ABC IP, LLC et al. v. Christopher Cope

This patent infringement litigation, ABC IP, LLC et al. v. Christopher Cope, centers on alleged infringement concerning after-market firearm trigger mechanisms. The plaintiffs are ABC IP, LLC, which functions as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or licensing entity, and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc. (RBT), an operating company specializing in high-performance "Forced Reset Triggers" (FRTs) for AR-15 platforms. RBT is known for designing and manufacturing innovative trigger systems aimed at enhancing shooting performance, reliability, and responsiveness. The defendant, Christopher Cope, is accused of infringing patents through his competing after-market firearm trigger mechanisms, specifically the 'Super Safety' and 'Wide Open Trigger' (WOT Trigger) products.

The accused products, the 'Super Safety' and 'Wide Open Trigger,' are classified as "active trigger systems" or "forced reset triggers" that facilitate faster follow-up shots in semi-automatic firearms. For instance, the 'Super Safety' is a 3D-printable system designed to replace the standard AR-15 safety selector, featuring two and three-position versions. These mechanisms mechanically reset the trigger, allowing for a quicker next shot while still requiring a separate trigger pull for each round fired, a distinction central to their legal classification as non-machine guns. The primary patent asserted in this case, U.S. Patent 11,724,003, broadly describes a "firearm trigger mechanism" for AR-pattern firearms that includes a hammer, trigger member, disconnector, locking member, and a three-position safety selector offering safe, standard semi-automatic, and forced reset semi-automatic modes. The patent details a mechanism where the bolt carrier's movement mechanically resets the trigger. While the complaint alleges infringement of eight U.S. patents, only U.S. Patent 11,724,003 is specifically identified in the provided case metadata; the other seven asserted patents for this specific case were not immediately identified in public search results. However, ABC IP, LLC is known to assert a portfolio of FRT-related patents in similar litigations, including U.S. Patents 11,346,627, 12,169,105, 12,510,317, and 12,038,247.

The case is currently active in the Eastern District of Texas, Case Number 2:26-cv-00033. The Eastern District of Texas has historically been a significant venue for patent litigation due to its plaintiff-friendly local rules and accelerated trial schedules. Although a 2017 Supreme Court decision (TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC) aimed to restrict venue options, the Eastern District of Texas has seen a resurgence in patent filings in recent years. This case is notable due to its broader context within the firearms industry and its connection to a prior legal battle between Rare Breed Triggers and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Following a May 2025 settlement where RBT was allowed to resume operations, the company reportedly committed to "aggressively pursue patent litigation" to enforce its intellectual property. This strategy has led to widespread "lawfare" concerns within the Second Amendment community, with critics viewing the aggressive patent enforcement against smaller innovators as a betrayal of shared interests and an attempt to monopolize the FRT market.

The patent infringement litigation ABC IP, LLC et al. v. Christopher Cope, Case No. 2:26-cv-00033, in the Eastern District of Texas, is an active case focused on firearm trigger mechanisms. The plaintiffs, ABC IP, LLC and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc., allege that defendant Christopher Cope's "Super Safety" and "Wide Open Trigger" devices infringe eight U.S. patents, including US Patent 11724003.

Key legal developments and the current posture are as follows:

• 2023-08-15: U.S. Patent 11724003, titled "Firearm trigger mechanism," was issued to ABC IP, LLC.
• 2025-03-28: Plaintiffs sent a cease and desist letter to Christopher Cope, which forms the basis for alleged willful infringement.
• 2026-03-23: ABC IP, LLC and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc. filed their complaint against Christopher Cope in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, asserting infringement of multiple patents, including 11724003.
• 2026-04-02: The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) issued a transfer order, centralizing various "Super Safety" patent litigation cases, including ABC IP, LLC et al. v. Christopher Cope, into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Eastern District of Texas. This MDL is designated as "IN RE: SUPER SAFETY PATENT LITIGATION" and aims to coordinate pretrial proceedings for these related cases, particularly concerning allegations that the "Super Safety" device infringes U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247 and other patents.

