The Stern Law Firm

I'll research this firm's public profile and the tracked case before drafting.

Let me look into the tracked case and the firm's actual identity.

Let me pin down the firm's identity and its role in the Rare Breed matter.

The Stern Law Firm — Patent Litigation Profile

Data-quality note up front: The tracked dataset shows only a single appearance, and I could not locate an independent public profile for an entity operating under the name "The Stern Law Firm" as a patent litigation practice. No AmLaw, Chambers, Vault, or Law360 firm profile surfaced; no office footprint, headcount, or revenue figure can be stated without inventing one. Everything below is either drawn from the authoritative case list or explicitly labeled as unverified web sourcing.

Firm overview. The record supports only that this is a small, single-appearance practice — one plaintiff-side matter, with the roles split between Lead Counsel and Of Counsel. There is no verifiable indicator of size (BigLaw, IP boutique, or regional shop); treat any such characterization as unsupported. Notably, the most prominent publicly documented attorney matching the name "Benjamin M. Stern" is a partner in the litigation department of Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP in Boston (155 Seaport Blvd.), a Boston-based firm with a substantial IP department — but Nutter's press materials make no reference to an entity called "The Stern Law Firm," and I could not confirm that the Stern named in this dataset is the same individual. This identity question should be resolved against the docket before the profile is relied on. Jacob M. Lantry likewise produced no reliable public sourcing.

IP litigation specialty. The single tracked case places the firm in a narrow but distinctive technology space: mechanical firearm-component patents, specifically forced reset trigger (FRT) technology. In In re Rare Breed Triggers Patent Litigation (MDL No. 3176), plaintiffs assert U.S. Patent Nos. 12,031,784; 12,038,247; 12,529,538; and 12,578,159 against competing trigger and selector products. The practice profile is therefore the enforcement of small-arms mechanical patents plus the associated emergency-relief practice — preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order motions — rather than the Wi-Fi, semiconductor, or pharma workstreams typical of larger IP shops. If the Stern/Nutter identification holds, the same attorney's published bio describes a much broader docket covering telecommunications, VoIP, semiconductors, software, data storage, speech recognition, medical devices, and biotech; that breadth is sourced to the attorney's firm bio, not to this firm's tracked appearances.

Side preference. The firm appears exclusively on the plaintiff/enforcement side: 1 plaintiff-side appearance, 0 defendant-side. That is the entire sample, so a stated preference is a description of one case, not an established pattern. It is worth noting that the lead attorney's publicly described career is weighted the other way — heavily defense-side, including work for NPE/PAE defendants — so the plaintiff posture shown here may reflect the client relationship rather than firm doctrine.

Notable cases and outcomes. The Rare Breed Triggers matter is the only tracked case and the firm's defining engagement. The litigation was centralized by the JPML into MDL 3176 on April 2, 2026, in the Eastern District of Texas (Sherman Division) before Chief Judge Amos L. Mazzant, having originated in the Middle District of North Carolina (No. 1:25-cv-01192). Plaintiffs ABC IP, LLC and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc. have pressed for preliminary injunctive and TRO relief against AS Designs, LLC, Matthew S. Karlovic, Calvin Olson, and an unidentified Doe defendant, with contested briefing on infringement, validity, irreparable harm, and economic displacement. The MDL context includes a May 2025 DOJ settlement in United States v. Rare Breed Triggers, LLC, 690 F. Supp. 3d 51 (E.D.N.Y. 2023) that obligates the patentee to enforce its FRT patents — a fact the parties have actively litigated. Caution: published docket entries I retrieved list plaintiff-side counsel of record as Ross Fulton, Glenn Bellamy, and James Lester; I could not verify Stern's appearance on the docket itself.

PTAB / IPR practice. No data. The firm has no IPR, PGR, or CBM filings attributable to it in the tracked record, and no public report supports an estimate of PTAB volume. The attorney bio referenced above describes filing four IPR petitions in a telecommunications dispute and obtaining institution on all four, but that work belongs to a different firm's profile and should not be attributed to this entity.

Key partners. Two names appear in the dataset: Benjamin M. Stern (Lead Counsel) and Jacob M. Lantry (Of Counsel). Only Stern has any corroborating public presence, and — as noted — that presence links to Nutter McClennen & Fish, not to "The Stern Law Firm." Before publishing, I would recommend confirming the firm's registered name, its actual attorney roster, and Stern's counsel-of-record status directly from the E.D. Tex. docket.