Alpha Modus v. Kroger: Digital Smart Screen Patent Dispute Ends in Dismissal

Introduction

A patent infringement lawsuit targeting one of America’s largest grocery retailers has quietly concluded — not with a courtroom verdict, but with a stipulated dismissal suggesting a confidential resolution reached before trial. On May 2, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas closed Case No. 2:24-cv-00022, dismissing all claims between Alpha Modus, Corp. and The Kroger Company with prejudice, following a joint stipulation filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).

At the heart of this digital smart screen patent infringement dispute were three granted U.S. patents covering intelligent display and retail engagement technologies. For patent attorneys navigating NPE litigation strategy, in-house IP counsel at retail technology companies, and R&D teams developing smart signage systems, this case carries meaningful procedural and strategic lessons — even in the absence of a published merits ruling.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patents at Issue

Three U.S. patents were asserted in this litigation, covering intelligent display and retail engagement technologies:

• • U.S. Patent No. 11,042,890 — covers advanced digital display and content management technologies
• • U.S. Patent No. 10,977,672 — directed to intelligent retail engagement systems
• • U.S. Patent No. 10,360,571 — relates to digital smart screen interaction and targeting methods

All three patents fall within the broader domain of digital retail display and smart screen patent litigation, a rapidly growing area of IP enforcement as brick-and-mortar retailers accelerate their digital transformation investments.

The Accused Products

The complaint identified digital smart screens as the accused instrumentalities — the in-store digital display technologies deployed across Kroger retail locations. These systems, increasingly central to modern retail operations, represent a high-value commercial target due to their widespread deployment and growing integration with consumer data analytics.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff Alpha Modus was represented by attorneys Christopher Edward Hanba, Jordan Elizabeth Garsson, Joshua Gabriel Jones, and Joshua Reed Thane, with Dickinson Wright PLLC and Haltom & Doan LLP serving as counsel.

Defendant Kroger retained Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. (Chicago) and Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love, PLLC, with attorneys Gregory Phillip Love, Jason S. Shull, Leon Cao, and Richard Stockton leading the defense.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

Alpha Modus filed its complaint on January 16, 2024, in the Eastern District of Texas — a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs due to its established IP docket and procedurally plaintiff-friendly reputation. The case proceeded at the district court (first instance/trial level) before closing on May 2, 2025, yielding a total litigation duration of 472 days.

The case resolved relatively efficiently by Eastern District of Texas standards, where contested patent matters frequently extend well beyond 18 months through claim construction, summary judgment practice, and trial preparation. The docket reflects that the parties reached resolution prior to any publicly documented Markman hearing, summary judgment ruling, or trial date — consistent with a confidential pre-trial settlement. The Joint Stipulation of Dismissal was docketed as Dkt. No. 42, signaling that meaningful motion practice and negotiation activity preceded the final resolution.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The case was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a Joint Stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), filed jointly by both parties. The court’s order explicitly states: “all claims and causes of action asserted between Plaintiff and Defendant in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.” Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.

No damages award was publicly disclosed. No injunctive relief was granted or denied on the merits. The with-prejudice dismissal forecloses Alpha Modus from re-filing identical claims against Kroger on these patents.

Verdict Cause Analysis

A dismissal with prejudice by joint stipulation is the procedural hallmark of a private settlement. Unlike a dismissal without prejudice — which preserves re-filing rights — a with-prejudice stipulation signals that the parties reached a definitive resolution, most likely involving a licensing agreement, lump-sum payment, or structured covenant not to sue. The mutual fee-bearing provision is a standard settlement term designed to avoid any implication of a prevailing party designation that could trigger fee-shifting analysis under Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness (2014).

Because the case closed before any published Markman order or invalidity ruling, there is no public record of how the asserted claims would have been construed or whether the patents would have survived validity challenges. Retailers defending against digital display patent assertions frequently deploy inter partes review (IPR) petitions at the USPTO as parallel invalidity tools, and it is plausible — though not confirmed — that IPR filings or threats thereof influenced the settlement calculus.

Legal Significance

While this case produced no precedential claim construction rulings, its procedural posture offers instructive signals. The Eastern District of Texas remains a preferred venue for NPE-style digital technology patent assertions, and cases like this one reflect the continued viability of pre-trial resolution as the primary litigation exit for both parties. The with-prejudice dismissal is significant: patent holders asserting the same portfolio against similarly situated defendants in parallel cases cannot use Kroger’s resolution as a direct precedent, but the terms — if leaked or disclosed — may anchor licensing negotiations elsewhere.

Industry & Competitive Implications

The Alpha Modus v. Kroger dispute is emblematic of a broader patent enforcement wave targeting retail digital transformation technology. As grocery chains, big-box retailers, and convenience stores deploy smart screen ecosystems — integrating AI-driven content targeting, loyalty program data, and real-time inventory display — the IP surface area for assertion has expanded dramatically.

Patent assertion entities holding continuation-rich portfolios in digital signage, consumer engagement, and display interaction technologies have identified retail technology as a high-value enforcement domain. The Alpha Modus portfolio — spanning three patents across a family of related applications — exemplifies this playbook.

For retail technology vendors and platform providers, this case signals that their customers (retailers like Kroger) face direct assertion risk, which may prompt retailers to seek stronger IP indemnification language in vendor contracts. Licensing trends in this space suggest that resolution values often reflect a fraction of theoretical reasonable royalty calculations, particularly where claim validity is contestable.

Companies actively deploying or developing digital smart screen systems should monitor Alpha Modus’s continued enforcement activity and assess whether IPR petitions present a cost-effective portfolio neutralization strategy.

FAQ

What patents were involved in Alpha Modus Corp. v. Kroger?

Three U.S. patents: No. 11,042,890; No. 10,977,672; and No. 10,360,571 — all directed to digital smart screen and retail display engagement technologies.

Why was the case dismissed with prejudice?

The parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), indicating the dispute was privately resolved. A with-prejudice dismissal bars Alpha Modus from reasserting these claims against Kroger.

How might this case affect digital smart screen patent litigation?

It signals ongoing assertion risk in retail display technology and underscores the value of early FTO analysis and IPR petition strategies for companies in this space.