US 7398723

Summary of U.S. Patent 7,398,723

Title: Trigger forward displacement system and method

Assignee: ABC IP LLC

Inventor: Brian A. Blakley

Filing Date: April 25, 2003

Issue Date: July 15, 2008

Abstract:
A semi-automatic firearm has forward and rearward ends. A receiver has a safety selector aperture, a barrel, a reciprocating loading mechanism and a magazine. A trigger has finger and inner portions. The inner portion has a seat with a groove. A disconnector has a hammer hook coupled to the trigger. A trigger mounting pin couples the trigger to the firearm. A trigger disconnector spring couples the trigger and the disconnector. A hammer having an upper striking portion with a disconnector hook receptacle. A hammer mounting pin couples the hammer to the firearm. A hammer spring is coupled to the hammer and hammer mounting pin. A cam body subassembly comprises a cam body housing, a cam and a cam mounting pin. The cam body subassembly is coupled to the firearm. A safety selector is coupled to the firearm. A trigger extender is mated with the upward trigger groove.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

This patent contains one independent claim.

Claim 1: This claim describes a method for making a semi-automatic firearm shoot faster. The method involves the shooter first pressing the trigger to fire the gun. This action starts a chain reaction where a reciprocating part inside the firearm moves. This moving part interacts with a cam, which in a single rotating motion, simultaneously performs two actions: it pushes the trigger forward back to the "ready to fire" position and holds it there. The trigger is held in this forward position until the internal mechanism of the firearm is almost fully closed and ready to fire again.

Litigation Status:

A search of the CAFC 2026 dockets for litigation involving US Patent 7,398,723 did not yield any specific results. However, information from Google Patents indicates that this patent family has been involved in litigation, with cases filed in various U.S. District Courts. I am unable to provide further details on the current status or specifics of these cases based on the available information.

Known Litigation Involving US Patent 7,398,723

As of May 5, 2026, U.S. Patent 7,398,723, assigned to ABC IP, LLC, has been asserted in multiple lawsuits. The patent, which covers a "trigger forward displacement system and method," is central to a series of legal disputes primarily involving manufacturers of firearm accessories.

Below is a summary of the known litigation:

These cases highlight the ongoing legal activity surrounding the enforcement of this patent within the firearms industry. The outcomes of the more recent cases filed in 2025 are not yet publicly available.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for U.S. Patent 7,398,723, according to both the USPTO Open Data Portal API and conducted web searches. This means the patent has not been subjected to IPR, PGR, or CBM challenges, and all claims (Claim 1) remain untested by the PTAB. This gives a defendant less clarity regarding the patent's robustness against prior art challenges in an administrative setting, but also means no claims have been invalidated or narrowed through PTAB trials.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of U.S. Patent 7,398,723 remain untested and therefore sustained, as no PTAB proceedings have been found. The patent contains a single independent claim (Claim 1), which has not been challenged in an AIA trial. Consequently, there is no estoppel landscape to consider under § 315(e)(2), as no grounds were raised or could have been raised in an IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence of PTAB activity suggests that the patent owner has not yet faced a direct challenge to the patentability of the claims before the Board.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for U.S. Patent 7,398,723, a defendant facing assertion of this patent would need to initiate a new AIA trial if they wish to challenge its validity before the PTAB. The absence of prior PTAB challenges means there is no existing record of the patent owner defending the claims against prior art in an IPR/PGR/CBM context.

Inventors

The sole named inventor for U.S. Patent 7,398,723 is Brian A. Blakley. At the time of filing on April 25, 2003, Brian A. Blakley was listed as an individual, and no employer was specified. The patent was originally assigned to the individual inventor.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent is Brian A. Blakley, an individual. There is no information available in the patent text or public records to determine if Brian A. Blakley, as an individual, shipped a product embodying the claims or his primary line of business. The current assignee of record is ABC IP, LLC.

