Charles D. Pfister

I'll research this attorney's professional background before drafting.

Charles D. Pfister — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Specialty / focus. Pfister's tracked patent litigation is concentrated in a single, narrow technology space: mechanical firearm fire-control mechanisms, specifically forced-reset trigger ("FRT") technology for AR-pattern rifles. The asserted patents in his cases — U.S. Patent Nos. 10,514,223 ('223), 11,724,003, 12,036,336, 12,274,807, 12,031,784, and 12,038,247, among others — all trace to ABC IP, LLC's trigger portfolio, and the accused products are competing "Super Safety," three-position selector, and forced-reset trigger assemblies. Court records show him briefing claim construction and opposing motions to dismiss in these actions. Outside of that core, his practice is broader IP: his available firm bio lists all facets of IP litigation (patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret), patent and trademark prosecution, and IP transactions/portfolio counseling; USPTO records list him as prosecution counsel on numerous trademark filings for luxury-goods clients (Richemont, Cartier, Van Cleef & Arpels) and for companies such as Workhorse Group and The Braun Corporation.

Side preference. He is an enforcement-side lawyer on the data available. All four tracked appearances are plaintiff-side (4 plaintiff / 0 defendant), representing patent owners or exclusive licensees — Rare Breed Triggers, Inc. and ABC IP, LLC — against accused infringers. This is not classic NPE-only work: ABC IP is a patent-holding entity and Rare Breed is the operating company selling the patented product, and the two co-plaintiffs litigate together. His firm bio states that earlier in his career he handled "both enforcement and defense matters," but the tracked docket is one-directional toward assertion.

Firm context. Three tracked cases were handled out of Wood Herron & Evans (Cincinnati), where he practiced after clerking at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base's Air Force Materiel Command Law Office (IP division); one tracked matter, ABC IP v. Stryker Enterprises (3CR Tactical), is associated with Taft Stettinius & Hollister, listed as "potential counsel." Current USPTO practitioner data and his firm bio place him at Taft's Dayton office as a Senior Associate in the IP group. He is not in-house.

Notable matters and outcomes. The most consequential tracked matter is Rare Breed Triggers, LLC v. Big Daddy Enterprises, Inc. (N.D. Fla.), in which the court granted a preliminary injunction on December 30, 2021, finding the '223 patent likely infringed by a competitor product the court described as "plainly copied" and rejecting the defendants' claim-construction and invalidity arguments. He also appeared for plaintiffs in Rare Breed Triggers, Inc. v. B&T USA LLC and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc. et al. v. Peak Tactical LLC; outcomes in those two are not verified from available sources. In the related Wyoming action, ABC IP LLC v. Peak Tactical LLC, Peak asserted counterclaims that Rare Breed infringes Peak's own '067 patent — a reminder that these cases have drawn significant counter-assertion and invalidity fire (inter partes defendant challenges, MDL centralization motions, and a 2023 E.D.N.Y. decision scrutinizing Rare Breed's conduct). Separately, he is listed on the Federal Circuit briefing in Jump Rope Systems, LLC v. Coulter Ventures, LLC alongside Wood Herron attorney Gregory F. Ahrens, indicating some appellate work.

PTAB / IPR. No IPR, PGR, or other PTAB proceeding attributable to this attorney was located in the searches performed; treat any PTAB experience claim as unverified.

Bar / education. J.D., University of Dayton School of Law (2018), intellectual-property concentration with honors; B.S. in Biology, Xavier University (2015); admitted in Ohio (2018), registered with the USPTO (Reg. No. 76395), and admitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the S.D. Ohio, and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Note on sourcing: the case list in the profile is authoritative for appearances. Firm affiliation is time-sensitive — his bio and USPTO registration data currently reflect Taft, while three of the four tracked matters were filed during his Wood Herron & Evans tenure.