In re: Rare Breed Triggers Patent Litigation

Case Overview and Background

This multidistrict litigation (MDL) consolidates a sprawling legal battle over "forced reset triggers" (FRTs), a firearm accessory that increases the potential rate of fire for semi-automatic rifles. The plaintiffs are Rare Breed Triggers, Inc., a Texas-based operating company that manufactures and sells FRTs, and ABC IP, LLC, a Delaware entity that owns the asserted patents and has exclusively licensed them to Rare Breed. This structure, separating patent ownership from the operating company, is common in intellectual property management. The defendants are numerous, ranging from small manufacturers and retailers to individuals allegedly distributing designs for competing FRT devices, such as the "Super Safety," "Partisan Disruptor," and "Atrius Forced Reset Selector". The core of the dispute is the plaintiffs' allegation that these competing FRT products infringe upon their patent portfolio.

The litigation centers on several patents, including U.S. Patent No. 7,398,723, which generally covers a firearm trigger mechanism with a locking member that assists in the trigger's reset function after a shot is fired. This technology, which uses the energy from the firearm's cycling bolt carrier to push the trigger forward, is the key feature of FRTs. After initially filing lawsuits in various districts across the country, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) centralized the cases for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, assigning them to Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III. This venue is historically known for its expertise in handling complex patent cases. The creation of MDL No. 3176, initially named "In re: Super Safety Patent Litigation" and later broadened to "In re: Rare Breed Triggers Patent Litigation," aims to streamline discovery and claim construction for the dozens of related cases.

This case is notable for its intersection with regulatory law and its significant impact on the competitive landscape of the firearms accessory market. Prior to this wave of patent litigation, Rare Breed Triggers was in a high-profile legal battle with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which had classified its FRT product as an illegal machinegun. A settlement in May 2025 allowed Rare Breed to resume operations, reportedly on the condition that it would actively enforce its patent rights against competitors. This has led to accusations that the patent litigation is being used to clear the market of competing products, a strategy that has generated backlash within the firearms industry. The denial of a preliminary injunction against one defendant was seen by some as an early sign that the plaintiffs' patent claims may face significant validity challenges as the case proceeds.

Key Legal Developments and Case Posture

As of May 2026, the In re: Rare Breed Triggers Patent Litigation MDL is in its early stages, having been recently consolidated. The key developments revolve around the formation of the MDL and preliminary motion practice in the original constituent cases, setting the stage for future proceedings on claim construction and validity.

Filing and Consolidation (Late 2025 – Early 2026)

• Initial Lawsuits: Following a significant settlement with the Department of Justice in May 2025 that resolved the regulatory status of its FRTs, Rare Breed Triggers and ABC IP, LLC began an aggressive patent enforcement campaign. This was a condition of the settlement, which required Rare Breed to "take all reasonable efforts" to enforce its patent rights against potential infringers. Dozens of lawsuits were filed in various districts against manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of competing FRT products, including those known as the "Super Safety," "Partisan Disruptor," and "Atrius Forced Reset Selector."
• Motion to Centralize: On December 23, 2025, defendants in several of the "Super Safety" cases filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) seeking to centralize the litigation.
• MDL Creation and Transfer: On April 2, 2026, the JPML issued a transfer order creating MDL No. 3176. The panel found that centralization was necessary to avoid duplicative discovery and prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on claim construction and patent validity. The JPML consolidated the numerous cases before Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue well-versed in complex patent litigation. The panel also broadened the name from In re: Super Safety Patent Litigation to In re: Rare Breed Triggers Patent Litigation to reflect the variety of accused products and patents involved. Tag-along cases, such as one transferred from the Middle District of North Carolina on April 13, 2026, continue to be consolidated into the MDL.

Pre-Trial Motions and Early Rulings

• Preliminary Injunction Denied: A significant early development occurred before the MDL was formed. In one of the underlying cases, the court denied Rare Breed's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that sought to halt sales of the "Partisan Disruptor" trigger. The court found that Rare Breed had not demonstrated irreparable harm, noting that any financial losses could likely be remedied with monetary damages if infringement were later proven. The court also pointed to substantial questions regarding the validity of the asserted patents that needed to be resolved. This ruling was seen as an early victory for the defendants and a sign that the plaintiffs' patents may face serious challenges.
• ATF Statement of Interest: In another early-stage proceeding before consolidation, the U.S. government (through the ATF) filed a statement of interest. This unusual move highlighted the government's "interest in limiting the sale and distribution of FRTs" for public safety reasons, connecting the patent litigation back to the regulatory concerns that preceded it.

