ABC IP and Rare Breed's Suit Against WMI Over the Super Safety and Atrius Selector Moves Into the East Texas MDL.

The parties and the procedural posture

The East Texas case is ABC IP, LLC v. WMI LLC, No. 4:26-cv-01372 (E.D. Tex.). It began as ABC IP, LLC, Rare Breed Triggers, Inc., and RBTM LLC v. WMI LLC and Dreyden Brooks, No. 6:26-cv-03431 (W.D. Mo., Springfield Division), filed July 22, 2026, where it was reassigned to District Judge Megan Blair Benton. The plaintiffs filed a notice regarding multidistrict litigation, and a conditional transfer order (CTO-12) signed September 10, 2026 by the Clerk of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the case to the Eastern District of Texas for inclusion in MDL No. 3176. The East Texas docket shows the case transferred in on September 25, 2026 and assigned to Chief District Judge Amos L. Mazzant.

The complaint says ABC IP is a Delaware limited liability company, Rare Breed Triggers is a Texas corporation, and RBTM is a Wyoming limited liability company. It alleges, on information and belief, that WMI LLC is a Missouri limited liability company in Conway, Missouri, and that Dreyden Brooks organized WMI, operates it, and directs its operations, including its sales of the accused products. It alleges that ABC IP owns the patents by recorded assignment and that RBTM owns the FRT marks.

The five patents and the claims charted

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 charts claim 15 of the '247 patent, claim 1 of the '784 patent, claim 1 of the '538 patent, claim 1 of the '159 patent, and claim 38 of the '403 patent. Claim 15 of the '247 patent and claim 1 of the '159 patent cover trigger mechanisms with a hammer, trigger member, disconnector, and a movable cam, operable in a standard semi-automatic mode and 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 is moved by contact with the bolt carrier. Claim 1 of the '538 patent covers a safety mechanism with a cam selector, a lever, and a trigger operable in three modes. Claim 38 of the '403 patent covers a forced reset trigger mechanism with a safety selector movable between standard and forced reset semi-automatic positions.

Accused products and counts

The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants make, use, sell, or offer the (3-Position) Super Safety and the (3-Position) Atrius Forced Reset Selector, including through a website. It charts the Super Safety under all five patents and the Atrius Selector under all but the '538 patent. Counts I to V plead direct, induced, and contributory infringement of the five patents and allege, on information and belief, willful infringement. Counts VI to VIII plead federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and common law trademark infringement and unfair competition over the FRT marks. The plaintiffs ask for preliminary and permanent injunctions, damages with enhancement, attorneys' fees, and trademark remedies, and they demand a jury.

The answer

In East Texas, the docket shows an answer and counterclaim filed October 16, 2026 (ECF No. 14) and an amended answer and counterclaim filed October 19, 2026 (ECF No. 15).

What to watch next

Watch for the plaintiffs' response to the counterclaims and for MDL scheduling orders that reach this case.