DCT

2:25-cv-01182

Alpha Modus Corp v. H&M Fashion USA Inc

Key Events

Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Alpha Modus, Corp. (Florida)
- Defendant: H&M Fashion USA, Inc. (Wisconsin)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Prince Lobel Tye LLP
Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01182, E.D. Tex., 12/01/2025
Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant maintaining a regular and established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s in-store retail technologies—including its RFID systems, mobile application, and video surveillance—infringe five patents related to the real-time monitoring and analysis of consumer behavior in physical retail environments.
Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using sensors, cameras, and data analytics to monitor shoppers' movements and interactions with products in brick-and-mortar stores to optimize store layout, manage inventory, and deliver personalized marketing.
Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff has entered into intellectual property licensing agreements outside of litigation. All five patents-in-suit claim priority to a common provisional application filed in 2013 and form part of an extended family of continuing applications.

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 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
2025-07-08	U.S. Patent No. 12,354,121 Issues
2025-12-01	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”

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,042,890, “Method And System For Customer Assistance In A Retail Store,” issued June 22, 2021 (Compl. ¶¶16, 19).

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the challenge faced by brick-and-mortar retailers competing with online stores, specifically the lack of consumer purchasing data prior to the point of sale and the phenomenon of "showrooming," where customers examine products in-store but purchase them online (’890 Patent, col. 1:36-52, col. 2:15-29).
The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system using in-store "information monitoring devices" to capture data about a customer's interactions with products in real-time. This includes identifying the product a person is interested in and gathering "sentiment information" about their reaction. The system analyzes this data to provide an immediate response, such as sending a coupon to the customer's mobile device or alerting a store employee to offer assistance (’890 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:28-44).
Technical Importance: The technology aims to provide physical retailers with the real-time, data-driven personalization capabilities commonly used by e-commerce platforms to influence purchasing decisions (Compl. ¶22).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶83).
The essential elements of 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 (A) object identification information of a product and (B) 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 including sending a communication, engaging the person via a display, providing marketing information, or providing a coupon.
The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 11,049,120 - “Method And System For Generating A Layout For Placement Of Products In A Retail Store”

Patent Identification: 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 (Compl. ¶¶26, 28).

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the difficulty for brick-and-mortar retailers in determining the effectiveness of their store layout and merchandising without data on pre-purchase consumer behavior (’120 Patent, col. 2:26-32).
The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method using information monitoring devices, including video cameras, to gather information on shopper activities. This includes "traffic information" (e.g., tracking movement and stops) and "product interaction information" (e.g., products viewed, picked up, or carried away). This collected data is used to generate a "layout analysis," which is then utilized to modify the store's product layout to a new configuration (’120 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:26-34).
Technical Importance: The invention enables physical retailers to apply data-driven optimization to their store layouts, a strategy analogous to A/B testing and user-flow analysis on websites (Compl. ¶¶32-33).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶107).
The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- Using information monitoring devices, including video image devices, to gather information about shopping activities from a first layout of products.
- The gathering step comprises gathering (A) traffic information, (B) product interaction information, and (C) object identification information.
- Analyzing the gathered information to generate a layout analysis.
- Utilizing the layout analysis to modify the first layout to generate a second layout of the products.
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”

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,301,880, “Method And System For Inventory Management In A Retail Store,” issued April 12, 2022 (Compl. ¶¶36, 39).
Technology Synopsis: The ’880 Patent addresses challenges in real-time inventory management by describing a system that uses video devices to monitor product interactions (e.g., items being picked up or carried away). Based on this data, the system provides real-time responses, such as sending a communication to a retail employee to check inventory levels, restock a product, or contact a distribution center (Compl. ¶¶41, 44, 46).
Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶133).
Accused Features: The complaint accuses H&M’s use of its RFID system, in-store video surveillance, and inventory management software for inventory analytics and replenishment (Compl. ¶¶71, 128-132).

