The Main Law Firm

Firm overview. The Main Law Firm's patent-litigation profile is thin and only partially verifiable. The tracked data identifies the firm solely through its appearance in In re: Rare Breed Triggers Patent Litigation (MDL-3176), where it acted as plaintiff's lead counsel. I could locate no firm website, IP-practice description, or AmLaw/Chambers/Vault ranking for an IP practice operating under this name. Public directories do show a single-lawyer Florida personal-injury firm ("The Main Law Firm," founded 2010, offices in Winter Park and Lake Mary, FL, run by Jedediah "Jed" Main) — but nothing connects that firm to patent work, and I cannot verify it is the same entity. Firm size and office footprint for the patent-litigation entity are therefore unconfirmed.

IP litigation specialty. Grounded in the tracked case, the firm's only verified practice area is enforcement litigation over mechanical firearm-trigger technology: forced-reset ("Super Safety"-type) trigger mechanisms for AR-platform firearms, covering patents such as U.S. Patent Nos. 12,038,247 and 12,031,784. This is a mechanical-devices niche rather than pharma, software, or semiconductor work. No self-description of broader technology focus was found online.

Side preference. The firm appears exclusively plaintiff-side on the tracked matter: 1 of 1 appearances for the plaintiff (Rare Breed Triggers, Inc. / ABC IP, LLC), with no defendant-side work tracked. The client is a patent owner enforcing its portfolio against aftermarket trigger manufacturers and resellers, not an NPE campaign on behalf of a third party — though one case is too small a sample to characterize a general posture.

Notable case. The tracked matter, In re: Rare Breed Triggers Patent Litigation (MDL-3176), is a genuine and active multidistrict litigation before Chief Judge Amos L. Mazzant III in the Eastern District of Texas. As of August 2026, roughly 61 constituent actions had been filed (59 pending, ~3% resolution rate per MDL Update). The docket shows aggressive enforcement — TRO/PI proceedings (e.g., ABC IP v. Peak Tactical, D. Wyo.), tag-along transfers, and expedited-discovery practice. One important caveat: the public filings I reviewed attribute the lead plaintiff-side roles to Fish & Richardson, Wood Herron & Evans, Koch Law, and others; I could not independently verify The Main Law Firm's appearance or D. M. Main's lead-counsel role in the accessible record, so that role rests on the firm data provided rather than on court documents I could source.

PTAB/IPR practice and partners. I found no evidence of an inter partes review or PGR filing/defense practice for the firm, and no public source quantifying any PTAB volume; any IPR practice would need to be confirmed separately. The named attorneys are D. M. Main (Lead Counsel in the Rare Breed matter) and Daniel L. M. Kennedy (Of Counsel). No reliable biographies, firm rosters, or industry rankings for either attorney in connection with this firm were located — an identically named "Daniel Kennedy" at Pierson Ferdinand (a physics/biophysics-trained patent attorney) and a Maryland-based "Daniel M. Kennedy III" both appear unrelated on the available record, and I would not conflate them without confirmation.