ABC IP, LLC, RBTM, LLC, and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc. are plaintiffs in ABC IP, LLC v. Muffintop Tactical, LLC, No. 4:26-cv-01277 (E.D. Tex.). The East Texas docket reflects a transfer from ABC IP, LLC v. Muffintop Tactical, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-02010 (W.D. Tex. Austin), filed July 21, 2026. The defendants are Muffintop Tactical LLC, which the complaint alleges, on information and belief, is a Texas limited liability company in Austin, Texas, and Jason Ramsden, who the complaint alleges, on information and belief, is an owner of Muffintop Tactical and directs its operations. A conditional transfer order (CTO-11) signed by the Clerk of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation moved the case into In re Rare Breed Triggers Patent Litigation, MDL No. 3176, and the East Texas docket shows it transferred in on September 15, 2026 and assigned to Chief District Judge Amos L. Mazzant.
The patents
The complaint asserts eight patents and alleges that ABC IP owns each by recorded assignment. Seven are titled Firearm Trigger Mechanism: U.S. Patents 12,038,247 (issued July 16, 2024), 12,578,159 (March 17, 2026), 10,514,223 (December 24, 2019), 11,724,003 (August 15, 2023), 12,036,336 (July 16, 2024), 12,274,807 (April 15, 2025), and 12,636,403 (May 26, 2026). The eighth, U.S. Patent 12,031,784 (July 9, 2024), is titled Adapted Forced Reset Trigger.
What the complaint alleges
The complaint accuses two products. It alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants make, sell, or offer the (3-Position) "ARC-Fire" through the Muffintop Tactical website, as a standalone product, with separate trigger parts, or preinstalled in a receiver or firearm, and that it embodies at least the '247, '784, '159, and '403 patents. It alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants offer the (3-Position) Disruptor standalone or preinstalled, and that it embodies at least the '223, '003, '336, '807, and '403 patents. The complaint says both products let the user switch among safe, standard semiautomatic, and forced reset semiautomatic modes with the safety selector.
Counts I through VIII each allege direct, induced, and contributory infringement of one patent under 35 U.S.C. 271 and plead, on information and belief, that the infringement is willful. The complaint charts the ARC-Fire against claim 15 of the '247 patent, claim 1 of the '784 patent, claim 1 of the '159 patent, and claim 38 of the '403 patent, and charts the Disruptor against claim 4 of the '223 patent, claim 4 of the '003 patent, claim 3 of the '336 patent, claim 1 of the '807 patent, and claim 38 of the '403 patent. Counts IX through XI allege federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), and common law trademark infringement and unfair competition, based on the allegation that the defendants advertise products that are not Rare Breed products as "FRT" on their website.
The complaint asks for judgments of infringement and willfulness, preliminary and permanent injunctions against patent infringement and against use of "FRT" or FRT-formative terms for firearm triggers, removal of FRT advertising, damages with increased damages under 35 U.S.C. 284 and 15 U.S.C. 1117(a), the defendants' profits, and an exceptional-case fee award. The plaintiffs demand a jury.
The stay motion and the October 8 order
On October 2, 2026, the defendants moved to stay the case (ECF No. 13). On October 8, 2026, Chief Judge Mazzant denied that motion in a memorandum opinion and order that resolved thirteen stay motions pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. The order describes the motions as relying on the customer-suit exception and the traditional stay factors to ask that the claims against the moving defendants be stayed pending final resolution of the plaintiffs' claims against the relevant manufacturers. The court held that a stay under the customer-suit exception was not appropriate, reasoning that the MDL exists to coordinate and streamline the proceedings and that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.1 lets the court consolidate pleadings and appoint leadership counsel without staying the moving defendants' cases.
What to watch next
Watch for the defendants' answer or other response to the complaint, any MDL scheduling order or Rule 16.1 consolidated pleadings that cover the case, and coordination with the other Rare Breed and ABC IP matters in the MDL. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.