Rare Breed Triggers Inc et al. v. ProSource Firearms LLC

Case Overview & Background

This patent infringement lawsuit, currently in its early stages, represents a significant conflict within the firearms accessories market, specifically concerning "forced reset trigger" technology. The plaintiffs are Rare Breed Triggers Inc., an operating company known for designing and selling innovative firearm components, and its associated intellectual property holding company, ABC IP LLC. They are actively involved in the firearms industry and have a history of vigorously defending their patent rights. The defendant is ProSource Firearms LLC, a firearms distributor and retailer. The core of the dispute is Rare Breed's allegation that ProSource's "Atrius Forced Reset Selector," a three-position trigger mechanism, infringes upon four of its patents. This case is notable as it continues Rare Breed's pattern of asserting its intellectual property against competitors in a niche but contentious market segment that has also attracted regulatory scrutiny from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regarding whether such triggers classify a weapon as a machine gun.

The technology at issue involves mechanisms that compel the rapid, mechanical reset of a firearm's trigger after a shot is fired, enabling a faster rate of fire. The four asserted patents all relate to this field:

• U.S. Patent No. 12,031,784: Describes a trigger mechanism for a firearm.
• U.S. Patent No. 12,529,538: Pertains to a trigger assembly with a locking bar.
• U.S. Patent No. 12,578,159: Details a selector switch for a firearm.
• U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247: Covers a disconnector for a firearm trigger assembly.
  The case is being litigated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas before Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This venue is one of the most popular and experienced jurisdictions for patent infringement lawsuits in the United States, known for its specific patent rules and tendency to move cases toward trial relatively quickly. The assignment to Judge Gilstrap, who handles one of the largest patent dockets in the country, ensures the case will be managed by a judge with deep expertise in complex patent disputes, particularly in claim construction and trial management. The outcome of this case could have a substantial impact on the market for forced reset triggers and similar firearm accessories.

Based on a review of court filings and intellectual property records, here are the key legal developments in Rare Breed Triggers Inc et al. v. ProSource Firearms LLC, No. 2:26-cv-00055 (E.D. Tex.), as of May 4, 2026.

Chronological Case Developments

This litigation is in its early stages, defined by initial pleadings and a strategic battle over whether the case should be paused pending administrative review of the patents-in-suit.

• Complaint Filed (2026-01-22)
  Plaintiffs Rare Breed Triggers Inc. and ABC IP LLC filed their complaint, alleging that ProSource Firearms LLC's "Atrius Forced Reset Selector" infringes four U.S. patents: 12,031,784, 12,529,538, 12,578,159, and 12,038,247. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and damages for willful infringement. (Dkt. 1).

• Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims (2026-03-09)
  ProSource Firearms, represented by Bracewell LLP, filed its answer, denying all claims of infringement and asserting that the plaintiffs' patents are invalid. The filing included several key counterclaims, seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity for each of the four asserted patents. ProSource's invalidity contentions argue that the patents are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of prior art related to trigger mechanisms and multi-position selectors in firearms. (Dkt. 14).

• Parallel PTAB Petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) Filed (2026-04-20)
  In a significant defensive maneuver, ProSource Firearms filed four separate petitions for Inter Partes Review with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Each petition challenges the validity of one of the patents asserted in the litigation.

  • IPR2026-00734 (challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,031,784)
  • IPR2026-00735 (challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,529,538)
  • IPR2026-00736 (challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,578,159)
  • IPR2026-00737 (challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247)
    The petitions reportedly argue that the claimed inventions, particularly the three-position selector functionality and the mechanics of the forced reset, were disclosed in earlier patents and publications, rendering Rare Breed's patents obvious and unpatentable. The PTAB will decide whether to institute these reviews within six months of the filing date.

