Rare Breed Triggers Inc et al. v. Damion Terrell Bennett et al.

An overview and background of the patent infringement litigation is as follows:

Case Overview and Background

The patent infringement lawsuit, Rare Breed Triggers Inc et al. v. Damion Terrell Bennett et al., was filed on April 13, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiffs are Rare Breed Triggers Inc., an operating company known for manufacturing and selling firearm accessories, and ABC IP LLC. The defendants are Damion Terrell Bennett and his company, Hanes Tactical LLC. This case is notable as it represents another front in the ongoing legal battles within the firearm accessories industry, particularly concerning devices that modify the firing rate of semi-automatic rifles. The selection of the Eastern District of Texas is significant; it is a popular venue for patent holders due to its local patent rules and judges who are experienced in handling complex patent litigation.

The core of the dispute revolves around the defendants' "Super Safety" device, which the plaintiffs allege infringes upon three of their patents. The asserted patents are U.S. Patent No. 12,031,784, which relates to a selectable trigger mechanism; U.S. Patent No. 7,398,723, which covers a firearm trigger mechanism with a secondary sear; and U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247, which pertains to a trigger assembly with a locking feature. Rare Breed Triggers has been involved in prior, high-profile litigation with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) over its own trigger devices, adding a layer of market and regulatory context to this new infringement suit against a competitor. The outcome of this case could have a significant impact on the market for so-called "forced-reset triggers" and similar firearm modification devices. Information regarding any parallel proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), such as an inter partes review (IPR), is not publicly available at this early stage of the litigation.

Key Legal Developments in Rare Breed Triggers v. Bennett

Since its filing, the patent infringement lawsuit brought by Rare Breed Triggers Inc. and ABC IP LLC against Damion Terrell Bennett and Hanes Tactical LLC has been incorporated into a larger, consolidated proceeding that will shape its trajectory. The case, initially focused on the "Super Safety" trigger device, is now part of a broader legal battle over "forced-reset trigger" (FRT) technology.

Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Consolidation

The most significant development occurred on 2026-04-02, when the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) ordered the centralization of this case with five other similar lawsuits. The newly formed multidistrict litigation, MDL No. 3176, was assigned to Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The JPML renamed the consolidated litigation from "IN RE: Super Safety Patent Litigation" to "IN RE: Rare Breed Triggers Patent Litigation" to better reflect the range of accused products and patents involved.

The panel determined that centralization was necessary to avoid duplicative discovery and prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on common issues like claim construction and patent validity. The case against Hanes Tactical will now proceed in coordination with numerous other actions as part of these consolidated pretrial proceedings. This consolidation appears to stem from a widespread litigation campaign by Rare Breed Triggers, which is required to enforce its patents under the terms of a 2025-05-16 settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case Filing and Transfer

The lawsuit was originally filed on 2025-06-06 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 3:25-cv-00201). Before its transfer, Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction was denied without prejudice. Following a motion, the case was transferred to the Eastern District of Texas on 2026-04-13, where it was assigned case number 4:26-cv-00369, shortly before being swept into the MDL.

Pleadings and Counterclaims

Prior to the MDL consolidation, the initial pleadings in the Texas Western District outlined the core dispute:

• Complaint: Plaintiffs Rare Breed Triggers and ABC IP filed their initial complaint alleging that the "Super Safety" product sold by Damion Terrell Bennett and Hanes Tactical LLC infringes U.S. Patents 12,031,784, 7,398,723, and 12,038,247.
• Amended Complaints: The plaintiffs amended their complaint twice while the case was in the Western District. The Second Amended Complaint was filed on 2026-01-26.
• Answer and Counterclaim: On 2026-02-09, Defendants Hanes Tactical and Damion Bennett filed an answer to the Second Amended Complaint, which included counterclaims against the plaintiffs. The specific allegations within the counterclaim are not detailed in the currently available documents.
• Answer to Counterclaim: Plaintiffs filed their answer to the defendants' counterclaims on 2026-02-13.
• Further Motion to Amend: Plaintiffs filed another motion for leave to file an amended complaint on 2026-03-24. Pursuant to local rules, this motion became moot upon the case's transfer to the Eastern District of Texas and its subsequent inclusion in the MDL.

