US 10514223

Patent Analysis: U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223

Date of Analysis: May 1, 2026

Patent Number: 10,514,223

Summary

Plain-Language Explanation of Independent Claims

This patent protects a specific type of semi-automatic firearm trigger mechanism, often referred to as a "forced-reset" trigger. The core innovation is a system that uses the firearm's own action (the movement of the bolt carrier) to mechanically reset the trigger, and a locking bar that ensures the firearm can only be fired when the bolt is fully closed and in a safe position.

Claim 1: This claim outlines the fundamental trigger mechanism. It consists of three key interacting parts:

1. A hammer that strikes the firing pin.
2. A trigger member that the user pulls.
3. A locking bar that acts as a safety interlock.

The process works as follows: After a shot is fired, the rearward movement of the bolt carrier forces the hammer back into its cocked position. As the hammer pivots back, it makes physical contact with a surface on the trigger member, pushing it forward and forcibly resetting it. Simultaneously, the locking bar, which is under spring tension, pivots into a position that blocks the trigger from being pulled again. Only when the bolt carrier returns to its forward, "in-battery" position does it push the locking bar out of the way, unblocking the trigger and allowing the user to fire the next shot. This prevents the hammer from falling before the action is fully closed ("hammer follow") and enables a rapid rate of semi-automatic fire.

Claim 4: This claim covers the same core mechanism described in Claim 1 but specifies that it is built into a self-contained "drop-in" housing or module. This means the hammer, trigger, locking bar, and associated springs are all pre-assembled into a single unit. This module can then be easily installed into the firearm's lower receiver using standard hammer and trigger assembly pins, making it a convenient "drop-in" upgrade for existing firearms like the AR-15 platform.

Litigation Status

A search of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) dockets for 2026 reveals a case listed as 26-1527. This indicates that US Patent 10,514,223 is currently involved in or has recently been the subject of an appeal at the federal level. Additionally, the patent has an extensive litigation history in various U.S. District Courts, including cases filed in 2021, 2022, 2023, and several new cases in 2025 and 2026, as listed in public patent databases. These numerous legal challenges suggest significant commercial and legal interest in the technology covered by this patent.

Known Litigation Involving US Patent 10,514,223

As a senior patent analyst, I have compiled a list of known litigation involving US Patent 10,514,223. The information is based on public records and litigation databases as of May 5, 2026. This patent has been the subject of extensive and widespread litigation across numerous federal jurisdictions, indicating its significant commercial and legal relevance.

The current assignee, ABC IP, LLC, which acquired the patent on May 2, 2025, appears to be actively enforcing its rights. The following table summarizes the known legal cases.

Disclaimer: This information is based on publicly available data and is intended for analytical purposes only. The specific details of each case, including the identities of all parties and the precise current status, would require direct inquiry into the respective court dockets.

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.

Inventors

• Jeffrey Cooper Rounds (Employer: Wolf Tactical LLC at the time of filing)

Original assignee

The original assignee named on the issued patent is Wolf Tactical LLC. Based on the patent's description, which states the invention "provides a semiautomatic trigger mechanism for increasing rate of fire that can be retrofitted into popular existing firearm platforms," and the company name, it is highly likely they intended to ship a product embodying the claims. Their current status is "acquired" regarding this patent, as ownership has transferred.

Assignment timeline

Here is the chronological assignment record for US Patent 10,514,223, based on Google Patents legal events and USPTO assignment records:

• 2018-09-27 (executed) / recorded 2018-09-27

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Jeffrey Cooper Rounds
  • Assignee: Wolf Tactical LLC
  • Correspondent: Not specified in available records.
  • Context: Original assignment from inventor to the initial assignee at the time of filing.

• 2020-06-10 (executed) / recorded 2020-06-10

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Wolf Tactical LLC
  • Assignee: RARE BREED TRIGGERS, LLC
  • Correspondent: Not specified in available records.
  • Context: Transfer of patent ownership from the original assignee to Rare Breed Triggers, LLC.

• 2025-05-02 (executed) / recorded 2025-05-02

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: RARE BREED TRIGGERS, LLC
  • Assignee: ABC IP, LLC
  • Correspondent: Not specified in available records.
  • Context: Transfer of patent ownership from Rare Breed Triggers, LLC to ABC IP, LLC.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10514223
    2018 : Filed by Wolf Tactical LLC
         : Assigned from inventor to Wolf Tactical
    2019 : Issued
    2020 : Assigned to Rare Breed Triggers LLC
    2025 : Assigned to ABC IP LLC
    2026 : Litigation filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present.

