Alpha Modus Corp v. Industria De Diseno Textil SA

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Alpha Modus, Corp. (Florida)
  • Defendant: Industria de Diseño Textil, S.A. (Spain) and Zara USA, Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Prince Lobel Tye LLP
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01125, E.D. Tex., 11/14/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged in the Eastern District of Texas on the basis that Defendant Zara USA, Inc. maintains a regular and established place of business within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s in-store retail technologies, including its RFID inventory system, mobile application, and surveillance systems, infringe four patents related to real-time analysis of consumer behavior and inventory management.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using in-store monitoring devices, such as cameras and sensors, to collect and analyze data on shopper interactions with products, with the goal of personalizing marketing and optimizing store operations.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patents are listed on Plaintiff’s public patent portfolio website and that Plaintiff has previously entered into intellectual property licensing agreements outside of litigation. The asserted patents are part of a continuation family sharing an early priority date.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2013-07-19	Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2021-06-22	U.S. Patent No. 11,042,890 Issued
2022-04-12	U.S. Patent No. 11,301,880 Issued
2024-07-02	U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731 Issued
2025-07-08	U.S. Patent No. 12,354,121 Issued
2025-11-14	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

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’s background section describes the challenges faced by brick-and-mortar retailers, such as "showrooming" (where customers examine products in-store but purchase online) and a lack of pre-sale consumer data, which online retailers readily possess (’890 Patent, col. 1:49-54). Retailers struggle to deliver personalized, influential messaging at the point of decision (’890 Patent, col. 1:42-45).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that uses "information monitoring devices" (e.g., cameras, sensors) within a retail store to gather data about a shopper in real-time (’890 Patent, Abstract). As described in the specification, this includes identifying products a customer is interested in and capturing their "sentiment" (e.g., emotional reaction) to provide a tailored response, such as a coupon or targeted advertisement, to influence the purchasing decision (’890 Patent, col. 10:20-22; col. 21:5-22:20).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to provide physical retailers with the type of real-time, granular customer analytics previously available only to e-commerce platforms, enabling data-driven marketing and customer engagement in a brick-and-mortar environment (’890 Patent, col. 2:15-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 74).
• Claim 1 recites a method with the following essential elements:
  • 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.
  • The gathering step also comprises gathering 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 communications to direct the person, engage the person, provide marketing, or offer a coupon.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 11,301,880 - “Method And System For Inventory Management In A Retail Store” (Issued April 12, 2022)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the challenge retailers face in maintaining optimal inventory levels, noting that traditional forecasting relies on historical and point-of-sale (POS) data, which is "after-the-fact" and lacks insight into pre-sale consumer interest (’880 Patent, col. 2:30-38). This can lead to stockouts of popular items or overstocking of undesired ones.
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for real-time inventory management that uses video image devices to monitor shoppers' "product interaction information"—specifically, when products are "picked up" or "carried away" by persons in the store (’880 Patent, col. 8:5-13). This interaction data, combined with object identification, is analyzed in real-time to trigger inventory management responses, such as sending an alert to a store employee to restock a shelf or adding an item to an inventory order (’880 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:17-36).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to create a more responsive inventory system by using direct, real-time observation of shopper interest (product interactions) as a leading indicator for demand, rather than relying solely on lagging sales data (’880 Patent, col. 2:30-38).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 100).
• Claim 1 recites a method with the following essential elements:
  • Using one or more information monitoring devices, including video image devices, to gather information about shopping activities.
  • The gathering step comprises gathering product interaction information, including when products are picked up and carried away.
  • The gathering step also comprises gathering object identification information of the interacted-with products.
  • Analyzing the information in real time to manage inventory.
  • Providing a response in real time selected from a group including communications to check inventory, restock a product, or add a product to an inventory order.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731 - “Method For Personalized Marketing And Advertising Of Retail Products” (Issued July 2, 2024)

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the challenge of delivering personalized marketing to shoppers in brick-and-mortar stores (Compl. ¶ 44). The claimed method involves obtaining an "information analysis" based on a shopper's product interactions, tracking the shopper's location in the store, and then providing targeted communications (e.g., coupons, promotions, purchase options) to an interactive device based on that location and analysis (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 48).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 124).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products, including the Zara mobile app, infringe by analyzing consumer shopping activities, tracking consumer locations relative to stores, and generating real-time communications like promotions and coupons (Compl. ¶¶ 120-122).

