ABC IP and Rare Breed's Suit Against MAS Defense Over Forced-Reset Trigger Patents Moves Into the East Texas MDL.

The parties and the transfer

The East Texas case is ABC IP, LLC v. MAS Defense LLC, No. 4:26-cv-01455 (E.D. Tex.). It began as No. 3:26-cv-00592 (W.D.N.C.), where the complaint was filed July 22, 2026 and assigned to District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. The plaintiffs filed a notice of multidistrict litigation in the North Carolina case on September 25, 2026, and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's conditional transfer order CTO-13 in MDL No. 3176 sent the case to East Texas for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The East Texas docket shows the case transferred in on October 8, 2026 and assigned to Chief District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, and states that under Local Rule CV-7(j) any motion pending in the transferor court is moot and must be re-urged.

The complaint says ABC IP is a Delaware limited liability company, Rare Breed Triggers is a Texas corporation with a place of business in Wichita Falls, Texas, and RBTM is a Wyoming limited liability company. It alleges, on information and belief, that MAS Defense LLC and Ghost Gun Jigs LLC are North Carolina limited liability companies in the Charlotte area and that Mario Sbardella, Sr. is an owner and the president of both and directs their operations. It alleges that ABC IP owns the patents by recorded assignment, that RBTM owns the FRT marks, and that Rare Breed is the exclusive licensee of the patents and marks.

The patents and the claims charted

The complaint asserts U.S. Patents 12,038,247 (Firearm Trigger Mechanism, issued July 16, 2024), 12,031,784 (Adapted Forced Reset Trigger, July 9, 2024), 12,578,159 (Firearm Trigger Mechanism, March 17, 2026), 10,514,223 (Firearm Trigger Mechanism, December 24, 2019), 11,724,003 (Firearm Trigger Mechanism, August 15, 2023), 12,036,336 (Firearm Trigger Mechanism, July 16, 2024), 12,274,807 (Firearm Trigger Mechanism, April 15, 2025), and 12,636,403 (Firearm Trigger Mechanism, May 26, 2026). It charts claim 15 of the '247 patent, claim 1 of the '784, '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.

In the complaint's description, the '247 and '159 patents cover a mechanism selectable between standard semiautomatic and forced reset semiautomatic modes that uses a cam rotated by cycling of the action to reset the trigger; the '784 patent covers an extended trigger member locking device with a deflectable portion actuated by the bolt carrier; the '223 patent covers a design in which hammer contact resets the trigger and a locking bar holds it until the bolt carrier returns to battery; and the '003, '336, '807, and '403 patents cover similar devices selectable between a standard disconnector mode and a forced reset mode.

The accused products and the counts

The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants have made, sold, or offered on their websites two products: the (3-Position) Atrius Forced Reset Selector, accused under the '247, '784, '159, and '403 patents, and the (3-Position) Disruptor, accused under the '223, '003, '336, '807, and '403 patents. Counts I through VIII allege direct, induced, and contributory infringement of the eight patents, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and allege, on information and belief, that the defendants have known or should have known of their infringement at least through service of the complaint, and that the infringement is willful. Counts IX through XI allege 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, alleging that the defendants advertise their products as "FRT."

The prayer asks for judgments of infringement, willfulness, and that the patents are enforceable and not invalid; findings of willful trademark infringement and false designation of origin; preliminary and permanent injunctions against patent infringement and use of "FRT" or FRT-formative terms for triggers; removal and destruction of FRT-branded advertising; damages with interest and an accounting; increased damages up to three times under 35 U.S.C. 284 and 15 U.S.C. 1117(a); the defendants' profits and corrective-advertising costs; and an exceptional-case award of fees under 35 U.S.C. 285 and 15 U.S.C. 1117. Plaintiffs demand a jury.

What to watch next

The docket shows an entry titled Miscellaneous Relief, ECF No. 15, dated October 20, 2026. Watch for any order or response tied to that entry, MDL scheduling orders setting the defendants' response date, the defendants' answer or motion, and how the FRT trademark counts proceed alongside the patent counts in the MDL. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.