PTAB challenges

The web search did not find any PTAB proceedings (IPR, PGR, CBM) directly related to US10514223. The search results discuss district court litigation, specifically an infringement lawsuit filed by ABC IP, LLC (Rare Breed Triggers' licensing entity) against Peak Tactical, LLC (doing business as Partisan Triggers) in early 2026. This lawsuit involves US10514223 and several other patents related to forced reset trigger technology.

The results highlight a recent hearing on February 4, 2026, where the judge declined to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction against Peak Tactical, allowing them to continue manufacturing and selling their "Partisan Disruptor" trigger. This ruling was issued on February 13, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming.

There is also mention of a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) No. 3176, renamed "In re: Rare Breed Triggers Patent Litigation," which centralizes numerous patent infringement actions involving forced reset triggers in the Eastern District of Texas. This MDL involves Rare Breed Triggers, Inc., and ABC IP, LLC as plaintiffs.

The search results explicitly talk about challenges to patent validity based on prior art in these district court cases, but they do not indicate that any Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings have been filed or concluded at the PTAB for US10514223.

Therefore, the initial instruction from the prompt holds true: the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings, and my web search did not surface any either.

Given this, I should state that there is no PTAB activity on file and adjust the output structure accordingly.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for US Patent 10,514,223 with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) as of May 31, 2026. The patent has not been subjected to PTAB review, meaning its claims have not been challenged or sustained through these administrative processes.

Strategic summary

As of the current date, no claims of US Patent 10,514,223 have been canceled, sustained, or otherwise tested through AIA trial proceedings at the PTAB. This means all claims (1-7) of the patent remain untested by this specific administrative challenge mechanism.

The absence of PTAB activity indicates that potential prior-art grounds and other validity challenges that could be raised in an IPR, PGR, or CBM remain fully available for a defendant to pursue if they choose to initiate such a proceeding. There is no estoppel landscape stemming from PTAB trials concerning this patent.

While there is no PTAB activity, the patent is extensively involved in district court litigation, as noted in the "Litigation summary" section. ABC IP, LLC (the current assignee) and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc. are actively enforcing this patent, along with others, against various defendants accused of infringing forced reset trigger technology. For example, US10514223 is asserted in a patent infringement lawsuit against Peak Tactical, LLC (Partisan Triggers) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming (and potentially centralized in MDL No. 3176). Defendants in these district court cases are reportedly challenging the validity of the asserted patents, including US10514223, based on prior art.

Recommended next steps

• For a defendant facing assertion of this patent: The absence of PTAB proceedings means that challenging the validity of US10514223 at the PTAB (via IPR, PGR, or CBM, if applicable) remains a viable option. A thorough prior art search would be a critical first step to identify strong grounds for such a challenge.
• For the patent owner (ABC IP, LLC): The patent remains entirely untested at the PTAB. Continued enforcement in district courts without corresponding PTAB proceedings means that challenges to validity may be litigated in the district courts, which can be a more costly and lengthy process. The ongoing district court litigation, particularly the denial of the preliminary injunction in the Peak Tactical case, suggests that the validity of the patents, including US10514223, is being actively disputed and may be subject to future court rulings.## Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for US Patent 10,514,223 with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) as of May 31, 2026. The patent has not been subjected to PTAB review, meaning its claims have not been challenged or sustained through these administrative processes. This means all claims (1-7) remain untested by these specific administrative challenge mechanisms.

Strategic summary

As of the current date, no claims of US Patent 10,514,223 have been canceled, sustained, or otherwise tested through AIA trial proceedings at the PTAB. This means all claims of the patent, specifically claims 1-7, remain fully intact and untested by this specific administrative challenge mechanism.

The absence of PTAB activity indicates that potential prior-art grounds and other validity challenges that could be raised in an IPR, PGR, or CBM remain fully available for a defendant to pursue if they choose to initiate such a proceeding. There is no estoppel landscape stemming from PTAB trials concerning this patent.

While there is no PTAB activity, US Patent 10,514,223 is extensively involved in district court litigation. ABC IP, LLC (the current assignee) and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc. are actively enforcing this patent, along with others, against various defendants accused of infringing forced reset trigger technology. For example, US10514223 is one of four patents asserted in a patent infringement lawsuit by Rare Breed Triggers and ABC IP, LLC against Peak Tactical, LLC (doing business as Partisan Triggers) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming. In that case, on February 13, 2026, a federal judge denied a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Peak Tactical, allowing them to continue manufacturing and selling their "Partisan Disruptor" trigger. The ongoing legal battles are being centralized in Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) No. 3176, renamed "In re: Rare Breed Triggers Patent Litigation," in the Eastern District of Texas. Defendants in these district court cases are reportedly challenging the validity of the asserted patents, including US10514223, based on prior art and other grounds.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant facing assertion of this patent: Given the complete absence of PTAB proceedings, challenging the validity of US10514223 at the PTAB (via IPR, PGR, or CBM, if applicable) remains a viable and potentially attractive option. A thorough prior art search would be essential to identify strong grounds for such a challenge. The fact that defendants in ongoing district court cases are already raising validity challenges based on prior art suggests that the patent's claims are perceived as vulnerable.
• If you are the patent owner (ABC IP, LLC): The patent remains entirely untested at the PTAB. Continued enforcement in district courts without corresponding PTAB proceedings means that validity challenges may be litigated in the district courts, which can be a more costly and lengthy process. The denial of the preliminary injunction in the Peak Tactical case could be interpreted as a signal of potential challenges to the underlying patents' validity or the strength of the infringement arguments.