Current Posture and Next Steps (As of May 10, 2026)

• Active MDL Proceedings: The case is now active before Judge Mazzant in the Eastern District of Texas. The court has begun issuing initial notices to counsel, and the parties are proceeding with the initial phases of consolidated pretrial litigation.
• No Claim Construction Ruling: The case has not yet reached a Markman hearing or a claim construction ruling within the MDL. Any such rulings from individual cases prior to transfer (such as a June 2024 order in an Oklahoma case) will likely be revisited by the MDL court to ensure consistency.
• No Parallel PTAB Proceedings Found: A search of USPTO records and legal news databases did not reveal any active or concluded Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning U.S. Patent No. 7,398,723. Therefore, there are no PTAB proceedings currently affecting the district court litigation.
• Anticipated Future Developments: The next major phases of the litigation will involve discovery, followed by claim construction proceedings as outlined in the Eastern District of Texas's local patent rules. Given the defendants' arguments and the denial of the early injunction, motions for summary judgment based on non-infringement or invalidity are highly anticipated after claim construction and discovery are complete. The ultimate outcome, whether through settlement, trial, or dispositive motion, remains distant.

Plaintiffs' Counsel of Record

Based on court filings and legal news coverage, the following attorneys and law firms have appeared on behalf of plaintiffs ABC IP, LLC and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc. in MDL No. 3176.

Attorney	Firm	Location	Role	Notable Experience/Notes
D. M. "Mac" Main	The Main Law Firm, P.C.	Dallas, TX	Lead Counsel	Represents clients in complex commercial and intellectual property litigation.
Daniel L. M. ("Dan") Kennedy	The Main Law Firm, P.C.	Dallas, TX	Of Counsel	Focuses on patent, trademark, and trade secret litigation.
T. John Ward, Jr.	Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC	Longview, TX	Local Counsel	Son of retired Judge T. John Ward, a highly respected former EDTX judge; frequently serves as local counsel in major patent cases.
Wesley Hill	Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC	Longview, TX	Local Counsel	Extensive experience in high-stakes patent litigation within the Eastern District of Texas.

Summary of Representation:

The plaintiffs have assembled a legal team that combines subject-matter expertise in patent litigation with deep experience in the specific venue of the Eastern District of Texas. The Main Law Firm, led by Mac Main, appears to be directing the overall litigation strategy for the plaintiffs.

To navigate the local rules and judicial practices of the Eastern District of Texas, a court known for its unique and fast-paced patent docket, the plaintiffs have retained the prominent Longview-based firm Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC. T. John Ward, Jr., and Wesley Hill are well-known practitioners in the district and frequently act as local counsel for out-of-state firms litigating patent cases there. Their involvement is crucial for procedural matters and courtroom advocacy before Judge Mazzant.

Disclaimer: This information is based on publicly available filings and reports. Counsel appearances can change, and additional attorneys may have appeared in individual underlying cases prior to their transfer to the MDL. Some filings may be sealed or otherwise not publicly accessible.

Defense Counsel of Record

Given the multidistrict nature of this litigation, which consolidates numerous underlying cases, a wide array of defendants and their respective counsel are involved. The defendants range from competing manufacturers and retailers to individuals. Below are the counsel who have appeared for some of the key defendants in either the consolidated MDL proceedings or the original underlying actions.

For Defendants BDU, Inc., Hoffman Tactical, LLC, and John Hoffman:

• Name: W. Scott McCollough

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: McCollough Law Firm, P.C.
  • Office Location: New Braunfels, Texas
  • Note: McCollough has extensive experience in complex federal litigation and has represented clients in matters adverse to federal agencies, a relevant background given the ATF's involvement in the broader FRT regulatory dispute.

• Name: Michael J. Bell

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Bell & Associates
  • Office Location: Weatherford, Texas
  • Note: Often works alongside W. Scott McCollough on Second Amendment and firearm-related litigation.

For Defendant James R. Hoffman (d/b/a Hoffman Firearms):

• Name: Trevor W. Howes
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Hoffman & Howes, PLLC
  • Office Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Note: Specializes in firearms law and has represented clients in litigation against government entities concerning firearm regulations.

For Defendants relating to the "Super Safety" device:

Information regarding counsel for defendants associated specifically with the "Super Safety" device, which was the initial focus of the MDL, is not consistently available in public records, partly due to the pro se status of some individual defendants or the early stage of their involvement when the cases were transferred.

For Other Consolidated Defendants:

As additional cases were transferred into MDL No. 3176, numerous other law firms have likely filed notices of appearance. However, a comprehensive list for all named defendants is difficult to compile without direct access to the most current MDL docket report. Many smaller retailers or individual defendants may be proceeding pro se or have yet to retain counsel. It is common in such MDLs for a defense steering committee to be formed, but public information on the formation of such a committee in this case is not yet available.

Counsel information for many of the smaller, individual defendants is not readily available through public web searches, and docket access may be required to identify all attorneys of record. Some filings related to counsel may also be sealed or restricted.