The complaint

The East Texas case is ABC IP, LLC v. 810Velocity L.L.C, No. 4:26-cv-01255-ALM (E.D. Tex.). It began in the Eastern District of Michigan as No. 4:26-cv-12546, where the complaint was filed July 24, 2026. The plaintiffs filed a notice regarding multidistrict litigation in the Michigan case on September 3, 2026; the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's conditional transfer order CTO-12 in MDL No. 3176 was entered on the Michigan docket on September 11, 2026; and the East Texas docket shows the case transferred in that day and assigned to Chief District Judge Amos L. Mazzant. The defendants are 810VELOCITY L.L.C, which the complaint alleges, on information and belief, is a Michigan limited liability company, and Andrew C. Carr, who the complaint alleges, on information and belief, is an owner of 810VELOCITY and directs its operations.

Patents and accused products

The complaint asserts U.S. Patents 12,038,247 (issued July 16, 2024), 12,031,784 (July 9, 2024), 12,529,538 (January 20, 2026), 12,578,159 (March 17, 2026), and 12,636,403 (May 26, 2026). It alleges that ABC IP owns each by assignment and that Rare Breed is the exclusive licensee. The charted claims are claim 15 of the '247 patent, claim 1 of the '784, '538, and '159 patents, and claims 38 and 54 of the '403 patent.

The accused products are the 3-Position Super Safety, accused under all five patents, and the VxR FRD, accused under all but the '538 patent. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants sell both through the 810velocity.com website, including the Super Safety as a partial kit, a complete kit, or preinstalled in a receiver or firearm, and it alleges that each device lets the user switch between standard semiautomatic and forced reset semiautomatic modes.

What the patents cover

Claim 15 of the '247 patent covers a firearm trigger mechanism with a hammer that has a sear catch and a hook for engaging a disconnector, a trigger member with a sear, the disconnector, and a cam with a cam lobe movable between a first and a second position, all mounted in the receiver's fire control mechanism pocket. With the cam in the first position the mechanism runs in a standard semi-automatic mode, in which the disconnector catches the hammer and the user must release the trigger to free it. With the cam in the second position the cam lobe forces the trigger member toward its set position and the disconnector is prevented from catching the hammer, so the user can pull the trigger again once the bolt carrier returns to battery, a forced reset semi-automatic mode.

Relief sought

The plaintiffs allege direct, induced, and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271, and willful infringement, and ask for preliminary and permanent injunctions, damages with enhancement under 35 U.S.C. 284, and attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. 285. They demand a jury.

What to watch next

The defendants answered the complaint on September 21, 2026 (ECF No. 17). Watch for MDL scheduling orders and for any motions in the transferee court.