As of the date of this report, no new scheduling order has been issued by Judge Mazzant in the consolidated MDL No. 3176. All deadlines and proceedings in the individual case are effectively stayed pending orders in the MDL.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

A third party, ATrius Development Group Corp, challenged the validity of one of the patents-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247, by filing a petition for inter partes review (IPR) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

• Filing Date: The IPR petition (IPR2025-01473) was filed on 2025-08-29.
• Outcome: On 2026-02-18, the PTAB denied institution of the IPR. This decision was a significant victory for the patent owner, ABC IP LLC, as it prevents this specific validity challenge from moving forward at the PTAB and strengthens the patent's presumption of validity in the district court litigation.

No other PTAB challenges against the asserted patents have been identified. The case is currently in its early stages within the new MDL structure, with substantive pretrial proceedings, including claim construction and discovery, yet to be scheduled by the court.

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

Based on docket information from the transferred case and related lawsuits filed by the plaintiffs, the following attorneys and firms have appeared on behalf of Rare Breed Triggers and ABC IP LLC.

Wood Herron & Evans LLP

This Cincinnati-based intellectual property firm appears to be leading the nationwide litigation campaign for Rare Breed Triggers.

• Glenn D. Bellamy (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Wood Herron & Evans LLP (Cincinnati, OH)
  • Note: Bellamy is an experienced IP litigator who has represented Rare Breed Triggers in other patent infringement cases, including a successful preliminary injunction action in 2022.

Fish & Richardson P.C.

A prominent national IP firm, Fish & Richardson has also appeared for the plaintiffs in this and other related cases, suggesting a significant role in the litigation strategy.

• Carl Edward Bruce (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Note: Bruce has formally appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs in this case and several other parallel lawsuits filed by Rare Breed Triggers.
• Matthew A. Colvin (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Note: Colvin has filed notices of appearance for the plaintiffs in this matter and other related patent suits initiated by Rare Breed.
• Benjamin J. Christoff (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Note: Christoff filed a motion to appear pro hac vice (as out-of-state counsel) and has entered appearances in multiple parallel cases for the plaintiffs.

Dykema Gossett PLLC

As the case is proceeding in the Eastern District of Texas, a firm with a strong local presence is required.

• J. Daniel Harkins (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Dykema Gossett PLLC (San Antonio, TX)
  • Note: Harkins is the leader of Dykema's intellectual property litigation group and has been recognized as a leading IP and patent litigator in San Antonio.

It is common in patent litigation for plaintiffs to retain a primary firm with deep expertise in the technology, alongside a firm with specific experience in the court district where the case is filed. Additional counsel may be added as the case progresses within the multidistrict litigation (MDL) structure.

Defendant Counsel of Record

Based on a review of the docket in the original and transferred cases, the following attorneys have appeared on behalf of Defendants Damion Terrell Bennett and Hanes Tactical LLC.

Clark Firm PLLC

• Shandon W. Clark (Lead Counsel): Based in Dallas, Texas, Mr. Clark focuses his practice on commercial litigation, including intellectual property disputes. He has represented clients in patent and trademark cases in federal courts, including the Eastern District of Texas.

Gray Reed & McGraw LLP

• David R. D'Angelo (Counsel): An attorney in the Dallas, Texas office, Mr. D'Angelo has experience in a variety of commercial and intellectual property litigation matters.
• Robert J.ANALYSIS['F'] Scheffy (Counsel): Located in the firm's Waco, Texas office, Mr.ANALYSIS['F'] Scheffy's practice includes handling patent litigation cases in the Western District of Texas.

Note on Counsel Appearances: These attorneys filed the Defendants' Answer and Counterclaims to the Second Amended Complaint on February 9, 2026, while the case was still pending in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 3:25-cv-00201, Dkt. 26) prior to its transfer and consolidation into MDL No. 3176. As of the current date, no new or different counsel have formally appeared for the defendants in the consolidated MDL proceeding in the Eastern District of Texas. It is common for counsel who appeared in a constituent case to continue representation within an MDL.