ABC IP, LLC et al. v. Firearms Direct Club LLC et al
Case Overview
- Case Name: ABC IP, LLC et al. v. Firearms Direct Club LLC et al.
- Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola Division)
- Case Number: 3:26-cv-04717-MCR-ZCB
- Filing Date: July 21, 2026
- Plaintiffs: ABC IP, LLC; Rare Breed Triggers, Inc.; and RBTM LLC
- Defendants: Firearms Direct Club LLC; Kimberly Smith; and Taylor Spears
- 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 comprehensive multi-count lawsuit against Florida-based online retailer Firearms Direct Club LLC and its individual principals, Kimberly Smith and Taylor Spears. The federal complaint alleges that the Defendants are actively marketing, advertising, and selling unauthorized forced reset devices—specifically the Hoffman Tactical Super Safety, the Atrius Forced Reset Selector, the ARC-Fire, and the Partisan Disruptor Drop-In Cassette Trigger.
Plaintiffs contend that these products directly infringe upon nine utility patents within their intellectual property portfolio protecting “forced reset trigger” (FRT) firearm innovations. Furthermore, the suit alleges that the Defendants are wrongfully trading on the market goodwill of the “FRT” trademark by advertising third-party items under Rare Breed’s exact branding to mislead consumers. Because the Defendants reportedly continued marketing these systems despite documented access to libraries of the relevant legal protections, the Plaintiffs are accusing them of 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 – IX)
The complaint asserts that Firearms Direct Club LLC’s product offerings (sold via firearmsdirectclub.com) infringe upon nine 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. 12,529,538 | Safety mechanism for a firearm employing a multi-recess cam selector configured to transition between standard, active reset, and safe positions. |
| Count IV | 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 V | U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223 | Drop-in trigger housing framework containing a hammer-actuated reset and an internal spring-biased locking bar system. |
| Count VI | U.S. Patent No. 11,724,003 | Multi-mode selection assembly enabling user switching between standard disconnector operations and locked forced-reset functions. |
| Count VII | U.S. Patent No. 12,036,336 | Specialized multi-position safety selector mechanics that physically reposition internal disconnector components out of engagement paths. |
| Count VIII | U.S. Patent No. 12,274,807 | Internal receiver box configuration optimizing safety selector cam faces to toggle between standard and forced-reset capabilities. |
| Count IX | 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 (Counts X – XII)
- Trademark Infringement & Unfair Competition (Counts X & XII): Highlights the unauthorized use of the “FRT” trademark and its registered variants (such as FRT-15, FRT-22, and FRT-47). The Defendants are accused of marketing third-party trigger items using Rare Breed’s exact branding to capitalize on its market footprint.
- False Designation of Origin (Count XI): Asserts that the retail marketing tactics are highly likely to confuse consumers into falsely believing that the inventory sold by Firearms Direct Club LLC 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 Firearms Direct Club LLC, Kimberly Smith, and Taylor Spears from manufacturing, importing, advertising, or selling the Super Safety, Atrius, ARC-Fire, or Disruptor triggers, 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 (35 U.S.C. § 285 and 15 U.S.C. § 1117), requiring the Defendants to pay all of the Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, corrective advertising costs, and associated legal expenses.
