Rare Breed Triggers and ABC IP Sue Missouri-Based Cornfire Arsenal Over “Super Safety” Kits
Case Overview: ABC IP, LLC et al. v. Cornfire Arsenal LLC
Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri
Case Number: 3:26-cv-05045-DPR
Filing Date: May 27, 2026
Plaintiffs: ABC IP, LLC & Rare Breed Triggers, Inc.
Defendant: Cornfire Arsenal LLC
Nature of Action: Complaint for Patent Infringement (Jury Trial Demanded)
Legal Alert: Rare Breed Triggers and ABC IP Sue Missouri-Based Cornfire Arsenal Over “Super Safety” Kits
The nationwide patent enforcement campaign surrounding forced reset firearm technology has landed in Missouri. On May 27, 2026, ABC IP, LLC and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc. filed a federal patent infringement lawsuit against Cornfire Arsenal LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
The 62-page complaint alleges that Cornfire Arsenal’s manufacturing and online marketing of specialized multi-position fire control systems, components, and conversion kits directly infringe a portfolio of five utility patents protecting advanced forced reset trigger functionality.
The Parties
- Plaintiffs: ABC IP, LLC (a Delaware limited liability company holding ownership of the patents by assignment) and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc. (a Texas corporation operating as the exclusive licensee). Rare Breed is well known in the firearms industry for its development, licensing, and commercialization of forced reset trigger (FRT) mechanisms.
- Defendant: Cornfire Arsenal LLC, a Missouri limited liability company listed with an address in Jasper, Missouri. The complaint states that the defendant has operated an e-commerce platform via cornfirearsenal.com to market the accused hardware.
The Technology & Asserted Patents
In a standard AR-15 pattern semiautomatic firearm, a disconnector catches and holds the hammer in a cocked state after cycling, requiring the shooter to manually reduce pressure and let the trigger spring physically reset the mechanism forward before a subsequent shot can be fired. Conversely, a forced reset trigger mechanism actively utilizes the mechanical kinetic energy of the moving bolt carrier to forcibly push the trigger member into its reset position, allowing an accelerated rate of semiautomatic firing without reliance on a traditional disconnector system.
The plaintiffs assert that Cornfire Arsenal’s product lines—which permit a mechanical selection between standard disconnector operation, active forced reset functionality, and safe modes—infringe the following five utility patents:
- U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247 (Issued July 16, 2024): Covers an accelerated semiautomatic firing device that utilizes a rotating cam driven by the action’s cycle to actively force a trigger reset and momentarily lock it until the action returns to battery.
- U.S. Patent No. 12,031,784 (Issued July 9, 2024): Protects an extended trigger member locking device employing a deflectable or foldable extension portion that clears geometric constraints when contacted by a cycling bolt carrier.
- U.S. Patent No. 12,529,538 (Issued January 20, 2026): Covers a three-mode safety mechanism featuring a unique cam selector with distinct recesses configured to selectively permit, guide, or block the movement of a trigger tail portion.
- U.S. Patent No. 12,578,159 (Issued March 17, 2026): Details a multi-mode firearm trigger layout utilizing an internal cam lobe to actively force a trigger member toward its set position during cycling.
- U.S. Patent No. 12,636,403 (Issued May 26, 2026): Describes a multi-position selector mechanism permitting mechanical configuration between a standard disconnector semiautomatic mode and an active forced reset semiautomatic mode.
Infringement Claims & Allegations
The complaint outlines five distinct counts of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, alleging that Cornfire Arsenal engages in direct, induced, and contributory infringement.
The primary target of the suit is the defendant’s commercialization of the (3-Position) “Super Safety” kits and components, as well as a line marketed as the “Milspec Active Reset Conversion (MARC)” system. According to the plaintiffs, Cornfire Arsenal has distributed the accused technology across multiple retail formats:
- Partial Parts Kits: Comprising at minimum specialized cam and cam lever elements designed to combine with a standard AR-pattern hammer, disconnector, and springs to assemble an infringing fire control group.
- Complete Kits: Bundling the proprietary cam and lever components alongside standard AR-pattern hammers, disconnectors, springs, and modified triggers to deliver out-of-the-box forced reset performance.
- Pre-Installed Systems: Offering complete forced reset fire control assemblies pre-installed directly inside a standard AR-pattern lower receiver or a complete firearm.
Plaintiffs claim Cornfire Arsenal actively induces infringement by publishing installation help, compatibility guides, and promotional videos instructing consumers on how to modify their firearms to achieve active-reset capabilities. Furthermore, the suit alleges contributory infringement, maintaining that these components are specially engineered for fire control manipulation and possess no substantial, non-infringing structural uses. The plaintiffs contend the infringement is willful, noting the defendant proceeded with sales despite clear public awareness of the patent portfolio.
Relief Sought
ABC IP and Rare Breed Triggers are seeking substantial legal and equitable remedies from the Missouri federal court:
- Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions to immediately halt Cornfire Arsenal and its associates from manufacturing, offering for sale, or distributing the Super Safety kits, MARC components, and related hardware.
- Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined at trial, calculated as lost profits or a reasonable royalty.
- Treble Damages (up to three times the compensatory finding) due to the alleged willful and deliberate nature of the infringement.
- An award of attorneys’ fees and litigation costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285, designating the litigation as an exceptional case.
The plaintiffs are represented by the law firms Stinson LLP, Wood Herron & Evans LLP, and Fish & Richardson P.C.. Cornfire Arsenal has not yet filed formal responsive pleadings or counterclaims in the matter.
