ABC IP and Rare Breed's Suit Against Rainier Arms Over Forced-Reset Selectors Moves Into the East Texas MDL.

The parties and the procedural posture

The East Texas case is ABC IP, LLC v. ROKC LLC, No. 4:26-cv-01498 (E.D. Tex.), assigned to Chief District Judge Amos L. Mazzant. It began as ABC IP LLC v. ROKC LLC, No. 5:26-cv-01876 (W.D. Okla.), filed July 23, 2026 before Judge Patrick R. Wyrick. The East Texas docket shows a conditional transfer order signed by the Clerk of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferring the case under 28 U.S.C. 1407 for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, and an October 14, 2026 transfer-in entry. Related filings on other ABC IP dockets carry the caption In re Rare Breed Triggers Patent Litigation, No. 4:26-md-03176-ALM, MDL 3176.

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 ROKC LLC, doing business as Rainier Arms, is an Oklahoma limited liability company in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. It alleges that ABC IP owns the patents by recorded assignment, RBTM owns the FRT marks, and Rare Breed is the exclusive licensee of both.

Before the transfer, the Oklahoma court twice granted ROKC unopposed extensions, most recently setting October 21, 2026 for ROKC to answer or otherwise respond. The East Texas transfer-in entry states that, under Local Rule CV-7(j), any motion pending in the transferor district is considered moot and must be re-urged.

The five patents and the claims charted

U.S. Patent 12,038,247, titled Firearm Trigger Mechanism, issued July 16, 2024. The complaint charts claim 15, which covers a trigger mechanism with a hammer, trigger member, disconnector, and a movable cam whose lobe forces the trigger member toward its set position. In a standard semi-automatic mode the cam stays in its first position and the disconnector catches the hammer, so the user must release the trigger before firing again; in a forced reset semi-automatic mode the cam is in its second position, the disconnector is prevented from catching the hammer, and the user can pull the trigger once the bolt carrier returns to battery.

U.S. Patent 12,031,784, titled Adapted Forced Reset Trigger, issued July 9, 2024. The complaint charts claim 1, which covers an extended trigger member locking device for a forced reset trigger mechanism: a locking member that moves between a position locking the trigger member against pulling and a position that does not restrict it, with an upward extension that the bolt carrier contacts to move it, and a body portion plus an upwardly extending deflectable portion that moves separately from the body between extended and deflected positions.

U.S. Patent 12,529,538, titled Safety Mechanism for Firearm, issued January 20, 2026. The complaint charts claim 1, which covers a safety mechanism with a cam selector, a lever received in a slot on top of the selector, and a trigger, where the selector has two recesses on its underside and operates in three modes: one in which a trigger tail moves within the first recess, one in which the trigger tail engages the second recess and is pushed down by a cam portion as the selector rotates, and one in which the trigger cannot be pulled.

U.S. Patent 12,578,159, titled Firearm Trigger Mechanism, issued March 17, 2026. The complaint charts claim 1, which covers a trigger mechanism operable in a standard semi-automatic mode and a forced reset semi-automatic mode, with a cam movable to a position in which its lobe forces the trigger member toward the set position, and in which the disconnector is prevented from holding the hammer in the forced reset mode.

U.S. Patent 12,636,403, also titled Firearm Trigger Mechanism, issued May 26, 2026. The complaint charts claim 38, which covers a forced reset trigger mechanism with a hammer, disconnector, trigger member, and a safety selector movable between standard semi-automatic and forced reset semi-automatic positions, where in the standard position, after the hammer hook pivots past the disconnector hook, rearward pressure on the trigger must be reduced before the trigger can be actuated to fire again.

What the complaint alleges

The complaint accuses two product lines that it alleges, on information and belief, Rainier Arms has made, sold, or offered through its website. The first is the (3-Position) "War Hammer Super Safety," offered, the complaint alleges, as a partial kit with at least the cam and cam lever, a complete kit with a modified trigger and standard parts, and preinstalled in receivers or complete firearms. The second is the (3-Position) "Atrius Development Group Forced Reset Selector," offered standalone, with other trigger parts, or preinstalled. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that the Super Safety embodies all five patents and the Atrius Selector embodies all but the '538 patent. It charts the Super Safety against all five patents and the Atrius Selector against all but the '538 patent.

Each patent count alleges direct, induced, and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. The contributory theory points to sales of components such as the cam and cam lever arm, which the complaint says are not suitable for substantial noninfringing use. The complaint alleges that a cease-and-desist letter delivered to ROKC on July 17, 2025 identified the '247 patent and accused the Atrius Development 3 Position Super Selektor Safety, the War Hammer Super Safety, and similar products, and it pleads, on information and belief, that the infringement is willful. On marking, it alleges compliance with 35 U.S.C. 287 because the patents are not practiced by ABC IP or any licensee or because any licensee has been required to mark.

Counts VI through VIII allege federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. 1114(1), false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), and common law trademark infringement and unfair competition. The complaint lists RBTM's FRT, FRT-15, FRT-22, FRT-47, and FRT-15L3 registrations and two pending FRT applications, and alleges that Rainier Arms advertises products that are not Rare Breed products as "FRT" on its website.

Relief requested

The prayer asks for judgments that each patent is infringed, that the infringement is willful, and that each patent is enforceable and not invalid; findings of willful trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition; preliminary and permanent injunctions against patent infringement and use of "FRT" or FRT-formative terms for triggers; removal and destruction of FRT-branded advertising; patent damages with interest, costs, and an accounting; increased damages up to three times under 35 U.S.C. 284 and 15 U.S.C. 1117(a); the defendant's 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.

The complaint was signed by Zachary A.P. Oubre of McAfee & Taft, with Glenn D. Bellamy of Wood Herron & Evans LLP and Matthew A. Colvin of Fish & Richardson P.C. listed with pro hac vice applications "to be filed." The Oklahoma court admitted Bellamy pro hac vice on August 20, 2026. Michael A. Furlong entered an appearance for ROKC in Oklahoma on August 19, 2026.

What to watch next

Watch for the MDL court's treatment of the transferred case, including any scheduling or coordination order that sets ROKC's response date in East Texas, and for ROKC's answer or motion. Watch also 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.

Related pages: ABC IP and Rare Breed v. Muffintop Tactical and the Federal Circuit's Rule 36 affirmance in the Peak Tactical preliminary-injunction appeal.