ABC IP, LLC et al. v. THE GUN STORE, INC., DBA THE GUN STORE

Case Overview & Background

This patent infringement suit is part of a sweeping, industry-wide litigation campaign centered on "forced-reset triggers" (FRTs), a firearm technology that has been the subject of intense regulatory and legal battles. The plaintiffs are Rare Breed Triggers, LLC, a prominent manufacturer of FRTs, and its intellectual property holding company, ABC IP, LLC. The defendant, The Gun Store, Inc., is a firearms retailer. This case, one of dozens filed by the plaintiffs against manufacturers and retailers across the country, alleges that the defendant is selling infringing FRT devices that compete with Rare Breed's flagship products, such as the FRT-15. The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223, covers a "Firearm trigger mechanism" that uses the firearm's reciprocating bolt carrier to mechanically force the trigger to reset after each shot, enabling a significantly faster rate of fire.

The case is situated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, likely chosen because it is the defendant's place of business. However, the significance of this individual case is magnified by its connection to a much larger legal conflict. In April 2026, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) ordered the centralization of numerous FRT patent lawsuits filed by Rare Breed and ABC IP. These cases, originally spread across many districts, were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding, captioned In re: Rare Breed Triggers Patent Litigation, MDL No. 3176, in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III. It is highly probable that this case, if not already transferred, will be identified as a "tag-along" action and consolidated into the MDL to streamline pretrial proceedings, such as claim construction and discovery, for all related cases.

The notability of this litigation stems directly from a high-stakes battle between Rare Breed Triggers and the U.S. government. For years, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) contended that FRTs were illegal machineguns. This culminated in extensive legal challenges, which ended in a landmark settlement in May 2025 between Rare Breed and the Department of Justice (DOJ). In that settlement, the government reversed its position, agreeing that FRTs are not machineguns. A crucial and unusual condition of the deal, however, required Rare Breed to actively enforce its patents against competitors to, in the government's view, "advance public safety." This case and the broader MDL are the direct result of that settlement, transforming a typical patent dispute into a government-compelled campaign to control the market for a controversial firearm technology.

Legal Developments and Case Outcome

As of early May 2026, the patent infringement lawsuit filed by ABC IP, LLC and Rare Breed Triggers, LLC against The Gun Store, Inc. is in its preliminary stages and has been formally consolidated into a larger, national proceeding. The key developments have been procedural, centering on the case's inclusion in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) to manage the dozens of similar lawsuits filed by the plaintiffs.

Chronological Developments:

• 2026-01-12: Complaint Filed: ABC IP, LLC and Rare Breed Triggers, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against The Gun Store, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, docketed as Case No. 2:26-cv-00014. The suit alleges that the defendant infringed U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223 by selling certain forced-reset triggers (FRTs). This filing was one of more than two dozen similar lawsuits Rare Breed initiated against various manufacturers and retailers across the country, fulfilling an obligation under its May 2025 settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice to enforce its patents.

• 2026-04-02: Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Formation: The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) issued a transfer order creating In re: Rare Breed Triggers Patent Litigation, MDL No. 3176. The JPML found that the numerous actions filed by Rare Breed involved common questions of fact and that centralization would be more efficient for pretrial proceedings. The panel consolidated an initial six actions and assigned the MDL to Chief Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The JPML specifically noted that Rare Breed and its co-plaintiff supported centralizing all pending and potential "tag-along" actions.

• Post-April 2026: Expected Transfer as a "Tag-Along" Action: Following the creation of the MDL, this case against The Gun Store was identified as a "tag-along" action. It is standard procedure for the JPML to issue a Conditional Transfer Order (CTO) to move such related cases from their original courts into the designated MDL court. While the specific CTO for this case is not detailed in the search results, its transfer to MDL No. 3176 in the Eastern District of Texas is the expected and standard procedural outcome. All significant future pretrial activities, including discovery, claim construction, and substantive motions, will occur within the centralized MDL proceeding before Judge Mazzant.

Parallel Proceedings and Strategic Context:

• No Parallel PTAB Proceedings Found: A search for Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223 did not yield any results. This suggests that, as of this date, no defendants in the wider litigation campaign have formally challenged the patent's validity at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

• Developments in Other Rare Breed Cases: While this specific case has not had substantive rulings, other early cases in Rare Breed's litigation campaign provide insight into potential future arguments. In a separate but related lawsuit against Peak Tactical (doing business as Partisan Triggers), a federal court in February 2026 denied Rare Breed's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. In that case, the defendant argued that its product was a non-infringing "assisted reset trigger," challenged the validity of Rare Breed's patents based on prior art, and countersued for infringement of its own, older patent. Such arguments are likely to resurface within the MDL and be asserted by other defendants.

Current Status and Expected Outcome:

The case of ABC IP, LLC v. The Gun Store, Inc. is effectively paused at the district level and awaits formal transfer and integration into the MDL (Case No. 4:26-md-03176) in the Eastern District of Texas. Its individual outcome is now tied directly to the global rulings that will be made by Judge Mazzant in the consolidated action. The next steps will involve the MDL court establishing a master schedule for all defendants for pleadings, discovery, and a single, unified claim construction (Markman) hearing to interpret the disputed terms of the '223 patent. No final disposition through trial, settlement, or dismissal has been reached.

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

Based on appearances in this and related MDL proceedings, the following counsel represent the plaintiffs in this patent infringement action. Given the case's expected consolidation into the In re: Rare Breed Triggers Patent Litigation MDL (No. 3176), attorneys who have appeared in related cases are included as they are likely to be involved in the centralized litigation.

Name	Role	Firm	Location	Notable Experience / Notes
Carl R. Bruce	Lead Counsel	Rayburn Cooper & Durham, P.A.	Charlotte, NC	Appears as lead counsel for Rare Breed in multiple FRT patent cases and has experience in patent and trademark litigation.
Aaron R. Farris	Lead Counsel	Rayburn Cooper & Durham, P.A.	Charlotte, NC	Frequently appears alongside Carl Bruce for Rare Breed, focusing on intellectual property and commercial litigation.
Daniel A. Hatley	Of Counsel	Rayburn Cooper & Durham, P.A.	Charlotte, NC	Works with the lead counsel team on intellectual property matters for the firm.

No local counsel for the Eastern District of Washington or specific in-house counsel for the plaintiffs could be definitively identified from the available search results. The primary legal representation appears to be centered at the North Carolina firm of Rayburn Cooper & Durham, which is leading the nationwide litigation campaign. As the case is transferred to the MDL in the Eastern District of Texas, liaison counsel for the plaintiffs will be designated by the court to coordinate communications and filings for all consolidated cases.

Counsel for Defendant The Gun Store, Inc.

As of May 7, 2026, counsel for the defendant, The Gun Store, Inc., has not yet filed a notice of appearance on the public docket for the original case in the Eastern District of Washington (2:26-cv-00014).

Given that the case was filed in January 2026 and was quickly identified as a tag-along action for consolidation into the Multidistrict Litigation (In re: Rare Breed Triggers Patent Litigation, MDL No. 3176), it is common for defendants in such situations to wait to retain counsel until after the case is formally transferred to the MDL court. An appearance will be required once the case is active in the Eastern District of Texas before Chief Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III.

Until a notice of appearance or another filing is made on behalf of the defendant in either the original or the MDL docket, the specific attorneys and firm representing The Gun Store, Inc. remain unknown. No news reports or press releases related to this specific defendant have named its legal representatives.