ABC IP and Rare Breed's Missouri Suit Against Bear Arms Over a Forced Reset Selector Moves Into the East Texas MDL, Where the Clerk Has Entered Default.

The East Texas case is ABC IP, LLC v. Bear Arms, No. 4:26-cv-01191 (E.D. Tex.). It began in the Western District of Missouri, Southern Division, as No. 6:26-cv-03338, where the complaint was filed June 12, 2026 and the case was reassigned on July 1 from a magistrate judge to District Judge Megan Blair Benton. The Clerk of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a conditional transfer order (CTO-11) on September 2, 2026 sending the case to the Eastern District of Texas for In re Rare Breed Triggers Patent Litigation, MDL No. 3176, and the East Texas docket shows it transferred in the same day. The case is assigned to Judge Amos L. Mazzant III, who presides over the MDL.

The defendants are Bear Arms d/b/a Bear Arms Co., which the complaint alleges, on information and belief, is a Missouri corporation based in El Dorado Springs, Missouri, and Nathan Murrell, who the complaint alleges, on information and belief, is its owner and director. The complaint pleaded venue in Missouri under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b).

Patents and the accused product

The complaint asserts U.S. Patents 12,038,247 (issued July 16, 2024), 12,031,784 (July 9, 2024), 12,578,159 (March 17, 2026), and 12,636,403 (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 make and sell, including through their website, a three-position forced reset selector it calls the Atrius Selector, which the user can rotate between safe, standard semi-automatic, and forced reset semi-automatic modes. The complaint charts the Atrius Selector against claim 15 of the '247 patent, claim 1 of the '784 and '159 patents, 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 '159 patent covers a similar two-mode mechanism for a firearm with a reciprocating bolt.

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, including registrations for FRT, FRT-15, FRT-22, FRT-47, and FRT-15L3, with applications pending for FRT-MR3 and FRT-RD3, that Rare Breed is the exclusive licensee, and that the defendants advertise a product 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.

Default

The Missouri docket shows both defendants served on June 26, 2026 with answers due July 17. On August 18 the Missouri court noted that the defendants had not answered and no attorney had appeared for them, and it ordered the plaintiffs to file a status report. After the transfer, the plaintiffs requested entry of default on September 18, 2026, and the docket shows a clerk's entry of default on September 21, 2026 (ECF No. 12).

What to watch next

Watch for a motion for default judgment, any appearance by the defendants or motion to set aside the default, and MDL-wide orders that apply to the case. Under the East Texas transfer-in entry, any motion pending in Missouri is moot and must be re-urged.