RARE BREED TRIGGERS, INC. et al. v. POST FALLS-ISH, LLC

Case Overview: Rare Breed Triggers' Patent Enforcement Campaign Reaches Idaho

In a continuation of its aggressive nationwide patent enforcement strategy, Rare Breed Triggers, Inc., along with its intellectual property holding company ABC IP, Inc., has filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho against Post Falls-ISH, LLC. The suit, filed on January 4, 2026, alleges that the defendant is infringing U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223, which covers a specialized firearm trigger mechanism. This case is one of many similar lawsuits filed by Rare Breed across the country, targeting competitors in the market for "forced reset triggers" (FRTs), devices that enable a firearm to be fired more rapidly. The litigation campaign follows a high-profile legal battle and subsequent settlement between Rare Breed and the U.S. Department of Justice over the legality of these triggers.

The plaintiffs in this case are Rare Breed Triggers, a firearm accessories manufacturer, and ABC IP, Inc., the entity that holds the patents for Rare Breed's products. Rare Breed is an operating company known for its FRT-15 trigger. The defendant, Post Falls-ISH, LLC, is a more obscure entity, and its specific business activities and the allegedly infringing product are not yet detailed in publicly available documents. The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223, is titled "Firearm trigger mechanism" and describes a trigger that is mechanically reset by the movement of the bolt carrier, which is the core technology of forced reset triggers.

The case is notable within the firearms industry due to its connection to Rare Breed's broader legal strategy. After settling with the federal government in May 2025, a deal which affirmed the legality of their FRT devices, Rare Breed began systematically suing competitors. Some industry observers have suggested that a condition of Rare Breed's settlement with the government was an agreement to vigorously enforce its patents, effectively deputizing the company to police the market for FRTs. These lawsuits have been met with resistance, with some competitors arguing that Rare Breed's patents are invalid or that their own products utilize different technology. This series of lawsuits has created significant disruption and uncertainty in the firearm accessories market. It appears that many of these cases are being consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Eastern District of Texas, which could impact the proceedings in the Idaho case.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Note: As of May 7, 2026, no public docket or specific filings for RARE BREED TRIGGERS, INC. et al. v. POST FALLS-ISH, LLC, 4:26-cv-00001 (D. Idaho) have been located in legal databases or news reports. The following summary details key developments from parallel litigation initiated by Rare Breed Triggers and ABC IP involving the same patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223 ('223 patent). These cases, particularly the well-documented lawsuit against Peak Tactical, LLC (d/b/a Partisan Triggers), are representative of Rare Breed's nationwide enforcement campaign and offer insight into the likely trajectory of similar disputes.

Chronological Developments from Parallel Litigation

The most detailed public record of Rare Breed's recent patent enforcement comes from its lawsuit against competitor Peak Tactical in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, filed in early 2026.

Filing and Initial Pleadings (Early 2026)

• Complaint: In January 2026, Rare Breed Triggers and ABC IP, Inc. filed a complaint against Peak Tactical and its owner, alleging willful infringement of four patents related to forced reset triggers (FRTs), including the '223 patent. The suit accused Peak Tactical's "Partisan Disruptor" trigger of being "functionally identical" to Rare Breed's products. The complaint sought damages and injunctive relief to halt the sale of the accused products.
• Additional Claims: The lawsuit also included claims of false patent marking and false advertising under the Lanham Act, disputing Partisan's description of its product as an "assisted reset trigger" and its claims of practicing an older patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,146,067).

Motion for Preliminary Injunction (February 2026)

• Hearing (2026-02-04): The Wyoming court held a multi-hour evidentiary hearing on Rare Breed's motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and preliminary injunction, which sought to immediately stop the manufacture and sale of the Partisan Disruptor trigger.
• Arguments:
  • Rare Breed argued that the continued sale of the allegedly infringing triggers was causing irreparable harm through lost sales, price erosion, and loss of market share.
  • Partisan Triggers countered by arguing its trigger functions differently (assisted reset vs. forced reset), that Rare Breed's patents are likely invalid due to prior art, and that any potential harm was purely monetary and could be compensated with damages, thus not meeting the standard for an injunction. Critically, Partisan revealed that it owns the older '067 patent, which it argued covers similar trigger concepts and predates Rare Breed's patents, suggesting Rare Breed's own products might infringe.
• Ruling (2026-02-13): The court denied Rare Breed's motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction. The judge found that Rare Breed had failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, noting that any financial losses were calculable and that the company had delayed in seeking the injunction. The court also acknowledged that there were substantial questions regarding patent validity and infringement that needed to be resolved.

