Rare Breed Triggers and ABC IP Sue Lam Solutions Over “Super Safety” Devices
Case Overview: ABC IP, LLC et al. v. Lam Solutions et al.
Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Lafayette Division)
Case Number: 4:26-cv-00049
Filing Date: May 27, 2026
Plaintiffs: ABC IP, LLC & Rare Breed Triggers, Inc.
Defendants: Lam Solutions, Matthew Lam, and Nate Lam
Nature of Action: Complaint for Patent Infringement (Jury Trial Demanded)
Legal Alert: Rare Breed Triggers and ABC IP Sue Lam Solutions Over “Super Safety” Devices
A major new patent infringement battle has erupted in the firearm component industry. On May 27, 2026, ABC IP, LLC and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc. filed a federal lawsuit against Lam Solutions (a sole proprietorship) alongside individuals Matthew Lam and Nate Lam.
The complaint accuses the defendants of infringing five separate utility patents through the manufacture and sale of a firearm trigger component commercially known as the “Super Safety”.
The Parties
- Plaintiffs: ABC IP, LLC (a Delaware entity holding ownership of the patents by assignment) and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc. (a Texas corporation operating as the exclusive licensee). Rare Breed Triggers is widely known within the industry for developing forced reset trigger (FRT) systems.
- Defendants: Lam Solutions (headquartered in Fowler, Indiana) and individuals Matthew Lam (Terre Haute, IN) and Nate Lam (Indianapolis, IN). The complaint alleges they market and sell the accused products online via www.lamsolutions.com.
The Technology & Asserted Patents
Standard AR-15 pattern semiautomatic firearms rely on a disconnector to capture the hammer after a round is fired, requiring the operator to manually release pressure and reset the trigger before firing a subsequent round. Conversely, a forced reset trigger mechanism mechanically forces the trigger forward into its reset position during the firearm’s operating cycle, utilizing the movement of the bolt carrier.
The plaintiffs allege that Lam Solutions’ “Super Safety”—which offers distinct user modes including a standard disconnector semiautomatic mode and a forced reset semiautomatic mode—directly infringes upon a portfolio of five closely linked utility patents:
- U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247 (Issued July 16, 2024): Covers a novel device for accelerating the firing sequence of a semiautomatic firearm by using a rotating cam driven by the action’s cycle to force a trigger reset.
- U.S. Patent No. 12,031,784 (Issued July 9, 2024): Details an extended trigger member locking mechanism incorporating a deflectable extension portion actuated by the forward movement of the bolt carrier.
- U.S. Patent No. 12,529,538 (Issued January 20, 2026): Focuses on a safety mechanism featuring a multi-recess cam selector configured to dictate trigger travel across three distinct operational modes (including an active reset and safe mode).
- U.S. Patent No. 12,578,159 (Issued March 17, 2026): Covers an alternative layout of a multi-mode firearm trigger mechanism utilizing a cam lobe to force a trigger member toward a set position.
- U.S. Patent No. 12,636,403 (Issued May 26, 2026): Describes a dual-mode forced reset mechanism enabling selection between a traditional disconnector mode and a forced reset mode.
Infringement Claims & Allegations
The complaint contains five counts—one for each patent—alleging direct, induced, and contributory infringement.
Plaintiffs contend that Lam Solutions sells the “Super Safety” device in both partial kits (consisting of the cam and cam lever components) and complete kits (adding a modified trigger, hammer, disconnector, and springs). According to the filing:
- Direct Infringement: The assembly and intended use of the Super Safety directly satisfies all elements of the asserted patent claims (such as Claim 15 of the ‘247 patent and Claim 1 of the ‘784 patent).
- Induced Infringement: The defendants actively guide and instruct end-consumers on how to install and operate the device to achieve forced-reset functionality via advertising and instruction guides.
- Contributory Infringement: The components sold are allegedly custom-designed, specialized parts with no substantial non-infringing uses outside of creating a patent-infringing fire control group.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs allege the infringement is willful, asserting that the defendants had knowledge of the patents and lacked any reasonable basis to believe the items did not infringe or that the patents were invalid.
Relief Sought
ABC IP and Rare Breed Triggers are asking the court for severe remedies:
- Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions to immediately halt Lam Solutions from selling or manufacturing the Super Safety kits.
- Compensatory Damages in the form of lost profits or a reasonable royalty.
- Treble Damages (up to three times the calculated compensatory amount) due to the alleged willful nature of the infringement.
- An award of attorneys’ fees and legal costs, citing this as an “exceptional case” under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
The plaintiffs have demanded a trial by jury. The defendants have yet to file their formal answers or counterclaims with the court.
