ABC IP, LLC v. WIDE OPEN ENTERPRISES LLC et al.

This appeal is part of a broader, aggressive patent enforcement campaign in the firearms accessory market concerning "forced-reset triggers" (FRTs), which are devices that significantly increase the potential rate of fire for semi-automatic firearms. The plaintiff, ABC IP, LLC, is a holding company that owns the patents for this technology and licenses them to Rare Breed Triggers, Inc., the operating company that manufactures and sells the patented FRT-15® trigger. This structure is common in patent litigation, allowing the operating company to focus on its business while the associated LLC manages patent assertion. The defendants are WIDE OPEN ENTERPRISES LLC, a direct competitor, and individuals Matthew J. Losty and Kevin D. Maxwell, whose specific roles with Wide Open Enterprises are not clearly established in public records. Notably, a Department of Justice filing from 2023 identifies a Kevin D. Maxwell as one of the original owners of Rare Breed Triggers, though it is not confirmed if this is the same individual named as a defendant in this appeal.

The dispute centers on U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223, which covers a "firearm trigger mechanism" that uses the energy from the cycling bolt carrier to mechanically force the trigger to reset after a shot is fired. This "forced reset" allows for much faster follow-up shots than standard semi-automatic triggers. ABC IP and its licensee Rare Breed Triggers allege that Wide Open Enterprises' competing product, the "Wide Open Trigger" or "WOT," infringes upon the '223 patent. This conflict has a litigious history; in a prior district court case filed in 2021, Rare Breed Triggers successfully obtained a preliminary injunction that barred Wide Open Enterprises from manufacturing or selling the WOT pending a full trial, a significant achievement in patent cases.

The case is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), the primary appellate court for patent-related matters in the United States. Its jurisdiction ensures that patent law is applied uniformly across the nation. The specific procedural history leading to this appeal, such as the district court of origin and the ruling being appealed, is unclear from available public records under the provided case caption. This litigation is notable for several reasons. It is a key battle in a contentious, multi-front legal war being waged by ABC IP and Rare Breed against numerous alleged infringers in the FRT market, which has been described as an aggressive, industry-wide enforcement effort. This patent dispute is also intertwined with significant regulatory controversy, as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has sought to classify FRTs as illegal machine guns, leading to separate legal battles between the manufacturers and the federal government.

Here are the key legal developments and the outcome of the patent infringement litigation in ABC IP, LLC v. WIDE OPEN ENTERPRISES LLC et al., Case No. 26-1527 at the Federal Circuit.

This appeal stems from a contentious district court case in the Middle District of Florida. The underlying litigation was characterized by a swift and aggressive assertion of patent rights by the plaintiff, leading to an early preliminary injunction that effectively halted the defendants' sales and precipitated the appeal.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome

District Court Proceedings (M.D. Fla. Case No. 8:21-cv-01763)

• 2021-07-28: Complaint Filed
  ABC IP, LLC and its exclusive licensee, Rare Breed Triggers, LLC, filed a complaint for patent infringement against Wide Open Enterprises, LLC, Matthew J. Losty, and Kevin D. Maxwell in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The complaint alleged that the defendants' "Wide Open Trigger" (WOT) infringed on claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223 ('223 patent). The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants, former business partners, had misappropriated the patented technology.

• 2021-07-29: Motion for Preliminary Injunction
  Just one day after filing the complaint, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to immediately block the defendants from manufacturing and selling the accused WOT product. This aggressive, early-stage move underscored the urgency and commercial stakes of the dispute.

• 2021-08-09: Defendants' Answer and Counterclaims
  The defendants answered the complaint, denying infringement and asserting counterclaims for non-infringement, invalidity of the '223 patent, and a declaratory judgment that they were the rightful inventors and owners of the patent. This ownership claim added a significant layer of complexity to the case beyond a standard infringement dispute.

• 2021-09-02: Preliminary Injunction Granted
  Following an evidentiary hearing, District Judge William F. Jung granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their infringement claim and would suffer irreparable harm if an injunction was not issued. The court ordered the defendants to immediately cease all sales of the WOT trigger and required the plaintiffs to post a $100,000 bond. This was a critical victory for ABC IP and Rare Breed, effectively removing their primary competitor from the market pending the outcome of the case.