   • The transfer to "ABC IP, LLC" on 2025-05-02 (executed) / 2025-05-02 (recorded) is a strong indicator. The name "ABC IP, LLC" strongly suggests a licensing-only entity, and public information about ABC IP LLC indicates it owns various trademarks, primarily in light beverage products, beer, and restaurant services, alongside firearm trigger related trademarks like "FRT-15" and "FRT-15L3". The combination of a generic "IP" suffix and a diverse, seemingly unrelated portfolio (firearms and beverages) points towards a shell entity focused on intellectual property monetization rather than product manufacturing in the firearm space.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Present.

   • ABC IP LLC, the current assignee, is identified in legal analyses as a co-plaintiff with Rare Breed Triggers (RBT) in aggressive patent infringement lawsuits against competitors regarding forced reset triggers. This explicitly identifies ABC IP LLC as an entity actively asserting patents.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear.

   • The Google Patents legal events and the provided patent text do not include correspondent attorney information for the assignments. Therefore, it is unclear if the same correspondent recurs.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present.

   • There are only two transfers after the initial inventor assignment, spanning 2020-06-10 and 2025-05-02. This does not indicate multiple consecutive assignments through chained LLCs in a short timeframe.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Present.

   • The patent was assigned to ABC IP LLC on 2025-05-02. The litigation summary shows several cases filed in 2025 and 2026, including 2:25-cv-04938 in Arizona District Court and 1:25-cv-00124 in Wyoming District Court, which would likely fall within six months of the transfer or soon after. This suggests the transfer was made in anticipation of, or to facilitate, the subsequent litigation.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present.

   • There is no indication in the patent information or general knowledge that Wolf Tactical LLC or Rare Breed Triggers, LLC filed for bankruptcy.

7. Privateering — Present.

   • Rare Breed Triggers (RBT) has aggressively protected its market dominance through patent litigation, with ABC IP LLC acting as a co-plaintiff. This pattern suggests RBT, an operating company that manufactures "forced reset" triggers, is using ABC IP LLC to assert patents against its competitors. This is a strong indication of privateering, where an operating company transfers patents to an NPE to assert on its behalf against competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present.

   • The chain ends with ABC IP LLC, which is identified as an asserter, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is based on multiple strong signals. The transfer to "ABC IP, LLC" (2025-05-02), an entity whose name and diverse trademark portfolio are characteristic of a shell licensing entity, is a key indicator. Furthermore, ABC IP LLC is a known asserter, actively engaging in patent infringement lawsuits alongside Rare Breed Triggers, LLC, which itself manufactures products embodying the claims. This strongly suggests a privateering pattern, where an operating company (Rare Breed Triggers, LLC) is using a shell entity (ABC IP, LLC) to assert its patents against competitors. The timing of the transfer to ABC IP LLC also indicates a pre-litigation transfer, as numerous lawsuits followed shortly after.

USPTO Assignment Center search for US10514223

Analysis of Prior Art Cited in U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223

This analysis details the most relevant prior art cited during the examination of U.S. Patent 10,514,223. Each cited reference is examined for its potential to anticipate the claims of the '223 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The core innovation of the '223 patent is a trigger mechanism featuring a forced-reset function, accomplished by the hammer directly resetting the trigger, combined with a locking bar that is actuated by the bolt carrier to prevent out-of-battery firing.

Key Prior Art and Potential Anticipation

The following patents and patent applications were cited by the examiner during the prosecution of the '223 patent.

1. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0219307 A1 (Fostech Mfg Llc)

• Full Citation: US 2017/0219307 A1, "Trigger-Locking Apparatus, System, and Method for Semiautomatic Firearms"
• Publication Date: August 3, 2017
• Filing Date: January 28, 2016
• Brief Description: This application describes a trigger-locking mechanism for a semi-automatic firearm. It features a locking member that prevents the trigger from being pulled until the bolt carrier is in battery. The locking mechanism is disengaged by the forward movement of the bolt carrier, allowing the firearm to be fired. This invention is designed to enhance the safety and control of semi-automatic firearms.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1 & 4: The '307 application discloses a locking bar or "locking member" that is actuated by the bolt carrier to block and unblock the trigger, which is a key element of the '223 patent's claims. However, a critical distinction lies in how the trigger is reset. The '223 patent explicitly claims that the hammer, as it is being cycled by the bolt carrier, makes contact with the trigger member to "force" it to the set position. The '307 application does not appear to describe this direct, hammer-forced reset of the trigger. Instead, it relies on a more conventional trigger return spring. Therefore, while it teaches the locking bar concept, it likely does not fully anticipate the combination of features in claims 1 and 4 of the '223 patent, which require both the locking bar and the hammer-forced reset.

