ABC IP, LLC et al. v. MaRs Trigger, LLC et al.

This patent infringement lawsuit centers on a controversial firearms technology known as "forced reset triggers" (FRTs), which allow for rapid firing rates. The plaintiffs are Rare Breed Triggers, Inc., an operating company that designs and sells these trigger mechanisms, and its associated licensing entity, ABC IP, LLC. The defendants are MaRs Trigger, LLC, a competing manufacturer, and an individual named Peter Brennen. The dispute is part of a broader enforcement campaign by Rare Breed, which has filed numerous lawsuits against competitors across the country. This litigation follows a high-profile battle between Rare Breed and the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which had classified Rare Breed's triggers as illegal machine guns before the company successfully challenged the determination in court, leading to a settlement.

The core of the complaint, filed January 12, 2026, alleges that the "Super Safety" trigger mechanism sold by MaRs Trigger infringes on several of the plaintiffs' patents. The accused device is a three-position selector that works with a standard trigger to enable a forced reset mode, where the firearm's bolt carrier assists in mechanically resetting the trigger after each shot, allowing for faster follow-up shots. The primary patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 12,578,159, describes a "firearm trigger mechanism" with a three-position safety selector for "safe, standard semi-automatic, and forced reset semi-automatic positions." The plaintiffs allege willful infringement, suggesting the defendants were aware of the patents before the lawsuit.

The case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs. The case has been assigned to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap, who is known for managing one of the largest patent dockets in the United States and has a reputation for plaintiff-friendly procedures. The case's notability stems from its position at the intersection of patent law and firearms regulation. The wave of litigation initiated by Rare Breed and ABC IP is seen by some as an effort to dominate the market for this technology following its legal victory against the ATF. The outcome of this and related cases could significantly shape the competitive landscape for firearm accessories and trigger mechanisms.

Following the initial complaint, the litigation has progressed through several key early-stage legal events, including a challenge to personal liability and the initiation of a parallel proceeding at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which has prompted a motion to pause the district court case.

Key Legal Developments (Chronological)

• Complaint Filed (2026-01-12): Plaintiffs ABC IP, LLC and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc. filed their patent infringement complaint against MaRs Trigger, LLC and its principal, Peter Brennen. The complaint alleges that the defendants' "Super Safety" trigger infringes U.S. Patent No. 12,578,159 and that the infringement was willful (Dkt. 1).

• Answer & Counterclaims (2026-03-16): Defendants filed a consolidated answer and counterclaims (Dkt. 18). In the filing, they deny all allegations of infringement and willfulness. They also asserted affirmative defenses, including patent invalidity. Concurrently, they filed counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment from the court that the '159 patent is invalid for failing to meet the requirements of patentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (novelty), 103 (obviousness), and 112 (enablement and written description), and that their products do not infringe any of its claims.

• Motion to Dismiss Individual Defendant (2026-03-16): Alongside the answer, individual defendant Peter Brennen filed a motion to dismiss the claims against him personally pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Dkt. 19). Brennen argues that the complaint offers only conclusory allegations that fail to establish a legal basis for piercing the corporate veil to hold him, an officer of MaRs Trigger, LLC, personally liable for the company's alleged infringement. This motion is currently being briefed by the parties.

• Inter Partes Review (IPR) Petition Filed at PTAB (2026-04-10): MaRs Trigger, LLC filed a petition for inter partes review with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The petition (IPR2026-00812) challenges the validity of claims 1-15 of the '159 patent on grounds of obviousness over a combination of prior art references. The PTAB is expected to issue a decision on whether to institute a review of the patent by mid-October 2026.

• Motion to Stay Litigation Pending IPR (2026-04-24): Citing the IPR petition, defendants filed a motion to stay the entire district court case pending a final written decision from the PTAB (Dkt. 31). In their motion, defendants argue that a stay would serve the interests of judicial economy, as the PTAB's review could simplify or entirely resolve the issues in the litigation. They further contend that they would be unduly prejudiced by the expense of parallel litigation, particularly given their status as a smaller entity compared to the plaintiffs.

Present Posture & Outlook

As of 2026-05-07, the case is in its preliminary stages. The most critical pending matters before Judge Gilstrap are the defendants' motion to stay pending the outcome of the IPR and the individual defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs are expected to file their opposition to the motion to stay shortly.

Judge Gilstrap's ruling on the stay will be a significant inflection point. A decision to grant the stay would effectively pause all district court activity—including discovery and claim construction—for approximately 18 months while the PTAB proceeding runs its course. A denial of the stay would force the parties to litigate concurrently in both the Eastern District of Texas and at the PTAB, substantially increasing the complexity and cost of the dispute. No trial date has been set, and the case has not yet proceeded to claim construction.

Counsel for Plaintiffs ABC IP, LLC and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc.

Based on a review of court filings and law firm materials, the following attorneys and firms have appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs in this case.

Lead Counsel

• T. John Ward of Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX)

  • A former U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, he has extensive experience presiding over and litigating patent cases in this venue.

• Wesley Hill of Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX)

  • Known for his courtroom success in patent infringement cases involving a variety of technologies.

Local Counsel

• Charles Ainsworth of Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C. (Tyler, TX)

  • His firm frequently serves as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas and has significant experience in intellectual property litigation.

• Robert M. Parker of Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C. (Tyler, TX)

  • A former Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, his firm is well-versed in the local practices and procedures of this court.

Defendants' Counsel of Record Identified

Filings in the patent infringement lawsuit brought by ABC IP, LLC and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc. show that the defendants, MaRs Trigger, LLC and Peter Brennen, are represented by John T. "Ted" Polasek of The Polasek Law Firm, PLLC.

As of the latest available docket information, Mr. Polasek is the only attorney who has formally appeared on behalf of the defendants. On April 6, 2026, he filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim on behalf of both MaRs Trigger and Mr. Brennen (Dkt. 19).

Counsel Details:

• Name: John T. "Ted" Polasek
  • Role: Lead Counsel.
  • Firm: The Polasek Law Firm, PLLC.
  • Office Location: Houston, Texas.
  • Note on Experience: Mr. Polasek has over 30 years of experience focusing on intellectual property litigation, with a heavy emphasis on patent infringement cases in federal courts across the country, including the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. His practice has covered a wide array of technologies, from software and telecommunications to mechanical devices and oilfield equipment.

Based on court filings, no separate local counsel has appeared for the defendants at this stage of the litigation. Should additional counsel file a notice of appearance for MaRs Trigger or Peter Brennen, this section will be updated.