Rare Breed Triggers Inc et al. v. Nicholas Norton et al.

This patent infringement appeal emerges from a contentious legal battle in the rapidly growing market for forced reset triggers (FRTs), a type of aftermarket firearm accessory. The plaintiffs are Rare Breed Triggers, Inc., an operating company that designs and sells FRT products, and ABC IP, LLC, an affiliated entity that holds the patents for Rare Breed's technology. The defendants are Peak Tactical LLC, a competing manufacturer doing business as Partisan Triggers (and which rebranded as The Triggered Company on May 1, 2026), and its owner, Nicholas Norton. The dispute centers on Peak Tactical's "Partisan Disruptor" trigger, which Rare Breed alleges is a "direct copy" of its own FRT design. Peak Tactical counters that its product is a distinct "assisted reset" trigger and does not infringe, arguing instead that Rare Breed's patents are invalid and that Rare Breed's own products may infringe a pre-existing patent owned by a Peak Tactical employee.

The plaintiffs have asserted four patents related to firearm trigger mechanisms that use the cycling of the firearm's bolt carrier to reset the trigger. The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 10,514,223 ("Firearm trigger mechanism" with a locking bar), 11,724,003, 12,036,336, and 12,274,807 (all titled "Firearm trigger mechanism" and describing a three-position selector for safe, semi-automatic, and forced-reset modes). The case is currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on an interlocutory appeal. The initial lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, where Rare Breed sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to halt sales of the Partisan Disruptor. On February 13, 2026, the district court denied the injunction, finding that Rare Breed had failed to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits or that it would suffer irreparable harm. This appeal directly challenges that key early-stage ruling in the specialized court that holds exclusive appellate jurisdiction over U.S. patent cases.

The case is notable for several reasons. It is a focal point in a broader, aggressive litigation campaign by Rare Breed against numerous competitors in the firearms accessory market. This legal conflict is playing out against a complex regulatory backdrop. For years, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) contended that FRTs like Rare Breed's were illegal machine guns, leading to high-profile litigation with the Department of Justice. A subsequent reversal in DOJ policy in 2025 re-opened the market, intensifying the value and importance of patent rights in this niche but competitive industry. The district court's denial of a preliminary injunction was seen as a major early victory for Peak Tactical, allowing it to continue operating while the larger questions of infringement and patent validity are litigated. The outcome of this appeal at the Federal Circuit will therefore have a significant impact on competition and innovation in the FRT market.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

This patent infringement litigation has moved rapidly through its initial district court phase and is now currently under review at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The proceedings have been contentious, marked by aggressive motions from the plaintiffs and significant counter-allegations from the defendants.

District Court Proceedings (District of Wyoming, Case No. 2:26-cv-00018)

• 2026-01-11 (approx.): Plaintiffs Rare Breed Triggers Inc. and ABC IP LLC filed a complaint against Nicholas Norton and Peak Tactical LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming. The complaint alleged that the defendants' "Partisan Disruptor" product willfully infringed four of the plaintiffs' patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,514,223; 11,724,003; 12,036,336; and 12,274,807. The complaint also included claims of false advertising under the Lanham Act.
• 2026-01-12 (approx.): Immediately following the complaint, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and a Preliminary Injunction. This motion sought to immediately halt all manufacturing and sales of the Partisan Disruptor while the litigation proceeded, claiming irreparable harm from price erosion and loss of market share.
• 2026-02-04: The district court held an extensive in-person evidentiary hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Both parties presented arguments, testimony, and technical evidence.
• 2026-02-13: The District Court issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction. The court found that Rare Breed had not met the high burden required for such an extraordinary remedy, noting that any potential economic harm could likely be compensated with monetary damages if infringement were later proven. This ruling was a significant early victory for defendants, allowing them to continue selling the accused product.
• 2026-02-20: Plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited discovery. The stated purpose was to gather additional evidence on issues of infringement, patent validity, and the defendants' financial condition in order to file a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction.
• 2026-03-11: The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery. The order found that the plaintiffs had not shown good cause and characterized the motion as an improper attempt to relitigate the already-denied injunction request.
• 2026-03-24: Defendants Peak Tactical and Nicholas Norton filed their Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims. This comprehensive 72-page filing denied all infringement allegations. Crucially, it also launched a counter-offensive by:
  • Asserting Counterclaims for Infringement: Accusing Rare Breed's own FRT-15 triggers of infringing U.S. Patent No. 9,146,067, which is now owned by Peak Tactical and allegedly covers the foundational "assisted reset" technology commercialized years earlier in the Tac-Con 3MR trigger.
  • Alleging Inequitable Conduct: Accusing Rare Breed and its attorneys of engaging in inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) by deliberately withholding knowledge of the '067 patent as material prior art during the prosecution of their own patents. A finding of inequitable conduct, if proven, could render the plaintiffs' patents permanently unenforceable.

