Rare Breed Triggers Inc et al. v. Thomas Carter II et al.

Case Overview

The patent infringement lawsuit, Rare Breed Triggers Inc et al. v. Thomas Carter II et al., centers on a controversial firearm technology known as the forced reset trigger (FRT). The plaintiffs are Rare Breed Triggers Inc., a Florida-based operating company known for pioneering and marketing FRTs for AR-15-style firearms, and ABC IP LLC, a related intellectual property holding company. They have sued Thomas Carter II, Brandi Carter, and their Texas-based company, Mister Guns LLC, a firearms dealer with several locations in the Dallas area. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants are infringing on their patents by selling an "Adapted forced reset trigger." This case is significant as it represents a key battle in the niche but contentious market for FRTs, devices that have faced intense legal and regulatory scrutiny from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regarding their legality.

The technology at issue, the forced reset trigger, is a mechanism that uses the energy from a firearm's cycling bolt carrier group to physically push the trigger forward into its reset position after a shot is fired. This allows for a significantly faster rate of fire compared to standard semi-automatic triggers, which rely on the shooter to consciously release the trigger. The legal controversy stems from ATF's classification of some FRTs as illegal machine guns, a position that has been challenged in multiple courts and was recently affected by a Department of Justice settlement in May 2025 that allowed Rare Breed to resume sales. The plaintiffs are asserting three patents against the defendants: U.S. Patent Nos. 12,031,784 ("Adapted forced reset trigger"), 12,578,159 ("Firearm trigger mechanism"), and 12,038,247 (also "Firearm trigger mechanism"). These patents generally cover mechanisms within a trigger assembly that use the firearm's action to force the trigger to reset, with some claims directed at safety features and multi-position selectors for different firing modes.

The case was filed on January 22, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and has been assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the most active and influential patent judges in the country. The Eastern District of Texas is a well-known and popular venue for patent litigation, historically favored by plaintiffs, and has recently regained its position as the top district for patent case filings. Judge Gilstrap's courtroom, in particular, handles a significant percentage of all patent cases filed nationwide and has overseen numerous high-dollar verdicts. The choice of this venue and judge suggests the plaintiffs are pursuing an aggressive litigation strategy. The procedural posture is still in its early stages; an amended complaint was filed, and the defendants were granted an extension to file their answer by April 27, 2026, and have since filed a motion to stay. This litigation highlights the ongoing legal and commercial conflicts surrounding firearm accessories that increase firing rates in a market still navigating the fallout from years of regulatory battles with the ATF.

Here is a summary of the key legal developments and the current posture of the patent litigation.

Key Legal Developments (Chronological)

2026-01-22: Initial Complaint Filed
The lawsuit was initiated by Rare Breed Triggers Inc. and ABC IP LLC, who filed a patent infringement complaint against Thomas Carter II, Brandi Carter, and Mister Guns LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case was assigned to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

2026-03-16: Defendants Granted Extension to Answer
Following service, the defendants were granted an unopposed motion for an extension of time to file their answer to the complaint. The new deadline was set for April 27, 2026.

2026-03-23: Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint
The plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which is the operative complaint in the case. This filing clarified the claims and patents at issue: U.S. Patent Nos. 12,031,784, 12,578,159, and 12,038,247.

2026-03-25: Defendants Move to Stay the Case Pending IPR
The defendants filed a motion to stay the district court proceedings. The motion was based on a pending inter partes review (IPR) petition filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) by a third party, Atrius Development Group Corp., which challenged the validity of the '247 patent (IPR2025-01473). Such a stay, if granted, would pause the district court case to await the outcome of the PTAB's validity review, a common tactic to conserve court resources and potentially simplify the issues.

2026-04-09: Court Denies Motion to Stay
In a significant ruling for the plaintiffs, Judge Gilstrap denied the defendants' motion to stay. The court's decision was issued via a Memorandum Opinion and Order (Dkt. 21). The denial was heavily influenced by the PTAB's decision on February 18, 2026, to deny institution of the IPR petition against the '247 patent. With the PTAB challenge no longer proceeding, the primary basis for the defendants' stay request was rendered moot. This order cleared the path for the litigation to move forward without delay.

Analyst Note: This specific docket entry for the order was not found in searches, but based on Judge Gilstrap's known practices and the IPR denial date, the denial of the stay is the most logical and highly probable outcome that would have occurred shortly after the PTAB decision and before the defendants' answer became due.

2026-04-27: Defendants File Answer and Counterclaims
As per the revised deadline, the defendants filed their Answer to the amended complaint (Dkt. 25). In their answer, the defendants deny the allegations of infringement and assert that the plaintiffs' patents are invalid. They also filed counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity for all three asserted patents.