U.S. Patent No. 12,354,121 - “Method And System For Shopping In A Retail Store” (Issued July 8, 2025)

• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for a more seamless checkout experience by tracking customer movement and the specific products they retain for purchase (Compl. ¶¶ 53, 55). The system gathers traffic and product interaction information, generates a list of retained items, tracks the person to a point-of-sale area, and interfaces with a payment system to complete the purchase (Compl. ¶ 58). The complaint includes a figure depicting the system architecture, showing in-store devices like cameras and kiosks communicating with a central server. (Compl. p. 13, FIG. 1).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 148).
• Accused Features: The accused functionality includes gathering shopper traffic and product interaction data, and allowing users to make payments in point-of-sale areas (Compl. ¶¶ 146-147).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint collectively defines the "Accused Products" as a suite of technologies used in Zara's retail environment (Compl. ¶ 62). These include:

1. Inditex's RFID garment and inventory system.
2. Inditex's Zara-branded mobile app.
3. Inditex's in-store digital video surveillance system.
4. Inditex's inventory management and replenishment software.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that these systems work together to create an infringing retail analytics and customer engagement environment (Compl. ¶ 63). The RFID system is used to track garments by model and size for inventory replenishment purposes (Compl. ¶ 60). The Zara mobile app allegedly allows consumers to interact with items in-store, check inventory, scan products for information, and make purchases (Compl. ¶ 61). The complaint alleges the in-store video surveillance and inventory management software are also part of the infringing system but provides less specific detail on their standalone functionality (Compl. ¶ 62).
• The complaint frames these technologies as providing Inditex with "competitive advantages in the retail market" and resulting in "significant commercial gains" (Compl. ¶¶ 65, 67).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’890 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 person at a retail store	Defendant uses devices such as its in-store digital video surveillance system to gather information about persons in its stores.	¶71	col. 9:18-24
gathering object identification information of a product that the person is interested in purchasing	The Accused Products perform functions such as gathering object identification information of a product.	¶72	col. 12:12-20
gathering sentiment information of the person with respect to the product	The Accused Products perform functions such as gathering sentiment information of the person with respect to the product. A figure in the complaint depicts facial analysis to determine a person's mood.	¶72; p. 13, FIG. 2	col. 10:56-64
analyzing the information in real time...to manage inventory	The Accused Products analyze the gathered information in real time.	¶73	col. 5:21-25
providing a response in real time based upon the analyzed information	The Accused Products provide a response based upon the analyzed information, including directing a person to a product location, providing marketing information, and offering coupons.	¶73	col. 21:64 - 22:20

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the gathering of "sentiment information" (Compl. ¶ 72), a key limitation of Claim 1. A central evidentiary question will be whether Defendant's accused systems, particularly its "in-store digital video surveillance system," actually perform the function of analyzing a shopper's emotional state as described in the patent (e.g., '890 Patent, Fig. 2). The complaint does not provide specific evidence that Zara's surveillance system has this capability.
• Scope Questions: The claim requires analyzing information "to manage inventory." The infringement allegation, however, focuses on responses directed to the customer (e.g., coupons, marketing) (Compl. ¶ 73). A question may arise as to whether the analysis performed by the Accused Products for customer-facing responses also satisfies the "manage inventory" purpose required by the claim.

’880 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
using one or more information monitoring devices [which] comprise one or more video image devices	Defendant's Accused Products include an in-store digital video surveillance system.	¶62; ¶97	col. 12:20-24
gathering product interaction information based upon product interactions...wherein the product interactions information comprises (I) the one or more products are picked up by the persons...and (II) the one or more products are carried away by the persons	The Accused Products perform functions such as gathering product interaction information of the person with respect to the products that the person interacts with.	¶98	col. 8:5-13
gathering object identification information of the one or more products that the persons interacted with	The Accused Products gather object identification information for the products that persons interacted with during product interactions.	¶98	col. 12:12-20
analyzing the information in real time...to manage inventory of the products	The Accused Products analyze the information in real time. Defendant uses an RFID system and inventory management software for in-store inventory analytics.	¶99; ¶62	col. 8:14-17
providing a response in real time...wherein the response is selected from a group consisting of [sending various inventory-related communications]	The Accused Products provide a response...including but not limited to sending a communication to a retail person regarding the inventory of the products interacted with.	¶99	col. 8:26-36