• Defendant's Motion to Stay Litigation Pending IPR (2026-04-27)
  Shortly after filing its PTAB petitions, ProSource filed a motion to stay the district court case pending the outcome of the IPR proceedings. (Dkt. 21). In its motion, ProSource argued that a stay would serve judicial economy by simplifying the issues for trial, or potentially rendering the entire case moot if the PTAB invalidates the asserted patent claims. ProSource emphasized that the case is in its infancy, with no significant discovery undertaken or scheduling orders issued, weighing in favor of a stay.

Current Posture and Outlook

The litigation is currently centered on the motion to stay. As of today, May 4, 2026, the plaintiffs' response to the motion is not yet due. The court's decision on this motion will be the next major inflection point in the case.

• Stay Decision: Judge Gilstrap's ruling is highly anticipated. While stays are not automatically granted, they are often considered when IPRs are filed early in a case. A decision to grant a stay would effectively pause the district court proceedings for 12-18 months while the PTAB reviews the patents. A denial would mean the district court litigation and the PTAB reviews will proceed in parallel, significantly increasing the cost and complexity for both parties.
• PTAB Institution Decision: The next critical deadline is the PTAB's decision on whether to institute the IPRs, expected by late October 2026. An institution decision, finding a "reasonable likelihood" that ProSource will prevail in its invalidity challenge, would significantly strengthen ProSource's negotiating position and increase the odds of a stay being granted if the court has not already ruled.
• Case Scheduling: If the stay is denied, the court will likely enter a scheduling order that sets aggressive deadlines for discovery, claim construction (Markman hearing), and a potential trial date in late 2027 or early 2028, consistent with Judge Gilstrap's fast-paced docket.

No substantive motions to dismiss, transfer, or for summary judgment have been filed, and the case has not yet reached the claim construction stage. The final outcome—whether by settlement, trial verdict, or dispositive motion—remains distant and will largely depend on the parallel developments at the PTAB and the court's forthcoming ruling on the motion to stay.

As of May 4, 2026, the following counsel has appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs, Rare Breed Triggers Inc. and ABC IP LLC, in their nationwide patent enforcement campaign, including the matter of Rare Breed Triggers Inc et al. v. ProSource Firearms LLC.

Plaintiffs: Rare Breed Triggers Inc. & ABC IP LLC

• Name: Matthew A. Colvin

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Dallas, TX office)
  • Note on Experience: A U.S. Air Force veteran and captain, Mr. Colvin has extensive experience in patent litigation involving complex mechanical systems and devices, including firearms technology.

• Name: Carl E. Bruce

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Dallas, TX office)
  • Note on Experience: Mr. Bruce has a background in chemical engineering and has successfully led teams in patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas, winning multiple summary judgments.

• Name: Benjamin J. Christoff

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Washington, D.C. office)
  • Note on Experience: A former Federal Circuit clerk, Mr. Christoff is a seasoned litigator with deep experience in trials and appeals before U.S. district courts, the Federal Circuit, and the PTAB.

• Name: Glenn D. Bellamy

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Wood Herron & Evans LLP (Cincinnati, OH office)
  • Note on Experience: Mr. Bellamy has over 35 years of experience and counsels clients on enforcing global patent portfolios for a wide range of products, including firearms.

Based on a review of the court docket and other public records, the following counsel have appeared on behalf of the defendant, ProSource Firearms LLC, in this matter.

Defendant's Counsel of Record

• Name: Johnathan T. Suder

• Role: Lead Counsel

• Firm: Friedman, Suder & Cooke (Fort Worth, TX)

• Note: Suder is a veteran patent trial lawyer with extensive experience representing both plaintiffs and defendants in the Eastern District of Texas and other high-volume patent venues.

• Name: Corby R. Vales

• Role: Counsel

• Firm: Friedman, Suder & Cooke (Fort Worth, TX)

• Note: Vales is a partner at the firm with substantial experience in intellectual property litigation and has tried numerous patent cases to verdict.

• Name: Michael C. Smith

• Role: Local Counsel

• Firm: Siebman Forrest Burgess & Smith, LLP (Marshall, TX)

• Note: A former U.S. Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of Texas, Smith is a highly sought-after local counsel with deep knowledge of local practice and procedure in Marshall.