Assignment timeline

• 2022-05-22 (executed) / recorded 2022-05-26 — Reel 060028/0185
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: BLAKLEY, BRIAN A.
  • Assignee: ABC IP, LLC
  • Correspondent: ALVIN S. BLAKLEY, P.C., 468 S. MAIN ST., SUITE 304, POCATELLO, ID 83204.
  • Context: transfer-to-asserter, as ABC IP, LLC subsequently filed infringement lawsuits involving this patent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7398723
    2003 : Filed by Brian A. Blakley
    2008 : Issued to Brian A. Blakley
    2022 : Assigned to ABC IP LLC
    2025 : First assertion by ABC IP LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The patent was transferred from an individual inventor, Brian A. Blakley, to ABC IP, LLC on 2022-05-22 (Reel 060028/0185). The assignee's name, "ABC IP, LLC," suggests a focus on intellectual property licensing or assertion rather than product manufacturing.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. ABC IP, LLC is listed as the plaintiff in multiple infringement lawsuits related to this patent, filed in 2025. This activity identifies ABC IP, LLC as an active patent asserter.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present. Only one assignment record is present in this patent's chain, so no recurrence across the chain can be observed. The correspondent, ALVIN S. BLAKLEY, P.C., is not flagged as a repeat player across other tracked patents in this context.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Only one assignment is recorded for this patent, therefore, no multiple consecutive transfers are observed.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The assignment to ABC IP, LLC was executed on 2022-05-22 and recorded on 2022-05-26 (Reel 060028/0185). The first recorded infringement suits where ABC IP, LLC is the plaintiff occurred in 2025, which is more than six months after the assignment date.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no indication in the provided patent text or assignment records of the original assignee or any subsequent assignor filing for bankruptcy.

7. Privateering — Unclear. The original assignor was an individual, not an operating company, so there is no direct evidence of an operating company transferring the patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. ABC IP, LLC is actively asserting the patent, not acquiring it for defensive purposes.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is based on the clear presence of a shell-entity transfer from the individual inventor to ABC IP, LLC (Reel 060028/0185, executed 2022-05-22) and the fact that ABC IP, LLC has been identified as a plaintiff actively asserting this patent in multiple infringement lawsuits starting in 2025. These two strong signals indicate a high confidence level that ABC IP, LLC operates as a non-practicing entity.

USPTO Assignment Center search for US7398723: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/patent/index.html?qs=7398723

Analysis of Prior Art for U.S. Patent 7,398,723

This analysis examines the prior art cited by the examiner during the prosecution of U.S. Patent 7,398,723 ("the '723 patent"). The '723 patent has a single independent claim, which is a method claim. For a prior art reference to anticipate this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, it must disclose, either expressly or inherently, each and every element of the claimed method in a single document.

The independent claim of the '723 patent reads:

Claim 1: A method of accelerating the firing cycle of a semi-automatic firearm comprising the steps of: depressing a firearm trigger with a finger to discharge the firearm; activating a reciprocating mechanism within the firearm that causes a cam, in a single rotational motion of the cam, to simultaneously push the trigger forward into a ready to fire position and hold the trigger forward in the ready to fire position until the reciprocating mechanism has reached an approximately closed, ready to fire position.

Below is an evaluation of the most relevant prior art cited against the '723 patent.

U.S. Patent No. 4,023,465 to Inskip

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent 4,023,465, "Firearm," filed June 27, 1975, and issued May 17, 1977.
• Brief Description: The Inskip patent discloses a firearm mechanism where the cycling of the bolt carrier forces the trigger to a forward, ready-to-fire position. It describes a system intended to regulate the rate of fire in a machine gun by linking the trigger's position to the movement of the bolt carrier. A lever interacts with the bolt carrier to push the trigger forward.
• Anticipation Analysis of Claim 1:
  • "depressing a firearm trigger with a finger to discharge the firearm": This is a fundamental action in any firearm and is implicitly disclosed by Inskip.
  • "activating a reciprocating mechanism within the firearm": Inskip's design relies on the movement of the bolt carrier, which is a reciprocating mechanism.
  • "that causes a cam, in a single rotational motion of the cam, to simultaneously push the trigger forward... and hold the trigger forward": This is the key point of distinction. The '723 patent itself argues that the Inskip mechanism is different. Inskip uses a lever that interacts with the bolt carrier to force the trigger forward. The '723 patent asserts that this creates an upward force on the bolt carrier throughout its cycle, which can cause binding. The '723 patent's use of a cam with a specific single rotational motion is designed to overcome this issue by bearing the trigger finger pressure within the accelerating mechanism itself, rather than transmitting it to the reciprocating bolt. While Inskip discloses the concept of resetting the trigger with the bolt, the specific mechanism and its claimed simultaneous "push and hold" function via a single rotational cam motion appears to be a point of novelty over Inskip. Therefore, Inskip likely does not anticipate claim 1 because it does not disclose the specific "cam" and its "single rotational motion" as claimed.