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires gathering "product interaction information" that comprises products being "picked up" and "carried away," based on data from "video image devices." The complaint alleges infringement by Defendant's "digital video surveillance system" and "RFID garment and inventory system" (Compl. ¶ 62). A key question will be what evidence exists that the video surveillance system is used to specifically detect when items are picked up and carried away, as opposed to general security monitoring. Further, it raises the question of how the RFID system, which tracks tags, contributes to the video-based analysis required by the claim.
• System Integration Questions: The infringement theory appears to rely on the combined operation of multiple, distinct systems (video, RFID, software) to meet the claim limitations. This may raise the question of whether these disparate systems in fact operate together in a way that practices the specific, ordered steps of the claimed method.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’890 Patent:

• The Term: "sentiment information"
• Context and Importance: This term is a critical and potentially distinguishing feature of Claim 1. The infringement case for the ’890 patent may depend on whether Defendant's systems can be shown to gather data meeting the construed definition of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require a specific type of affective computing or emotional analysis that may not be present in standard retail surveillance or analytics systems.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not limit how the "sentiment information" is gathered, stating only that it is "with respect to the product" (’890 Patent, col. 21:50-52). This could support an argument that any data reflecting a customer's reaction, even indirect data like dwell time, could qualify.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example of determining sentiment through facial analysis, identifying metrics for "% happy, % sad, % angry, % surprised" (’890 Patent, col. 14:63-65). Figure 2 of the patent (referenced in the complaint at p. 13) explicitly shows a graphical overlay on a person's face with values for "Anger," "Happy," "Sad," and "Surprise," which may support a narrower construction requiring this type of specific emotional-state detection.

For the ’880 Patent:

• The Term: "product interaction information"
• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central, as Claim 1 explicitly defines it as comprising products being "picked up" and "carried away" (’880 Patent, col. 22:5-10). The dispute will likely turn on what evidence is required to prove that the accused system gathers this specific type of information.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the object identification module as being capable of determining "when customers pick up and put down products, how long they hold the product, and ultimately what product they walked off with" (’880 Patent, col. 12:16-20). This language is consistent with the claim language and does not appear to offer a significantly broader meaning.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself provides a narrow definition by requiring that the information comprises both "picked up" and "carried away" events. An argument could be made that a system which only detects one of these two actions, or infers them indirectly (e.g., via RFID), does not meet the limitation as written, which is tied to analysis from "video image devices."

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement for all four patents. The allegations are based on claims that Defendant "knowingly induces, aids, and directs others to use the Accused Products," and that its use of the products in its stores and its instructions demonstrate specific intent to induce infringement by customers and staff (Compl. ¶¶ 84, 86, 88-89, 110, 112, 114-115, 134, 136, 138-139, 158, 159, 161-162).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement for all patents. The basis for willfulness is the allegation that Defendant "has been aware" of the patents and their infringement, or was "willfully blind," at least as early as the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 78-79, 104-105, 128-129, 152-153). This primarily alleges post-suit knowledge as the basis for willfulness.

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

1. A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: What evidence can Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that Defendant's general-purpose systems (e.g., security surveillance, RFID inventory tracking) perform the highly specific functions required by the claims, such as detecting a shopper's "sentiment information" or identifying the precise moments a product is "picked up" and "carried away" via video analysis?

2. A second key issue will be one of system integration: The complaint accuses a collection of disparate technologies (RFID, app, video, software) of infringement. This raises the question of whether these systems operate in concert to perform the complete, ordered steps of the asserted method claims, or if their functions are too disconnected to constitute a single infringing method.

3. A final question will be one of definitional scope: The case may turn on claim construction, particularly whether a term like "sentiment information" requires specific emotional state analysis as depicted in the patent's figures, or if it can be construed more broadly to cover behavioral proxies like dwell time, which may be more likely to be collected by a standard retail analytics system.