Appellate Proceedings (Federal Circuit, Case No. 26-1527)

• 2026-03-17: Plaintiffs Rare Breed Triggers and ABC IP LLC filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. While the specific docket text is not available, the timing of the appeal, filed within 30 days of the denial of the preliminary injunction, strongly indicates it is an interlocutory appeal of the district court's February 13, 2026, order. Orders denying preliminary injunctions are one of the few types of non-final orders that can be appealed immediately.
• Present Posture (2026-05-01): The case is now active before the Federal Circuit. The district court proceedings are likely stayed pending the outcome of this appeal. The key issue on appeal will be whether the Wyoming district court abused its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

• As of May 1, 2026, a search of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records reveals no Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings filed by Peak Tactical or Nicholas Norton against the four patents-in-suit (11,724,003; 12,274,807; 12,036,336; 10,514,223).
• Notably, in separate proceedings, a third party, Atrius Development Group, has filed an IPR against a different Rare Breed patent (U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247). Filings in that matter show that U.S. Patent No. 11,724,003 was cited to the patent office during those proceedings. However, these are separate matters and do not currently have a direct legal impact on the Rare Breed v. Norton litigation.

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

Based on filings in the underlying district court case and counsel's focus in intellectual property and firearms-related litigation, the following attorneys are identified as representing the plaintiffs. Appearances for the Federal Circuit appeal (No. 26-1527) would be formally entered as briefing proceeds.

Name	Role	Firm	Location	Noteworthy Experience
Daniel L. Schmutter	Lead Counsel	Hartman & Winnicki, P.C.	Ridgewood, NJ	Schmutter has extensive federal litigation experience, known for representing clients in high-profile Second Amendment and constitutional law cases.
Michael J. Bonella	Of Counsel	Flaster Greenberg PC	Philadelphia, PA	A first-chair patent litigator with over 25 years of experience, Bonella has argued before the Federal Circuit and leads his firm's IP Litigation Practice Group.
Aakash K. Patel	Of Counsel	Flaster Greenberg PC	Philadelphia, PA	Patel is a patent litigation shareholder with experience at the Federal Circuit, ITC, and numerous district courts, focusing on complex technology cases.
Timothy M. Stubson	Local Counsel	Crowley Fleck PLLP	Casper, WY	A partner focused on complex commercial litigation in Wyoming, Stubson is a former state legislator with significant trial and appellate experience before the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Counsel Discussion:

The legal team for Rare Breed Triggers and ABC IP LLC combines specialized patent litigation expertise with deep experience in firearms-related constitutional law. While docket information for the new Federal Circuit appeal is still populating, the attorneys who led the aggressive preliminary injunction strategy in the District of Wyoming are expected to continue representing the plaintiffs on appeal.

Daniel L. Schmutter, known for his work on behalf of firearms industry clients and Second Amendment organizations, appears to be taking a lead strategic role. He is supported by a robust patent litigation team from Flaster Greenberg, a firm with a well-regarded intellectual property practice. Michael J. Bonella and Aakash K. Patel bring direct Federal Circuit and patent trial experience to the team. Timothy M. Stubson of Crowley Fleck served as the required local counsel for the proceedings in the District of Wyoming, providing expertise in local court procedures and commercial disputes within the state.

It is worth noting that in other parallel patent infringement lawsuits filed by Rare Breed and ABC IP against different defendants, the company has retained counsel from firms such as Fish & Richardson and Wood Herron & Evans LLP, indicating a broad and well-funded national litigation strategy. However, for the specific case against Nicholas Norton and Peak Tactical, the core team appears to be centered around the Schmutter/Flaster Greenberg group.

Defendant representatives

Counsel for Defendants-Appellees Nicholas Norton and Peak Tactical LLC

Nicholas Norton and his company, Peak Tactical LLC, have retained a legal team that combines intellectual property specialization with experience in the firearms industry. The following attorneys appeared on behalf of the defendants in the District of Wyoming proceedings and are expected to represent them in the Federal Circuit appeal.

Name	Role	Firm	Location	Noteworthy Experience
Christopher M. Schwegler	Lead Counsel	Schwegler Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.	Minneapolis, MN	Schwegler is an intellectual property attorney and registered patent agent with a focus on strategic counseling and litigation, particularly in the mechanical and electrical arts.
Timothy C. Matson	Of Counsel	Schwegler Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.	Minneapolis, MN	Matson is a principal at his firm and a seasoned patent litigator with experience in federal courts, the ITC, and PTAB proceedings.
David L. Ayers	Local Counsel	Fabian VanCott	Salt Lake City, UT	Ayers serves as local counsel, handling complex commercial and IP litigation matters in the Rocky Mountain region.

Counsel Discussion:

The defense team is led by attorneys from Schwegler Lundberg & Woessner, a well-known intellectual property boutique firm based in Minneapolis. Christopher Schwegler, who signed key filings in the district court, brings a background as both a patent prosecutor and a litigator. His technical focus aligns with the mechanical nature of the firearm trigger technology at the heart of the case. He is supported by Timothy Matson, a more senior litigator at the firm with a track record in high-stakes patent disputes.

While based in Minneapolis, the Schwegler firm has taken the lead role in substantive legal arguments, including authoring the successful opposition to the plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion and drafting the detailed Answer and Counterclaims. David L. Ayers of Fabian VanCott's Salt Lake City office is acting as local counsel, satisfying the court's admission requirements and providing guidance on local practice. Fabian VanCott is a prominent firm in the Intermountain West with a substantial commercial litigation practice.

This legal team composition suggests a strategy focused squarely on the patent issues of non-infringement and invalidity, leveraging the IP-specific expertise of the Schwegler firm. Their aggressive counterclaims, which assert Peak Tactical's own patent against Rare Breed and allege inequitable conduct, indicate a comprehensive and multi-pronged defense strategy. As of the current date, these attorneys are anticipated to be formally entered as counsel of record for the appellees in Federal Circuit Case No. 26-1527.