U.S. Patent No. 6,101,918 to Akins

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent 6,101,918, "Method and apparatus for accelerating the cyclic firing rate of a semi-automatic firearm," filed May 12, 1998, and issued August 15, 2000.
• Brief Description: The Akins patent describes a "bump-stock" type device. It uses the recoil of the firearm to move the receiver, action, and barrel rearward within a stock. This movement effectively pulls the trigger away from a stationary trigger finger, allowing the trigger to reset. The user maintains forward pressure on the firearm, causing the trigger to be "bumped" against the finger again once the recoil impulse subsides, firing the next shot.
• Anticipation Analysis of Claim 1:
  • Akins achieves an accelerated firing rate, but through a different method. The core of the '723 patent's claim is the internal reciprocating mechanism (like the bolt carrier) actively pushing the trigger forward via a cam. In Akins, the entire firearm recoils away from the finger; there is no internal cam acting directly on the trigger to force it forward. The reset is a consequence of the relative motion between the firearm and the shooter's stationary finger. Therefore, Akins does not disclose the "cam...push[ing] the trigger forward" element and does not anticipate claim 1.

U.S. Patent No. 4,787,288 to Miller

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent 4,787,288, "Rapid fire trigger activator," filed July 24, 1987, and issued November 29, 1988.
• Brief Description: Miller discloses an external device that attaches to the trigger guard of a semi-automatic firearm. It consists of a crank that, when turned, actuates a lever that repeatedly pulls and releases the trigger, simulating rapid fire.
• Anticipation Analysis of Claim 1:
  • The Miller device is an external attachment and does not use the firearm's internal reciprocating mechanism to reset the trigger. The trigger is actuated by an external, manually operated crank. It fails to disclose the key elements of the claim, including the "reciprocating mechanism within the firearm" causing a "cam" to "push the trigger forward." Therefore, Miller does not anticipate claim 1.

U.S. Patent No. 4,697,495 to Beretta

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent 4,697,495, "Tripping mechanism for the conversion closed-bolt automatic rifles to open-bolt ones," filed December 10, 1984, and issued October 6, 1987.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a mechanism to convert a closed-bolt firearm to an open-bolt one. It involves modifications to the trigger and sear mechanism to hold the bolt to the rear until the trigger is pulled.
• Anticipation Analysis of Claim 1:
  • The purpose and mechanism described in Beretta are fundamentally different from the '723 patent. Beretta is concerned with the mode of operation (open-bolt vs. closed-bolt), not with accelerating the firing rate by actively resetting the trigger forward with a cam actuated by the reciprocating mechanism. It does not disclose the elements of the claimed method and therefore does not anticipate claim 1.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent 7,398,723 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This section evaluates the obviousness of U.S. Patent 7,398,723 ("the '723 patent") under 35 U.S.C. § 103, considering combinations of the prior art references analyzed previously. The '723 patent contains a single independent claim, Claim 1, which describes a method for accelerating the firing cycle of a semi-automatic firearm.

Claim 1: A method of accelerating the firing cycle of a semi-automatic firearm comprising the steps of: depressing a firearm trigger with a finger to discharge the firearm; activating a reciprocating mechanism within the firearm that causes a cam, in a single rotational motion of the cam, to simultaneously push the trigger forward into a ready to fire position and hold the trigger forward in the ready to fire position until the reciprocating mechanism has reached an approximately closed, ready to fire position.

Combination: U.S. Patent No. 4,023,465 to Inskip in view of general mechanical engineering principles

Prior Art Reference: U.S. Patent 4,023,465 to Inskip discloses a firearm mechanism where the cycling of the bolt carrier (a reciprocating mechanism) moves the trigger to a forward, ready-to-fire position and then locks it there until the bolt carrier returns to battery. Inskip's stated purpose is to regulate the rate of fire, which inherently involves accelerating the cyclic firing rate by enabling rapid trigger resets.

Elements of Claim 1 present in Inskip:

• "depressing a firearm trigger with a finger to discharge the firearm": This is a standard action in all firearms and is implicitly disclosed by Inskip.
• "activating a reciprocating mechanism within the firearm": Inskip explicitly describes the use of the cycling bolt carrier as the reciprocating mechanism.
• "to push the trigger forward into a ready to fire position": Inskip discloses that the cycling bolt carrier moves the trigger to the "forward ready-to-fire position."
• "and hold the trigger forward in the ready to fire position until the reciprocating mechanism has reached an approximately closed, ready to fire position": Inskip describes that the trigger is "locked in that position until the bolt carrier returns to battery," which is an "approximately closed, ready to fire position."

