ABC IP, LLC et al. v. Pembleton and Sons’ LLC
Case Overview: ABC IP, LLC et al. v. Pembleton and Sons’ LLC
Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division)
Case Number: 4:26-cv-4216
Filing Date: May 27, 2026
Plaintiffs: ABC IP, LLC, Rare Breed Triggers, Inc., & RBTM LLC
Defendant: Pembleton and Sons’ LLC
Nature of Action: Civil lawsuit alleging willful patent infringement, federal and common law trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition with a demand for a jury trial.
Executive Summary
Plaintiffs ABC IP, LLC (the patent owner), Rare Breed Triggers, Inc. (the exclusive licensee), and RBTM LLC have filed a multi-count lawsuit against Pembleton and Sons’ LLC. The complaint alleges that the Defendant is actively manufacturing, marketing, using, selling, and distributing an unauthorized component kit known as the “Super Safety” via the website trinitytrigger.com.
Plaintiffs contend that this product directly copies and infringes upon their patented “forced reset trigger” (FRT) innovations engineered for firearms. In addition to patent violations, the lawsuit accuses the Defendant of willfully infringing on Rare Breed’s registered “FRT” trademarks and trading on their brand reputation by falsely marketing unauthorized products as “FRT” assemblies. Because the Defendant is allegedly continuing these operations despite clear knowledge of the intellectual property, the Plaintiffs are accusing them of willful infringement, opening the door for enhanced damages.
The Technology in Dispute
The lawsuit centers on firearm trigger engineering—specifically the transition from standard semi-automatic mechanisms to advanced forced reset trigger (FRT) mechanisms:
- Standard Semi-Automatic Trigger: Relies on a traditional disconnector. When a round is fired, the action cycles and catches the hammer. The user must manually release pressure on the trigger so the disconnector can hand the hammer back off to the main trigger sear before the firearm can be fired again.
- Forced Reset Mechanism (The Patented Invention): Eliminates the traditional disconnector functionality required to reset the system manually. Instead, it utilizes a specialized cam and lever system cycled by the firearm’s bolt carrier. This mechanically forces the trigger forward into its reset position during the action cycle, allowing for an accelerated, highly efficient firing sequence where the user can pull the trigger again as soon as the bolt is back in battery.
Breakdown of Infringement Claims
The complaint asserts that Pembleton and Sons’ LLC’s “Super Safety” component configurations (sold as partial kits, complete trigger kits, or preinstalled in complete receivers) infringe upon five distinct U.S. Patents, alongside multiple federal trademark violations:
- Count I: U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247 Focuses on the overarching forced-reset firearm trigger mechanism utilizing a moving cam lobe to force the trigger member back into its set position during the firing cycle.
- Count II: U.S. Patent No. 12,031,784 Covers an extended trigger member locking device featuring an upward extension piece (lever arm) that uses direct contact with the cycling bolt carrier to precisely lock and unlock the trigger member.
- Count III: U.S. Patent No. 12,529,538 Pertains to the specialized safety selection mechanism. It protects a multi-mode cam selector component featuring specific top-side longitudinal slots and bottom-side recesses that allow a user to toggle a single platform between regular semi-automatic mode, forced-reset mode, and a traditional “safe” mode.
- Count IV: U.S. Patent No. 12,578,159 Protects the mechanical geometry and precise interactions between the hammer sear, trigger sear surfaces, and the pivoting action of the forced-reset cam during cycling to prevent the disconnector from holding the hammer.
- Count V: U.S. Patent No. 12,636,403 Covers the dual-mode safety selector configuration that allows a user to toggle between standard disconnector operations and forced-reset operations within a single receiver box platform.
- Counts VI, VII, & VIII: Trademark Infringement & Unfair Competition Asserts that the Defendant is wrongfully using Rare Breed’s well-known, federally registered “FRT” trademark and variations (such as marketing a “Dillinger 1911/2011 FRT”) to mislead consumers into believing the products originate from or are endorsed by Rare Breed.
Remedy & Relief Sought
ABC IP, Rare Breed Triggers, and RBTM claim severe, irreparable economic and reputational harm due to these unauthorized sales and trademark misrepresentations. They are asking the federal court for:
- Injunctions: A preliminary and permanent injunction to immediately halt Pembleton and Sons’ LLC from manufacturing, importing, advertising, or selling the Super Safety kits or using the “FRT” mark.
- Damages & Profit Disgorgement: Full financial compensation for lost profits or reasonable royalties resulting from patent infringement, as well as an award of all profits realized by the Defendant from their unauthorized trademark use.
- Punitive Multipliers: Asking the court to treble (triple) the damages due to the “egregious and willful” nature of the patent and trademark infringement.
- Destruction of Materials: An order requiring the Defendant to remove and deliver to the court for destruction all digital and physical marketing, promotional, or advertising materials bearing the “FRT” mark.
- Legal Fees: A declaration that this is an exceptional case, requiring the Defendant to pay all of the Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, corrective advertising expenses, and court costs.
