The East Texas case is ABC IP, LLC v. Hayes Arms LLC, No. 4:26-cv-01411 (E.D. Tex.). It began in the Northern District of Alabama as No. 5:26-cv-01301, where the complaint was filed July 23, 2026. The Alabama docket shows an order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferring the case for inclusion in MDL No. 3176 entered September 30, 2026, and the East Texas docket shows the case transferred in on October 1, 2026. MDL No. 3176, In re Rare Breed Triggers Patent Litigation, is before Chief Judge Amos L. Mazzant III.
The defendants are Hayes Arms LLC, which the complaint alleges, on information and belief, is an Alabama limited liability company based in Union Grove, Alabama, and Jace D. Hayes, who the complaint alleges, on information and belief, is an owner of Hayes Arms LLC and directs its operations.
Patents and the accused products
The complaint asserts U.S. Patents 12,038,247, Firearm Trigger Mechanism, issued July 16, 2024; 12,031,784, Adapted Forced Reset Trigger, issued July 9, 2024; 12,578,159, Firearm Trigger Mechanism, issued March 17, 2026; 12,636,403, Firearm Trigger Mechanism, issued May 26, 2026. It alleges that ABC IP owns them by recorded assignment and that Rare Breed is the exclusive licensee. It alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants sell the Terminator V1.1, Terminator V2, and FRD-DH V1 "Universal Kabuto-style" forced reset devices through their website, at least as a partial kit with the cam and cam lever, and that the devices let the user switch between safe, standard semi-automatic, and forced reset semi-automatic modes. It charts the devices against claim 15 of the '247 patent, claim 1 of the '784 and '159 patents, and claims 38 and 54 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.
Relief and the docket
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 attorneys' fees, and demand a jury. Before the transfer, the plaintiffs filed a request for service by certified mail on August 6, 2026.
What to watch next
Watch for proof of service, the defendants' response to the complaint, and MDL-wide orders that apply to the case. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.