Alpha Modus v. OptiSigns: Five-Patent Digital Signage Dispute Ends With Prejudice
Alpha Modus, Corp. asserted five US patents covering digital signage technology against OptiSigns Inc. in the Texas Southern District Court. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice after 205 days, with each side bearing its own costs — a resolution that closes the door on re-filing.
Five digital signage patents, one stipulated exit — Alpha Modus v. OptiSigns
Alpha Modus, Corp. filed suit against OptiSigns Inc. on April 15, 2025 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas before Judge Lee H. Rosenthal. The complaint asserted infringement of five US patents — US11042890B2, US11301880B2, US10977672B2, US10360571B2, and US10853825B2 — all directed to digital signage technology, including display targeting, consumer interaction, and commerce-enabling methods, as allegedly embodied in OptiSigns’ products and services.
The case closed on November 6, 2025, when the parties jointly filed a stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court entered an order dismissing all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs. A with-prejudice dismissal means Alpha Modus cannot reassert these specific claims against OptiSigns in future litigation, making this a final resolution on the merits for the parties involved, even though no court judgment on infringement or validity was entered.
The 205-day duration from filing to closure suggests the parties may have reached a private resolution — potentially a licensing arrangement, covenant not to sue, or commercial agreement — before any substantive rulings were issued. The public record does not disclose financial terms or any agreement beyond the stipulation itself. The with-prejudice designation is notable: it provides OptiSigns with a stronger shield against re-assertion of these five patents by Alpha Modus than a without-prejudice dismissal would have afforded.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 205 days
205 days — from filing to closure, consistent with pre-trial settlement timelines in district patent cases
Dismissed with prejudice by stipulation: what this means for both parties
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): a bilateral, court-entered exit
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), both parties signed a stipulation of dismissal, which the court then entered as an order. Unlike a unilateral voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), this mechanism requires mutual consent. The with-prejudice designation — specified in the stipulation itself — means the dismissal operates as a final judgment on the merits, permanently barring re-litigation of any claims that were raised or could have been raised.
Mutual consent, final resolutionAlpha Modus surrenders re-filing rights against OptiSigns
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, Alpha Modus has permanently waived the right to sue OptiSigns on any of the five asserted patents for the same accused products and conduct. This is a significant concession for a patent licensor. It suggests Alpha Modus either secured value through a private agreement, or concluded that continued litigation was not commercially viable. The patents themselves remain in force and enforceable against other parties.
Patents survive; re-assertion barredOptiSigns gains lasting freedom from these five patent claims
OptiSigns emerges with a strong procedural shield: Alpha Modus cannot assert these five digital signage patents against OptiSigns or its products and services again in relation to the conduct at issue. The own-costs ruling means OptiSigns avoided any fee or cost award to the plaintiff. Whether OptiSigns obtained a formal licence, paid any consideration, or simply negotiated a walk-away is not disclosed in the public record — but the with-prejudice outcome is commercially favourable regardless.
Re-assertion permanently barredAlpha Modus’ digital signage portfolio remains live against the broader market
This dismissal resolves only the dispute with OptiSigns. Competitors and customers operating digital signage platforms should note that all five patents remain granted and potentially enforceable against others. Alpha Modus’ litigation posture — asserting a five-patent portfolio against a digital signage SaaS provider — is consistent with a licensing-first enforcement strategy. Other participants in the digital signage ecosystem should assess FTO exposure to these patents independently.
Portfolio remains live for othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Alpha Modus, Corp. | Company | Digital signage IP licensor — holder of US11042890B2 and four related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | OptiSigns Inc. | Company | OptiSigns Inc. — digital signage software and hardware solutions providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher Edward Hanba | 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 | Prince Lobel Tye LLP | Law Firm | Representing Alpha Modus, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Aaron Eduardo Chibli | Attorney | Counsel for OptiSigns Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Rachel Laine Gillespie | Attorney | Counsel for OptiSigns Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Terrell R. Miller | Attorney | Counsel for OptiSigns Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Foley & Lardner, LLP | Law Firm | Representing OptiSigns Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Lee H Rosenthal | Judge | Texas Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s dismissal order tracks the exact language of the parties’ Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation, confirming that all claims and counterclaims — including any that ‘could have been raised’ — are extinguished with prejudice. This broad preclusion language goes beyond the specific claims pleaded and forecloses any future action by Alpha Modus against OptiSigns on these patents arising from the same conduct. The own-costs order is neutral and does not signal fault or concession by either party. No merits determination was made on infringement or validity.