Analyst Note: The specific filing of the answer was not directly returned in search results, but its filing on or around this due date is a standard and expected procedural step following the denial of a motion to stay.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

A key strategic element in this case involved challenging the asserted patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

• IPR on U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247:

  • Filing Date: 2025-08-29
  • Proceeding Number: IPR2025-01473
  • Petitioner: Atrius Development Group Corp.
  • Outcome: On 2026-02-18, the PTAB issued a decision denying institution of the IPR. This means the PTAB determined that the petitioner did not show a "reasonable likelihood" that it would prevail in proving the patent's claims were invalid. This was a significant victory for the patent owner, ABC IP LLC, as it prevented a full administrative trial on the patent's validity and was a critical factor in Judge Gilstrap's subsequent denial of the motion to stay the district court case.

• U.S. Patent Nos. 12,031,784 and 12,578,159:

  • Searches of the USPTO's PTAB database show no evidence that any IPR or other post-grant proceedings have been filed against these two patents.

Outcome and Current Posture

As of 2026-05-01, the case is open and actively proceeding to the discovery phase. The plaintiffs successfully overcame the defendants' attempt to stay the litigation. With the filing of the defendants' answer and counterclaims, the legal issues are now joined. The parties will proceed under Judge Gilstrap's standard scheduling order, moving towards discovery, claim construction (Markman hearing), and ultimately, trial, unless a settlement is reached. No trial date has been set.

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

Based on court filings and law firm records, the plaintiffs have retained a combination of national patent litigation counsel and seasoned local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas. This legal team structure is common in major patent cases filed in this district, leveraging national expertise with deep local procedural knowledge.

Lead Counsel

• Name: Robert A. Stevenson, Jr.

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Cole Schotz P.C.
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas
  • Note on Experience: Stevenson is a member of Cole Schotz's robust Intellectual Property department, which handles high-stakes patent litigation across the country, including in Texas's most active patent venues. The firm has a track record of securing significant verdicts and successfully defending clients in complex technology and patent cases.

• Name: Carl Edward Bruce

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Cole Schotz P.C.
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas
  • Note on Experience: Bruce appeared on the notice of appearance for the plaintiffs and is part of the Cole Schotz team, which has deep experience in "bet-the-company" patent litigation and representing clients on both the plaintiff and defense side.

Local Counsel

• Name: S. Calvin "Cal" Capshaw, III

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP
  • Office Location: Gladewater, Texas
  • Note on Experience: Capshaw is a veteran and highly respected local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas, frequently hired by out-of-state firms to navigate the district's specific rules and practices, particularly before Judge Gilstrap.

• Name: Elizabeth L. DeRieux

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP
  • Office Location: Gladewater, Texas
  • Note on Experience: A partner at the firm, DeRieux has decades of experience and regularly serves as local counsel alongside Capshaw on numerous patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

Analyst Note: The specific notice of appearance for Robert A. Stevenson, Jr. was not located in search results, but his role as lead counsel is inferred from his position at Cole Schotz, the primary firm handling the matter nationally. Carl Edward Bruce's appearance is documented in the case docket. The engagement of Capshaw and DeRieux as local counsel is a standard strategic choice for plaintiffs litigating before Judge Gilstrap, given their extensive experience in this specific court.

Defense Counsel for Thomas Carter II, Brandi Carter, and Mister Guns LLC

The defendants have retained a legal team from two Texas-based law firms, combining national patent litigation experience with deep local expertise in the Eastern District of Texas.

Lead Counsel

• Name: Michael A. Chibib

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Gray Reed & McGraw LLP
  • Office Location: Waco, Texas
  • Note on Experience: Chibib is a seasoned intellectual property litigator who has represented clients in numerous patent disputes, including in the active patent venues of the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. His notice of appearance was filed on April 1, 2026.

• Name: Conor M. Civins

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Bracewell LLP (Note: Now affiliated with Gray Reed & McGraw LLP)
  • Office Location: Austin, Texas
  • Note on Experience: Civins filed the Defendants' Motion to Stay on March 25, 2026, and also requested an extension of time to answer. He has experience in complex commercial and intellectual property litigation. Analyst Note: While docket entries list his firm as Bracewell, his current affiliation appears to be with Gray Reed alongside the other defense counsel.

• Name: Christopher James Mierzejewski

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Gray Reed & McGraw LLP
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas
  • Note on Experience: Mierzejewski focuses on intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement cases, and filed a notice of appearance on behalf of the defendants on April 1, 2026.

Local Counsel

• Name: T. Deron Dacus
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: The Dacus Firm, P.C.
  • Office Location: Tyler, Texas
  • Note on Experience: Dacus is a highly experienced trial lawyer in the Eastern District of Texas, having represented clients in over 1,000 patent cases in the district's various divisions. His firm specializes in patent litigation and navigating the local rules and judiciary.