2. U.S. Patent No. 7,398,723 B1 (Blakley)

• Full Citation: US 7,398,723 B1, "Trigger forward displacement system and method"
• Publication Date: July 15, 2008
• Filing Date: April 25, 2003
• Brief Description: The '723 patent discloses a system designed to forcibly reset the trigger of a semi-automatic firearm. It utilizes a "trigger extender" and a "cam body" that interact with the bolt carrier. As the bolt carrier moves, it acts upon this mechanism to push the trigger forward, preparing it for the next shot. The stated goal is to increase the potential rate of fire by actively displacing the trigger.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1 & 4: The '723 patent teaches the concept of a "forced reset" or "forward displacement" of the trigger by the action of the bolt carrier, which is conceptually similar to the reset mechanism in the '223 patent. However, the mechanism by which this is achieved is different. The '723 patent uses a distinct "cam body subassembly" and "trigger extender," rather than having a surface on the hammer directly contact a surface on the trigger member to cause the reset. Furthermore, it does not explicitly disclose the spring-biased, pivoting "locking bar" that is disengaged by the bolt carrier only when it is in-battery, a crucial safety feature of the '223 patent's claims. Thus, the '723 patent does not appear to anticipate the specific combination of elements claimed in the '223 patent.

3. U.S. Patent No. 9,568,264 B2 (Graves)

• Full Citation: US 9,568,264 B2, "Flex-fire technology"
• Publication Date: February 14, 2017
• Filing Date: September 11, 2014
• Brief Description: This patent, one of several from the same inventor on "Flex-fire technology," describes a trigger reset mechanism that uses "rigid mechanical contact between the trigger and the gun bolt" to achieve a positive reset. It also includes a feature where the trigger is blocked from being depressed until late in the operating cycle, preventing the hammer from falling before the bolt is in battery.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1 & 4: The Graves '264 patent presents a very strong piece of prior art. It teaches a forced reset through direct mechanical contact with a moving component of the firearm's action (the bolt). It also teaches blocking the trigger until the bolt is nearly or fully in battery. The key question for anticipation would be whether the '264 patent discloses the specific arrangement of the '223 patent: the hammer itself resetting the trigger and a separate, pivoting, spring-biased locking bar being acted upon by a specific surface on the bolt carrier. The '264 patent describes the gun bolt itself blocking the trigger. If the '264 patent does not describe the distinct, three-part interaction (bolt carrier -> locking bar -> trigger) and (bolt carrier -> hammer -> trigger) in the same manner as the '223 patent, it would not be a direct anticipation under § 102. However, it discloses a very similar functional system.

4. U.S. Patent No. 5,704,153 A (Colt's Manufacturing Company, Inc.)

• Full Citation: US 5,704,153 A, "Firearm battery and control module"
• Publication Date: January 6, 1998
• Filing Date: July 23, 1996
• Brief Description: This patent discloses a modular fire control system for a firearm. The module contains the hammer, trigger, and other fire control components in a single, self-contained housing that can be easily installed into or removed from the firearm's receiver. This is an early example of a "drop-in" trigger unit.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 4: This patent is primarily relevant to the '223 patent's dependent claim 4, which specifies the trigger mechanism being contained within a "drop-in" housing. The '153 patent clearly anticipates the concept of a modular, drop-in fire control housing. However, it does not disclose the specific forced-reset and locking bar mechanism claimed in the '223 patent. Therefore, while it anticipates the "housing" element, it does not anticipate claim 4 as a whole, which requires the entire novel trigger mechanism to be within that housing.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis evaluates the obviousness of U.S. Patent 10,514,223, which claims a firearm trigger mechanism featuring a hammer-forced reset and a bolt carrier-actuated locking bar, potentially implemented as a drop-in module. The analysis considers combinations of the cited prior art references that a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine, leading to the claimed invention.

Claim 1: Core Trigger Mechanism

Claim 1 of US10514223 describes a trigger mechanism comprising:

1. A hammer with a sear notch, pivoting between set and released positions.
2. A trigger member with a sear, pivoting between set and released positions, having a surface contacted by the hammer (when the hammer is displaced by the bolt carrier) to force the trigger to the set position.
3. A locking bar pivotally mounted and spring-biased to block the trigger, moving against bias to unblock the trigger when contacted by the bolt carrier at a substantially in-battery position.