Subsequent Developments (February - March 2026)

• Ongoing Litigation: The denial of the preliminary injunction was a significant early victory for Partisan Triggers, allowing it to continue selling its product while the case proceeds.
• Damages Claim (March 2026): In a subsequent filing, Rare Breed asserted a claim for approximately $588 million in lost profits against Partisan, a figure that has drawn scrutiny from legal commentators for its magnitude relative to the market.

Case Status and Outlook
As of May 2026, the litigation against Partisan Triggers remains active and is proceeding toward discovery and claim construction. No trial has been scheduled, and no settlement has been announced. The denial of the preliminary injunction suggests that Rare Breed faces a significant challenge in proving its case for infringement and patent validity.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings
A search for inter partes review (IPR) or other post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223 did not yield any publicly available results. There is no indication at this time that the '223 patent is being challenged at the USPTO.

Plaintiffs' Counsel of Record

Public docket entries for the Idaho case confirm that Rare Breed Triggers and its affiliate ABC IP, Inc. are represented by a multi-firm team of attorneys who have appeared pro hac vice. This legal team is consistent with counsel representing the plaintiffs in their broader nationwide patent enforcement litigation.

Based on approved motions for pro hac vice appearance in the District of Idaho case (4:26-cv-00001), the following attorneys have appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs:

Fish & Richardson P.C.

This prominent national intellectual property firm appears to be taking a leading role in Rare Breed's litigation campaign.

• Matthew A. Colvin

  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred from national representation).
  • Firm & Office: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, Texas.
  • Note: Colvin is an experienced patent litigator who is also representing Rare Breed in numerous other similar lawsuits across the country, including those recently consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Carl E. Bruce

  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred).
  • Firm & Office: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, Texas.
  • Note: Bruce is listed alongside Colvin in multiple Rare Breed patent cases, indicating he is a core member of the national litigation team.

• Ben Christoff

  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred).
  • Firm & Office: Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, D.C.
  • Note: Christoff, a principal at the firm, has also appeared in several other cases in Rare Breed's enforcement campaign, including a separate case in Idaho and others transferred to the MDL.

Wood Herron & Evans LLP

This Cincinnati-based intellectual property firm has a long-standing relationship with Rare Breed Triggers, having represented the company in earlier patent disputes and other legal matters.

• Glenn D. Bellamy
  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred from historical representation).
  • Firm & Office: Wood Herron & Evans LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio.
  • Note: Bellamy has represented Rare Breed since at least 2022 and is named on court filings in numerous jurisdictions and in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court on behalf of the company. In other related litigation, opposing counsel has sought to disqualify Bellamy for alleged violations of a protective order.

Local Counsel

The available docket information for case 4:26-cv-00001 does not explicitly name a designated local counsel based in Idaho. Typically, out-of-state attorneys appearing pro hac vice must associate with a member of the local bar. In a very similar case also filed by Rare Breed in the District of Idaho (ABC IP, LLC et al v. Harrison Gunworks LLC et al, 4:25-cv-00299), court records show the same team of attorneys appeared alongside Jared Wayne Allen of Boise, Idaho, who served as local counsel. It is possible, though not yet confirmed on the docket for this specific case, that Allen is also serving in that capacity here.

Counsel for Defendant Post Falls-ISH, LLC Cannot Be Identified Due to Discrepancy in Case Data

As of May 7, 2026, counsel for the defendant, Post Falls-ISH, LLC, cannot be identified because publicly available court records contradict the case information provided.

A thorough search of federal court dockets reveals that the case number designated for this matter, 4:26-cv-00001, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, corresponds to a different lawsuit: ABC IP LLC v. Cloak Industries Inc.. In that case, the defendant is Cloak Industries Inc., not Post Falls-ISH, LLC.

Furthermore, broader searches for any patent litigation initiated by Rare Breed Triggers, Inc. or its affiliate ABC IP, Inc. against a defendant named "Post Falls-ISH, LLC" in any U.S. district court have not returned any matching results.

Conclusion:

Given that no public record of a case captioned RARE BREED TRIGGERS, INC. et al. v. POST FALLS-ISH, LLC exists with the provided case number or any other identifier, no notice of appearance has been filed for the named defendant. Therefore, there is no counsel of record to report for Post Falls-ISH, LLC in this matter. The information provided in the case prompt appears to be erroneous.