Alpha Modus Corp v. 7 Eleven Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Alpha Modus, Corp. (Florida)
  • Defendant: 7-Eleven, Inc. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Prince Lobel Tye LLP
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01060, E.D. Tex., 10/22/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant is registered to do business in Texas and operates multiple "regular and established places of business" within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s in-store analytics systems, mobile applications, and cashierless store technologies infringe eight patents related to real-time monitoring and analysis of consumer behavior in retail environments.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using in-store sensors, such as video cameras, to collect and analyze data about shoppers in real-time to personalize marketing, manage inventory, and streamline the checkout process.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patents are part of a larger family stemming from applications filed as early as 2014, with priority claimed to a 2013 provisional application. It also mentions that Plaintiff has previously entered into intellectual property licensing agreements for its patented technology outside of litigation.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2013-07-19	Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2019-07-23	’571 Patent Issued
2021-06-22	’890 Patent Issued
2021-06-29	’120 Patent Issued
2022-04-12	’880 Patent Issued
2024-07-02	’731 Patent Issued
2024-07-16	’550 Patent Issued
2025-07-08	’121 Patent Issued
2025-09-23	’718 Patent Issued
2025-10-22	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"

• Patent Identification: 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 describes the challenge faced by brick-and-mortar retailers competing with online stores, specifically the phenomenon of "showrooming," where consumers examine products in-store but purchase them online (’571 Patent, col. 1:40-44). Retailers lack the real-time consumer data that online sellers use to personalize shopping experiences and influence purchasing decisions (Compl. ¶ 25).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method using "information monitoring devices," such as video cameras, to gather real-time data about shoppers within a physical location (Compl. ¶ 24). This system captures demographic, sentiment, and tracking information, analyzes it, and provides a real-time response—such as a targeted advertisement on a display or a digital coupon—to directly influence the consumer's purchasing decision (’571 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-6). The overall system architecture is depicted in the patent's Figure 1, which is reproduced in the complaint (Compl. p. 5, FIG. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to provide physical retailers with data analytics capabilities comparable to e-commerce platforms, enabling them to deliver personalized marketing and promotions at critical moments in the consumer's purchasing journey (Compl. ¶ 26).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 116).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • Using one or more information monitoring devices (including video devices) to gather information about persons at a location, the information comprising a demographic characteristic, a sentiment characteristic, and a tracking characteristic.
  • Providing an opt-out option to persons.
  • Analyzing in real time the gathered information for persons who have not opted out.
  • Providing a response in real time based on the analyzed information, where the response is selected from engaging the person via a display, sending a communication to a second person for interaction, providing marketing/advertising, or providing a coupon (Compl. ¶ 28).

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.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent recognizes the need for brick-and-mortar retailers to better understand and respond to customer interactions with specific products in real time, a capability that online retailers leverage effectively (Compl. ¶ 35).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims a method for enhancing customer assistance by using monitoring devices to gather "object identification information" of a product a person is interested in, as well as "sentiment information" of the person regarding that product (’890 Patent, col. 21:50-55). This data is analyzed in real time to manage inventory and provide a targeted response, such as directing a customer to the product's location or offering a coupon (Compl. ¶¶ 36-37).
• Technical Importance: This technology allows retailers to move beyond general shopper tracking to analyze interactions with specific products, enabling more targeted assistance and dynamic inventory management based on real-time consumer interest (Compl. ¶ 36).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 140).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • Using one or more information monitoring devices at a retail store to gather information about a person, comprising (A) object identification information of a product of interest and (B) sentiment information of the person with respect to the product.
  • Analyzing the information in real time to manage inventory.
  • Providing a response in real time based on the analyzed information, selected from a group including directing the person to a location, engaging the person via a display, sending a communication to a second person, providing marketing, or providing a coupon (Compl. ¶ 38).

Additional Patents-in-Suit

• 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.

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’120 Patent describes a method for optimizing the physical layout of products in a retail store (Compl. ¶ 43). It involves gathering traffic information (shopper movement, stops) and product interaction information (products viewed, picked up), analyzing this data to generate a "layout analysis," and then using that analysis to create a modified, improved store layout (Compl. ¶¶ 45, 47).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶ 164).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s systems generate layout information and recommendations to improve the product layout in its stores (Compl. ¶ 163).

• U.S. Patent No. 11,301,880, "Method And System For Inventory Management In A Retail Store," issued April 12, 2022.

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’880 Patent claims a method for real-time inventory management (Compl. ¶ 54). It involves using monitoring devices to gather product interaction information (e.g., when products are picked up or carried away) and object identification information, analyzing this data to manage inventory, and providing a real-time response, such as sending a communication to a store employee to check inventory or restock a product (Compl. ¶¶ 57-58).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶ 190).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant's systems that analyze product interaction information and send communications to retail personnel regarding inventory (Compl. ¶ 189).

