Alpha Modus v. Brookshire Grocery: 5-Patent Retail Display Suit Dismissed
Alpha Modus, Corp. filed suit against Brookshire Grocery, Co. in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of five patents covering in-store digital display and retail media technology, targeting Grocery TV’s displays. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after 265 days, before the defendant had answered or moved for summary judgment.
Five-patent retail display suit exits E.D. Tex. without a merits ruling
Alpha Modus, Corp., a patent-holding entity asserting a portfolio of retail media and in-store display patents, filed this infringement action against Brookshire Grocery, Co. in the Eastern District of Texas on November 12, 2024. The complaint targeted Grocery TV’s displays deployed in Brookshire’s stores, alleging infringement of five US patents — US11042890B2, US11301880B2, US10977672B2, US10360571B2, and US10853825B2 — collectively covering methods and systems for context-aware digital signage and retail display management.
The case closed on August 4, 2025, when Alpha Modus filed a Notice of Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which permits a plaintiff to dismiss without court order where the defendant has not yet answered or moved for summary judgment. The court accepted and acknowledged the notice, dismissing all claims without prejudice and ordering each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No merits ruling was issued on any of the five asserted patents.
The 265-day duration and the procedural posture — dismissed before any responsive pleading — are consistent with pre-litigation settlement negotiations, licensing discussions, or a strategic reassessment of venue or claim scope. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Alpha Modus retains the right to refile these claims, though refiling would restart the litigation clock and may implicate procedural considerations depending on the forum chosen. The public record does not disclose whether any licensing agreement or other commercial resolution was reached between the parties.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 265 days
265 days — resolved before defendant filed any responsive pleading
Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice: what the record shows
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral exit right
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a case without a court order — and as a matter of right — provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, Brookshire Grocery had not done either. The court’s role was purely ministerial: it accepted and acknowledged the notice rather than granting a motion. No judicial finding on the merits was made.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice: the refiling option remains open
A dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiff’s claims are not extinguished. Alpha Modus retains the legal ability to refile suit on the same five patents against Brookshire Grocery or others. This contrasts with a dismissal with prejudice, which would bar those same claims permanently. The public record is silent on whether any settlement, licensing deal, or other commercial arrangement was reached — the without-prejudice designation alone does not imply resolution.
Refiling remains possibleBrookshire exits without liability — but exposure persists
Brookshire Grocery, Co. escapes this litigation without any finding of infringement and bears no court-awarded costs or fees. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, the company cannot treat this as a final resolution of its patent risk with respect to Alpha Modus’s portfolio. If Grocery TV’s displays remain deployed in Brookshire stores and no licensing arrangement has been reached, the underlying infringement theory has not been tested or invalidated.
No injunction or damagesFive patents remain live enforcement tools in the retail display sector
None of the five asserted patents — covering in-store digital display systems and retail media methods — were adjudicated, invalidated, or licensed on the public record. Other grocery chains, retailers, and digital signage vendors deploying similar Grocery TV or comparable in-store display technology should treat this outcome as unresolved rather than exculpatory. Alpha Modus’s willingness to refile is consistent with an active assertion strategy across the retail media landscape.
Portfolio remains assertableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Alpha Modus, Corp. | Company | Retail display patent assertion entity — holder of US11042890B2 and four related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Brookshire Grocery, Co. | Company | Regional grocery chain operating stores featuring Grocery TV’s in-store digital displaysSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ariana Deskins Pellegrino | Attorney | Counsel for Alpha Modus, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher Edward Hanba | Attorney | Counsel for Alpha Modus, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jordan Elizabeth Garsson | Attorney | Counsel for Alpha Modus, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joshua Gabriel Jones | Attorney | Counsel for Alpha Modus, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dickinson Wright PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Alpha Modus, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Prince Lobel Tye LLP | Law Firm | Representing Alpha Modus, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order tracks the ministerial function of FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i): because Brookshire Grocery had not answered or moved for summary judgment, Alpha Modus held an unconditional right of dismissal requiring no judicial approval. The court’s language — ‘accepts and acknowledges’ rather than ‘grants’ — reflects this procedural reality. The without-prejudice designation and each-party-bears-own-costs order leave all substantive questions — infringement, validity, and claim scope across all five patents — entirely unresolved.