A POSITA would have found the mechanism of Claim 1 obvious by combining the teachings of US 2017/0219307 A1 (Fostech) and US 9,568,264 B2 (Graves).

• Fostech ('307 A1) explicitly discloses a trigger-locking mechanism, or locking member (analogous to the locking bar in '223), that prevents the trigger from being pulled until the bolt carrier is in battery. The locking member is disengaged by the forward movement of the bolt carrier, allowing the firearm to be fired. This directly addresses the functionality of elements 3 and 4 of Claim 1 regarding the locking bar's operation and interaction with the bolt carrier to prevent out-of-battery firing.
• Graves ('264 B2) teaches the fundamental concept of a "forced reset" mechanism that uses "rigid mechanical contact between the trigger and the gun bolt" to achieve a positive reset and increase the rate of fire. Graves also includes a feature where the trigger is blocked from being depressed until late in the operating cycle, preventing the hammer from falling before the bolt is in battery. This reference provides the core motivation for a forced reset and highlights the desirability of preventing premature hammer release.

Motivation for Combination and Modification:
A POSITA, aiming to combine the safety advantages of Fostech's bolt-carrier-actuated locking bar (preventing premature firing or "hammer follow") with the enhanced rate of fire provided by a forced-reset trigger as taught by Graves, would be motivated to integrate these two concepts. The '223 patent itself points out a limitation of Graves, noting it "does not provide a 'drop-in' solution for existing popular firearm platforms" and "would require not only a modified fire control mechanism, but also a modified bolt carrier." The '223 patent explicitly seeks to overcome this by using an "otherwise standard M16-pattern bolt carrier assembly."

To achieve a "drop-in" solution compatible with standard bolt carriers, a POSITA would be motivated to modify Graves's forced reset mechanism. Instead of the "gun bolt" directly contacting the trigger, it would be an obvious design choice to leverage the existing and "normal resetting of the hammer" by the bolt carrier. By modifying a surface on the trigger member to be contacted by the hammer's tail portion (or another suitable surface on the hammer) during its rearward, bolt-carrier-driven resetting movement, the trigger could be forced to its set position. This would achieve the forced-reset functionality in a mechanically efficient manner that integrates with existing component interactions and minimizes modifications to the standard bolt carrier, making the overall mechanism more suitable for retrofitting into existing firearm platforms. This modification, combining the forced reset concept from Graves with the mechanical interaction between the bolt carrier and hammer, would lead directly to the hammer-forced reset element of Claim 1.

Therefore, the combination of Fostech's bolt-carrier-actuated locking bar with a hammer-actuated forced reset (an obvious modification of Graves's forced reset to improve compatibility with standard components), would render Claim 1 obvious.

Claim 4: Drop-in Trigger Module

Claim 4 describes the mechanism of Claim 1 housed within a "drop-in" module, having transversely aligned pairs of openings for receiving hammer and trigger assembly pins, which are aligned with corresponding openings in the firearm receiver.

A POSITA would have found the subject matter of Claim 4 obvious by combining US 5,704,153 A (Colt's Manufacturing Company, Inc.) with the combination of references rendering Claim 1 obvious.

• Colt's ('153 A) clearly teaches the concept of a modular fire control system. This patent discloses a "drop-in" unit where the hammer, trigger, and other fire control components are pre-assembled within a single, self-contained housing, designed for easy installation into or removal from a firearm's receiver using standard pins.

Motivation for Combination:
The '223 patent explicitly states that its invention "is particularly adaptable for construction as a 'drop-in' replacement trigger module that only requires insertion of two assembly pins and the safety selector." A POSITA, having developed the functional trigger mechanism of Claim 1 (with the hammer-forced reset and bolt-carrier-actuated locking bar), and motivated by the stated objective of creating an easily retrofittable solution for popular firearm platforms, would find it obvious to package this mechanism within a modular "drop-in" housing. This engineering approach is well-established in the firearms industry for simplifying installation and offering aftermarket upgrades, as demonstrated by the Colt's '153 patent. Combining the functional mechanism of Claim 1 into a housing as taught by Colt's '153 would be a predictable and obvious design choice to achieve the benefits of modularity and ease of installation, thereby rendering Claim 4 obvious.