Current Posture:
As of June 1, 2026, the case is active and has been consolidated into the MDL in the Eastern District of Texas. Given the recent filing date and subsequent MDL transfer, substantive pre-trial motions, claim construction, discovery milestones, or trial events have not yet occurred in this individual case. Detailed information on initial pleadings, such as service of process or the filing of an answer or counterclaims by Christopher Cope, would typically be available through a PACER docket search for Case No. 2:26-cv-00033.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
A related inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01473, was filed by ATrius Development Group Corp. against ABC IP LLC concerning U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247, which is one of the patents asserted in the broader infringement litigation. The petition for institution of IPR2025-01473 was denied on February 18, 2026, meaning the PTAB did not proceed with a review of that patent. No IPR or post-grant review (PGR) proceedings against the specific patent US Patent 11724003 have been identified as instituted or currently active.

The plaintiffs, ABC IP, LLC and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc., are represented by counsel from several firms. Based on available dockets for related cases involving ABC IP, LLC and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc., the following attorneys and firms are likely involved as counsel of record for the plaintiffs in ABC IP, LLC et al. v. Christopher Cope:

Lead Counsel (likely):

• Glenn Bellamy
  • Role: Lead Counsel (in other related cases for ABC IP, LLC and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc.).
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (various offices are possible, but the firm has a strong national patent litigation presence).
  • Note: Fish & Richardson P.C. is a prominent intellectual property law firm with extensive experience in patent litigation.

Other Potential Counsel (based on related cases and common Eastern District of Texas practice):

• Kellie Nelson Fetter

  • Role: Attorney (appearing for ABC IP LLC in a prior case).
  • Firm: (Firm not explicitly identified in available snippets, but was counsel in ABC IP LLC v. FRT Triggers LLC).
  • Note: Appeared on behalf of ABC IP LLC in a patent and trademark infringement complaint in the District of Wyoming.

• Eastern District of Texas Local Counsel:
  Given the Eastern District of Texas's "Rocket Docket" reputation and specific local rules, it is highly probable that the plaintiffs will engage local counsel, even if not strictly mandated for every filing. While specific local counsel for this case were not identified, firms frequently serving as local counsel in EDTX patent cases include:

  • Bloom Legal Network (provides comprehensive local counsel services including Pro Hac Vice sponsorship and adherence to EDTX timelines).
  • Davis Firm P.C. (based in the Eastern District of Texas, with attorneys who have served as law clerks to EDTX judges).
  • Potter Minton Law Firm (known for intellectual property litigation in the EDTX, with lawyers who have handled hundreds of patent cases).
  • Eric H. Findlay (Findlay Craft - a trial lawyer based in Tyler, Texas, with extensive experience in patent cases in the Eastern, Western, and Northern Districts of Texas, handling cases as both local and lead counsel).
  • Melissa Smith (Gillam & Smith LLP - a partner who tries lawsuits in EDTX and has served as local counsel in thousands of patent cases).

It is important to note that specific counsel appearances are typically listed on the official court docket for case 2:26-cv-00033. The information above is drawn from related cases involving the plaintiffs, such as ABC IP, LLC et al. v. 80Mills LLC et al. (transferred to EDTX) and ABC IP LLC et al v. FAULKNER (Northern District of Florida), where Glenn Bellamy of Fish & Richardson P.C. has appeared as counsel.

As of June 1, 2026, the public docket for ABC IP, LLC et al. v. Christopher Cope, case number 2:26-cv-00033 in the Eastern District of Texas, does not explicitly identify counsel of record for the defendant, Christopher Cope. The initial complaint, filed on March 23, 2026, lists counsel for the plaintiffs, ABC IP, LLC and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc., as Fish & Richardson P.C. and Wood Herron & Evans LLP.

Given that the case was filed recently, it is possible that Christopher Cope has not yet formally appeared through counsel, or the information has not yet been publicly updated on easily accessible platforms.

The Eastern District of Texas is known for its "Rocket Docket" and often involves local counsel due to its specific procedural culture and aggressive timelines. While there isn't a strict mandate for local counsel in every filing in the Eastern District of Texas, it is common practice, especially for out-of-state firms.

Without direct docket information, identifying the defendant's specific counsel at this early stage of the litigation is not possible through general web search. Potential counsel for Christopher Cope would likely have expertise in patent litigation, potentially with experience in the Eastern District of Texas. Some prominent firms and attorneys known for patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas include Eric H. Findlay of Findlay Craft, who has extensive experience in patent cases as both local and lead counsel, and firms like Klemchuk PLLC and Davis Firm P.C. that serve as local counsel for patent matters in the district. However, there is no indication that any of these attorneys or firms represent Christopher Cope in this specific case.