US11042890B2 and four related patents — in-store retail digital display systems
The five asserted patents — US11042890B2, US11301880B2, US10977672B2, US10360571B2, and US10853825B2 — form a portfolio directed at in-store digital display technology, covering methods and systems for managing, scheduling, and delivering content to retail digital signage networks. The application numbers suggest a cluster of related filings across 2014 through 2020, indicating a deliberate portfolio-building strategy around a core retail media technology concept. The patents are in the data-processing and digital advertising intersection, an area of intense commercial activity.
In-store digital display networks have become a significant revenue stream for grocery retailers, with platforms such as Grocery TV monetising screen inventory across thousands of store locations. Alpha Modus’s portfolio, if its claims are interpreted broadly, could reach any retailer deploying third-party display technology that performs context-aware content selection or audience-driven scheduling. For competitors and platform vendors in the retail media space, the continued enforceability of this portfolio — uncontested on the merits in this case — represents a persistent licensing risk that warrants proactive FTO analysis.
Should your product team run an FTO against US11042890B2 and related patents?
Any company operating, deploying, or integrating in-store digital display networks — particularly those using third-party retail media platforms such as Grocery TV — should treat Alpha Modus’s five-patent portfolio as an active risk. The dismissal without prejudice in this case does not constitute a validity or non-infringement finding. Retailers, display platform vendors, and grocery chains evaluating new screen deployments or vendor contracts should assess claim scope across all five patents before proceeding.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and R&D teams to map claim language from US11042890B2, US11301880B2, US10977672B2, US10360571B2, and US10853825B2 against your product architecture, identify prior art that could support invalidity arguments, and surface related Alpha Modus filings that may extend the assertion perimeter. Running an FTO before deployment is faster and cheaper than defending an E.D. Tex. infringement action.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11042890B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar retail digital display patent cases in E.D. Texas
Browse related patent infringement actions targeting in-store digital signage and retail media technology filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the retail digital signage IP landscape
A pre-answer voluntary dismissal in E.D. Tex. rarely marks the end of a patent assertion campaign — it often marks a pause.
Pre-answer dismissals in E.D. Tex. frequently precede refiling or licensing
When a plaintiff dismisses without prejudice before any responsive pleading in the Eastern District of Texas, it typically signals one of three scenarios: a licensing negotiation is underway or concluded, the plaintiff is reconsidering venue, or the plaintiff is broadening its target list. IP teams at grocery chains and retail display vendors should monitor Alpha Modus’s subsequent filings across all districts.
Five live patents create a broad assertion perimeter around in-store display tech
With five granted US patents covering digital signage methods and retail display systems still in force and unadjudicated, Alpha Modus holds a portfolio capable of targeting multiple defendants simultaneously. Companies integrating third-party in-store display networks — including Grocery TV deployments — should assess exposure across all five patent numbers, not just the lead patent.
Alpha v Brookshire — key questions answered
Alpha Modus, Corp. filed a patent infringement action against Brookshire Grocery, Co. in the Eastern District of Texas on November 12, 2024, asserting five US patents related to in-store digital display technology and targeting Grocery TV’s displays. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by Alpha Modus on August 4, 2025, before Brookshire had filed an answer or any motion. No merits ruling was issued.
Alpha Modus asserted five US patents: US11042890B2, US11301880B2, US10977672B2, US10360571B2, and US10853825B2. These patents collectively cover methods and systems for in-store digital display management, context-aware content delivery, and retail media technology. The accused products were identified as Grocery TV’s displays deployed in Brookshire Grocery stores.
Dismissed without prejudice means Alpha Modus’s patent claims were terminated for this proceeding but were not extinguished permanently. Alpha Modus retains the legal right to refile the same claims against Brookshire Grocery or other defendants. No finding was made on infringement or patent validity. The court ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss a case without a court order if the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. In this case, Brookshire Grocery had done neither. This gave Alpha Modus an unconditional right to dismiss, and the court’s role was purely to accept and acknowledge the notice rather than evaluate the merits of the dismissal request.
The dismissal has no legal effect on other retailers or Grocery TV as a platform vendor. Because no validity or non-infringement ruling was issued, Alpha Modus’s five patents remain in force and assertable. Retailers deploying Grocery TV’s in-store displays, or similar third-party digital signage platforms, should not treat this outcome as clearing their patent risk. Independent FTO analysis against Alpha Modus’s portfolio is advisable before or during deployment.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.