintains a regular and established place of business in Longview, Texas, within the Eastern District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' in-store shopper analytics products and services infringe four patents related to the real-time monitoring, analysis, and influencing of consumer behavior in retail environments.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using sensors, video cameras, and data analysis in brick-and-mortar stores to gather real-time behavioral and demographic data on shoppers, enabling personalized engagement and operational responses analogous to those used in e-commerce.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff has entered into intellectual property licensing agreements for its patented technology outside of litigation.

Case Timeline

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 addresses the challenge faced by brick-and-mortar retailers that lack the real-time consumer purchasing data available to online retailers, making them vulnerable to competitive pressures like "showrooming" (Compl. ¶23-24; ’825 Patent, col. 2:9-16).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method that uses in-store "information monitoring devices," including video cameras, to gather demographic and tracking data about a shopper. This information is analyzed in real time to generate insights, which are then used to select a sales associate and send that associate a communication to facilitate a direct, personalized interaction with the shopper. (’825 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶26, ¶29). The system architecture, connecting in-store devices like cameras (103) and displays (107) to a cloud (102) for analysis, is depicted in the patent’s Figure 1 (Compl. p. 6).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to provide physical retail stores with the data-driven customer engagement tools commonly used in e-commerce, thereby enhancing the in-store experience and influencing purchasing decisions (Compl. ¶23, ¶25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1, among others (Compl. ¶99, ¶107).
• Claim 1 of the ’825 Patent recites the essential elements of a method comprising:
  • Using one or more information monitoring devices, including video devices, to gather information about a person in a retail store.
  • The gathered information comprises a demographic characteristic (e.g., gender, age) and a tracking characteristic (e.g., movement, eye movement).
  • 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 associates.
  • Sending a communication to the selected sales associate, enabling the associate to directly interact with the person.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2-3, 5, and 9-11 (Compl. ¶99).

U.S. Patent No. 11,042,890 - "Method and System for Customer Assistance in a Retail Store"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent recognizes the need for brick-and-mortar retailers to adapt to changing consumer behavior by analyzing customer interactions with specific products in real time to provide targeted assistance (Compl. ¶44).
• The Patented Solution: The claimed method uses information monitoring devices to gather "object identification information" of a product a person is interested in, as well as "sentiment information" of the person with respect to that product. This combined data is analyzed in real time to manage inventory and provide a tailored response, such as engaging the person on a display, providing marketing information, or issuing a coupon. (’890 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶46, ¶49). The patent’s Figure 2 illustrates the concept of analyzing a person’s face to determine demographic and sentiment information (Compl. p. 12).
• Technical Importance: This technology allows retailers to move beyond general traffic analysis to understand and react to a specific customer's interest and emotional response to a particular product, enabling highly targeted, real-time interventions (Compl. ¶45).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1, among others (Compl. ¶127, ¶140).
• Claim 1 of the ’890 Patent recites the essential elements of a method comprising:
  • Using information monitoring devices to gather information about a person at a retail store.
  • The gathering step comprises gathering (A) object identification information of a product the person is interested in and (B) sentiment information of the person with respect to the product.
  • Analyzing the information in real time to manage inventory of products.
  • Providing a real-time response selected from a group including sending communications, engaging the person on a display, providing marketing/advertising, or providing a coupon.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2-7 and 11-14 (Compl. ¶127).

U.S. Patent No. 11,301,880 - "Method and System for Inventory Management in a Retail Store"

• Issued: April 12, 2022.
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method to address inventory management challenges in retail stores by using monitoring devices to gather "product interaction information" (e.g., products being picked up or carried away) and "object identification information." This data is analyzed in real time to trigger specific inventory-related responses, such as sending communications to staff to check inventory levels, restock shelves, or add items to an inventory order. (Compl. ¶63-64, ¶68).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶160, ¶68).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants' systems use RFID and video sensors to gather product interaction and object identification information, which is analyzed in real time to manage inventory and send communications to retail personnel to restock products or initiate replenishment actions (Compl. ¶167-169, ¶171-173).

