ABC IP, LLC; Rare Breed Triggers, Inc.; and RBTM LLC v. Jeremy David Winland d/b/a Arizona Regulator
Case Overview
- Case Name: ABC IP, LLC; Rare Breed Triggers, Inc.; and RBTM LLC v. Jeremy David Winland d/b/a Arizona Regulator
- Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix Division)
- Case Number: 2:26-cv-04798-CDB
- Filing Date: July 9, 2026
- Plaintiffs: ABC IP, LLC; Rare Breed Triggers, Inc.; and RBTM LLC
- Defendant: Jeremy David Winland, an individual, d/b/a Arizona Regulator
- Nature of Action: Civil lawsuit alleging willful patent infringement, 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 Arizona-based firearms component distributor Jeremy David Winland d/b/a Arizona Regulator. The federal complaint alleges that the Defendant is actively marketing, advertising, and selling unauthorized trigger conversion systems—specifically the “Arizona Regulator” drop-in kits (including models AZR-15A1 and AZR-15M2).
Plaintiffs contend that these products directly infringe upon their extensive utility patent portfolio protecting “forced reset trigger” (FRT) firearm innovations. Furthermore, the suit alleges that the Defendant is wrongfully trading on the market goodwill of the “FRT” trademark by explicitly labeling, listing, and marketing these products under the “FRT” designation to mislead consumers. Because the Defendant reportedly continued to manufacture, promote, and capture digital retail sales despite documented access to libraries of the relevant legal protections, the Plaintiffs are charging them with willful infringement, opening the door for enhanced damages.
The Technology in Dispute
The lawsuit centers on advanced firearm trigger engineering—specifically the mechanical transition from standard semi-automatic mechanisms to patented forced reset trigger (FRT) assemblies:
- Standard Semi-Automatic Trigger: Relies on a traditional disconnector mechanism. When a round is fired, the user must manually release rearward finger pressure on the trigger so the disconnector can hand the hammer back off to the main trigger sear before the firearm can be discharged again.
- Forced Reset Mechanism (The Patented Invention): Eliminates the necessity of traditional disconnector dependency during accelerated sequences. Instead, it utilizes specialized locking bars, cams, or lever systems cycled directly by the firearm’s reciprocating bolt carrier. This mechanically forces the trigger forward into its set reset position during the action cycle, allowing for an accelerated, highly efficient firing sequence without converting the firearm into an automatic weapon.
Breakdown of Infringement Claims
Patent Infringement (Counts I – IV)
The complaint asserts that Arizona Regulator’s drop-in trigger configurations (sold via arizonaregulator.com) infringe upon four distinct U.S. Patents owned by ABC IP, LLC:
| Count | Asserted Patent | Technical / Mechanical Focus of Claim |
| Count I | U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247 | Overarching dual-mode trigger utilizing a moving cam lobe to physically force the trigger member back into its set position. |
| Count II | U.S. Patent No. 12,031,784 | Extended trigger locking device featuring an upwardly extending deflectable lever arm actuated by direct contact with the cycling bolt carrier. |
| Count III | U.S. Patent No. 12,578,159 | Novel firearm mechanism for accelerating firing sequences utilizing multi-mode operations and specific internal sear surface geometries. |
| Count IV | U.S. Patent No. 12,636,403 | Structural claim focusing on the physical interaction profiles between hammer hooks, trigger members, and safety selectors. |
Trademark & Unfair Competition Infringement
- Trademark Infringement & Unfair Competition (Counts V & VII): Highlights the unauthorized use of the “FRT” trademark and its registered variants (such as FRT-15, FRT-22, and FRT-47) within online product categories and site description titles. The Defendant is accused of marketing third-party trigger items using Rare Breed’s exact branding to capitalize on its market footprint.
- False Designation of Origin (Count VI): Asserts that the retail marketing tactics are highly likely to confuse consumers into falsely believing that the inventory sold by Arizona Regulator originates from, is endorsed by, or is affiliated with Rare Breed Triggers.
Remedy & Relief Sought
The Plaintiffs claim severe, ongoing economic and reputational harm due to these unauthorized retail sales and deceptive branding practices. They are requesting that the federal court grant the following relief:
- Injunctions: Both preliminary and permanent injunctions to immediately halt Arizona Regulator from manufacturing, importing, advertising, or selling the AZR-15 trigger models, conversion kits, or any aftermarket components bearing the FRT marks.
- Damages & Disgorgement: Full financial compensation for lost retail profits or reasonable royalties resulting from patent infringement, alongside the disgorgement of all profits pocketed from trademark violations.
- Punitive Multipliers: Asking the court to treble (triple) the final calculated damages due to the “egregious and willful” nature of the patent and trademark infringement.
- Legal Fees: A declaration that this constitutes an “exceptional case” under federal law, requiring the Defendant to pay all of the Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, corrective advertising costs, and associated legal expenses.