U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731 - “Method For Personalized Marketing And Advertising Of Retail Products”

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,026,731, “Method For Personalized Marketing And Advertising Of Retail Products,” issued July 2, 2024 (Compl. ¶¶47, 50).
Technology Synopsis: The ’731 Patent focuses on personalized in-store marketing. It describes a method of obtaining an analysis of a shopper's activities, tracking the shopper’s location in the store, and then providing location-based communications (such as product location information, coupons, or purchase options) to the shopper via an interactive device (Compl. ¶¶52, 56-57).
Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶157).
Accused Features: The complaint targets H&M's systems, including its mobile app, that allegedly track consumers and provide targeted communications like coupons, marketing messages, and various purchase options based on their shopping activities (Compl. ¶¶70, 155-156).

U.S. Patent No. 12,354,121 - “Method And System For Shopping In A Retail Store”

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,354,121, “Method And System For Shopping In A Retail Store,” issued July 8, 2025 (Compl. ¶¶58, 60).
Technology Synopsis: The ’121 Patent is directed to streamlining the in-store checkout process. The claimed method involves identifying a person, gathering information about products they have interacted with to maintain a list of retained items, tracking the person to a point-of-sale area, and interfacing with a payment system to facilitate payment for those items (Compl. ¶¶62, 64, 67).
Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶181).
Accused Features: The allegations point to H&M’s systems that gather shopper and product information and "allow the user to make payments in point-of-sale areas once the consumer has finished shopping" (Compl. ¶¶179-180).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint collectively defines the accused instrumentalities as the "Accused Products," which encompass the H&M retail environment and its associated technologies (Compl. ¶71).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that H&M, a global fashion company, utilizes a suite of technologies in its retail stores that practice the patented methods (Compl. ¶¶68, 72). These technologies are described as including: an RFID system for tracking garments and performing inventory analytics; an H&M-branded mobile app that allows for in-store purchasing, product scanning, and inventory checks; an in-store digital video surveillance system; inventory management and replenishment software; and mirrors with digital display capabilities (Compl. ¶¶69-71). The complaint alleges these technologies provide H&M with significant competitive advantages in the retail market (Compl. ¶74). The complaint provides a system diagram illustrating various in-store 'information monitoring devices,' such as cameras (103), kiosks (106), and digital signs (107), communicating with a cloud-based server (102) (Compl. p. 15, FIG. 1).

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...	H&M's retail environment uses devices including its RFID system, mobile app, video surveillance system, and digital mirrors to gather information about shoppers (Compl. ¶71).	¶¶71, 80	col. 9:18-25
...the step of gathering information... comprises (A) gathering object identification information of a product that the person is interested in purchasing, and (B) gathering sentiment information of the person with respect to the product;	The Accused Products allegedly gather object identification information and sentiment information regarding products.	¶81	col. 9:56-65
analyzing the information in real time... about the shopping activities of the plurality of persons to manage inventory of the products...	H&M's systems, including its RFID and inventory management software, allegedly analyze shopper information in real time for purposes including inventory management.	¶¶69, 71, 82	col. 7:59-63
providing a response in real time based upon the analyzed information..., wherein the response is selected from a group consisting of (i) sending a communication..., (iv) providing marketing or advertising information..., and (v) providing a coupon...	The Accused Products allegedly provide real-time responses including directing a person to a product location, providing marketing information, and offering coupons through the H&M mobile app.	¶¶70, 82	col. 8:1-6

Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A central technical question may be how H&M’s systems allegedly perform the step of "gathering sentiment information." The complaint alleges this function is performed but does not provide specific facts explaining how, for instance, H&M's video surveillance system or other devices assess a shopper's emotional reaction (Compl. ¶81). The complaint includes a figure from the patent depicting facial recognition for sentiment analysis, but does not allege that the accused products perform this specific function (Compl. p. 15, FIG. 2).
- Scope Questions: The dispute may raise the question of whether the functionality of H&M's discrete systems (RFID, app, video) can be combined to meet all limitations of the single, integrated method claimed in the patent.