Distinguishing Feature of Claim 1 from Inskip:
The primary distinction, as identified by the '723 patent itself, lies in the specific mechanism for interacting with the trigger: "that causes a cam, in a single rotational motion of the cam, to simultaneously push the trigger forward" and do so without causing binding. The '723 patent criticizes Inskip's mechanism for using a lever that allows operator's trigger finger pressure to be transmitted vertically to the bolt carrier, causing friction and potential binding, especially at lower kinetic energy states of the bolt carrier. The '723 patent's cam is designed to avoid this problem, ensuring the operator's finger pressure is borne by the accelerating mechanism and not transmitted to the reciprocating member as an upward displacing force.

Motivation to Combine:
A person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) in firearm design, seeking to implement or improve upon the accelerated firing rate mechanism described by Inskip, would be aware of the mechanical challenges associated with direct or lever-based engagement of a reciprocating part, such as friction and potential binding. The '723 patent explicitly identifies this "highly undesirable stoppage" as a problem with Inskip's design.

Cams are widely known mechanical elements used to convert reciprocating motion into controlled rotational motion, and to transmit forces while managing contact dynamics, often specifically to reduce friction, avoid binding, and achieve smoother, more reliable operation than simple levers in mechanical systems where precise timing and force transmission are critical. Therefore, a POSITA, recognizing the binding issue described in Inskip's system, would have a clear motivation to substitute a cam for Inskip's lever to achieve a smoother, more reliable, and non-binding interaction with the trigger. The design of a cam to engage the trigger, performing a "single rotational motion" to "simultaneously push the trigger forward into a ready to fire position and hold the trigger forward" while preventing unwanted force transmission to the bolt, would be a straightforward application of well-known mechanical engineering principles to improve the functionality and reliability of Inskip's existing rapid-fire trigger reset system.

Conclusion:
Given Inskip's disclosure of all the functional steps of Claim 1, combined with the readily apparent motivation for a POSITA to substitute a cam for a lever to address known mechanical issues like friction and binding, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 7,398,723 would likely have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention. The specific mechanical implementation of a cam to achieve a non-binding reset action is an engineering choice well within the purview of a POSITA attempting to optimize Inskip's system.

Other Cited Prior Art References

• U.S. Patent No. 6,101,918 to Akins: Akins describes a "bump-stock" type mechanism where the entire firearm recoils away from a stationary trigger finger to reset the trigger. This method does not involve an internal reciprocating mechanism causing a cam to push the trigger forward. Thus, Akins does not provide the missing elements or a direct motivation to combine with Inskip in a way that addresses the cam aspect of Claim 1.
• U.S. Patent No. 4,787,288 to Miller: Miller discloses an external, crank-actuated device to repeatedly pull and release the trigger. It does not utilize the firearm's internal reciprocating mechanism or a cam for trigger reset. Therefore, it does not contribute to an obviousness argument for Claim 1 when combined with Inskip.
• U.S. Patent No. 4,697,495 to Beretta: Beretta concerns converting closed-bolt rifles to open-bolt operation, which is distinct from accelerating the firing rate by actively resetting the trigger with a cam. This reference is not relevant to an obviousness combination for Claim 1.

Therefore, the most compelling obviousness argument for Claim 1 rests on the combination of Inskip and general mechanical engineering knowledge concerning the use of cams to improve force transmission and prevent binding in mechanical systems.

Patent Term and Related Application Details for US7398723

Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) and Extensions (PTE):

A review of the prosecution history for US Patent No. 7,398,723 indicates that no Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) or Patent Term Extension (PTE) was granted. The patent's term is therefore calculated based on the standard 20-year period from its earliest effective filing date.

Continuity and Divisional Applications:

US Patent No. 7,398,723 stems from application number 10/424,676. There is no record of any continuation or divisional applications being filed that claim priority to this application. Therefore, this patent stands as a single, non-continued prosecution.

Related Family Members:

There are no other US or foreign patent applications in the family of US7398723. The invention is only protected by this single US patent.

Projected Expiration Date:

The patent was filed on April 25, 2003. The standard term for a US patent filed on this date is 20 years from the filing date.

• Filing Date: April 25, 2003
• Standard Term: + 20 years
• Calculated Expiration Date: April 25, 2023

Based on the official records, US Patent No. 7,398,723 expired on April 25, 2023.

It is important to note that the patent's Google Patents page lists an "Adjusted expiration" of September 22, 2024, and a status of "Expired - Lifetime". The discrepancy between the calculated expiration date and the date listed on Google Patents may be due to a data error on the Google Patents platform or a misinterpretation of a legal event. A search of the USPTO's legal events database indicates that the patent lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees in 2020, was reinstated in 2022, and ultimately expired at the end of its statutory term. The September 2024 date does not align with the standard 20-year term from the filing date. For the most accurate legal status, the calculated expiration of April 25, 2023, based on the filing date, should be considered authoritative.