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

• Issued: July 16, 2024.
• Technology Synopsis: The patent introduces a method for enhancing the in-store shopping experience by obtaining an "information analysis" derived from shopper traffic, product interaction, and object identification data. This analysis is then provided to a "brand entity" (an entity that provides products to the store), which uses it to deliver targeted experiences to the customer, such as personalized engagement on a display or marketing via a mobile device. (Compl. ¶74, ¶81).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶195, ¶81).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants' products generate an information analysis from gathered shopper data and provide this analysis to brand entities (e.g., via ShopperTrak Analytics) to enable "customer-triggered personalized messaging," marketing, and other forms of customer engagement (Compl. ¶196, ¶202-203).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are a suite of Defendants' in-store products, services, and shopper analytics technologies, collectively referred to as the "Accused Products." This includes, but is not limited to, Sensormatic Solutions, Shopper Journey, Traffic Insights, ShopperTrak Analytics, Inventory Intelligence, TrueVUE Cloud, Shrink Analytics with Video Intelligence, and Synergy Media Displays. (Compl. ¶99, ¶127).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Products form an "interconnected ecosystem" designed to provide retailers with shopper analytics (Compl. ¶99). Functionally, they employ in-store sensors, video cameras, RFID technology, and monitoring software to gather data on customer movement, demographics, and product interactions (Compl. ¶100, ¶103, ¶132). This data is processed using AI and machine learning to provide retailers with analytics for segmenting store visitors and understanding shopping behavior (Compl. ¶91, ¶102). The complaint alleges these products provide significant competitive advantages and contribute to the profitability of Defendants' customers (Compl. ¶93, ¶95).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’825 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Claim 1(c) requires "utilizing the real time analysis to select a sales associate." The complaint alleges the accused products provide functionality for "selecting and sending a communication" (Compl. ¶106). A potential issue is whether sending a general "alert or a scheduling communication to a store associate based on traffic data analysis" constitutes the active "selection" from a group that the claim language suggests.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1(a)(v) includes "eye movement" as a required tracking characteristic. While the complaint alleges the collection of "tracking characteristics" (Compl. ¶104), it does not explicitly state that the accused products track eye movement. This raises an evidentiary question regarding whether the accused functionality meets this specific limitation.

’890 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be the scope of the term "sentiment information." The patent specification describes this in the context of facial analysis (’890 Patent, col. 10:55-60). The complaint alleges infringement based on analyzing broader customer behaviors such as product viewing, pick-up, and carry-away, as well as RFID-based "indicators of interest, engagement, or hesitation" (Compl. ¶133). Whether these behavioral proxies fall within the claim's definition of "sentiment" will likely be a point of contention.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1(b) requires analyzing the gathered information "to manage inventory." The complaint makes this allegation directly (Compl. ¶134). However, the precise technical mechanism by which customer sentiment data is used to actively "manage inventory" is a factual question that will require evidentiary support.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’825 Patent

• The Term: "select a sales associate"
• Context and Importance: This term is a critical action step that distinguishes the claimed method from merely monitoring and analyzing data. Infringement will depend on whether the accused system's function of sending an "alert" (Compl. ¶106) constitutes an active "selection" from a group, or if it is a more generic notification.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's stated purpose of improving "personalized shopping experiences" (’825 Patent, col. 2:38-44) might support interpreting "select" to mean any automated process that facilitates an associate-customer interaction based on the analysis.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim's full phrase, "select a sales associate from a group of sales associates," suggests a deliberative choice or matching algorithm, not a generic broadcast to any available staff. The specification's description of the "automated customer assistance at shelf module" could be cited to support a more sophisticated selection process (’825 Patent, col. 18:20-24).

For the ’890 Patent

• The Term: "sentiment information"
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the inventive concept of the ’890 Patent. The case may turn on whether "sentiment" is limited to emotional states (e.g., happy, sad) or if it can be broadly construed to include inferences about a customer's state of mind (e.g., interest, hesitation) derived from physical actions like picking up a product.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract refers to analyzing "sentiment and object identification information" to offer responses, suggesting a broad functional goal. The specification also discusses "sentiment or reaction" in general terms (e.g., ’890 Patent, col. 10:15-16).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment for gathering sentiment information described and depicted in the patent is facial analysis that identifies emotions like "Happy," "Sad," or "Surprise" (’890 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 10:55-60). A defendant might argue the term should be construed as being limited to this type of direct emotional analysis.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes counts for induced infringement for all asserted patents. It alleges Defendants knowingly induce infringement by their customers through the "promotions and instructions" provided for the Accused Products. (Compl. ¶118, ¶122, ¶151, ¶155).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents, based on Defendants' alleged knowledge of the patents and their infringement "at least as early as the filing of the original Complaint" and their continued infringing conduct thereafter (Compl. ¶94, ¶112-113, ¶145-146).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "sentiment information," which the ’890 Patent primarily illustrates through facial emotional analysis, be construed to cover the broader behavioral proxies allegedly used by the accused systems, such as product pick-up data gathered via RFID?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: does the accused system’s alleged function of sending a general "alert" to store staff perform the specific, two-part method of first "selecting a sales associate from a group" and then "sending a communication to the sales associate" for direct interaction, as required by Claim 1 of the ’825 Patent?
• A central question of proof will be one of system integration: can the Plaintiff demonstrate that the diverse components of the Accused Products—from in-store sensors and cameras to cloud-based analytics platforms and staff communication tools—operate together in an infringing manner to perform each and every step of the asserted method claims?