’120 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
using one or more information monitoring devices... including one or more video image devices, to gather information about shopping activities... wherein the retail store has a first layout of products...	H&M uses devices including its in-store video surveillance system to gather information about shopper activities within its stores, which have existing product layouts.	¶¶71, 103, 105	col. 10:45-50
...the step of gathering information... comprises (A) gathering traffic information... (B) gathering product interaction information... and (C) gathering object identification information...	The Accused Products allegedly gather traffic information (shopper movement), product interaction information, and identify the products with which the shopper interacts.	¶105	col. 11:1-14
analyzing the information gathered... to generate a layout analysis, wherein the analyzed information comprises the tracking information, the product interaction information, and the object identification information; and	The Accused Products allegedly "generate layout information about the retail store" and use it to make recommendations.	¶106	col. 13:38-40
utilizing the layout analysis to modify the first layout to generate a second layout of the products within and about the retail store.	The information and recommendations are allegedly used "to improve the layout of products in the store."	¶106	col. 14:40-44

Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The allegations that the Accused Products "generate layout information" and use it to "improve the layout" are stated at a high level of generality (Compl. ¶106). A key factual question will be what specific analysis H&M's systems perform and whether that output is actually used to physically "modify" the store layout, as required by the claim, versus simply generating analytical reports.
- Scope Questions: It raises the question of whether generating "recommendations to improve the layout" (Compl. ¶106) meets the claim limitation of generating a "layout analysis" that is then used to "generate a second layout."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "sentiment information" (’890 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance: This term is a key differentiator of the claimed method, requiring the system to capture a shopper's reaction, not just their actions. Infringement of the ’890 Patent may depend on whether any data collected by H&M's systems can be characterized as "sentiment information." Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's factual support for this element appears limited.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is not explicitly limited, referring to "sentiment information of the person with respect to the product." This could arguably encompass indirect indicators of sentiment, such as prolonged hesitation, repeatedly picking up and putting down an item, or dwell time.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's primary embodiment for gathering sentiment information is through automated analysis of video images to determine a person's emotional state (e.g., happy, sad, angry) (’890 Patent, col. 9:56-65; FIG. 2). Parties may argue that this detailed disclosure limits the term's scope to this specific form of facial expression analysis.

The Term: "layout analysis" (’120 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance: This term defines the output of the analytical step, which must then be used to "modify" the store layout. The dispute will likely center on whether the reports or "recommendations" allegedly generated by H&M's systems (Compl. ¶106) qualify as the "layout analysis" required by the claim.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not define a specific format for the "layout analysis." A party could argue that any data-driven output—such as a heat map or a report identifying underperforming product placements—that informs a layout change would suffice.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim structure requires this "analysis" to be the direct input for the step of "utilizing" it to "generate a second layout." This suggests the analysis must be more than a mere data report; it may need to contain specific, prescriptive information sufficient to define a new physical arrangement of products.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes counts for induced infringement for all five patents-in-suit. It alleges that H&M knowingly induces infringement by implementing the accused systems in its stores and encouraging or directing its customers and staff to use them in a manner that practices the patented methods (e.g., Compl. ¶¶93, 95, 97).
Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all five patents. The allegations are based on knowledge of the patents obtained, at the latest, upon the filing of the complaint, followed by continued infringing activity (e.g., Compl. ¶¶73, 87, 88).

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

A primary issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Beyond the initial pleadings, can the plaintiff demonstrate that H&M’s collection of retail technologies actually performs the specific, and in some cases nuanced, functions required by the claims? In particular, the case may turn on whether discovery reveals evidence of H&M gathering "sentiment information" or using its analytics to physically "modify" store layouts.
The case will also involve a central question of claim scope: How will the court construe key terms such as "sentiment information" and "layout analysis"? A narrow construction tied strictly to the embodiments shown in the patents (e.g., facial recognition) could present a significant hurdle for the infringement case, whereas a broader construction could encompass a wider range of modern retail analytics.
A third key question will be one of system integration: Given that infringement is alleged against a combination of different H&M technologies (RFID, app, video), a factual dispute may arise as to whether these components operate as a single, integrated system that performs all steps of any asserted method claim, or if they are disconnected systems that do not collectively practice the invention.