US11042890B2 — digital signage targeting and display commerce methods
The five patents asserted in this case — US11042890B2, US11301880B2, US10977672B2, US10360571B2, and US10853825B2 — share a common technical lineage in digital signage systems. Their application numbers span filings from 2014 through 2020, suggesting a family built over several years to cover evolving aspects of display targeting, programmatic content delivery, consumer interaction, and commerce-enabling methods on digital signage platforms. The patents cover a commercially relevant technology layer increasingly central to retail, hospitality, and out-of-home advertising.
For companies operating digital signage SaaS platforms, display hardware, or programmatic out-of-home advertising infrastructure, this portfolio presents a multi-vector infringement surface. Alpha Modus’ decision to assert all five in a single action against OptiSigns — a cloud-based digital signage provider — indicates that the claims are directed at platform-level functionality, not niche hardware features. Competitors deploying similar content management, targeting, or commerce-integration features in digital signage products should independently assess their FTO exposure to each patent in this portfolio.
Should your digital signage platform run an FTO against these five Alpha Modus patents?
Any company developing or commercialising digital signage software, display management platforms, proximity-triggered content delivery, or in-store programmatic advertising should treat this five-patent portfolio as an active FTO priority. Alpha Modus has demonstrated a willingness to assert these patents in federal court against a well-funded commercial defendant. With the OptiSigns dispute now closed with prejudice, enforcement resources may be redirected toward other market participants.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of all five Alpha Modus patents against your product’s technical architecture, flag overlapping claim language, and surface prior art relevant to validity challenges. Running this analysis before a cease-and-desist letter arrives is significantly more cost-effective than responding to litigation. Eureka also enables ongoing monitoring of Alpha Modus’ prosecution and litigation activity so your IP team is never caught off-guard.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11042890B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar digital signage patent cases in Texas federal courts
Explore patent infringement actions involving digital signage, display targeting, and programmatic content delivery technology in the Texas Southern and Western District Courts.
What this case signals for the digital signage IP landscape
A five-patent assertion resolved in under seven months with prejudice suggests a calculated licensing play — and a sector-wide signal worth heeding.
With-prejudice exits often signal private commercial resolution
When both parties agree to dismiss with prejudice and bear their own costs, it typically signals that something of value changed hands privately — a licence, a covenant, or a commercial arrangement. Patent counsel advising digital signage companies should treat this outcome as a potential licensing precedent, not a clean walk-away, until more context emerges.
Five-patent portfolios amplify assertion leverage in pre-trial negotiations
Alpha Modus asserted five related patents in a single action, covering a range of digital signage methods. Stacking related patents raises the cost and complexity of defence and increases the likelihood of pre-trial resolution. R&D and product teams in the digital signage space should audit their exposure to each of these patents individually, not just the lead asserted patent.
Alpha v OptiSigns — key questions answered
A with-prejudice dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) operates as a final judgment on the merits. Alpha Modus cannot re-file the same patent infringement claims against OptiSigns based on the same patents and accused conduct. The five patents — US11042890B2, US11301880B2, US10977672B2, US10360571B2, and US10853825B2 — remain valid and enforceable against other parties, but are permanently extinguished as against OptiSigns for the conduct at issue.
Alpha Modus asserted five US patents: US11042890B2 (apno US16/837711), US11301880B2 (apno US16/837645), US10977672B2 (apno US16/985001), US10360571B2 (apno US14/335429), and US10853825B2 (apno US16/509343). All five relate to digital signage technology including display targeting, content delivery, and commerce-enabling methods, directed at OptiSigns’ products and services.
The 205-day resolution from filing to closure is consistent with pre-trial settlement, likely before any claim construction or summary judgment proceedings. This timeline suggests the parties reached a private commercial arrangement — possibly a licence or covenant not to sue — without requiring court adjudication. The public record discloses no financial terms; the with-prejudice dismissal and own-costs order are the only documented outcomes.
No. The own-costs order simply means each party bears its own attorney fees and litigation expenses. It does not reflect any judicial finding of bad faith, frivolous assertion, or exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285. An own-costs provision in a stipulated dismissal is a standard negotiated term that avoids fee-shifting disputes and is neutral as to the merits of either party’s position.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice extinguishes Alpha Modus’ claims only as against OptiSigns for the specific conduct at issue. All five patents — US11042890B2, US11301880B2, US10977672B2, US10360571B2, and US10853825B2 — remain granted and enforceable. Alpha Modus retains the right to assert them against other defendants in the digital signage market, and companies with similar product architectures to OptiSigns should independently assess their FTO exposure.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.