Alpha Modus v. Brookshire Grocery: Digital Display Patent Dispute Ends in Settlement

Case Overview

A patent infringement dispute targeting in-store digital display technology has concluded with a confidential settlement, resulting in dismissal with prejudice in the Eastern District of Texas. In *Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Brookshire Grocery Co.* (Case No. 2:24-cv-00919), plaintiff Alpha Modus asserted five U.S. patents covering digital advertising and retail display systems against Brookshire Grocery’s use of Grocery TV-powered digital displays. The case closed on March 9, 2026, approximately 482 days after filing, without a trial or public damages award.

For patent attorneys, IP professionals, and R&D teams operating in the retail technology and digital signage space, this case offers meaningful signals about assertion strategy, venue selection in Eastern District of Texas, and the increasing patent risk exposure retailers face when deploying third-party digital display platforms in physical store environments.

The Parties

The Patents at Issue

Alpha Modus asserted five U.S. patents spanning digital display control, consumer-facing advertising systems, and retail interaction technology. These patents collectively address systems and methods for managing digital content delivery in retail environments, including consumer behavior-driven display systems and networked advertising platforms.

• • US11042890B2 (App. No. 16/837,711)
• • US11301880B2 (App. No. 16/837,645)
• • US10977672B2 (App. No. 16/985,001)
• • US10360571B2 (App. No. 14/335,429)
• • US10853825B2 (App. No. 16/509,343)

The Accused Product

The accused product was Grocery TV, a digital display platform installed in retail grocery locations to deliver targeted advertising content to shoppers at point-of-sale and throughout the store. Alpha Modus alleged that Brookshire’s implementation of Grocery TV infringed claims across all five asserted patents.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff’s counsel included attorneys Ariana Deskins Pellegrino, Christopher Edward Hanba, Jordan Elizabeth Garsson, Joshua Gabriel Jones, and Joshua Reed Thane, representing firms Dickinson Wright PLLC, Haltom & Doan LLP, and Prince Lobel Tye LLP.

Defendant’s counsel included Deron R. Dacus, Rachael Dauphine Lamkin, and Thomas Bence Carter, representing Baker Botts LLP and The Dacus Firm PC — a formidable defense coalition with deep Eastern District of Texas experience.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

Alpha Modus filed suit on November 12, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas — a venue long favored by patent plaintiffs for its historically plaintiff-friendly procedures, experienced patent dockets, and well-established local patent rules.

The case proceeded at the district court (first instance) level, closing on March 9, 2026, after 482 days — a duration consistent with pre-trial settlement in Eastern District patent litigation, where cases typically resolve before reaching a Markman hearing or trial if parties reach business-level resolution.

No chief judge assignment was publicly noted in the available case data. The joint stipulation of dismissal (Dkt. No. 34) was the final substantive filing, suggesting the parties reached resolution without significant post-complaint motion practice reaching a dispositive ruling. The relatively lean docket entry count implies settlement occurred before claim construction proceedings concluded — a common inflection point for licensing resolution in NPE-driven cases.

Outcome

The Eastern District of Texas accepted the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice (Dkt. No. 34), formally closing all claims and causes of action between Alpha Modus and Brookshire Grocery. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief were denied as moot.

A dismissal with prejudice is legally significant: Alpha Modus cannot re-file the same claims against Brookshire Grocery on these five patents. The specific financial terms of any settlement agreement were not disclosed in public court records.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The case was brought as a straightforward patent infringement action. No public record of invalidity counterclaims reaching resolution, inter partes review (IPR) petitions, or dispositive motions appears in the available data. The absence of a Markman order or summary judgment ruling suggests the parties resolved the dispute at an early stage — likely following initial disclosures and infringement contentions, before the litigation reached its most expensive phases.

The deployment of Grocery TV as a third-party platform raises important legal questions that were not adjudicated publicly: specifically, whether the retailer (Brookshire) bears direct infringement liability for a platform deployed and operated by a technology vendor, or whether contributory and induced infringement theories were the more viable path for plaintiff. These questions remain unresolved by any court ruling in this case.

Legal Significance

While the dismissal with prejudice produces no binding precedent, this case contributes to a broader observable pattern: retail-facing digital signage technology is an active area of NPE patent assertion. The assertion of five patents simultaneously across overlapping technology families reflects a portfolio-bundling litigation strategy designed to maximize settlement leverage and complicate invalidity challenges.

The involvement of Baker Botts — one of the preeminent patent litigation firms nationally — on the defense side signals that Brookshire treated this matter as a serious litigation risk, not a nuisance suit warranting minimal investment.