ABC IP, LLC et al. v. Dunedin Holding, LLC
Case Overview
- Case Name: ABC IP, LLC et al. v. Dunedin Holding, LLC
- Court: U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa Division)
- Case Number: 8:26-CV-1627
- Filing Date: June 1, 2026
- Plaintiffs: ABC IP, LLC and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc.
- Defendants: Dunedin Holding, LLC (d/b/a Mid-Tier Defense)
- Nature of Action: Civil lawsuit alleging willful patent infringement with a demand for a jury trial.
Executive Summary
Plaintiffs ABC IP, LLC (the patent owner) and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc. (the exclusive licensee) have filed a comprehensive multi-count lawsuit against Florida-based firearms retailer Dunedin Holding, LLC, doing business as Mid-Tier Defense. The federal complaint alleges that the Defendant is actively marketing, advertising, offering for sale, and selling unauthorized products—specifically 3-Position Super Selector safety selectors, complete Mil-Spec Super Safety trigger kits, and premium Super Safety configurations.
Plaintiffs contend that these products directly infringe upon five utility patents within their intellectual property portfolio protecting “forced reset trigger” (FRT) firearm innovations. Because the Defendant reportedly continued marketing these systems despite documented access to libraries of 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 – V)
The complaint asserts that Mid-Tier Defense’s product offerings (sold via mid-tierdefense.com) infringe upon five 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 during cycle operations. |
| 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 operate 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. 12,636,403 | Structural claim focusing on the physical interaction profiles and timing between hammer hooks, trigger members, disconnectors, and safety selectors. |
Remedy & Relief Sought
The Plaintiffs claim severe, ongoing economic and reputational harm due to these unauthorized manufacturing activities and retail sales practices. They are requesting that the federal court grant the following relief:
- Injunctions: Both preliminary and permanent injunctions to immediately halt Dunedin Holding, LLC and its agents from manufacturing, importing, advertising, or selling the Super Safety kits, super selectors, or any aftermarket components embodying or infringing the Asserted Patents.
- Damages & Accounting: Full financial compensation for lost retail profits or reasonable royalties resulting from patent infringement, alongside a full accounting of all sales.
- Punitive Multipliers: Asking the court to treble (triple) the final calculated damages due to the “egregious and willful” nature of the patent infringement.
- Legal Fees: A declaration that this constitutes an “exceptional case” under federal law (35 U.S.C. § 285), requiring the Defendant to pay all of the Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and associated legal expenses.
