The East Texas case is ABC IP, LLC v. 2A Optics LLC, No. 4:26-cv-01449 (E.D. Tex.). It began in the Southern District of Mississippi, Western Division, as No. 5:26-cv-00539, where the complaint was filed June 15, 2026. A copy of a conditional transfer order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation was entered on the Mississippi docket October 2, 2026, and the East Texas docket shows the case transferred in on October 8, 2026 for In re Rare Breed Triggers Patent Litigation, MDL No. 3176, and assigned the same day to Chief District Judge Amos L. Mazzant III.
The defendants are 2A Optics LLC, which the complaint alleges, on information and belief, is a Mississippi limited liability company based in Ruth, Mississippi, and Brian Ingram, an individual the complaint places at the same location, also on information and belief. Returns of service on the defendants were filed in Mississippi on August 19, 2026.
Patents and the accused products
The complaint asserts nine U.S. Patents: 12,038,247, Firearm Trigger Mechanism, issued July 16, 2024; 12,031,784, Adapted Forced Reset Trigger, issued July 9, 2024; 12,529,538, Safety Mechanism for Firearm, issued January 20, 2026; 12,578,159, Firearm Trigger Mechanism, issued March 17, 2026; 10,514,223, Firearm Trigger Mechanism, issued December 24, 2019; 11,724,003, Firearm Trigger Mechanism, issued August 15, 2023; 12,036,336, Firearm Trigger Mechanism, issued July 16, 2024; 12,274,807, Firearm Trigger Mechanism, issued April 15, 2025; 12,636,403, Firearm Trigger Mechanism, issued May 26, 2026. It alleges that ABC IP owns each by recorded assignment and that Rare Breed is the exclusive licensee.
It alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants sell four three-position devices through their website: a "Super Safety" selector, sold as a partial kit, a complete kit, or preinstalled; an "Atrius Forced Reset Selector"; a Partisan Disruptor drop-in trigger; and an "ARC-Fire" device. The complaint says each lets the user switch between safe, standard semi-automatic, and forced reset semi-automatic modes. It charts claim 15 of the '247 patent, claim 1 of the '784, '538, '159, and '807 patents, claim 4 of the '223 and '003 patents, claim 3 of the '336 patent, and claim 38 of the '403 patent.
What the patents cover
Claim 15 of the '247 patent covers a firearm trigger mechanism with a hammer, a trigger member, a disconnector, and a cam with a cam lobe movable between two positions. In the first position the mechanism runs in a standard semi-automatic mode, where the user must release the trigger to free the hammer from the disconnector; in the second the cam lobe forces the trigger toward its set position and the disconnector is kept from catching the hammer, a forced reset semi-automatic mode. Claim 1 of the '784 patent covers, in a forced reset trigger mechanism, an extended trigger member locking device whose locking member moves between a position that locks the trigger against pulling and a position that does not, is moved by contact with the bolt carrier, and has a body portion and an upwardly extending deflectable portion that moves separately from the body.
Claim 38 of the '403 patent covers a forced reset trigger mechanism with a hammer, a disconnector, a trigger member, and a safety selector movable between a standard semi-automatic position and a forced reset semi-automatic position; in the standard position, after the hammer pivots back past the disconnector hook, the user must ease rearward pressure on the trigger before it can be pulled to fire again.
Trademark counts and relief
The complaint adds federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. 1114, false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), and common law trademark infringement and unfair competition. It alleges that RBTM owns the FRT marks, that Rare Breed is the exclusive licensee, and that the defendants advertise their products as "FRT" on their website. The plaintiffs allege direct, induced, and contributory infringement, much of it on information and belief, and willfulness. They ask for preliminary and permanent injunctions, damages with enhancement under 35 U.S.C. 284 and 15 U.S.C. 1117, the defendants' profits, attorneys' fees, and an order removing FRT advertising, and demand a jury.
What to watch next
Watch for the defendants' response to the complaint, MDL-wide orders that apply to the case, and any request for entry of default. Under the East Texas transfer-in entry, any motion pending in Mississippi must be re-urged to be considered. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.