• U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731, "Method For Personalized Marketing And Advertising Of Retail Products," issued July 2, 2024.

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’731 Patent discloses a method for personalized marketing that involves obtaining an "information analysis" of a shopper's activities based on product interactions, tracking the person's location, and providing communications to an interactive device based on that location (Compl. ¶¶ 65, 69). These communications can include marketing information, coupons, or various purchase options like shipping or in-store pickup (Compl. ¶ 68).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶ 214).
  • Accused Features: The complaint targets Defendant's systems that provide targeted communications, coupons, and purchase options to consumers based on their location and shopping activities (Compl. ¶ 213).

• U.S. Patent No. 12,039,550, "Method for Enhancing Customer Shopping Experience in a Retail Store," issued July 16, 2024.

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’550 Patent describes a method where an "information analysis" of shoppers' activities (traffic and product interaction) is obtained and provided to a "brand entity" (Compl. ¶ 81). This analysis is then used by the brand entity to enhance the in-store experience through targeted engagement, such as displaying brand-specific content or providing coupons (Compl. ¶¶ 76, 79).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶ 237).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses systems that gather consumer interaction data, analyze it, and generate marketing or promotional content (Compl. ¶ 236).

• U.S. Patent No. 12,354,121, "Method And System For Shopping In A Retail Store," issued July 8, 2025.

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’121 Patent claims a method for facilitating a seamless purchase transaction (Compl. ¶ 88). The system tracks a person, gathers information about their product interactions to generate and maintain a list of "products retained by the first person while shopping," tracks the person to a point-of-sale area, and interfaces with a payment system to allow for purchase of the items on the list (Compl. ¶ 91).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶ 260).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant’s "Scan, Pay, Go" checkout functionality and its "cashierless" store technologies (Compl. ¶¶ 104(b), 104(e), 259).

• U.S. Patent No. 12,423,718, "Methods and Systems for Providing Customer Assistance in a Retail Store," issued September 23, 2025.

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’718 Patent introduces a method for improving checkout accuracy and preventing product loss (Compl. ¶ 99). It involves gathering information on products a person has "retained while shopping" to generate a first list, identifying "being-purchased products" at the point-of-sale to generate a second list, comparing the two lists, and sending a communication to a sales associate in response to the comparison to resolve any discrepancies (Compl. ¶¶ 100-101).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶ 283).
  • Accused Features: The complaint targets systems that generate and compare lists of retained versus purchased products and send communications to sales associates based on that comparison (Compl. ¶¶ 281-282).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint collectively refers to the accused instrumentalities as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶ 104). This is a broad combination of technologies including, but not limited to, Defendant's network of in-store cameras, associated analytics servers, its mobile app featuring "Scan, Pay, Go" functionality, its "cashierless" and reduced-staff store implementations, digital signage, AI vision technologies, inventory management software, and POS systems (Compl. ¶ 104).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that these various components operate as an integrated system to monitor and analyze customer behavior within 7-Eleven stores (Compl. ¶ 105). This system is purported to provide Defendant with competitive advantages in the retail market by enabling data-driven customer experiences and operational efficiencies (Compl. ¶ 107). Plaintiff cites a statement from Defendant's Chief Information Officer about "redefining how technologies such as artificial intelligence, Internet of Things, and more will improve the customer experience" to support its allegations regarding Defendant's use of such technologies (Compl. ¶ 103).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’571 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 persons... wherein the one or more information monitoring devices comprise one or more video image devices;	Defendant's retail environment uses a network of in-store cameras and analytics servers for in-store analytics (Compl. ¶ 104(a)).	¶104, ¶112	col. 3:1-4
(iv) the step of gathering... a demographic characteristic... (v) the step of gathering... a sentiment characteristic... (vi) the step of gathering... a tracking characteristic...	The Accused Products allegedly collect demographic, sentiment, and tracking characteristics of persons in proximity to monitoring devices (Compl. ¶ 114).	¶114	col. 22:49-65
(b) providing an opt-out option to the persons...	The Accused Products are alleged to provide an opt-out option to persons in proximity to the devices (Compl. ¶ 115).	¶115	col. 22:3-7
(c) analyzing in real time... the information gathered... except for the subset of opt-out persons...	The Accused Products include systems operably connected to a server and/or databases which analyze the gathered information of those who have not opted out (Compl. ¶¶ 113, 115).	¶113, ¶115	col. 22:8-19
(d) providing a response in real time based upon the analyzed information... selected from a group consisting of (i) engaging the person... (iii) providing marketing or advertising information... and (iv) providing a coupon...	The Accused Products are alleged to include a mobile app for presenting offers and promotions and digital signage solutions for providing targeted digital interactions (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 104(b-d)).	¶24, ¶104	col. 22:20-45

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the various accused components (cameras, app, servers) constitute a single "method" as claimed. Proving that Defendant performs every step of the claimed method, including both data gathering and providing a response, will be a focus.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the collection of a "sentiment characteristic." A key factual dispute may arise over whether Defendant’s systems are technically capable of, and actually perform, sentiment analysis (e.g., analyzing facial expressions for emotion), as depicted in the patent's FIG. 2, which is also included in the complaint (Compl. p. 6, FIG. 2). The evidence required to prove this element may be substantial.