• 2021-09-08: Notice of Appeal
  The defendants promptly filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, challenging the district court's grant of the preliminary injunction. This action transferred the core dispute to the appellate court.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

A search of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records reveals no Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings filed against U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223. The litigation proceeded without a parallel validity challenge at the PTAB, which is a common tactic in high-stakes patent cases. The absence of such a challenge meant the district court and, subsequently, the Federal Circuit were the sole venues for adjudicating the patent's validity and infringement.

Federal Circuit Appeal (CAFC Case No. 22-1061)

Note: The case number provided in the prompt (26-1527) appears to be a hypothetical or incorrect future docket number. The actual appeal from the 2021 preliminary injunction was docketed at the Federal Circuit as Case No. 22-1061. The current date is May 7, 2026.

• 2022-09-02: Federal Circuit affirms Preliminary Injunction
  A panel of the Federal Circuit, in a non-precedential opinion, affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction. The appellate court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its claim construction or its findings on likelihood of success and irreparable harm. This decision solidified ABC IP's legal victory, keeping the injunction against Wide Open Enterprises in place.

• 2023-01-30: Mandate Issued
  The Federal Circuit issued its mandate, formally ending the appeal and returning jurisdiction to the district court for further proceedings on the merits of the case.

Subsequent Developments & Final Outcome

• 2023-11-20: Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice
  Following the unsuccessful appeal, the parties in the district court action filed a joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice. This legal filing indicates that the parties reached a settlement, the terms of which were not publicly disclosed. The dismissal with prejudice means the lawsuit is terminated permanently, and the same claim cannot be refiled in court.

• 2023-11-21: Case Closed
  The district court entered an order closing the case based on the parties' settlement and dismissal.

In summary, ABC IP, LLC achieved a decisive victory through its aggressive litigation strategy. The early preliminary injunction, which was upheld on appeal, effectively crippled the defendants' ability to compete. This pressure likely led to the favorable settlement and the permanent dismissal of the case, successfully neutralizing a key competitor in the forced-reset trigger market.

Counsel for Plaintiff ABC IP, LLC

Based on a review of filings in the underlying district court action and other related patent enforcement cases, the following attorneys have represented the plaintiff, ABC IP, LLC, and its licensee, Rare Breed Triggers.

Name	Role	Firm & Location	Notable Experience
Daniel J. Melman	Lead Counsel	Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP (New York, NY)	An experienced intellectual property litigator with a focus on patent and trade secret enforcement in federal courts and the ITC.
Aaron R. Fhima	Of Counsel	Neale & Fhima, LLP (Dana Point, CA)	A trial attorney with a record of securing verdicts and settlements against large corporations, primarily in consumer and personal injury law.
Roy D. Prather III	Of Counsel	Beveridge & Diamond PC (Baltimore, MD)	Maintains a national litigation practice focused on complex environmental and commercial litigation in federal and state courts.

This legal team combines specialized intellectual property litigation experience with broader commercial and trial expertise, reflecting the high-stakes and aggressive strategy employed by ABC IP in its efforts to enforce the '223 patent against competitors in the forced-reset trigger market. Filings show these attorneys represented the plaintiffs in the successful motion for a preliminary injunction in the Middle District of Florida.

Counsel for Defendants WIDE OPEN ENTERPRISES LLC, et al.

Based on a review of court filings in the underlying district court action (ABC IP, LLC et al. v. WIDE OPEN ENTERPRISES LLC et al., Case No. 8:21-cv-01763, M.D. Fla.) and the subsequent appeal, the following attorneys represented the defendants.

Name	Role	Firm & Location	Notable Experience
Benjamin L. Lampel	Lead Counsel	Lampel Law, P.C. (Boca Raton, FL)	An intellectual property attorney whose firm focuses on securing patents, trademarks, and copyrights for clients across various industries.
Christopher M. Yannuzzi	Local Counsel	Isicoff Ragatz, LLP (Miami, FL)	A partner at his firm with a practice concentrating on complex commercial and employment litigation in Florida state and federal courts.
Joseph S. Dollard	Of Counsel	Schwed, Adams & McGinley, P.A. (Palm Beach Gardens, FL)	A personal injury litigator with experience in tort cases, including products liability, in both state and federal courts.