ABC IP and Rare Breed's Suit Against URSA-SEC Over the Super Safety and Kabuto Moves Into the East Texas MDL.

The East Texas case is ABC IP, LLC v. URSA-SEC LLC, No. 4:26-cv-01482 (E.D. Tex.). It began in the District of Nevada as No. 3:26-cv-00571, where the complaint was filed July 27, 2026 and assigned to District Judge Anne R. Traum. On September 28, 2026 the plaintiffs filed a notice regarding multidistrict litigation in the Nevada case. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation signed a conditional transfer order (CTO-13) on October 2, 2026 in MDL No. 3176, and the East Texas docket shows the case transferred in on October 13, 2026 and assigned to Chief District Judge Amos L. Mazzant. The defendants are URSA-SEC LLC, which the complaint alleges, on information and belief, is a Nevada limited liability company, and Loren J. Ransome, who the complaint alleges, on information and belief, is an owner of URSA-SEC and directs its operations. Counsel for the plaintiffs include Greenberg Traurig, Fish & Richardson, Wood Herron & Evans, and Whitaker Chalk.

Patents and accused products

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), and alleges ABC IP owns each by recorded assignment. The accused products are the "(3-Position) Super Safety," accused under all five patents, and the "(3-Position) Kabuto," accused under all but the '538 patent. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants sell both as at least partial kits on ursa-sec.com.

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 a first and a second position. With the cam 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 position the cam lobe forces the trigger toward its set position and the disconnector is prevented from catching the hammer, a forced reset semi-automatic mode. Claim 1 of the '159 patent covers a similar two-mode mechanism for a firearm with a reciprocating bolt means.

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 1 of the '538 patent covers a safety mechanism with a cam selector, a lever, and a trigger, where the cam selector has a longitudinal slot on its top side that receives the lever and first and second recesses on its bottom side, and operates in three modes, the third of which prevents the trigger from being pulled. Claim 38 of the '403 patent covers a forced reset trigger mechanism with a safety selector movable between a standard semi-automatic position and a forced reset semi-automatic position, and claim 54 covers a mechanism with a locking member and a selector interface for a selector with at least a standard semi-automatic position and a forced reset position.

Trademark counts

The complaint adds federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. 1114, false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), and common law claims. It alleges RBTM owns registrations for FRT (No. 8,187,914), FRT-15 (No. 7,004,418), FRT-22 (No. 8,232,406), FRT-47 (No. 8,232,405), and FRT-15L3 (No. 8,225,451), with applications pending for FRT-MR3 and FRT-RD3, and that Rare Breed is the exclusive licensee. It alleges that the defendants advertise their product as "FRT," pointing to an online listing for the Kabuto.

Relief sought

The plaintiffs ask for preliminary and permanent injunctions, damages under 35 U.S.C. 284 with enhancement, attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. 285, and trademark remedies under 15 U.S.C. 1117, and they demand a jury. Venue in Nevada was pleaded under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b).

What to watch next

Watch for any order in the MDL setting the defendants' response date, and for the defendants' answer or motion. The Nevada docket shows service on both defendants in September 2026, and under the East Texas transfer-in entry any motion pending in Nevada is moot and must be re-urged.