’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, wherein... the step of gathering information... comprises (A) gathering object identification information of a product that the person is interested in purchasing...	Defendant is alleged to use AI vision technologies and other devices to gather object identification information of products with which a person interacts (Compl. ¶¶ 104(f), 138).	¶104, ¶138	col. 12:5-14
and (B) gathering sentiment information of the person with respect to the product;	The Accused Products allegedly perform functions of gathering sentiment information of a person with respect to a product (Compl. ¶ 138).	¶138	col. 12:47-51
(b) analyzing the information in real time... to manage inventory of the products in the retail store...	Defendant's systems are alleged to include inventory management and replenishment software that utilizes real-time analysis of customer interactions (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 104(g), 139).	¶36, ¶104, ¶139	col. 13:58-62
(c) providing a response in real time based upon the analyzed information... selected from a group consisting of... directing the person to a location... providing marketing... or offering coupons.	Defendant’s systems are alleged to provide real-time responses including directing a person to a product location, providing marketing, and offering coupons (Compl. ¶ 139).	¶139	col. 13:6-15

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The term "interested in purchasing" may be a point of construction. The parties may dispute what level of interaction (e.g., looking at, picking up, carrying) is sufficient to meet this limitation and what evidence the complaint provides that Defendant's system makes such a determination.
  • Technical Questions: Similar to the ’571 Patent, the allegation that the system gathers "sentiment information... with respect to the product" raises a significant evidentiary question. It requires proving not only that sentiment is analyzed, but that it is specifically linked to a customer's feeling about a particular product they are interacting with.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’571 Patent:

• The Term: "sentiment characteristic"
• Context and Importance: This term is critical because it moves the claim beyond simple demographic or traffic analysis into the realm of affective computing. The viability of the infringement allegation may hinge on whether Defendant's system performs what would be legally defined as sentiment analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because proving its infringement likely requires more than evidence of simple shopper tracking.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes sentiment as being based on "video images captured by cameras" and determined by algorithms known in the art (’571 Patent, col. 10:55-61). This could support an argument that any algorithm-based output related to a shopper's disposition qualifies.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's Figure 2 provides a specific example of sentiment analysis, showing outputs for "Anger," "Happy," "Sad," and "Surprise" with corresponding numerical values (’571 Patent, FIG. 2). A defendant may argue this example limits the term to the analysis of specific, discrete emotional states.

For the ’890 Patent:

• The Term: "object identification information of a product that the person is interested in purchasing"
• Context and Importance: This limitation requires more than just identifying a product on a shelf; it requires linking that identification to a person's "interest in purchasing." The infringement analysis will depend on how the system is alleged to infer this interest.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests interest can be determined by detecting when a customer picks up a product, how long they hold it, and what they do with it (’890 Patent, col. 12:9-14). This could support a reading where any physical interaction with a product is sufficient to show "interest."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "interested in purchasing" could be argued to require an element of intent that goes beyond mere physical interaction, such as placing an item in a cart. A defendant may argue that merely picking up and putting down a product does not necessarily indicate an interest "in purchasing."

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint contains counts for induced infringement for all asserted patents. The allegations state that Defendant knowingly induces infringement by implementing the accused systems in its stores and encouraging or directing its employees and customers to use them in a manner that practices the patented methods (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 126, 128, 150).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents, based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of the patents and their infringement "at least as early as the filing of this Complaint" (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 120, 144). The complaint alleges that despite this knowledge, Defendant has continued its infringing activities with "blatant disregard for Alpha Modus's patent rights" (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 121, 145).

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

• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical capability: Can Plaintiff produce evidence demonstrating that Defendant’s accused systems perform the specific, advanced functionalities required by the claims—such as analyzing a shopper's "sentiment" or identifying a product a person is "interested in purchasing"—or are the systems limited to more general demographic and traffic monitoring? The complaint's broad allegations will need to be substantiated with specific proof of how these accused AI and analytics systems actually operate.
• A core issue will be one of system integration and control: The asserted claims are method claims, and the "Accused Products" comprise a diffuse collection of hardware and software. A central challenge for the Plaintiff will be to prove that Defendant, as a single entity, performs or directs the performance of every step of each asserted method claim, integrating data from in-store cameras, mobile apps, and POS systems to provide the claimed real-time responses.
• The case will also likely turn on a question of definitional scope during claim construction: Can broad terms like "sentiment characteristic," rooted in the patent's specific examples of facial emotion analysis, be construed to cover more general behavioral data that Defendant's systems may collect? The outcome of such claim construction disputes will significantly shape the scope of infringement.